Sexual Minorities in the Bible: the Positive Texts
Thomas D. Hanks
B. New Testament
1. Matthew: A publican declares the Good News to eunuchs and prostitutes
2. Mark: The young man who fled naked portrays a Jesus in a hurry and crucified naked
3. Luke: The “beloved physician” tells of a Roman centurion with his “very beloved” slave
4. Praxis (Acts) of the Apostles: Queer couples collaborate in mission to the Unclean
5. John: Jesus’ Beloved Disciple subverts fundamentalism (selective literalism)
6. Romans: A gay apostle’s queer letter to a “peculiar people” (in five tenement house churches)
7. 1 Corinthians: Sexual minority values replace family values (1 Cor. 5--7; 16:5-24)?
8. 2 Corinthians: Catalogs of sexual minority sufferings (oppression, violence)
9. Galatians: Evangelism + racism, sexism, xenophobia and homophobia: “Another gospel?”
10. Ephesians: Sexual sins that may not even be “named” (5:3, 12)
11. Philippians: Euodia and Syntyche threaten to split the church Lydia founded (4:2-3; 2:2)
12. Colossians and Philemon: The first Haustafeln and the deconstruction of the patriarchal household
13. 1-2 Thessalonians: The woman (feminine side) in Paul and his companions
14. 1- 2 Timothy: Paul seeks to encourage his disciple, beloved but timid
15. Titus and his Cretan gay shaman
16. Hebrews: Sarah, Rahab and, the queerest of all – Melchizedek!
17. James: Married, but not so secret admirer of Rahab, the harlot
18. 1 Peter: “First pope,” but married (and preferring Mark as travel companion)
19. 1-3 John: Friendship, not family, the foundation of civilized society
20. Revelation: The celibate followers of the Lamb vs. the Great Whore (Babylon = Rome)
Appendix: Theodore W. Jennings, Jr. on the Beloved Disciple in The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic
Narratives from the New Testament (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2003).
Note:  refers the reader to material in The Subversive Gospel, by Rev. Dr. Tom Hanks (Cleveland: Pilgrim
Press, 2000). The text of this book is available at www.fundotrasovejas.org.ar/ingles/ingles.html, “Books on line”.
1
1. Matthew: A publican declares the Good News to eunuchs and prostitutes.
Matthew emphasizes God’s liberating justice for the marginalized, perhaps especially because he was a despised
toll collector who celebrated his acceptance as Jesus’ disciple with a banquet for other marginalized friends:
publicans and prostitutes (9:9-13). Only Matthew informs us that women shared the table with Jesus – women of
bad reputation (Dennis Duling 1993:655; cf. Kathleen Corley 1989:487-521). Since toll collectors were despised and
marginalized by the other Jews, these “apostate traitors,” not surprisingly, developed an intimate relationship with
the local sex-workers ( Matthew; John Nolland 2005:863). Near the end of his Gospel, in a denouncement of the
hypocritical leaders, Matthew allows his euphemism (“sinners”) to become quite explicit (21:31-32):
Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and prostitutes are going into the Kingdom of God ahead
of you. For John came to you in God’s way of liberating justice and you did not believe him, but the tax
collectors and sex-workers believed him.”
We must ask why Matthew, a young Jew and well instructed in the Scriptures, ever would have chosen the
despised profession of toll collector in Capernaum. If, however, he realized that he was attracted to persons of the
same sex (in modern psychological terms, had a “homosexual orientation”), how a young pious Jew ends up
marginalized as a toll collector is quite understandable. Since Jewish priests were expected to marry, the
priesthood did not offer itself as a convenient closet for pious priestly descendants of homosexual orientation. The
relationship with the local sex-workers, then, would not have been due to heterosexual attraction but because both
groups were marginalized targets of society’s contempt. All this, of course, is a hypothesis, but alternative
hypotheses (that Matthew was 100% heterosexual, but just never found the right woman?) all look considerably
less likely. At any rate, Matthew, who emphasizes the Law and liberating justice, also highlights Jesus’ choice to
include among his disciples and friends toll collectors and sex-workers, both disgustingly “unclean/dirty” in his
society.
To open his Gospel, however, Matthew first dons gray pinstripe and tie to reassure readers of his conservative
credentials with what at first appears to be a rather boring genealogy (1:1-17) – undoubtedly quite comforting to
the original Jewish readers. Just as the reader is nodding off, however, Matthew starts slipping a series of four
women’s names into what had come to be an exclusive male club. Even more shockingly, our toll collector lacks
the taste to choose only mothers with a good reputation (Sarah, Abraham’s wife?), but seems fixated on scandalous
women: (1) Tamar, who pretended to be a harlot in order to produce a son with her father-in-law Judah (Genesis
38); (2) Rahab, the Gentile sex-worker of Jericho (Joshua 2); (3) Ruth, the Moabite, unclean Gentile, who seduced
the pious Boaz, in accord with the tradition of levirate marriage (book of Ruth); and (4) Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife
who, after David’s adultery and Uriah's (arranged) death, became the King’s eighth wife (2 Samuel 11), even
though he preferred the love of Jonathan (2 Samuel 1:26;  Matthew; John Nolland 2005:73-77; Thomas Boache
2006:494-95).
Does all this properly prepare the reader for Jesus’ birth – “illegitimate,” a “bastard” son as his contemporaries
believed, thus representing a sexual minority excluded from Hebrew worship (Deuteronomy 23:2)? Joseph marries
Mary, already pregnant, although he knows the child is not his own, and with his gesture of solidarity and
liberating justice, frees them from the worst shame and punishment (Deuteronomy 22:20-24 prescribes the death
penalty). In ancient times shepherds were not known as paragons of sexual purity and virtue, but Luke’s angels
announced Jesus’ birth to them first – an obvious faux pas. Not to be outdone, Matthew similarly celebrates Jesus’
royal birth, by summoning pagan astrologers – a profession of even more dubious sexual reputation. All (three?)
apparently were unmarried and had traveled for two years claiming to be guided by a star. In the New Testament
only Matthew explicitly refers to Jesus as conceived and born of a virgin (see under Luke), but questions regarding
the possibly midrashic genre of this portion of Matthew leave even some defenders of biblical inerrancy with
questions.
2
The strange circumstances of Jesus’ birth, however interpreted, left him and Mary vulnerable to abusive language
(John 8:41; Mark 6:3). That would explain Jesus’ strong prohibition of abusive language in the Sermon on the
Mount (Matt. 5–7), which Warren Johannson concludes refers to the contemptuous language commonly directed
against sexual minorities: “But I say to you, if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment;
and if you call your brother “faggot” (Greek: raka; Aramaic: reyqa’), you will be liable to the council [Sanhedrin]”
(Matt. 5:22; Warren Johansson 1992:212-14). Abusive expressions like faggot or sissy, so common in patriarchal
societies, continue to contribute to suicides, especially of young lesbians and gays ( James, on the tongue).
Immediately after the Sermon on the Mount (5–7), Matthew narrates ten miracles (8–9), mainly healings (cf. the
ten plagues of the Exodus). The first tells how Jesus “cleansed” a leper, and in the second Jesus responds to an
unclean Gentile (Roman?) military officer whose beloved slave (pais) had become paralyzed (8:5-13 // Luke 7:110 = Q // John 4:43-54?; Matthew’s version is considered closer to the original “Q” source). Jesus offered to
accompany the centurion to his home, but he declined the offer. Such military officers were not permitted to marry
and, having chosen a career abroad that involved leaving potential wives (convenient cover for those who didn’t
want a wife anyway), commonly took a young male slave as a lover ( Michael Gray-Fow 1986:449-60; Donald Mader
1992:223-35; Tom Horner 1978:122; James E. Miller 1997;  Luke).
Theodore W. Jennings, Jr. and Tat-Siong Benny Liew have demonstrated that in Matthew the Greek word pais (8:6,
8, 13), would refer to the “beloved boy” in a pederastic relationship in the Greco-Roman military culture (Theodore
Jennings Jr. and Tat-Siong Benny Liew 2004:467-494; see also K.J. Dover 1978/89:16-17; James Davidson 2007:1, 68-98, 480-484.; cf.
the prejudiced omission of this common classical meaning of pais in Danker BDAG 2000:750-51). Jennings and Liew also
conclude that the centurion's insistence that Jesus not enter his house came from the fear that Jesus, as the
centurion's new master, would take the boy as his own (p. 484; Saddington 2006 argues against this; see note below).
However, it is better to understand this fear in the light of an archaeologist's comment who pointed out that the
evidence at some Roman military sites gives the impression that they were male brothels ( cited by Jennings and Liew,
2004:477; cf. D. B. Saddington 2006:140-142). Readers who remember the frenetic efforts of the homosexual couple in
La Cage aux Folles who try to make their apartment “decent” for the visit of a moralistic heterosexual couple can
understand the centurion's preference that Jesus heal his beloved “slave” from afar, without entering their living
quarters.
Significantly, Jesus does not pry into the privacy of the relationship nor even dispatch them to a priest (or a pastor)
for a bit of “ex-gay” torture, but simply heals the youth with a word from a distance. By blessing the Capernaum
centurion’s relationship with his beloved slave, Jesus flaunted the common prejudices of his countrymen and
furthered his reputation as a “friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Matt. 11:19). Luke informs us that this
centurion had sponsored the construction of the synagogue in Capernaum (Luke 7:5), and in 1968 archaeologists
discovered that the north side of Simon Peter’s large house was just below the very balcony of the synagogue built
by the centurion! (Virgilio C. Corbo 1992:866-69). Thus the presence of gay men on the threshold of “the Vatican” has
an even longer history than previously supposed! Only Matthew explicitly links the episode about the centurion
and his beloved slave with Peter's house (8:5-13, 14-17; but cf. the Capernaum synagogue and Peter's house in
Mark 1:29 and Luke 4:38!).
The priority Luke gives to this narration (immediately after the great Sermon on the Plain/Mount) indicates the
importance of the only full account of a miracle in Q, both for Luke and for the single itinerant prophets who
preserved the Q traditions. Also significant is the order of the ten miracles that follow the Sermon in Matthew.
Between the Sermon and the centurion narrative, Matthew tells how Jesus cleansed a leper (supposedly a Jew) of
his uncleanness (8:1-4). The narrative of the healing of the centurion's slave's paralysis follows. Matthew does not
include the word “beloved,” which in Luke describes the tenderness that the centurion felt for his slave.
Nonetheless, the fact that in Matthew the centurion goes directly to Jesus personally (cf. Luke, where the centurion
sends Jewish representatives) makes his desperation clear. Furthermore, the order in Matthew (following the leper)
suggests that the relationship between the Roman centurion and his beloved slave (supposedly a Jewish youth)
presented just another case of Gentile ceremonial uncleanness, not of sin ( Romans 1:24-28).
3
From a traditional patriarchal, homophobic perspective, Jesus made a mistake: he should have offered to “cure the
couple of their homosexuality” (like the commercial advertisements that “ex gay” charlatans published even in the
New York Times), but he only healed the slave's paralysis. Jesus should have denounced the “abomination” of a
pagan soldier who had corrupted a poor Jewish youth – but apparently Jesus had not heard the denouncements of
the wealthy TV evangelists who finance their luxurious lives and huge “ministries” by attacking and defaming
“homosexuals.” Instead of denouncing the couple as an “abomination,” Jesus praised the faith of the centurion
(demonstrated by his loving solidarity for his Jewish slave and for the Jewish people; see under Luke below). By
pointing out the acceptance of the centurion and his beloved slave in the great eschatological banquet (8:10-12),
Matthew anticipates his final parable, wherein Jesus teaches that love expressed in solidarity with the needy
determines our destiny in the final judgment (25:31-46).
The centurion’s story is one of but two miracle stories where Jesus heals from a distance. The “unclean” Gentile
centurion’s insistence that he is not worthy to have a famous Jewish rabbi enter his home might well remind us of
humorous efforts to “dedyke the house,” classically portrayed in both the original French film, La Cage aux Folles
and the later Hollywood version. Robert Goss (2006:538) points out that Roman Catholics are taught to remember
this centurion in a homoerotic relationship whenever they repeat his words at the reception of communion: ‘Lord, I
am unworthy that you come under my roof, but just say the word and my soul shall be healed’” (Matt. 8:8).
Note. D. B. Saddington (2006:140-142) has responded briefly to the lengthy article by Jennings and Liew
(2004:477). He acknowledges that “the Greek word pais can mean the junior partner in a homosexual relationship
(141) and thus the centurion “may have had a homosexual relationship with his pais” (142). However, he argues
that the centurion was not necessarily Roman, since “the soldiers stationed in Judea in the first centuries C.E. were
non-Roman auxiliaries, not legionaires” (142). But he then recognizes that the incident took place not in Judea but
in Galilee (Capernaum) and so concludes that, though non-Jewish, the ethnicity of the centurion “cannot be
determined” (142). From Saddington’s military observations he concludes that the centurion’s behavior was not
necessarily “similar to that of upper-class society in Rome itself or to that of officers in crack regiments stationed at
key points on the frontiers of the empire” (142), as Goss and Liew had argued. Saddington does acknowledge,
however, that behavior patterns of non-Roman military officers may well have reflected the dominant imperial
pattern, so the actual ethnicity of the centurion would not appear to be decisive for such attempts to challenge a
queer interpretation of the text. Either Matthew’s preference for the term pais (8:6, 8, 13; cf. doulos, slave in 8:9)
or Luke’s for doulos, slave (7:2-3, 8, 10; cf. pais in 7:8) supports the queer reading, as does Luke’s reference to the
slave as “dear/beloved” (entimos) in 7:3 (cf. the dimuitive paidion, child, in John 4:49) and the prohibition of
marriage for such military leaders. The fact that the slave was young (pais, boy) favors an erotic interpretation of
entimos rather than a purely economic evaluation (as if he were an older, skilled financial manager or horse trainer
(James Miller 1997).
.
Bibliography: Centurion
Bohache, Thomas (2006). “Matthew.” In The Queer Bible Commentary, ed. Deryn Guest, Robert E. Goss, Mona
West, Thomas Bohache. London: SCM.
Davidson, James (2007). The Greeks and Greek Love, 1, 68-98, 480-484. London: Weldenfeld & Nicolson.
Dover, K. J. (1978/89). Greek Homosexuality, 16-17. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard.
Goss, Robert E. (2006). “Luke” and “John”. The Queer Bible Commentary, ed. Deryn Guest, Robert E. Goss,
Mona West, Thomas Bohache. London: SCM.
Gray-Fow, Michael (1986). “Pederasty, the Scantian Law and the Roman Army”. Journal of Psychohistory 13
[1986]:
449-60.
Hanks, Thomas D. (2000/08). The Subversive Gospel, 14, 47-48. Cleveland: Pilgrim / Eugene, OR: Wipf &
Stock. (2010 Spanish) El Evangelio Subversivo, 27-28, 76-77. Buenos Aires: Editorial Epifanía.
Harrill, J. A. (2006). Slaves in the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 182-83. Use of the texts to defend
slavery.
4
Horner, Tom (1978). Jonathan Loved David, 122. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Jennings, Theodore W. (2003). The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament, 131-144.
Cleveland: Pilgrim.
Jennings, Theodore W. and Tat-Siong Benny Liew (2004). “Mistaken Identities but Model Faith: Rereading the
Centurion, the Chap, and the Christ in Matthew 8:5-13”. Journal of Biblical Literature 123/3 [Fall], 467-494.
Mader, Donald (1987/92). “The Entimos Pais (Beloved Slave) of Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10”.
Homosexuality and Religion and Philosophy, ed. Wayne R. Dynes and Stephen Donaldson, 223-35. Studies in
Homosexuality 12. New York: Garland.
Martignac, J. (1975). “Le Centurion de Capernaum”. Arcadie (March), 117-127.
McNeill, John (1995). Freedom, Glorious Freedom, 132-36. Boston: Beacon.
Miller, James E. (1997). “The Centurion and His Slave Boy”. (Paper presented in the annual meeting of the
Society of Biblical
Literature, San Francisco, November 22-25, 1997.)
Saddington, D. B. (2006). “The Centurion in Matthew 8:5-13: Consideration of the Proposal of Theodore W.
Jennings, Jr. and Tat-Siong Benny Liew”. Journal of Biblical Literature 125/1 [Spring 2006], 140-142.
Theissen, Gerd (1986/87). In the Shadow of the Galilean: The Quest for the Historical Jesus in Narrative Form,
106. London: SCM.
Valantasis, Richard (2005). The New Q, 80-84. New York/London: T&T Clark.
Williams, Craig (1999). Roman Homosexuality, 30-38 on slaves. New York / London: Oxford University.
Williams, Robert (1992). Just as I Am, 60-63. New York: Crown.
Matthew basically follows Mark in showing how Jesus sought to protect women with a prohibition against divorce
(19:1-9 // Mark 10:1-12), but Matthew establishes an exception in cases of “porneia” (prostitution, irresponsible
sexual conduct). Then, only in Matthew, Jesus expounds his version of the “science of eunuchology” (Matt. 19:1112; see John Nolland 2005:777-81; Thomas Boache 2006:507-11). Perhaps the purpose of the Law of Moses that prohibited
the participation of eunuchs in worship (Deuteronomy 23:1) was to eliminate the pagan practice of this type of
“sacrifice.” After the exile, when many male Israelites suffered castration as prisoners of war, Third Isaiah
proclaimed that God accepts eunuchs (Isaiah 56:1-8). The good reputation of  Nehemiah, probably a eunuch as
indicated by his court function in Persia, may have helped produce Third Isaiah’s radical new message of inclusion.
Jesus, however, takes us a step further, pointing out the existence of three types of eunuchs: those who suffer
castration, those born thus and those who choose not to marry for the sake of God’s kingdom. These diverse
“eunuchs” should not be despised but accepted as the new model in God’s kingdom – and they included unmarried
leaders like John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul who took the place of Israel’s married priests (Craig S. Keener 1999:469472; Brant James Pitre 1999; Deirdre Good 1999 ). Pitre points out that in antiquity eunuchs were marginalized but at times
also became imperial functionaries. As in modern India, “eunuch” in the Bible may well be a euphemism, a
generic term for various types of sexual minorities, especially those who do not procreate, either from lack of
heterosexual desire or physical incapacity.
At the end of his Gospel, Matthew follows Mark, indicating that the first notice of the resurrection was given to
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matt. 28:1-10; 27:56, 61; Mark 15:47; 16:1-8 [+9]; cf. John 20:1-18). Mary
Magdalene, from whom Jesus had cast out seven demons (Luke 8:2), had followed him from Galilee (Mark 15:4041). She was unmarried, with her own economic resources and an independent life. The fact that Mary traveled in
the company of single men and shared their table would have given her a bad reputation in her patriarchal cultural
context. According to much later ecclesiastical tradition, Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, a reasonable
hypothesis, given her lifestyle. At any rate, any mention of husband and children is lacking, and for this reason she
appears as a sexual minority in the Gospels. Her privileged relationship with Jesus, as the first witness and apostle
of the resurrection, became an important theme in the apocryphal literature. Matthew, by insisting that tax
collectors and prostitutes would have priority in entering into the kingdom of God (21:31-32), may thus support the
identification of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute. Similarly, when he injects prostitutes into Jesus’ genealogy at the
beginning of his Gospel and at the end features Mary of Magdala (a town of ill repute). This literary technique of
repeating or returning to the end of a text the theme of the beginning, quite common in the Bible, is called
“inclusion.”
5
In The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, an apocryphal book written ca. 100-150 AD, Mary Magdalene and Martha
argued with Peter and his brother Andrew concerning authority in the church. Later tradition identified Mary both
with the adulteress woman in John (8:1-11) and the prostitute of Luke (7:35-50). Numerous contemporary feminist
studies seek to refute the tradition that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute (Richard Atwood 1993; Esther de Boer 1997;
Susan Haskins 1993; Carla Ricci 1994; Jane Schaberg 1992:30-37; Mary R. Thompson 1995). However, would it not be better to
follow the example of Jesus and Matthew/Levi and defend the dignity not only of women in general but also that of
sex workers?
The “Great Commission” at the end of Matthew (28:16-20), directed only to the male disciples, corresponds to the
genealogy at the beginning of the Gospel (1:1-17). The genealogy is a literary genre that, traditionally, includes
only men. However, Matthew subverts the genre, injecting four “unclean” women in Jesus’ genealogy. Similarly,
when we read the Great Commission in the light of its preceding context, clearly it is not intended to exclude
women. On the contrary, Jesus here forgives his repentant male disciples and invites them to work together in the
apostolic and missionary proclamation already initiated by the women. Consequently, although contextually the
Great Commission is addressed to male “losers,” by no means does it exclude the faithful women.
When Matthew himself (source M) refers to women, they almost always represent sexual minorities (see also his
parable of the ten virgins, 25:1-13). The only exception is Pilate’s wife, who affirms Jesus’ innocence (27:19).
The “mother of the sons of Zebedee” (20:20) apparently abandoned her husband Zebedee to accompany Jesus
(27:55-56; 4:21-22). Matthew incorporates several positive accounts of women from Mark, but his own focus is on
the women and men who represent sexual minorities. Feminist studies have done well to emphasize Mary of
Magdala’s significant leadership role, but this role may be maintained without prejudice against her sexual
minority status, even if this involved the profession of sex-worker (see further under Luke).
Peter and Mrs. Peter: Scandals for the Vatican? Matthew’s ill-deserved reputation as a kind of traitorous Log
Cabin (Re?)publican stems largely from misunderstanding his teaching about Torah and about Peter as the Rock
(legalistic Protestant fundamentalism worldwide and centuries of Vatican bigotries are a lot to blame on any
Gospel writer!). Following Mark, Matthew indicates that Peter had a mother-in-law, which has compelled even
apologists for Vatican sexual ideology finally to concede that in all probability (miracles being ever possible), “the
first pope” must have been married (Matt. 8:14-15 // Mark 1:29-31). Perhaps overwhelmed with his “sexual
minority” status within the twelve apostles (as the only married apostle), Peter apparently left his wife for a time to
itinerate with Jesus (see Luke 14:20, 26; 18:28-29). Some twenty-five years later, however, Paul indicates that
Peter traveled accompanied by a wife (1 Corinthians 9:5). In the Gospels only Peter’s mother-in-law is mentioned;
only Paul refers to Peter traveling with a wife, but leaves her nameless (perhaps explaining why the Vatican has
long hesitated to name her a saint or ordain women priests).
The multiplication of the loaves and the fish, the only miracle recorded in all four Gospels (Mark 6:31-44 // Matt.
15:29-39 // Luke 9:10-17 // John 6:1-15), is followed in Mark and John by the sign of Jesus walking on the water
(Mark 6:45-52 // John 6:16-21). This miracle is omitted in the Gospel of Luke, but Matthew includes it (14:22-27)
and later tells how Peter tried to imitate Jesus and almost drowns (Matt. 14:28-33). The waters over which Jesus
and Peter walked represent the forces of chaos, oppression, persecution and violence (“the gates of Hades”) that
threatened the existence of the new community. Peter, the “rock” on which the church is constructed, almost
disappears in the tempestuous water. Nonetheless, Peter's attempt to walk on water also could represent efforts to
dominate the tumultuous desires of the heart, at times more effective in destroying lives and communities than the
exterior forces of persecution (Matt. 15:19-20).
Only Matthew narrates the miracle of the coin that Peter would find in the fish's mouth, with which Jesus told him
to pay the temple tax that both of them owed (17:24-27). Such action could appear harmful on Jesus' part, since the
fishermen of the period suffered unbearable taxes (K. C. Hanson, quoted in Dennis C. Duling 1993:654, note 51 ).
6
Matthew is the only Gospel that speaks explicitly of the “assembly/ church” (ekklesía, 16:17-19; 18:17), a mixed
community that includes the good and the bad (13:24-30, 47-50; 22:1-14) and, of course, only Matthew includes
Jesus' famous words to Peter. After Peter had declared Jesus to be the “Christ/Messiah” (following Mark 8:27-30;
// Luke 9:18-21), Jesus describes Peter as the “rock,” the foundation of the new sect, with the authority to bind and
loose (Matt. 16:18-19). This authority would refer to the behavior necessary in the new community, and in Acts
10–11 Peter accepts the Gentiles who believe in Jesus without requiring them to be circumcised. A similar
authority to bind and loose is given to the entire church, and the established norms of conduct involve decisions of
including or excluding members (Matt. 18:15-20).
After centuries of controversy, scholars agree that Jesus designated Peter-Cephas as the rock (Greek petra,
Aramaic cefa), but the idea that Peter would have the popes as his successor is a consequence that does not exist in
the text (NLTSB notes 16:18-19; Nolland 2005:670). The history of the church in the first four centuries offers no
support for the idea of the popes as successors to Peter. Furthermore, we could raise the question, how is it
possible that Peter, the only married apostle, is the paradigm for the tradition of popes that cannot marry?
Peter fulfilled his function with the keys, opening the gates of the kingdom, for the Jews on Pentecost (Acts 2) and
for the Gentiles with the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10–11). However, James' authority in Jerusalem (Acts 15)
and that of Paul in Antioch (Gal. 2:11-14) appear to be superior to Peter's authority. After the death of the apostles,
the authorities of the church in the first few centuries were Christ himself (1 Cor. 3:11), the apostolic testimony
conserved in the New Testament (Eph. 2:20; 2 Tim. 3:14-17), the Holy Spirit and the ministry of the prophets (Eph.
4:11) and the entire community of the people of God (the church), with its elders, teachers and other leaders (1
Peter 5:1).
2. Mark: The young man who fled naked portrays a Jesus ever in a hurry and crucified
naked.
Mark not only is the oldest but also the shortest of our four canonical Gospels (16 chapters, some 20 pages; cf.
Matthew 1–28; Luke 1–24; John 1–21). However, Mark is not always the most concise, but often provides
significant details omitted by Matthew and Luke. Who was this creative genius who, shortly before the fall of
Jerusalem (70 AD), wrote our oldest Gospel (69 AD?), which then served as the basic source for both Matthew and
Luke? Though not an apostle, Mark probably reveals his identity as an eyewitness, at least of Jesus’ arrest, when,
as his Gospel states, all the male apostles “deserted him and fled” (Mark 14:50). Mark then adds: “A certain
young man was following [Jesus], wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the linen
cloth and ran off naked” (14:51-52).
Perhaps never has such a serious book been “signed” in such a scandalous form. This may indicate that Mark, after
a difficult life with considerable mischief and many persecutions, maintained his humility and sense of humor.
Ironically, his Gospel’s scroll may have suffered a fate similar to that of its author – losing its “cloak” – in that the
final verses, Mark 16:9-20, are a later addition. Possibly they cover the Gospel’s “nudity” after the disappearance
of an original conclusion, perhaps due to the persecution and flight of the author or original recipients. Most
specialists, however, now conclude that 16:1-8 represents Mark’s original conclusion (Andrew T. Lincoln 1989:283-300;
Joel F. Williams 1999:21-35). Mark alone, as read by his original readers, may not have appeared so shockingly unclad.
However, when canonically enthroned in company with Luke, Matthew, and John (all royally decked with their
elaborate accounts of Jesus' resurrection appearances), poor Mark began to look like Adam and Eve fresh in the
flesh from Eden: an emperor with no clothes! This would have prompted anxious theologians and scribes to
hastily stitch their fig leaf “proper conclusions” (Mark 16:9-20) and a kind of Calvin Klein “brief” alternative (see
NRSV, HCSB notes).
The almost total absence of legitimate married couples in Mark is noteworthy. Almost all of the women are
presented as individuals free of patriarchal control (single, divorced, widowed, etc.):
7
1. Peter’s mother-in-law, the first person who serves Jesus (1:29-31);
2. the prostitutes who accompanied the tax collectors (2:15-17);
3. Mary with her “illegitimate” son Jesus (3:20-21, 31-35; 6:3; [15:47; 16:1-8, apparently here identified as
the mother of James and Joses; cf. 6:3]);
4-5. Jairus’ daughter; the woman with hemorrhages (5:21-43);
6. Herodias (6:17, 19, 22, 24, 28; and Herod, both divorced and remarried);
7-8. the Syrophoenician woman and her daughter (7:24-30);
9. women who take the initiative in divorce in order to remarry (10:12);
10. widows who lost their houses to unscrupulous scribes (12:40);
11. the poor widow with her offering (12:41-44);
12. the woman who anointed Jesus (14:3-9);
13. the servant-girl of the high priest who challenged Peter (14:66-72);
14-15. Mary Magdalene, Mary (= #3, the mother of James and Joses? [and of Jesus, 6:3?]), and Salome,
present at the crucifixion and the empty tomb (15:40-41, 47; 16:1-8).
Of the 15 cases of women mentioned in Mark (12 favorably), Jairus and his wife (5:40) represent the only
legitimately married couple in the entire Gospel! Mark’s focus is on the poor and the weak, women without
legitimate husbands (sexual minority representatives). Only Mark preserves the detail that, on inviting the rich
young man to follow him, “Jesus, looking at him, loved him” (10:21; cf. the love of Jesus for Lazarus, Mary and
Martha [John 11:1-5 and 35-36], and for his Beloved Disciple [John 13:23 and 21:20]). The rending of the temple
veil during Jesus’ crucifixion (Mark 15:38) signifies that God has eliminated the traditional separation between
insiders and the marginalized, unclean outsiders – and between sacred and profane. Jesus himself has become the
mysterious place where the holy is revealed.
In Acts, Luke tells us that Mark came from a well-to-do family and that the first Christian community of Jerusalem
met to pray in the house of Mary, his mother (Acts 12:12). Mark’s cousin Barnabas (Colossians 4:10) and Paul
took Mark along as an assistant when they launched their first missionary journey (Acts 12:25; 13:5). However,
Mark’s tendency, to set out with exemplary courage but end up fleeing, manifested itself again. When Barnabas
wanted to give his cousin another opportunity, Paul indignantly refused. As a result, he and Barnabas separated for
the second missionary journey and Paul chose Silas as his new companion (Acts 15:36-41).
Paul later recognized that Mark became “useful in my ministry” (Philemon 24; cf. Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy
4:11). Mark last appears in Rome as Peter’s companion (1 Peter 5:13), which would explain why Mark’s Gospel
reflects Peter’s perspective and testimony. This Gospel begins with John the Baptist’s ministry (1:1-12) and Jesus’
ministry in Galilee (1:14-39), but omits all information concerning Jesus’ birth (Matthew 1–2; Luke 1–2) and his
30 years of life prior to his encounter with John the Baptist (whom Peter had followed as a disciple).
“The Messianic Secret”: Respecting the Privacy of a Closeted Messiah. Mark wrote for persecuted house
churches in Syria when undoubtedly many had to use subterfuge to protect innocent lives. Appropriately, then,
Mark also presents Jesus with his own “Messianic secret,” a notable characteristic of this Gospel (first recognized by
William Wrede, 1901): 1:24-25, 34, demons; 1:44, leper; 3:11-12, demons; 4:11-12, parables; 5:43, Jairus’ daughter;
7:36, deaf man; 6:51-52 and 8:19-21, disciples with hardened hearts; 8:26, blind man; 8:29-30 and 9:9, disciples; cf.
11:27-33; 12:12; 9:13, John the Baptist and Elijah; 10:46-50, the blind Bartimaeus.
Why Jesus’ continual and emphatic demand for silence concerning his true identity and mission? In his baptism
(1:8-9) he demonstrated solidarity with human beings in their sin, a solidarity that culminated in the cross.
Wisdom in the Bible commonly involves knowing when to keep quiet and when to speak – a trait of special
importance for the persecuted and oppressed (Ecclesiastes 3:7b). After maintaining (and insisting that others
maintain) his secret for three years, Jesus appears to have repressed a lot of anger. Consequently, after entering
Jerusalem, Jesus expressed his indignation by forcefully expelling the traders from the temple (11:15-19). Then,
8
facing the High Priest, Jesus “came out of the closet” and openly declared himself to be the Messiah and Son of
God (14:61-64). The situation of Jews and homosexuals during the Nazi Holocaust enables us to recognize that to
“always tell the whole truth” is a luxury that the oppressed, persecuted and marginalized cannot always enjoy.
Confronted with a tyrannical state that invades privacy with harmful and violent intent, a lie may be neither an
“obstruction of justice” nor sin, but an expression of courage and solidarity with the oppressed. In such contexts,
legalistic accuracy that harms and kills the neighbor, but which parades as “speaking the truth,” may be the
coward’s flight from solidarity. However, today churches themselves often tyrannize human consciences,
obligating people to live by subterfuge and maintain their secrets instead of being able to reveal their own character
and be accepted in their diversity with dignity.
Mark 14:51-52 “Indecent theology” from a young leader slow to mature.
51
And a young man accompanied him [Jesus], having been clothed in a nightgown / linen garment (sidona)
over his nakedness, and they [the armed crowd/mob] seized him; 52but he, leaving the nightgown, fled naked.
John Knox (1951:27) commented: “Anyone who has read this Markan narrative (chapters 14–15) to a congregation
on Good Friday is bound to have felt tempted to omit this apparently whimsical passage.” Albert Vanhoye
(1971:401) described the scene as “ridiculous and indecent” (both cited in Adela Collins 2007:691, note 192; see Marcella
Althaus-Reid, Indecent Theology, Routledge, London/New York, 2001; Teologia Indecente, Barcelona: Belaterra, 2005).
Scholars have long pointed to the many verbal parallels within Mark’s Gospel:
1. In Mark, the women arriving at Jesus´tomb are not greeted by one or two angels, but by a “young man”
(16:5);
2. The same word for linen garment (sidona) is used to describe the grave clothes Jesus left behind (15:46);
3. Just as the young man fled “naked” (14:51-52), so Jesus was stripped and crucified naked (15:20, 24);
4. Just as the young man “fled,” in fear, so the women “fled” from the tomb (16:8, the final verse in the
original Gospel).
In addition we have a signifcant intertextual parallel: Joseph left his garment and fled naked from Potiphar’s wife
(Gen. 39:12-13), while Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:42-46; see also Amos 2:12-16). Adela
Collins comments: “It is shameful to flee, all the more so naked. At the same time, there is a positve element: the
escape from danger and the exultation such a deliverance brings. The ridicule falls upon the enemies, who are left
with a piece of cloth in their hands. In such a situation, nudity loses its shame and takes on the connotation of
liberation” (2007:690). She also refers to the painting of Carvagaggio (1571-1610 A.D.), “The Taking of Christ,”
which portrayed Jesus and the young man in such a way as to suggest their identity (Collins 2007:690, note 171; see
“shame” in  Rom. 1:24, 26-27; Heb. 12:2).
Scholars have long suggested that Mark 14:51-52, without parallels in the other Gospels, must be Mark’s way of
signaling his eyewitness presence at the arrest and as author of the Gospel (like a Rembrandt signature at the
bottom of a painting), since the title (“according to Mark”) probably was added later. Patristic authors cited ten
references elsewhere in the New Testament, which they assume designated the same person and author of the
Gospel (cf. Collins 2007:2-6):
1-2. Acts 12:12, 25 refers to the Jerusalem church, praying for Peter’s release from prison in the home of Mary,
the mother of John Mark (using both his Hebrew and Greek names);
3-4. Acts 13 has “John” as attendant to Barnabas and Paul (v. 5), but then abandoning them to return to
Jerusalem (v. 13);
5-6. Acts 15:37, 39 recounts the sharp dispute between Paul and Barnabas, resulting in Mark accompanying
Barnabas to Cypris and Paul choosing Silas as his new companion.for his second missionary
journey;
9
7. Philemon 24 promotes Mark to “fellow-worker” in Paul’s list of those sending greetings from Ephesus
(along with Luke and Demas);
8. Colossians 4:10 (probably deuteropauline) refers to Mark as the cousin of Barnabas, which would explain
Barnabas’ family loyalty and patience with Mark in the dispute with Paul referred to in Acts 15;
9. 2 Timothy 4:11 (also probably deuteropauline) records Paul’s appeal to Timothy to bring Mark to him,
since he had proved “useful” in ministry (implicitly vindicating both Barnabas’ loyalty to his cousin
and perhaps Mark’s worthiness as author of a gospel); Demas, like the younger Mark, had also
abandoned Paul (2 Tim. 4:10);
10. 1 Peter 5:13 (probably deuteropetrine) records Peter’s reference to “my son Mark,” and thus sets the
stage for the patristic tradition that Mark recorded Peter’s memoirs as the basis of his Gospel before
Peter’s martyrdom in Rome.
If with patristic authors we assume these texts all refer to the same person, we have a significant profile of John
Mark, whose mother was a strong leader in the Jerusalem church (with a large house and servants), but with his
father absent (probably deceased). Apparently never married, Mark then appears with Peter released from prison,
next as mission companion of a series of single males: Paul and Barnabas, Barnabas alone, Paul and companions,
and finally back with Peter in Rome, where tradition has him record Peter’s memoirs as the basis of his Gospel,
thus giving it apostolic authority. Taken together, the texts signal the eventual vindication of a disciple who at first
fled from Jesus (like the eleven apostles and the women at the tomb), then abandoned Paul and Barnabas in the
midst of their mission journey, sparking a dispute and split between the two, but finally proved faithful and reliable,
as vindicated by both Paul and Peter. The example of Barnabas in forgiving his cousin’s initial failure and
providing him a second chance thus made possible Mark’s authorship of our earliest Gospel.
…in the taking of Jesus the scene is not without comic elements. First there is the description of the company
of soldiers creeping up the slope with a variety of swords and weapons to deal with a handful of men who
apparently cannot keep their eyes open. Almodovar could not have devised a funnier scene for one of his films.
Jesus himself seems to mock them for the exaggerated display of arms. And then there is the incident of the
young man who, curiously, was wearing nothing but a piece of linen cloth. As the soldiers attempted to
apprehend him he dashed off naked like a streaker, leaving the soldiers holding the sheet. Were they annoyed
or did they all collapse with laughter? Queers can be very funny, and our attention is distracted from the true
horror of the moment.” (Marcella Althaus-Reid 2006:524).
Mark 7:24-30 // Matthew 15:21-28 The Syrophoenician Woman: How to Queer an Insult. (Taken from
Hisako Kinukawa, Women and Jesus in Mark: A Japanese Feminist Perspective [Maryknoll: Orbis, 1994] and Didier
Eribon, Insult and the Making of the Gay Self [Durham/London: Duke University, 2004; Reflexions sur la question gay, Paris:
Librairie Arthème Fayard, 1999; Reflexiones sobre la cuestión gay, Barcelona: Anagrama, 2001].)
Mark 7:24-30 24And from there [Jesus] arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered
a house, and would not have any one know it; yet he could not be hid. 25But immediately a woman, whose
little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell down at his feet. 26 Now the
woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter.
27
And he said to her, “Let the children first be fed, for it is not good/fair to take the children’s bread and throw
it to the dogs.” 28But she answered him, “Yes sir, yet even the dogs under the table eat the children’s
crumbs.” 29And he said to her, “For this saying you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.”
30
And she went home, and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone.
Matthew 15:21-28 21And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22And
behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David;
my daughter is severely possessed by a demon.” 23But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came
and begged him, saying “Send her away, for she is crying after us.” 24He answered, “I was sent only to the lost
10
sheep of the house of Israel.” 25But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 26And he
answered, “It is not fair/good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” 27She said, “Yes, Lord, yet
even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” 28Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great
is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.
For decades this text has been a favorite of feminists, who like to emphasize that the only argument Jesus lost in
the Gospels was to this pagan woman, who encouraged him to expand his vision and sense of mission to include
“unclean” Gentiles (see Mark’s placement after the controversy over un/cleanness, 7:1-23 and the declaring of all
foods “clean,” which opened the door for table fellowship with Gentiles). What commonly has been overlooked is
that this Gentile woman also was representative of sexual minorities (see Hisako Kinukawa 1994:51-65). Modern
interpreters who have delusions of “family values” sprouting all over the New Testament like dandelions
undoubtedly expect readers to suppose that the sick daughter’s father stayed home to take care of her. However, as
Mark has just reminded us in the account of the raising of Jairus’s daughter, in ancient patriarcal cultures, the father
would be the one expected to leave home and take any initiative in approaching the Jewish exorcist with a request
for healing (6:21-24, 35-43). Recognizing this, pre-modern interpreters commonly suggested that the woman was
a widow. However, the Hebrew Bible ( Exodus 22:22-24;  Deuteronomy), the Gospels (Mark 12:41-44;
Luke 7:11-17), Acts (Acts 6; 9:32-43), and Paul (1 Cor. 7:8-9; 1 Timothy 5) all take special interest in cases
involving widows, so Mark would not likely fail to mention the widow status of the woman in this case (Bonnie
Thurston 1989;  1 Timothy 5). We are thus compelled to face the probability that the story not only involves a
clever woman, an “unclean” Gentile (idolater), but also a “single mom”, perhaps divorced/abandoned or even a
prostitute (male prostitutes are designated “dogs” in Deut. 23:18 and Rev. 22:15).
Especially in the Marcan version, the text is notable for its emphasis on the utter humanity of Jesus.
1. He wants to remain hidden, closeted, but is outed by the noisy pagan woman with a sick child.
2. He wants to limit his mission to his fellow Jews but is convinced by her argument to extend his mission
immediately to pagan idolaters like herself.
3. Throughout the four Gospels, Jesus wins the arguments against the best brains the Jerusalem elite could
send against him, but here, for the only time, he loses a theological argument to an idolatrous woman.
4. Jesus begins with a finite, ethnocentric belief in Jewish superiority (or at least their priority in God’s
liberation project), employing the common derogatory “dogs” to refer to non-Jews, but ends up
commending the pagan woman for her superior faith.
5. He begins with the presupposition that children are so superior to dogs that the latter can be left hungry, but
ends up modifying his “speciism” to the point of allowing the puppies under the table their
sustenance.
6. Throughout the episode, as elsewhere in the Synoptic Gospels, he shares the common superstition of the era
in attributing illness to demons (in John’s Gospel, Jesus refers only to the Devil, not to demons or
exorcisms).
7. Using the humanly constructed language of his day, Jesus employs the derogatory term “dogs” to maintain
the inferiority of non-Jews, but thus proves open to the woman’s clever deconstruction of his
prejudice.
Highly recommended but difficult to summarize or review is Insult and the Making of the Gay Self by French
philosopher and historian Didier Eribon, France’s leading authority on Michel Foucault and author of numerous
books and articles on intellectual history related to homosexuality/gay and queer studies. The title in English, with
its focus on “insults” and “the making of the gay self” captures two major areas Eribon treats, but the reflections
represent a rather encyclopedic perspective on homosexuality/ gay/ queer interests and controversies in the
nineteenth-twentieth centuries. Part I treats “The World of Insult” into which the gay person is born and from
which he ever strives to liberate him/herself. Part II, titled “Specters of Wilde,” delves into the dramatic changes
brought about in relation to the career, trials and death of Oscar Wilde in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
century. Part III, “Michael Foucault’s Heterotopias,” brings us down to contemporary times, but in all sections the
11
great influence of classical Greco-Roman literature and the Renaissance is fundamental. An Addendum, “Hannah
Arendt and the ‘Defamed Groups’” explores the contributions and misinterpretations of this German, Jewish
philosopher on anti-semitism and homophobia.
Eribon’s knowledge at every point seems not only virtually encyclopedic but balanced and fair to those with whom
he disagrees. The encyclopedic character of the author’s knowledge may reflect his editorship of a major French
work, Dictionnaire des cultures gays et lesbiennes (Paris: Larousse, 2003). The documentation is thorough, with some
70 pages of footnotes and a bibliography of 18 pages reflecting works especially in English and French. If we
listen to the debates common in contempoary secular or religious gay/queer groups, after reading Insults we will
probably conclude with Qoheleth that “There is nothing new under the sun” (or at least not much), since our
perspectives and arguments are shown to have lenthy genealogies, and leading thinkers such as Foucault and
Eribon often changed their minds or emphases in response to changing historical contexts.
Although a philosopher, Eribon writes with admirable simplicity and clarity, but with a philosopher’s breadth of
perspective is able to show the interrelations between science (especially the developing psychology beginning in
the nineteenth century), literature, sociology (police records, histories of institutions) and the common
misinterpretations of mass media majority propaganda. Since “constructionists” still commonly refer to Foucault’s
hypothesis that the homosexual person was an invention by late nineteenth century psychiatry (contrasted with the
supposed exclusive focus on sexual acts of sodomy before), it is important to have not only Eribon’s refutation
from history, literature and police records, but also his demonstation that Focault himself later recognized the error
of his hypothesis (411, note 5).
For individual gay/queer Christians, as well as for their groups and organizations, the relevance of the wisdom
Eribon offers is considerble. Especially in the face of homophobic insults (“God hates fags” – Fred Phelps and his
family/church), Eribon’s analysis and reflections on the world of insults into which we and other oppressed groups
are born (women, the poor, Jews, foreigners, etc.) is of fundamental importance. And the making/fashioning of the
gay self (or gay group/church) as a work of art brings to the task a perspective that can motivate, encourage and
guide all our efforts to liberate ourselves from the interiorized homophobia instilled by so many insults: “The idea
that from one’s own life one can make a work of art is an idea that was undoubtedly foreign to the Middle Ages,
and reappears at the time of the Renaissance” (Foucault, cited p. 415, note 11). Of course, from a Christian perspective,
our aim is not to become secularized/post-Christian “self-made men/women” but rather to see ourselves as “God’s
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Eph. 2:10).
The experience of the Syrophoenician woman and her example of how to queer an insult.(Mark 7:24-30 // Matthew
15:21-28) can open the door to a whole new investigation of insults in the Bible (see “Racca” in Matt. 5:22) and
how to use the tongue to edify rather than destroy (James 3:9-11). Feminist studies have made a good start in the
area of insults in the Bible reflecting patriarchal prejudices against women, but the whole area of insults directed at
sexual minorities (many of them also women) remains to be explored.
Note: “The Secret Gospel of Mark”:
From Fragment 1 “The youth, looking upon [Jesus] 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. After six days
Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes 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.”
Fragment 2. "(Jesus) came to Jericho. And there were there the sisters of the young man whom Jesus loved,
and his mother and Salome; and Jesus did not receive them" (H. Merkel 106-109, New Testament Apocrypha I, William
M. Schneemelcher, ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991 ).
In 1958, working in the Greek Orthodox monastery of Mar Saba in the Judean desert, Morton Smith discovered an
incomplete letter of Clement of Alexandria (180-200 AD) to Theodore, referring to “A Secret Gospel of Mark,”
12
which some scholars hold to predate our canonical Gospel. According to Clement, in his day the Carpocratians
(libertine Gnostics) were misinterpreting this Secret Gospel by ascribing sexual overtones to Jesus’ encounter with
the youth. Clement denies the Carpocratians’ claim that the Secret Gospel included the phrase “naked man on
naked man.” Some scholars see in Clement’s letter a reference to nude nocturnal baptism, since baptism originally
involved disrobing (Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:20-24; Colossians 3:9-14) and was commonly performed by
immersion at night or dawn (Acts 16:33; Hyppolytus, Trad. Ap. 21).
See Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007], especially the
“Excursus” on The Secret Gospel of Mark (486-493), where she concludes that “If the jury is still out, it is seeming
more and more likely that their verdict will be that the work is a modern forgery or hoax” (493). This conclusion,
however, now appears to be refuted by the articles of Koester (2009) and Shanks (2009ab). Interpreting Mark 14:5152 in the Light of the Secret Gospel of Mark,” Gabriele Cornelli concluded: “Does it speak of homosexual love,
then? And without any scandal? So it would appear” (2000:79).
Bibliography: "The Secret Gospel of Mark"
Brown, Scott G. (2005). Mark’s Other gospel: Rethinking Morton Smith’s Controversial Discovery, ESCJ 15.
Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier University.
––––– (2006). “The Question of Motive in the Case against Morton Smith”. Journal of Biblical Literature 125, no.
2:351-383.
––––– (2007). “The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: An Essay Review”. RBL 09/2007. A review of some 50
pages that refutes Peter Jeffery's argument (see below).
Bruce, F. F. (1974). The "Secret" Gospel of Mark. Ethel M. Wood Lecture. London: Athlone.
Carlson, Stephen (2005). The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith’s Invention of Secret Mark. Waco, TX: Baylor
University.
Cornelli, Gabriele (2000). “Un amor (mal) censurado – Para una exégesis no homofóbica de Marcos 14,51-52”.
RIBLA (Revista de Interpretación Bíblica Latinoamericana), No. 37 (2000:74-81).
Ellens, J. Harold (2009). A review of Peter Jeffery, The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of
Sex, Death and Madness in a Biblical Forgery, that seeks to support Jeffery's argument and refute Brown's
review.
Foster, Paul (2005). “Secret Mark: Its Discovery and the State of Research”, Expository Times, 117/2 (Nov), 4652. Also see his reviews of the works by Brown and Carlson, p. 64-68.
Gundry, Robert H. (1993). Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross, 603-623. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
Hedrick, Charles W. (2009). “An Amazing Discovery”. Biblical Archeology Review (35/6, Nov-Dec), 44-48.
Jeffery, Peter (2007). The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled: Imagined Rituals of Sex, Death and Madness in a
Biblical Forgery. .New Haven: Yale University Press. (See Brown above, who points out that Jeffery is a
committed orthodox Roman Catholic who confuses the refutation of certain interpretations by Morton Smith
with the literal interpretation of the document itself.)
Koester, Helmut (2009). “Was Morton Smith a Great Thespian and I a Complete Fool?” Biblical Archeology
Review (35/6, Nov-Dec), 54-58.
Losie, L.A. (1997). "Mark, Secret Gospel of". Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments, ed.
Ralph P. Martin & Peter H. Davids, 708-712. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.
Shanks, Hershel (2009a). “Morton Smith—Forger”. Biblical Archeology Review (35/6, Nov-Dec), 49-53.
––––– (2009b). “Restoring a Dead Scholar’s Reputation”. Biblical Archeology Review (35/6, Nov-Dec), 59-61.
Smith, Morton (1982/92). "Clement of Alexandria and Secret Mark: The Score at the End of the First Decade".
Homosexuality and Religion and Philosophy, ed. Wayne R. Dynes and Stephen Donaldson, 12:295-307. New
York: Garland.
13
Male Sexuality in Mark 9:42–10:12; Matthew 18:6-9; 5:27-32; and B.Nid. 13b?
Adela Yarbro Collins (2007) now adds her weighty support to Will Demming’s conclusion (1990) that Mark 9:4249 is to be interpreted in the light of a text from the Babylonian Talmud as presenting four metaphors for sexual
prohibitions. As a counter-hypothesis I would propose that the progression from Mark 9:42-49 to Matthew 18:6-9
and 5:27-32 to the Talmud (B.Nid. 13b) reflects the growing impact of neoplatonic and stoic negativism regarding
human sexuality, and that Mark’s four metaphors are best interpreted in continuity with the sex-positive
perspective of the Hebrew Bible, especially Song of Songs.
1. If the “scandalizing/causing to sin” of “little ones” in Mark 9:42 be interpreted as a metaphor for malemale pederasty, then the references to hand, foot and eye in 9:43, 45 and 47 may also be limited to pederasty, thus
strengthening the case that Rom. 1:27, 1 Tim. 1:10 and 1 Cor. 6:9 condemn only male-male pederastic abuse,
especially of young slaves (see Scroggs and Miller on  Romans 1:27) and not as general, universal
condemnations of “homosexuality” or same-sex eroticism. Moreover, if the metaphor in Mark 9:42 be limited only
to pederasty, then the sexually abused youths are also judged guilty of sin, rather than victims of sexual violence,
and condemned to eternal punishment along with their abusers (see Brooten on  Leviticus 20:13; and 
Romans 1:27).
2. If the “hand” in Mark 9:43 is interpreted simply as a metaphor for male masturbation, then we have Jesus
condemning to eternal punishment all males guilty of masturbation, while female masturbators remain innocent
(see the absence of condemnation of female homoeroticism in Rom. 1:26, as indicated by James Miller and the
Church Fathers until around 400 AD). We also then have the further anomaly of Jesus inventing a new ethic that
condemns male masturbation, when his authoritative Hebrew Bible contained no such condemnation of males, but
did prescribe cutting off the hand of women who damaged the sacred male genitals during a brawl (Deut. 25:11-12).
Collins does indicate that the motive for the condemnation of male masturbation is the same as the condemnation
of male-male anal sex in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, namely the avoidance of procreation and wasting of male semen
(2007:451, following Milgrom; see 451, note 97). This leaves us with a Jesus who is captive to extreme patriarchal
ideology with its emphasis on procreation, yet who personally felt free to flaunt the demand to procreate, leading a
single lifestyle, along with his disciple Paul and their male followers.
3. As Robert Gundry points out, “Jesus…speaks of having two feet over against being lame. Thus is lost the
euphemism of a foot for the penis” (1993:524), since he hardly would have intended to suggest that a man with two
penises cut off one and keep the other. Moreover, if the “foot” in Mark 9:45 be taken simply as a metaphor for
male genitals in adulterous sex, then we have the anomaly that Jesus extended prohibition of and right to divorce to
women, but here leaves them exempt from guilt for adultery – hardly the perspective of the Hebrew Bible that
often condemned female initiatives in adultery (see the female prostitutes in Proverbs).
4. If the male “eye” in Mark 9:47 be limited to the lustful male gaze condemned in Matt. 5:27-32, which
Collins extends to any “erotic gaze” (2007:454), then we have a Jesus who is reduced to the sexual negativism
common in neoplatonic and stoic philosophies, totally contradicting all the delight in erotic gazing so often detailed
in the  Song of Songs (see especially the four wasfs that describe in detail the human anatomy; only Mark details
Jesus’ own loving gaze at the rich young ruler, Mk 10:21).
If the metaphors of hand, foot and eye and the scandalizing little ones in Mark 9:42-43, 45 and 47 are all
interpreted as referring only to male sexual sins and condemned to a fate worse than drowning (42b) or suffering
the eternal fires of hell (43, 45, 47-48), then we have a Jesus apparently obsessed with sexual sins as the gravest
sort, utterly at odds with his major emphasis on economic abuses elsewhere in the Gospels and his teaching on
eternal punishment for lack of solidarity with the weak and needy in Matt. 25:31-46; cf. Mark 9:41.
14
Mark 9:42-50 (ca. 69-70 AD).
42
And whoever gives offense to/causes one of these little ones who believe/trust in me to sin, it would be
better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea. 43And if your
hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go to
Gehenna/hell, to the unquenchable fire [44 text?]. 45And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better
for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell [46 text?]. 47And if your eye gives you
offense/causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter into the Kingdom of God with one eye than
with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna/hell, 48where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.
49
For everyone will be salted with fire. 50Salt is good; but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you
season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.
Matthew 18:6-9 (ca. 85 A.D.)
6But
whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin [scandalizes, causes to stumble], it
would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of
the sea. 7Woe to the world for temptations to sin [scandals, stumbling blocks]! For it is necessary that
temptations [scandals, stumbling blocks] come, but woe to the man by whom the temptation [scandals,
stumbling blocks] comes! 8If your hand or foot causes you to stumble [scandalizes you], cut it off and throw
it away; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than to have two hands or two feet and to be thrown
into the eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to stumble [scandalizes you], tear it out and throw it away; it
is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into the Gehenna/hell of fire.
Matthew here closely follows his source (Mark 9:42-50) and avoids specifying any sexual sins. Since the child
is to be “received” into the community (18:5), presumably the scandal in 18:6 would be a refusal of hospitality,
not sexual abuse (see Sodom, Genesis 19). As in Mark, the reference to “two feet” would seem to rule out any
interpretation of the foot as a metaphor for the male penis (see above).
Matthew 5:27-30 (ca. 85 A.D.)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’ [Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5.18]. 28But I say to
you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully [epithumesai] has already committed adultery with her in
his heart. 29If your right eye causes to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of
your members than that your whole body be thrown into Gehenna/hell. 30And if your right hand causes you
to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go
into Gehenna/hell.
27
Matthew specifies the right eye and the right hand, taking over two of Mark’s four categories, but omitting
Mark’s reference to the foot and the scandalizing of “little ones.” However, Matthew links the sin of the right
eye to the covetous look of the adulterer, condemned in the seventh and tenth prohibitions of the Decalogue
and also by Paul in Rom. 13:8-10 as acts that threaten damage to the neighbor and viable community.
Nothing in Matthew would suggest condemnation of all erotic gazing, such as the Song of Songs exalts. And
nothing in Matthew would suggest that the potential sin of the right hand would be male masturbation.
As Robert Gundry points out (1993:524), examples from Mark and elsewhere in Scripture suggest multiple
alternatives to the sexual sins indicated in the Talmud, Deming and Collins:
1. “stumbling/being scandalized” in Mark refers to apostasy (4:17), unbelief (6:3) and cowardice (14:27, 29);
2. the “hand” may engage in theft or violence;
3. the “foot” in running to do evil and consorting with the oppressors;
15
4. the “eye” with covetousness and stinginess
B.Nid. 13b commenting on m. Nid 2:1 (from the Babylonian Talmud, varied and disputed dates).
“The hand that oftentimes makes examination [of the private parts] is among women, praiseworthy [because it
is necessary to determne menstrual cleanness]; but among men – let it be cut off.” The commentary includes
an interpretation of Isa. 1:15 as a reference to “those that commit masturbation with their hands”; an
interpretation of the seventh commandment as prohibiting adultery with the “hand” or the “ foot”; and a
statement from R. Tarfon that the hand that touches the male member is to be “cut off upon his belly,” which
is preferable to going “down into the pit of destruction” ( as cited in Robert Gagnon 2001:208, note 34 ).
Gagnon correctly acknowledges: “Certainly Jesus’ own unmarried status and his itinerant day-to-day lifestyle
would have set him off from his own culture as someone with ascetic tendencies” (2001:209, note 37). But he also
affirms that “Jesus’ views on sex represent on the whole a staunchly conservative position” ( 37). Gagnon
obviously has a very queer notion of what is “conservative”!
William Loader points out that “The rabbinic account is from centuries later and the attributions [to sources
around 50 AD] may not be secure enough to assure a first century dating” (2005:30). The Talmudic materials
contain no reference to the lustful eye. Jesus’ metaphor of two feet would hardly suggest a male with a spare
penis. So instead of concluding that Jesus uncharacteristically becomes obsessed with
sexual sins and formulates his teaching by imitating rabbinic neoplatonism and sexophobia, obviously it would
be preferable to interpret Jesus’ teaching in continuity with the sex-positive perspective of Song of Songs and
consistently with his emphases on non-sexual sins in Mark and the other Gospels. This is not to say that sexual
sins should be totally excluded from the metaphors. As Gundry points out (1993:524), the wayward “foot” may
take a man into the house of a harlot or another man’s house (Prov. 5:1-20; 6:20-35), but the Marcan Jesus
here “is interested in the explosive force of Jesus’ teaching, not in its ethical content” (525). Like Paul (in Rom.
13:8-10) Jesus focuses on those sins that harm the neighbor and make viable community impossible; hence the
concluding references to covenant salt and the exhortation to “be at peace with one another” (Mark 9:50 with
33-34; Matt. 18:1-5, 10-35).
Bibliography: Male Sexuality in Mark
Collins, Adela Yarbro (2007). Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Deming, Will (1990). “Mark 9:42-10:12; Matthew 5:27-32, and B.Nid. 13b: A First Century Discussion of Male
Sexuality”, New Testament Studies 36, 130-41.
Gagnon, Robert A. J. (2001). The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 196-209. Nashville: Abingdon.
Gundry, Robert H. (1993). Mark: A Commentary on his Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Loader, William (2005). Sexuality and the Jesus Tradition, 20-36. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
3. Luke: The “beloved physician” tells of a Roman centurion with his “very beloved” slave.
Any interpretation of Luke’s perspective on women must depend largely on texts where the woman represents
some sexual minority. Traditional patriarchal “families” are conspicuous by their absence in Luke’s Gospel. And
even if we accept the traditional interpretation of Jesus’ birth as virginal, Mary stands out as a sexual minority, an
unwed mother threatened with the death penalty according to Mosaic Law for having a child that did not belong to
Joseph.
Only Luke and Matthew narrate Jesus’ birth, and traditionally Luke has been read as agreeing with Matthew as
affirming Jesus’ conception and birth by a Mary who is virgin. Luke’s words in 1:35-37, however, are not explicit
and the future verbs leave open the possibility that Joseph was the father (Sharon H. Ringe 1995:32). Nevertheless, the
exclusion of Joseph as father in 3:23 would seem to confirm Mary’s sexual minority status, but without explicitly
ruling out other paternity. Even with the traditional doctrine of the Virgin Birth, we are left with a Mary who ends
16
up a kind of “single mom” and a Jesus who is legally illegitimate, a “bastard” in the discriminatory legal categories
of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Jane Schaberg has argued that Mary was not so much “humble”, but “humiliated” (Greek tapeinosis, Luke 1:48),
sexually assaulted (raped), perhaps by a soldier in the occupying Roman army (Jane Schaberg 1992:373; cf. her more
detailed study, The Illegitimacy of Jesus: A Feminist Theological Interpretation of the Infancy Narratives [New York: Crossroad, 1987]).
If Mary had been raped by a Roman soldier, that would better explain her militant and prophetic words against the
oppressors of her people (Luke 1:51-53). The other women in Luke 1–2 may be more traditional and somewhat
passive (Elizabeth, John’s mother [1:23-25, 39-45; Anna, the widow prophet in the temple [2:36-38) – but not
Mary, the indignant militant! Such an interpretation of Luke also would fit well with Matthew’s words about the
sword that would penetrate Mary’s heart (2:35) and with the bloody account in Matthew of the slaughter of the
children by Herod’s troops (Matthew 2:16-18).
Churches traditionally have interpreted the virginal womb as a parallel with the resurrected Jesus’ empty tomb.
But a triumph of God’s Spirit, extracting a “holy” child rather than an “illegitimate” child, from the experience of
rape could be more appropriate in a Gospel that shows us how Jesus’ crucifixion ended in his resurrection. One
might even argue that an incarnation redemptive for the cosmos, beginning with an imperialist soldier’s rape of an
innocent virgin, is a greater miracle than the traditional notion of a virgin birth (and more appropriate in a Gospel
that concludes with a resurrection preceded by a crucifixion). Such an interpretation would leave only Matthew
(1:20-23) narrating a virginal birth. But Matthew especially may include various elements of midrash (edifying,
but non-historical homiletical elaborations;  Matthew).
Luise Shottroff, however, although acknowledging significant insights from Shaberg’s studies (for instance, that
the Greek term for humiliation in Luke 1:48 may refer to sexual humiliation such as rape), insists that Mary’s
humiliation rather involves the oppression and poverty of Palestinian Jews under the Roman empire and her
oppression as a woman in a patriarchal culture: “Mary trusted that she would bring a child into this [patriarchal]
world without the involvement of a man and that this child was to bring God’s indestructible reign to the people of
Israel (1:33).... [Mary and Elizabeth] beat the drum of God’s world revolution.... The two women prophetically
herald God’s world revolution, God’s option for the poor, which begins as an option for Mary and for women (1:42,
48)” (Luise Schottroff 1995:193).
Understandably, traditional white male scholarship, whether defending or critiquing the traditional doctrine of the
Virgin Birth, continues to ignore the significant insights generated in the feminist debate (Raymond E. Brown 1997:21920; Darrell L. Bock 1994:102-31). Even evangelical scholars, however, increasingly acknowledge that the Virgin Birth
“probably does not deserve to rank among the top five fundamentals of the faith” (Craig L. Blomberg 1997:209-10).
Whether she was a prostitute is now seriously questioned, but Luke names Mary Magdalene as the first evangelist
who communicates the Good News of Jesus’ resurrection to the unfaithful male apostles (24:10). Luke then
continues to narrate how Jesus appeared, not to a heterosexual couple, but to a pair of men traveling together to
their village of Emmaus (24:13-35). The account of Jesus’ anointing is very explicit. This is carried out by Mary
(of Bethany) in the other three Gospels and takes place shortly before the crucifixion (Mark 14:3-9; Matthew 26:613; John 12:1-8). However, in Luke (7:36-50) Jesus’ anointing occurs much earlier in the house of Simon, a
Pharisee, and it is done by a prostitute (“sinner”). Luke presents this story as an illustration of Jesus’ practice of
being “a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (7:34), and then immediately names Mary Magdalene among the
wealthy women who helped the ministry economically (8:1-3). Women biblicists, especially, now commonly
indignantly reject the traditional identification of Mary Magdalene (8:2) with the prostitute of 7:36-50. However,
we must question whether this dogmatic rejection may not reflect a certain prejudice against sexual minorities
(Richard Atwood 1993; Esther de Boer 1997; Susan Haskins 1993; Carla Ricci 1994; Jane Schaberg 1992b:30-37; Mary R. Thompson
1995. For a more detailed discussion, see under Matthew above.)
Luke 7:1-10 gives us Luke’s version (// Matt. 8:5-13 = Q [// John 5:46-54?]; see above under Matthew) of the
story about a Roman centurion who asked Jesus to heal his “beloved slave” (7:2). The story is the only complete
narration of a miracle in the Q source (cf. the brief mention of another miracle in Luke 11:14-15 // Matt. 12:22-24).
This fact, together with the story’s prominent place in Luke (immediately after the Sermon on the Plain) makes
17
clear the great importance the story had for Luke and for his Q source. Since the Q source represented traditions
preserved by charismatic itinerant prophets who had abandoned their homes to proclaim Jesus´ message, we can
appreciate why the story was so important for them. Generally, these prophets, like Luke and Paul, traveled
without spouses (Luke 14:26; 18:29) in same-sex couples. In a patriarchal culture that insisted in the necessity of
marrying and producing heirs, and where for centuries much Jewish literature had ridiculed the Greek and Roman
overlords and criticized them for their tolerance of certain homoerotic relations, probably these itinerant prophets
(who strongly denounced the dominant cultures, Luke 3:7-14, etc.), would themselves have been the object of
much ridicule for their condition as sexual minorities and for their lack of masculinity (6:22-23;  Matthew 5:22).
Thus they preserved this story that reminds us that masculinity (a “centurion” of the dominant empire) may be
compatible with tenderness and intimacy with someone of the same sex (his beloved slave) and that Jesus approved
of the couple and accepted them for the exceptional faith of the centurion, perhaps despite their lack of conformity
with a couple of laws in Leviticus (18:22; 20:13, prohibiting male-male anal sex) and with the long Jewish tradition
of homophobia.
Jesus respects the couple’s privacy and heals the slave at a distance without inquiring into the relationship or
seeking to break it up. The probability that the centurion’s relationship with his slave included a sexual dimension
is supported by the common practices of Romans soldiers with their slaves and has been pointed out by various
scholars (Tom Horner 1978:122; Michael Gray-Fow 1986:449-60; Gerd Theissen 1987:106; Donald Mader 1992:223-35; John J.
McNeil 1995:132-36; James E. Miller, 1997; Tom Hanks 2000:14; Richard Valantasis 2005:80-84); however this probability has
been systematically ignored by heterosexist male advocacy scholarship.
Luke’s placing of the Centurion’s story after the Sermon on the Plain (6:17-49) is appropriate, since the centurion
is characterized by



his compassion and love for his slave (Luke 7:2-3; cf. 6:36) and for his exceptional faith (7:7, 9);
his humility ("I am not worthy….,” Luke 7:6; cf. 6:20 // Matt. 5:3);
his belonging to the imperial occupation army (in the Sermon Jesus had taught love for the enemy (Luke
6:27-36).
The centurion’s story also is appropriate, since



we should not judge (6:37-42); see the xenophobia and homophobia common in the Jewish culture;
we should build our lives on Jesus’ words (Luke 6:46-49, which obviously would not imply obeying all the
613 Laws of Moses);
we should produce good fruit like a good tree (6:43-45). Only Luke informs us that the centurion had
provided for the construction of the synagogue in Capernaum (7:5; see above under Matthew).
If we recognize the centurion’s homoerotic relation with his slave, we will not be surprised that only in Luke does
Jesus speak of two males together “in a bed” (17:34-35). Matthew (24:40), however (perhaps with a touch of
ecclesiastical censure?), substitutes “field” for “bed”! To avoid Luke’s “problem” of having two males in a bed,
some now prefer to translate the Greek word klínes as “dining couch” in which guests reclined to eat. But it is
doubtful if this sense occurs in the New Testament (only in some manuscripts of Mark 7:4; cf. “bed/dining couch,”
for sleeping or resting in Luke 5:18 // Matt. 9:2, 6; Luke 8:16; Mark 4:21; 7:30; Rev. 2:22). Moreover, Qohelet
(Ecclesiastes) had recommended the practice (Eccles. 4:11; see Darrell L. Bock 1994, 436-37; also see a father in bed
with his children, Luke 11:7).
Luke’s presentation of women depends mainly on texts where women represent sexual minorities (Goss 2006:535-36;
Moxnes 2003:100). Quite explicit is the story of Jesus’ anointing by Mary (in the other three Gospels shortly before
the crucifixion; Mark 14:3-9 // Matt 26:6-13; cf John 12:1-8). In Luke the anointing occurs much earlier (7:36-50)
in the house of Simon the Pharisee, and by an anonymous prostitute (“sinner”). Luke has the story illustrate Jesus’
practice of being a “friend of publicans and prostitutes [sinners]" (7:34) and immediately then introduces Mary
18
Magdalene (8:1-3, also a prostitute?  Matthew) as one of the well-to-do women who provided economic support
for the ministry. Whether a prostitute or not, Mary Magdalene became the first evangelist, since she brought to the
unfaithful male apostles the good news of Jesus´ resurrection (Luke 24:10). Luke then relates Jesus’ appearance,
not to a heterosexual couple, but to a male couple who traveled together to their home in Emmaus (24:13-35; Goss
2006:545-547).
Others who appear in Luke without spouse include: Theophilus (1:1-4), John the Baptist (3:1-22), the shepherds
(2:8-20); Simeon (2:25-35); Anna (2:36-38, widowed); Jesus himself (3:21–24:53) with his twelve apostles, except
Peter (5:27-32; 6:12-16); centurion with his beloved slave (7:1-10); Simon the Pharisee and the woman who was a
“sinner” (7:36-50, esp. vv. 44-46); the exorcist (9:49-50); three who offered to become followers (9:57-62); the
seventy (10:1-20); Martha and Mary (10:38-42); two Pharisees, hosts (11:37-54; 14:1-15); the brother without
inheritance (12:13-21); children without parents (18:15-17); the rich young man (18:18-30); Zachaeus (19:1-10);
the poor widow (21:1-4); the effeminate man (22:10, carrying a water jar, women’s work); two crucified thieves
(23:33,39-43); another centurion (23:47); Joseph of Arimathea (23:50-54); the three women from Galilee (23:49,
55-56; 24:10); and the two Emaus disciples (24:13-35).
In Luke the dominance of sexual minorities also is reflected in Jesus’ parables. The second parable in Luke 15
speaks of a lone woman who calls her friends and neighbors (not her husband) to share her joy over the lost coin
she found (15:8-10). The first (15:4-7) describes a shepherd who shares his joy with his friends and neighbors (not
with a wife). In Luke’s most famous patriarchal house, that of the “prodigal son,” no mother appears – only males
(15:11-32). Moreover, the older son may have accused his brother of being gay and of wasting his inheritance with
“male prostitutes” (pornon, genitive plural), since in this case the Greek form is identical for male and female.
Neither in the “Good Samaritan” (10:29-37) do we read of a patriarchal household, but of itinerant businessmen
accustomed to seek hospitality in places of dubious reputation. The rich man in hell seeks to send poor Lazarus to
warn his five brothers (16:28), but either has no wife or is not concerned about her status in the afterlife. The
wealthy landholder expects his slave, not his wife, to prepare his supper (17:7-10). See also the astute steward,
without family (16:1-8). Obviously the unmarried Luke, Paul’s travel companion, presents us with a Jesus who
moves mainly in a context of persons without spouses (single, widowed, divorced) and not in the society of
patriarchal households.
4. Praxis (Acts) of the Apostles: Queer couples collaborate in mission to the Unclean
Among the excellent studies concerning the poor and women in Luke-Acts, the lack of complementary concerns
for sexual minorities is notable. The physician Luke, an unmarried Gentile, was marginalized from Jewish life. He
was a companion of his hero, Paul, also unmarried. Only Luke preserves Jesus’ statement concerning leaving
one’s wife in order to become his disciple (Luke 14:26; 18:29).
Significantly, of all the women in the churches, Acts presents only two married couples: first, the negative
example of Ananias and Sapphira; and second, the positive (non-patriarchal) example of Priscilla and Aquila.
Ananias and Sapphira are co-conspirators in fraud, hypocrisy, lacking solidarity with the poor. Priscilla and Aquila
represent a less traditional couple, where the woman exercises more leadership in the church, dares to correct the
theology of a scholarly man, and manifests the “masculine” virtue of courage to save Paul’s life. All the other
church women named in Acts (Mary, Dorcas, Rhoda, Lydia) represent sexual minorities not subject to male
authority of men; they are widows, unmarried or divorced.
Luke’s hero Paul is not only unmarried (possibly a widower or divorced) but always seeks the companionship of
another man in his journeys (Barnabas, Silas, Timothy). Robert Goss cites evidence of some authorities who
conclude that Paul had a homosexual orientation (Bohache, Goss, et al 2006:577-78; ver Hanks 2000:92). Even Peter, the
principal figure of Acts 1–12, although married (Mark 1:29-31), in Acts goes about accompanied by Jesus’
19
unmarried Beloved Disciple John (Acts 3–4; cf. 1 Corinthians 9:5). And when Luke names the other apostles he
presents them in male pairs (Acts 1:13, according to the Greek). Modern translations speak much of “families,”
when the original Greek refers only to “households”: all who live under the same roof, which in Acts usually are
not traditional “families.” The Bible never speaks of “families,” only of households, clans, tribes, etc. The
salvation and liberation offered by Jesus at times extends to the “household” and is not limited to the “family” in
the sense of the modern nuclear family (Acts 16:31).
In a book dominated by sexual minorities, the most explicit and memorable example is that of the Ethiopian
eunuch (also black, Acts 8:26-40). Although Moses’ Law discriminated against eunuchs, prohibiting them from
becoming priests (Leviticus 21:20) and excluding them from all participation in the worship community
(Deuteronomy 23:1), in Isaiah we find a change in attitude that invites eunuchs to approach God. The science of
“eunuchology” advances even more with Jesus’ analysis of three types of eunuchs ( Matthew 19:12), while
Jesus (like Paul) exemplifies the “single” type who voluntarily avoids having a wife and children in order to give
priority to the proclamation of Jesus’ Good News.
Also of great significance for sexual minorities are the conclusions of the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), so central
to Luke’s theological perspective. Faced with the crisis provoked by the inclusion of unclean Gentiles in the
churches, which were originally entirely Jewish, the Council sought an agreement that would respect Jewish
sensitivities yet also preserve the Gentiles’ freedom (15:20, 29). Peter describes Moses’ Law as “a yoke that
neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10). The Council “settles the debate over a Torahobservant form of Christianity by opting for freedom from the Law.... Scripture is important not as law to be
obeyed but as God’s Word which is fulfilled in Christ” (Craig L. Blomberg 1998:410, 397).
The only sexual prohibition is to abstain from “porneia” (Acts 15:20, 29), originally “prostitution” but perhaps
better translated in this context as “irresponsible/unjust sexuality” (remembering that in ancient times heterosexual
relations commonly resulted in children). Notably, even this quite simple prohibition (cf. the detailed codes of the
Pentateuch) places the prohibition against porneia in between three prohibitions concerning food, related to
idolatry. We find no further reference to the decision of the council in the New Testament, and soon Paul
introduces significant modifications (Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8–10; see  Galatians). Once again we note that
the Bible never speaks of “morals” or “ethics” in the sense of universal absolutes (as in Greek philosophy) but of
instructions for a “walk” in “the way.” Such instructions reflect concrete historical contexts of communities and
individuals, and lead to continual adjustments in the light of changed historical contexts. Above all in Acts, the
acceptance of Gentiles like Cornelius is also pertinent for women and sexual minorities. Before (Leviticus 15), the
discharge of blood (women) or discharge of semen (men) left the Jewish person “unclean,” like the Gentiles. But a
voice from heaven declared: “What God has made clean, you must not call profane” (10:15; 11:9-10; see Romans
1:24-27; 14:14-20; Titus 1:15).
5. John: Jesus’ Beloved Disciple subverts fundamentalism (selective literalism)
For Women and Sexual Minorities: A Community of Friends. As oppressed, persecuted and marginalized,
sexual minorities and marginalized women are treated with concern and special honor in John. He portrays five
women: Jesus’ widowed mother Mary, the Samaritan, the sisters Mary and Martha, and Mary Magdalene, each
representing some type of sexual minority. Mary, the wife of Clopas (19:25), is listed as present at the cross but
otherwise unknown (cf. Pilate’s wife in Matthew 27:19; Jairus and his wife in Mark 5:40; the adulteress in 7:53-8:11). Mark’s “Messianic secret” is detonated quite early in this Gospel when Jesus reveals himself fully and
explicitly as Messiah to the Samaritan woman who has had multiple husbands and sexual companions (4:1-42).
Jesus then repeatedly declares “I am....” (6:35).
The place of sexual minorities in John’s theology and the structure of his book is impressive. In John 2 we have
the wedding at Cana with the Gospel’s first miracle (sign), the water made wine, followed surprisingly by the
20
purification of the temple, an event the Synoptic Gospels place in the last week (passion), as the provocation of
Jesus’ crucifixion. Specialists in John remain perplexed concerning the radical change in order. However, if we
understand the situation and attitude of the Beloved Disciple (unmarried), we can understand how this order is key
to understanding his theology.
For John the wedding at Cana (2:1-11) does not constitute a motive to celebrate the continuity of the traditional
patriarchal family but a point of departure with the counterculture network of Jesus’ disciples (2:11-12). In John 1
we have the formation of the new community of Jesus’ disciples (1:35-51), and in John 2 a presentation of the two
traditional institutions that will be replaced by this new community: the traditional patriarchal household (2:1-12)
and the temple and feasts in Jerusalem (2:13-22). The Eucharistic wine that the disciples enjoy in the new
community is superior to the wine (depleted) of the traditional patriarchal household, just as the new community of
disciples (primarily unmarried) that surround Jesus also is superior to that institution.
John’s account of the wedding at Cana (2:1-12) is consistently misinterpreted because of idolatrous family
ideologies. Fundamental to proper interpretation of this passage, much abused in weddings, is the preceding
context, where Jesus contacts a “network of marginalized acquaintances” to form a fictive/metaphorical kinship,
countercultural “antisociety” (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998:60-61). Then at Cana with his presence and first miraculous
sign, Jesus (now 30+ but still single) first blesses the patriarchal wedding, but then proceeds to deconstruct
patriarchy by insisting on his freedom from family demands – from the widowed Mary, who in this narrative
evidences all the nervous symptoms of a new PFLAG mother. Bruce Malina and Richard Rohrbaugh point out that
“In ‘straight’ society, as opposed to antisociety, [such] in-group persons all deserve and receive immediate
compliance.... Perhaps John uses this pattern to inform members of his group about how to deal with their relatives
and other natural in-group persons” (p. 68). With his newly formed nucleus of disciples (John 1:35-51, also almost
all unmarried), Jesus demonstrates that his new counterculture community exemplifies authentic freedom and
enjoys a lifestyle superior to that of the traditional patriarchal family represented by the wedding. The wine
shortage signals a lack of helpful friends. Afterwards both “Jesus’ biological and fictive families are...portrayed as
traveling together” (p. 69), but John’s succeeding narrative makes clear that the new network of “friends” (15:9-15),
not the patriarchal household, is fundamental and normative for society in God’s new order (p. 66. For friendship, not
the family, as society's fundamental institution, see Mary E. Hunt 1991] .
John’s early placement of Jesus’ temple cleansing also may reflect repressed anger of an unmarried John faced
with two oppressive institutions – the patriarchal family (2:1-12) and the temple (2:13-22). Jesus called John and
his brother James – irate youths – “sons of thunder” (Mark 3:17; see “thunder” in the Johannine Revelation 4:5 +
nine more times). John’s anger, then, is directed not only against religious leaders and the temple, but also focuses
on the patriarchal institution of the heterosexual, procreative household (the wedding at Cana). Such anger
(commonly unconscious and repressed), has been characteristic of sexual minorities, who commonly have had to
spend their lives repressing and hiding their true feelings of love. Both the wedding at Cana and the Jerusalem
temple represent targets for John’s anger, and the entire book carries out a deconstruction of the oppressive
institutions of the patriarchal household and patriarchal religion. Jesus’ new community of disciples replaces both
of these patriarchal institutions and thus manifests the truth that liberates from oppression (John 8:32).
The displacement of the patriarchal household by the new community of disciples is seen immediately in the
following dialogue with Nicodemus (2:23–3:36). Jesus with his teaching replaces “the Teacher” of Israel, and
people (mainly marginalized) enter into the new community by a new spiritual birth instead of inheriting such a
status through natural birth. The Johannine process of displacement continues in the account concerning the
Samaritan woman (4:1-42), where a non-Israelite, moreover a sexual minority, a woman of bad repute, receives the
first explicit revelation concerning the Messianic identity of Jesus and then shares it, as an evangelist, with her
village. In the dialogue Jesus emphasizes that worship of God in Spirit and truth (the practice of the Johannine
communities excluded by the synagogues) replaces whatever temple as the center of divine revelation and source
of life.
21
In the second sign, which follows (John 4:46-54), John transforms the Q account (Luke 7:1-11 // Matthew 8:5-13)
concerning the centurion and his beloved slave who was healed (or perhaps John follows an independent tradition).
Remarkably, John appears to “clean up” both portrayals of sexual minorities described in Luke 7. First, although
in Luke 7:1-10 Jesus heals the Roman centurion’s slave, in John 4:46-54 the much beloved slave becomes a “son”
(adopted slave?). Second, in Luke 7:36-50 a prostitute (“sinner” par excellence) anoints Jesus’ feet, but in John
12:1-11 it is the pious Mary, who had sat at Jesus’ feet to listen to his teachings, who anoints Jesus’ feet. Matthew
and Mark describe the anointing in Bethany as taking place in the house of Simon “the leper” (perhaps Mary,
Martha and Lazarus had separated from their father and owner of the house, since he would be “unclean” according
to Moses’ Law; Mark 14:3-9; Matthew 26:6-19).
In John 5:1-47, Jesus goes up again to Jerusalem during a Jewish festival, but instead of going to the temple for the
festival, he goes straight to the “hospital” for the marginalized sick and physically challenged, the pool of Bethesda,
where he heals a paralyzed man. A sharp conflict results with the religious authorities concerning the Sabbath and
the Law. Jesus causes even greater opposition when he insists that he – not the temple with its festivals –
represents the new center for God’s liberating, life-giving work.
John 6 includes the narrative of Jesus feeding 5,000 poor followers (as in the Synoptics), but he then declares, “I
am the bread of life” (6:35), displacing Moses (see the manna of the Exodus) as the father of the patriarchal
household. In John 7 the conflict with the Jewish authorities becomes more serious, and the last day of the festival
of Tabernacles/Booths, Jesus presents himself as the water of life, again displacing the temple (see Ezekiel 47).
[John 7:53–8:11, concerning the adulterous woman, is not found in the original Gospel of John, but is congruent
with his emphasis on Jesus' authority, which replaces patriarchal authority and the penalty of death for adultery (as
stipulated by the Law), replacing them among the disciples in the new community with a love that pardons.
In John 8 Jesus declares himself the light of the world that liberates the new community of his followers from two
oppressive institutions: the patriarchal household (descendants of Abraham) and the temple authorities (8:32, 36).
This subversive teaching is followed by the narrative of the healing of a man blind from birth (9:1-41), a single
man dependent on his parents who, after being driven out of the synagogue, became a part of Jesus’ new
community. John 10 includes Jesus’ proclamation, “I am the good shepherd,” the leader who replaces oppressive
temple authorities and whose flock, including “other sheep” (unclean Gentile disciples) replaces the oppressive
patriarchal household. During the festival of Dedication in Jerusalem (10:22-42) the conflict with authorities
increases again and they resort to violence and try to stone Jesus.
With Lazarus’ resurrection (11:1-54) John’s purpose and theology are clearly revealed. Jesus had participated in
the traditional patriarchal wedding in Cana under pressure from his mother. However, John demonstrates that
Jesus’ favorite home was not that of his own mother and brothers, nor that of a traditional married couple, but that
of Mary, Martha and their brother Lazarus, all unmarried. Just as Mark points out that Jesus loved the rich young
man, John emphasizes the special love that Jesus had for Lazarus, Mary and Martha (11:3, 5, 11). And just as Paul
greets primarily households of sexual minorities in Romans 16, John makes it clear that the place where Jesus felt
most “at home” was a household of sexual minorities, persons who broke with the patriarchal expectation of
marriage and having children. According to John, this is the Mary who anointed Jesus’ feet with perfume in
Bethany (12:1-11).
Lazarus’ resurrection makes clear that God’s power in Jesus now operates outside the environment of the temple
and the religious authorities and also outside the control of the traditional patriarchal families. The conclusion of
the first half of John continues demonstrating how the non-traditional home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus displaces
the traditional patriarchal household and the temple as the center of divine action. John 12 culminates the Book of
Signs by announcing the arrival of some Greeks (“other sheep”) who seek to join the new community of Jesus’
followers (displacing the incredulous Jews; 11:55–12:50).
22
In the second part of the Gospel (13–21), John first gives us Jesus’ teaching which seeks to empower the disciples
and prepare them for the crucifixion. In John 13–17 Jesus speaks of the presence of God’s Spirit with his new
community (not in the temple). With his radical perspective, John focuses on the simple command of mutual love
in the new community (13:34-35) instead of the multiple legal codes of the Pentateuch (Goss 2006:559-60; see Paul
with his similar advocacy of freedom from the Law (Galatians, Romans). As John insists in his prologue: “The
Law indeed was given through Moses; but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (1:17). John’s radical
elimination of the multiple marginalizations prescribed in the Pentateuch with reference to sexual minorities (see
especially “eunuchs,” Deuteronomy 23:1-2, Leviticus 21:18-20) makes the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple quite
explicitly “Good News” for sexual minorities. As spiritual birth (John 3) is distinct, so also the “fruit” of the new
community is not biological children but the multiplication of disciples (John 15:1-17).
In his narrative of Jesus’ death, John stresses the conflict with the temple’s religious leaders. Shortly before dying
on the cross, Jesus entrusts his widowed mother, not to Peter with his traditional “straight” family, but to the
unmarried Beloved Disciple, who in this way formed another non-traditional household (19:26-27). It is this
Beloved Disciple who had “leaned on Jesus’ chest” during the Last Supper (13:23, 25; modern translations create
more space than that indicated by the Greek words) and was, according to tradition, the author of the Gospel (see
1:35-40; 18:15-16; 19:26-27; 20:1-10; 21:7, 20-24). As an example of literary inclusion, Mary appears in John
only in the narrative of the wedding at Cana (2:1-12) and then at the end when Jesus sends her to form part of the
new community along with his unmarried Beloved Disciple (19:26-27).
Mark had told how the faithful women arrived first at the empty tomb, and Luke and Matthew added how the
resurrected Jesus appeared first to these women, and not to the failed male apostles. John, however, insists that,
even before the appearances to the women, the Beloved Disciple, having run to the tomb faster than Peter, was the
first to believe in the resurrection – even without having seen Jesus. It is the unmarried Beloved Disciple, then,
who serves as the fundamental paradigm for future generations who believed without seeing the resurrected Jesus.
In the Gospel it is this unmarried Beloved Disciple (not a “family”) who symbolizes the Christian community.
Moreover, the first appearance of the resurrected Jesus is not to the faithful women as a group but to Mary
Magdalene, traditionally identified as a prostitute (John 20:1-18; see under Luke and Matthew). Adeline Fehribach
sensitively portrays Mary’s determined search for Jesus’ body, comparing her to the woman in Song of Songs and
to Greek love novels where wives search for the bodies of dead husbands. Jesus is seen as the “messianic
bridegroom.” Fehribach is bothered by Jesus’ refusal to reciprocate Mary’s embrace and observes that Jesus
“remains aloof from the earthly concerns of others, especially the women in his life,” (Adeline Fehribach 1998:165) but
limits imposed by her heterosexist ideology keep her from detecting more radical possibilities.
John’s subsequent epilogue (21:1-25), however, stubbornly insists that the unmarried John, Jesus’ Beloved
Disciple, maintains a certain priority over Peter and will outlive him (just as he outran him in the race to the tomb).
Most significantly, however, both the married disciple and Jesus’ Beloved Disciple became a leadership team (see
Acts 1–5) for Jesus’ new community that displaces the traditional oppressive patriarchal household and the temple
with its priests.
From St. Irenaeus we have another tradition (now commonly suppressed):
There are also those who heard from [Polycarp that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to the baths at
Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bathhouse without bathing, exclaiming, “Let us fly,
lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within” (Irenaeus Adv. haer. 3.3.4;
Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.8.4.).
Cerinthus was a Gnostic heretic (ca. 100 AD). This St. Irenaeus tradition used to be cited frequently by authors
eager to defend Johannine authorship – before Kinsey (1948) and Stonewall (1968) led to more public diffusion of
information concerning homoerotic practices in the Greco-Roman societies. Nobody used to ask why a Jewish23
Christian like John would be found frequenting the public baths, a Greco-Roman institution of bad repute among
the Jews.
6. Romans: A gay apostle’s queer letter to a “peculiar people” (in five tenement house
churches)
In Romans 16:1-16, where Paul names 29 persons (greeting 28 of them), ten of the persons named are women.
Nine women are greeted (+ Phoebe named, 16:1-2), while 19 men are greeted. Among those greeted we find Junia
and her husband Andronicus, both called “apostles” (16:7) – strongly confirming the leadership of women in the
early churches. In the later Greek manuscripts scribes changed Junia’s name to the masculine form (“Junias”). If
Junia had been male, co-apostle with Andronicus, we would have one more example of same-sex apostolic pairs
(like the six pairs among Jesus’ chosen twelve; Matthew 10:1-4, Greek).
In Romans 16 Paul greets Prisca and Aquila (vv. 3-5), his “co-workers,” naming Prisca/Priscilla first, as was his
custom (except in 1 Cor. 16:19), and praising both of them for their “courage” (a “masculine” virtue commonly
expressed in Greek by a verb “act manly, play the man,” 1 Cor. 16:13). Notably, of the ten women Paul names in
Romans 16, he specifies that eight are his “co-workers” in the work of the churches, while only one of the single
men is called a “co-worker” (16:9; also see Aquila and Andronicus with their wives). The church work thus was
done mostly by women, partly perhaps because the men had to dedicate themselves to their secular work. Paul,
nevertheless, expressed most affection for the men, since rather than call them his “co-workers” he called them
“beloved” (vv. 5, 8, 9). Among the women only his “co-worker” Persis is also termed “beloved.”
In addition to the women who are leaders in the five house-churches in Rome, Paul commends Phoebe (16:1-2), to
whom the apostle had entrusted his letter from Corinth. Paul refers to Phoebe as “minister, deacon” (Greek,
diakonon, using the masculine form), although translations commonly obscure this fact with the rendering
“servant” (NIV). The apostle indicates Phoebe’s high economic status, describing her as a “benefactor” of many,
including Paul himself. Probably Phoebe traveled to Rome for legal reasons (concerning an inheritance?), and Paul
took advantage of her trip to send his Magna Charta to the capital. When we recall the enormous impact Romans
has had throughout church history (in the conversions of Augustine, Luther, Wesley and on Karl Barth’s
theology) – how unimaginably different history would have been had Phoebe lost the letter! Thus, of the ten
women named in Romans 16, nine are active in church ministry (the only exception is Nereus' sister, 16:15b).
Centuries later the church in Rome came to be characterized by an exclusively male hierarchy (pope, cardinals,
archbishops, bishops), enormous and luxurious buildings, support for corrupt politicians and with its own
oppressive political power and military forces. In stark contrast, the five house-churches Paul addressed in his
letter consisted largely of slaves and other marginalized people, led mainly by women, with women doing most of
the work, a community of equals with no hierarchy. Yet these weak little communities soon were recognized to be
a subversive threat to the Empire. The same picture emerges also from the other six letters that come from Paul
himself but is somewhat modified in the three deutero-Pauline letters. The Pastoral Letters establish male elders,
but with no hierarchy, and limit the authority and ministry of women. The Protestant Reformation took a few steps
to return the church to its original norms. Luther rejected the supreme authority of the Pope; Calvin, in accord with
the Pastoral Letters, eliminated hierarchy among male clergy (presbyters/ elders). However, women’s equality and
leadership are still in the process of being restored today.
With the exception of the striking testimony in chapter 16, Romans has little to say concretely concerning women.
Perhaps of most theological significance is the absence of Eve when Paul deals with Adam’s “fall,” and compares
Adam and Christ. Much later, 1 Timothy blamed the first sin on Eve as being “deceived” (1 Tim. 2:14), in a
context that sought to restrict women’s leadership in the churches. In Romans, however, the responsibility for
introducing sin into the world is solely that of the male Adam (Romans 5:12-21).
24
In Romans 7:1-6 Paul “utilizes the woman as a means of study” when he refers to a married woman to illustrate
Christian freedom from the Law. Here the married woman is described as “subject to/bound to” her husband
during this life, but when he dies, “free” (so much for the glorious state of marriage in Paul’s view!). Similarly,
Christian men and women had been subject to the Law, but now are “free” from the Law (7:6). In 1 Corinthians
(7:2-4, 10-16) Paul describes marriage in more positive terms as a relationship characterized by mutuality (cf. the
almost sacramental view of marriage in Ephesians 5, probably deutero-Pauline).
In Romans 2:25-29 Paul specifies that the male circumcision prescribed by the Law (Genesis 17; Leviticus 12:3) is
not required for Christian Gentiles (cf. deuteropauline Colossians 2:11-12, where baptism of both sexes takes the
place of male circumcision as the initiation rite for entering the new Christian communities). In the Law, Leviticus
even spoke of trees with fruit considered as “uncircumcised” for three years, perhaps indicating circumcision as a
rite to maximize fertility (Leviticus 19:23-25), but the New Testament abandons circumcision and the demand for
procreation and maximum fertility, insisting rather on multiplication of disciples (John 15:1-17) and the fruit of the
Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23).
Sexual Minorities in Inclusive House Churches. (See Thomas D. Hanks 1997:137-49, where the statistics are slightly
inaccurate but do not affect the argument.) Of the ten women named in Rom 16:1-16, only three are married (Prisca, vv.
3-4; Junia, v. 7 [Greek, contrary to NIV and NRSV!]; also Julia, v. 15), while the other seven represent sexual
minorities (Phoebe, vv. 1-2; Mary, v. 6; Tryphaena and Triphosa, probably sisters, v. 12a; Persis, v. 12b; Rufus’
mother, a widow or divorced, 13b; Nereus’ sister, 15b).
Of the 19 men greeted (16:3-16), only three are married: Aquila, vv. 3-4; the co-apostle Andronicus, v. 7; and
Julia’s husband, Philologus, v. 15a. However, Paul greets 16 unmarried men who represent sexual minorities (vv.
5, 8-11, 13-15). Furthermore, in the greetings he sends on behalf of his co-workers in Corinth (16:21-24), Paul
names only single men, all eight living with the apostle in Gaius’ house (nine unmarried men in all – a living
arrangement considered “immoral” and not permitted in some parts of the world today!). Thus, of the 38 persons
named in Romans 16, only six are married; the other 32 (including Paul) were following Jesus’ example and
remained free of marriage ties – although some perhaps may even have abandoned their spouses (Luke 14:26;
18:29).
In addition, as noted above, seven of the ten women named represent sexual minorities. Other New Testament
books present a similar picture ( Philemon, Colossians, and 1-2 Timothy). Such data make clear what little
place married couples (our modern nuclear “family”) had in the earlier New Testament churches (cf. the later
deutero-Pauline and pastoral letters) and how great was the role of sexual minorities (single men and women,
widows, separated and divorced persons, etc.) in these churches. (Modern readers might imagine that those individuals we
recognize as sexual minorities had unmentioned spouses. But such an interpretation assumes that the New Testament churches were like
certain modern churches dominated by nuclear families with their children. However, starting with Jesus [ Luke 14:26; 18:29], the
Christian communities consisted primarily of people who had abandoned the structures of the patriarchal households to participate in
alternative communities [many were slaves and were unable to marry]. Paul and his companions established churches faithful to Jesus'
tradition [cf. the domestic codes in the deuteropauline ,  Colossians]. In fact, very few parents with older children (heirs) affiliated with
the Christian communities until the second century [see the slaves and the Christian wives in  1 Peter 2:18-25 and 3:1-9].)
Nevertheless, Paul, living in Corinth in a house with eight other unmarried males and writing to Roman housechurches where the vast majority of the membership represented sexual minorities, in  Romans 1:26-27 is
supposed to have bequeathed to the church the only text in the New Testament that explicitly condemns
homosexuals – declaring them objects of God’s wrath! In fact, according to traditional interpretation, Romans
1:26-27 constitutes the great pretext for persecuting and even killing homosexual persons, especially from the
thirteenth to twentieth centuries. In part this has been due to the enormous influence of Thomas Aquinas (1225-74
A.D.) and his Aristotelian theology of “nature.”
The influence of Aquinas’ interpretation, followed by Luther and other Reformers, reached its culmination with the
Nazi Holocaust, where some ten to fifteen thousand homosexuals were killed, along with the six million Jews and
25
other minority groups. The Nazis actually began their persecution and violence against homosexuals immediately
after assuming power in 1933, five years before the Kristalnacht attack against the Jews in 1938 (Günter Grau 1995).
At a time when the world is beginning to recognize and respect the full human dignity of sexual minorities (South
Africa even prohibits discrimination against them in its new constitution), we must ask whether support for such a
terrible history of violence can really be found in Romans.
Although totally ignored by traditional apologists determined to refute details of his biblical exegesis, the main
point of John Boswell’s classic study was to show how the bitter fruits of anti-Semitism and homophobia
blossomed together in the late medieval church, probably for similar causes (John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance,
and Homosexuality [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980]). Proper understanding of Paul’s actual teaching in Romans
may enable us to counteract both tragic expressions of prejudice and bigotry. Sadly, most post-Holocaust
evangelical biblical scholarship has shown itself desperate to rescue Paul from any taint of anti-Semitism, while
flaunting a “zeal without knowledge” (Romans 10:2) to convict Paul of homophobia! Evidently missing the main
point of Boswell’s work and not knowing that the Nazi violence, culminating in the Holocaust, began by targeting
homosexuals, evangelical leaders commonly have sadly failed to distinguish between following Jesus and
following Hitler.
Romans 16. Poor slaves, women leaders, and sexual minorities in five humble house churches in Rome.
Key:
*/*? = common name for slaves and liberated slaves (mainly poor);
(J ) = Jew
Paul refers to some 38 persons in Rom. 16:1-16 and 21-24 (women, slaves, sexual minorities).
16:1-2 Phoebe, bearer of the letter from Paul in Corinth, deacon/minister (masculine form in Greek); benefactor of
Paul and others;  Romans, 3. Poor.
16:3-16 Greets 28+ persons in some five house churches:: 1-5a, 10, 11 14, 15
Only three married couples (six persons)
PRISCA (J) and AQUILA (J), (vv. 3-5a);
See 2 Tim. 4:19; Acts 18:26; cf. 1 Cor.16:9; Acts 18:2
Andronicus*? (J) and Junia* (J), both “apostles” (v. 7a)
Philologus*? and Julia* (v. 15a)
6 SINGLE WOMEN, five of the six commended for their work for the church
Mary*? (J?) (v. 6a), worker for the church
Tryphaena* + Triphosa* (v. 12a, sisters), work for the church
Persis*
(v. 12b), “the beloved...who worked much”
The mother*? of RUFUS (v. 13b), “like a mother to me” (hospitality)
The sister*? of Nereus (v. 15b)
16+ SINGLE MALES: only one is designated a worker; Paul calls three his “beloved”
Epaenetus*? (v. 5), “my beloved”
Ampliatus* (v. 8), “my beloved”
URBANUS (v. 9a), “our fellow-worker in Christ” + Stachys*? (v. 9b), “my beloved”
Apelles*? (v. 10)
The slaves* of Aristobulus’ house [died 48-49 AD] (v. 10b)
Herodion* (J), (v. 11)
The slaves* of Narcissus [died 55-57 AD] (v. 11)
RUFUS (v. 13); cf. Mark 15:21
Asyncritus*?, Phlegon*?, Hermes*, Patrobas*?, Hermas*? + brothers (v. 14)
Nereus*
(v. 15)
Olympas*? (v. 15)
16:21-24 Greetings from eight male companions living with Paul in Gaius’ house (total nine)
26
Timothy (J) (v. 21a)
Tertius (v. 22), Paul’s secretary
Erastus, the city treasurer (v. 23b)
Lucius (J), Jason (J) and Sosipater (J) (v. 21b)
Gaius (v. 23a), the host
Quartus (v. 23b)
Summary. Romans 16 refers to 38 persons (including Phoebe and Paul):
32 apparently unmarried (sexual minorities: single persons, divorced, widows, etc.)
6 married persons (three couples)
10 women, eight of them leaders: one deacon (Phoebe); Prisca; one apostle (Junia); five workers
12-26 slaves or liberated slaves (mainly poor); PRISCA and AQUILA clearly are not slave names (details, Peter
Lampe [2003:153-183]. Leon Morris [1988:535-36] and Craig Keener [1993:448] identify URBANUS and RUFUS as common
slave names, pace Lampe). Robert Jewett assumes that all single males greeted are church leaders (2007:949), but
the contrast with the explicit naming of women as workers and the substitution of “beloved” for the males
would seem to indicate otherwise.
11 Jews: six of those 28 greeted in Rome were Jews; five (Paul + four) of the nine in Corinth.
7. 1 Corinthians: Sexual minority values replace “family values”? (1 Cor. 5–7; 16:5-24)
Good News for Sexual Minorities (1 Corinthians 5–7; 16:5-24). 1 Corinthians names 16 living persons, among
whom only four are married: Cephas/Peter and his wife (1:12; 9:5) and Aquila and Prisca/Priscilla (16:9; other
texts name Prisca first; also see 5:1, where a man who is living with his father’s wife is mentioned). Much more
numerous are single men (Timothy, 16:10-11; Apollos, 16:12) and male pairs (Paul and Sosthenes, 1:1; Crispus
and Gaius, 1:14). We also have the household (not “family”) of Stephanus with his two companions Fortunatus
and Achaicus (a couple? 1:16 and 16:15-18), which gives us a total of nine unmarried men. (If Stephanus had been
married, the emphasis on his household without mentioning his wife would have been strange.) Paul also mentions
a single woman, Chloe, probably a merchant like Lydia, with her “people” (not “family” or “household”; 1:11, see
HCSB note).
Obviously, then, neither the house-churches in Corinth nor Paul with his surroundings in Ephesus reflect an
environment dominated by married couples. ( Romans; 1 Thessalonians; Philemon; Philippians, and
Colossians.) The letter does indicate (1 Cor. 9:5) that other missionaries were married (such as Prisca and Aquila;
see Andronicus and Junia in Romans 16:7) and that Jesus had married brothers (James and Judas). However, the
great majority (10 of 16 people named) appear to be single or same-sex couples. Of all the New Testament authors
only Peter, James and Jude appear to have been married (and 1-2 Peter probably did not come directly from Peter).
Given such a context, we may suspect that the Good News Paul proclaims in 1 Corinthians is not Bad News for
sexual minorities. Is it true?
Notably, 1 Corinthians 5–7 (three entire chapters) is the only detailed treatment in the New Testament of what we
would call “sexual” matters (a modern category). Apart from this we have only the isolated verses of Jesus (e.g.,
concerning divorce to remarry and against adultery) and brief texts in the epistles ( 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8, the
most detailed). In the Hebrew Scriptures we have an entire book of erotic poetry, the  Song of Solomon, with a
focus on sexual love, not matrimony (much less is it an allegory of God’s love for Israel or Christ’s love for the
church, the traditional interpretations for 2,000 years!). The obvious question is whether Paul’s teaching reflects
basic continuity with his Hebrew Bible (especially the Song of Songs’ erotic love poems), or if the Greco-Roman
and oriental influences subverted this perspective toward a negativism regarding physical expressions of sexual
love. Does Paul speak as a defender of the poor, vulnerable and marginalized in these chapters, or does he place
himself on the side of the strong and a controlling and oppressive patriarchal sexual ideology?
27
Historically 1 Corinthians 7 has been of considerable importance as the purported basis for St. Augustine’s sexual
ideology (sexual relations only within marriage and only for procreation), the dominant paradigm in most churches
almost until the present. Furthermore, from the Reformation until the present, Protestants commonly have
interpreted 1 Corinthians 7 as representing matrimony as the Christian norm. Here St. Augustine and the medieval
tradition are more faithful to Paul than modern Protestants, since they recognized that Jesus’ single life is the norm
for Paul and the majority of his colleagues.
The ideological prejudice is noted in the common tendency to put “marriage” as the title of 1 Corinthians 7 in most
Bibles, when in fact the chapter deals in much greater detail with virginity (7:25-40), directs widows not to remarry
because of the proximity of Jesus’ Second Coming (7:8-9, 29-35; cf.  1 Timothy 5:11-14), and underscores the
great superiority of celibacy for those who want to serve God (7:7). However, contrary to St. Augustine’s sexual
ideology, procreation never enters into Paul’s (apocalyptic!) perspective when dealing with sexual matters!
In Paul’s discussion of marital sexual relations in 7:1-5, he transcends his patriarchal culture by insisting on justice,
equality, and mutuality of conjugal rights. However, sexual relations in matrimony are described only as an
“obligation,” not as pleasure! Neither procreation of children (Genesis 1–2) nor love appear in Paul’s perspective
at this point (cf. 1 Corinthians 13!). Matrimony is reduced to a type of control technique to deal with sexual
passion (7:9; cf. the exaltation of the husband’s love in  Ephesians 5, which is deutero-Pauline).
When Paul deals with married men, who had money to pay prostitutes (6:9-20), he starts from a concept of the
individual Christian’s body as the temple of the Holy Spirit and points out the great danger for this body in having
sexual relations with an idolatrous prostitute. If Christian wives insisted in a great deal of sexual abstention for
ascetic motives (1 Cor. 7:5), we may understand why their husbands paid prostitutes. However, Paul’s teaching in
6:9-20 presents many problems.
 The notion that contamination of the Christian body by contact with a prostitute appears to contradict
another of Paul’s convictions: that a Christian woman married to a pagan (idolatrous) man would have a more
powerful effect in making holy not only the pagan husband but also in producing “holy” children (i.e., “not
contaminated” by paganism, 1 Cor. 7:14).
 Jesus also gave example of the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit (purifying lepers and bringing cadavers
back to life by touching them), and taught that it was not exterior things that contaminate us but evil thoughts that
proceed out of the heart (Mark 7, Matthew 15; see Romans 14:14, 20 and Titus 1:15 with their affirmations that all
things are clean). Does Paul here fall into the error of thinking that sex is something dirty and impure or that
prostitutes do not also bear the image of their Creator?
 Jesus was a friend of prostitutes and tax collectors (Luke 5:30; Matthew 21:31-32; 11:19), whom he treated
with loving respect and chose as special instruments in the proclamation of his dominion (Luke 7; John 4).
Resurrected, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene. For Paul, however, the pagan prostitute does not appear as a
person, much less as a potential disciple of Jesus, but as unclean, a threat to Christian purity that must be avoided.
Nevertheless, Paul’s condemnation is not directed to the prostitutes but to Christian husbands who exploited them.
Perhaps the sexual workers of 1 Cor. 6:9-20 conducted their business in the context of idolatrous pagan worship
and therefore for Paul to “shun fornication” (prostitution, 6:18) was simply one way of "fleeing idol worship”
(10:14).
Perhaps, as in the case of the supposed inferiority of women, their head coverings in worship, and his acceptance of
slavery and monarchies, we should question Paul’s teaching on sexuality when aspects of his thought appear
incoherent to us. But Paul’s praxis as a single man, follower of Jesus (unmarried), his continual formation of
intimate partnerships with other males ( John, Jesus and his Beloved Disciple), and his establishment throughout
the Roman Empire of ecclesiastical communities dominated, not by traditional families but by sexual minorities,
enable us to see in the apostle Paul a paradigm of Christian freedom (1 Cor. 9:1) with a Gospel that is just as much
Good News for sexual minorities as it is for women and the poor (Dale B. Martin 1995:250-51).
28
In part, our contemporary problems with Paul’s teachings in 1 Corinthians 5–7 arise because we do not note the
fundamental place that oppression and liberating justice play in this text. Paul makes it clear that oppression and
injustice (adikoi, Greek) are incompatible with the New Divine Order that Christian communities should manifest
(1 Cor. 6:9-11). Paul then presents the use of prostitutes by wealthy married males as something unacceptable.
Sexual uncleanness is reinterpreted in the first place as injustice and the loss of freedom (cf. Torah!). Porneia is
understood as the sexual filth that results from unjust, oppressive, irresponsible sexual exploitation, without mutual
freedom, respect, knowledge and love (6:12-20).
As we may observe in  1 Timothy, the modern tendency to translate arsenokoitai (“bed-males,” 6:9) as
“homosexuals” is totally mistaken. The term does not refer to the modern concept of sexual orientation, or to
lesbians, but to males who engaged in exploitative, abusive and oppressive sexual practices, be it with women,
other males or youths. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, the previous Greek word, malakoi, literally “soft,” at times was a
metaphor for undisciplined or effeminate men. However, in ancient times an “effeminate” male could be someone
who spent too much time in the company of women and in frequent sexual relations with them. Throughout almost
all of church history, malakoi has been misinterpreted as a condemnation of masturbation (Dale B. Martin 1996:117-36).
Frederick Danker acknowledges “the impropriety” of the RSV's translation “homosexuals” (Danker 2000:135, BDAG).
Above all, see David Fredrickson's case [2000:197-222] for translating “soft ones” and “bedmales” in 1
Corinthians 6:9-10 as “those who lack self-control, nor the arrogant who penetrate boys” (p. 197). Fredrickson
takes us considerably beyond Dale Martin's essay, since Martin leaves “soft ones” with the translation
“effeminate,” which then still requires more explaining.)
In their studies on the sexual life of slaves in antiquity, Jennifer Glancy and Albert Harrill have pointed out a
fundamental problem in traditional interpretations of Paul, which conclude that he condemned all persons involved
in extramarital sexual relations (Glancy 1998:481-501; 2002/06:63-70; Harrill 2006:129-144). That interpretation fails to
take into account that at times even the majority of members of the Pauline house churches were domestic slaves,
that such slaves could not marry and that they were commonly obliged to serve their owners sexually. Glancy even
contemplates the possibility that such slaves could not even be members of the churches (1998:501; 2002/06:69-70;
Harrill, 2006:192, 193-96).
Another factor is that many had a double identity and were both slaves and prostitutes. “Paul’s unequivocal
separation of the body of prostitutes from the body of Christ [1 Cor. 6:12-20] would seem to exclude all prostitutes,
even enslaved prostitutes, from membership in the church. More subtle would have been the problems faced by
slaves whose masters used them sexually” (Glancy 2002/06:70). If we interpret Paul’s teaching as a simple reflection
of the dominant Jewish sexual ideology of his time, we would have to conclude that the Apostle would have
excluded from his churches all persons of double identity (slaves obligated to work as prostitutes), in addition to
slaves obligated to serve their masters sexually. Another alternative, however (which Glancy and Harrill ignore), is
to interpret Paul’s teaching in continuity with Song of Songs (the only canonical book whose theme is sexual love)
and with the teaching of Jesus, who suffered a bad reputation from being the friend of publicans and sinners/harlots
(Matthew 21:32). Interpreted as a follower of Jesus (instead of a photocopy of Philo and Josephus), Paul would
comprehend the situation of the slaves and prostitutes and express solidarity with them in the oppression and
violence they suffered (Luke 4:16-21). In the same way, commentators would never conclude that 2 Thes. 3:10
(“If anyone will not work, let him not eat”) requires that we leave all children and handicapped persons to die of
hunger, but rather recognize that many expressions in the letters ought not to be interpreted in a literal legalistic
fashion ( 1 Corinthians; Fee 1987:261-263; 1994:296-98).
8. 2 Corinthians: Catalogs of sexual minority sufferings (oppression, violence)
The four catalogs of suffering in 2 Corinthians (4:8-10; 6:4b-10; 11:23b-29; 12:10) remind us that Paul, like many
sexual minorities, frequently was the victim of slander, injustice, oppression and violence. As in the case of
29
widows, orphans and single women, an itinerant foreigner like Paul could not count on relatives’ protection.
Therefore, he suffered defamation and slander that caused the authorities to punish him unjustly. Unlike most
Protestant missionaries today, Paul remained unmarried. 2 Corinthians comes from Paul and his companion
Timothy (1:1, 19), does not name any contemporary woman (cf. Eve in 11:1-3), and, aside from Timothy, speaks
only of Titus (2:13; 7:6-16; 8:23, also deeply loved), Silvanus (1:19) and the two unnamed men elected as apostledelegates to accompany the offering to be sent to Jerusalem (8:18-23). Some have wanted to see in Paul’s “thorn
in the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:7-8) a reference to his homosexuality, since his repeated unanswered prayers for liberation
anticipate the frustration of so many today who suffer from interiorized homophobia. However, Paul makes clear
in 1 Cor. 7:7 that he considered his lack of passion for women a gift from God that facilitated his apostolic ministry
( 2 Corinthians, Hearon 2006:621).
Although today we often hear the Bible cited in support of traditional family values, nuclear families are virtually
nonexistent in the New Testament, where the single life of Jesus and his followers like Paul is presented as the new
norm (cf. the patriarchal households dominant in the Hebrew Bible). In Genesis (1:28) the couple Adam and Eve
constitute God’s image, but in the New Testament the unmarried Jesus is God’s image, sometimes with his
followers, also primarily persons without families or those who had abandoned their families to follow Jesus (Luke
14:26; 18:29;  Colossians, Ephesians). As elsewhere in the New Testament, in 2 Corinthians not the patriarchal
family but the church constitutes the center of God’s presence and praxis in the world. This church, whose
members primarily are not married couples but sexual minorities, is a counter-culture community characterized by
friendship and love. (For love in 2 Corinthians see 2:4, 8; 5:14; 6:6; 8:7-8, 24; 9:6-15; 11:11, 13; 12:15; 13:11, 13;
 1 Corinthians 13; also  1–3 John.) Paul describes the church with the metaphor of a virgin bride (11:2-3; cf.
Rev. 14:4), but in reality this “virgin” is the entire church (both sexes), a reality which makes the relationship with
God more like the polygamy in the Hebrew Bible (Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, etc.).
9. Galatians: Racism, sexism and homophobia – “another gospel?”
Of the ten people named in Galatians (two of whom are women), seven represent sexual minorities. Four are not
married: Jesus Christ (1:1), Paul (1:1), Barnabas (2:1, 9, 13) and Titus, a Gentile (2:1, 3). The house of Abraham
is not a typical “family”: Abraham, who sent away in divorce his concubine-slave Hagar (plus their son Ishmael,
not mentioned here), and Sarah (3:6-18, 29; 4:21-31). Of the “family“ units cited in Galatians, only Isaac
(Abraham’s son by Sarah, married to Rebecca, 4:28), Peter (1:18; 2:8-9, 11-14) and James (1:19; 2:9-11) represent
traditional marriages. No wonder Paul struggled so hard to make the Galatian churches inclusive of “unclean” and
uncircumcised Gentiles!
Today Christian struggles in favor of the poor, women, blacks, sexual minorities and the physically challenged
commonly are referred to as “justice issues,” which of course they are. However, Paul insists that the false
teachers who demanded that Gentile believers be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses were not preaching
Jesus’ Good News to the poor, but “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9)! Similarly, with all our “justice issues” what we
are really up against are false teachers who proclaim “another gospel” – however much they may pride themselves
on being “evangelical.” What is at stake in such struggles is not some minor adjustment in the church’s “social
ethics,” but the very Gospel itself.
In the struggle against homophobia, for instance, the issue may be clarified if we can learn to “think lefthandedness.” Many churches still imagine that they proclaim Jesus’ Good News to everyone alike, whatever their
sexual orientation. However, in fact, persons of homosexual orientation who respond soon find that a
“circumcision party” is on their case: after simply “believing in Jesus” they learn that they are supposed to start
thinking of themselves as heterosexual, submit to all kinds of “Ex-Gay” tortures to try to change their sexual
orientation, get married, produce children, and avoid divorce at all cost. Not surprisingly, depressions, addictions,
destructive behavior and suicides commonly result.
30
Today no one would dream of demanding that all left-handed persons (formerly often terribly mistreated) “simply
accept Christ as Savior and Lord” – but then devote decades in tortuous efforts to try to become right-handed,
make “recognizing their true right-handedness” essential to their sanctification, and go through life acting
(hypocritically!) like right-handed people! Anyone today who so pretended to “evangelize” left-handed people
would be denounced as proclaiming “another gospel” totally at odds with Jesus’ liberating Good News. For
churches that have spent decades studying and arguing about “homosexuality” – rather than repenting of their
homophobia – Galatians still has a prophetic word that needs heeding: those who seek to impose heterosexual
norms on sexual minorities are preaching “another gospel” (Chandler Burr 2007:26-31).
10. Ephesians: Sexual sins that may not even be “named” (5:3, 12)
Christian sexual conduct ( 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8). Although Ephesians includes instructions for patriarchal
households, it names only Paul and Tychicus, both unmarried. Both Colossians (3:5-7) and Ephesians (4:17-24;
5:1-20), deutero-Pauline letters, follow the tradition of Paul himself and interpret Christian praxis as a walk
(avoiding the Greek philosophical categories of moral absolutes and ethics; Eph. 2:2, 10; 4:1, 17, 20; 5:1-2, 8, 15;
Col. 3:7). They stress the person of Jesus (Col. 3:1-4, 16-17), his teaching of brotherly and sisterly love (Col. 3:14;
Eph. 5:1-2), guidance of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18), wisdom (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:15), and a radical new
understanding of uncleanness and holiness (Col. 3:5; Eph. 5:3, 5). Both letters repeat the Pauline prohibition of
sexual covetousness (see the last of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5), but they introduce
a new dimension when they describe covetousness as a form of idolatry (Col. 3:5; Eph. 5:5; see #1-2 in the Ten
Commandments).
Ephesians refers to certain sexual sins that may not even be “named” (5:3, 12), which was misinterpreted by
Thomas Aquinas (1225-74 AD) as a reference to the sin of lust in the form of “sodomy.” This sin of “sodomy” had
been invented by Peter Damian (1007-72 AD). However, in the Bible itself Sodom is the name of a city, never of a
sin (Mark D. Jordan 1997:150-51). Peter’s linguistic invention and Thomas’s exegetic distortion led to centuries of
confusion, oppression and violence, since “sodomy” always remained a muddled concept: only anal sex between
men? anal or oral sex with women? sex with animals? any kind of sex between men? masturbation, mutual
masturbation, etc.? It proved to be difficult to explain how one could cite Paul (Romans 1:27) to explicitly
condemn a sin that the apostle supposedly said elsewhere could not even be named! This tradition of not being
able to name the favorite sin of supposedly celibate clergy is ending today, after centuries of violence against
sexual minorities (see the Nazi Holocaust), with costly legal decisions against Roman Catholic clergy for sexual
abuse of boys and adolescents.
The Vatican, meanwhile, finally has decided that the sin that Aquinas considered unnamable in fact can be named,
and even publishes detailed documents about homosexuality – never homophobia – full of bad science and worse
exegesis. Nevertheless, the Pope continues to defend the self-destructing tradition of clergy “celibacy.” Ephesians,
however, never refers to homoerotic acts nor imposes silence regarding sins that the letter itself mentions – it
simply seeks to discourage conversation that promotes sin by portraying it as attractive (Andrew T. Lincoln 1990:322).
11. Philippians: Euodia and Syntyche threaten to split the church Lydia founded (4:2-3; 2:2)
During his second missionary journey (50 AD), when Paul and his companions Timothy and Silas sought to
establish the church in Philippi, Lydia, a woman and traveling merchant, head of her own household, first
welcomed the Word and offered hospitality to the missionaries (Acts 16:11-15). Philippians shows that prominent
women continued as leaders in this first European church. Paul’s principal aim in writing the letter apparently was
31
to achieve reconciliation between two such women, Euodia and Syntyche, church leaders, whose dispute
threatened to split the church (4:2-3; 2:2). (On these women, see N. A. Dahl 1995:3-15. Also helpful, for a feminist treatment of
the problem of language, is Sheila Briggs 1989.) Since Paul, like Jesus (Luke 8:1-3), depended on the generosity of
prosperous and independent women, what the apostle least wanted was a church debilitated by division and thus
unable to support his mission work financially (Phil. 4:10-19; cf. Romans 15:22-29, with tensions between Gentiles
and Jews).
As in Galatians (and later in Romans), for the church community of the marginalized in Philippi, Paul made the
Good News resound with the justification and vindication that God gives, not through the Law but by Jesus’
faithfulness until death and by the faith that unites us with him (3:9-10). Therefore (also as in Galatians), Paul
fiercely opposed rival missionaries who sought to impose circumcision and the law on Gentile believers. The
apostle even classified these rivals as “dogs... evil workmen... those who mutilate the flesh [by circumcision]” (3:2)
and as “enemies of the cross of Christ” (3:18-19). Paul’s outburst of “political incorrectness,” however, was not
anti-Semitic, since Paul, ever a Jew himself, circumcised Timothy (whose mother was Jewish) and never opposed
circumcision as a ritual for the Jews (Romans 2:25-29). However, by rejecting the circumcision of male Gentiles
and by accepting the baptism of both sexes as a new sign and the entry point to the people of God (Galatians 3:2629; Colossians 2:11, 12), Paul also subverted the entire patriarchal system, which took male superiority for granted,
as well as the male right to dominate the woman, and the value of maximum fertility. Especially noteworthy is
Lydia’s decision (as an unmarried professional woman) to submit to baptism along with the members of her
household, without seeking permission from any man. Circumcision signified not only the patriarchal dominance
by males but also the goal of maximizing the propagation of the nation: Abraham’s circumcision in Genesis 17
concerns the promise of innumerable descendants (cf. “uncircumcised” fruit trees producing little fruit, Leviticus
19:23-25).
When Paul rejected circumcision for Gentile converts and recognized the equality of baptized women leaders in the
new people of God, he liberated both genders from viewing sexuality as having only procreative ends (see
similarly Jesus: God prunes vine branches [disciples] that do not bear the “fruit” of mutual love;  John 15:1-17).
In the new inclusive community the norm is no longer the married couple that procreates (Philippians does not
contain a single example) but Jesus and his disciples (such as Paul and Timothy, Clement, Epaphroditus, Lydia,
Euodia, and Syntyche) – men and women whose “fruit” was not procreated physically, but consisted of new
disciples characterized by mutual love. Circumcision, as a sign of patriarchal control of human sexuality, is thus
forever rendered null and void.
Instead of Moses’ external law, with its commandments to circumcise and be fruitful, Paul exhorts Christians to
manifest love with discernment, which come from the Spirit (wisdom, Phil. 1:9-11). Such love with discernment,
which in Galatians represents the fruit of the Spirit (5:22-23), Philippians prefers to describe as virtues, things
“worthy of praise” and of reflection:
“Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just (díkaia), whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing,
whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these
things” (4:8; cf. 2 Peter 1:5-8).
However, according to Acts, when Paul first met the young Timothy (of a Jewish mother and Greek father) and
decided to take him with him as his missionary companion, he immediately proceeded to circumcise him to make
him acceptable to fellow Jews (Acts 16:1-5; cf. Philippians 2:19-24)! For several centuries it has been common to
find in the praxis and the teachings of Paul what appear to be “contradictions” (as in the entire Bible). The apostle
is exposed to such an accusation in Philippians, where he expresses this paradox in two verses:
“Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work
in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (2:12b-13).
32
Jesus similarly expressed himself in paradoxical language: “For the Son of Man is going as it has been determined
divine omnipotence], but woe to that one by whom he is betrayed Judas’ guilt]!” (Luke 22:22). Furthermore,
quite early the Hebrew Scriptures describe the paradox between the omnipotent God who “hardened Pharaoh’s
heart” and Pharaoh who “hardened his own heart” (Exodus 5–11; cf. Genesis 45:5; 50:20). In Romans 9–11 Paul
proclaims divine sovereignty in three sections (9:1-29; 11:1-16, 25-32); but he intersperses two other sections
affirming human responsibility and faith (9:30–10:21; 11:17-24), concluding with a doxology to the infinite God
whom no finite human being can comprehend (11:33-36).
Consequently, French theologian Jacques Ellul concluded that “dialectical” thinking is not a creation of Marx, nor
of Hegel and Kierkegaard, nor of the Greek philosophers, but of the biblical authors. (Ellul cited Phil. 2:12b-13 as
the exemplary text; Thomas D. Hanks 1985:17-32). Discerning this dialectical characteristic of Paul, together with his
priorities and pragmatism in specific contexts, enables us to understand how the Apostle and other biblical authors
have been cited both in favor of and against such diverse elements in modern ideologies as monarchies, slavery,
racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, liberation/submission of women, etc.
Discerning the dialectical character of Paul’s thought also enables us to better appreciate the moving affirmation of
the Apostle, unjustly imprisoned and threatened with death, yet always hoping to be liberated in order to be able to
fulfill his calling:
For to me, living is Christ human/God, paradox par excellence] and dying is gain” (Philippians 1:21).
Only in his young companion Timothy did Paul find someone who shared his total dedication and sacrificial love:
“ have no one like him Timothy] who will be genuinely concerned for your welfare. All of them are seeking their
own interests, not those of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 2:20-21).
This paradigmatic, intimate friendship, however, was but one in the new multicultural, international network of
communities – communities of friends that were beginning to subvert and supplant the old orders of patriarchal
households and empire (“Caesar’s household,” Phil. 4:22). Luke Timothy Johnson shows how Paul appropriated
the language of friendship from his Greco-Roman cultural context, but then used it to develop a particularly
Christian understanding of friendship expressed in self-sacrifice and self-emptying love toward others (Luke Timothy
Johnson 1999:372-79). However, for friends in an elitist male circle to “have all things in common” (share books?) is
one thing; friendship in communities that are quite diverse, with prosperous and poor sharing a common weekly
meal, ¡commonly result in much more radical challenges! ( 3 John; Acts 2 and 4; 1 Corinthians 11; Jude; 1
Timothy).
12. Colossians and Philemon: The first Haustafeln and the deconstruction of the patriarchal
household
Colossians. Although feminist and African-American studies have examined the domestic codes (Haustafeln) for
patriarchal households with a critical eye, they have not sufficiently scrutinized the place of sexual minorities (an
overlapping category) in the house-churches. In  Romans 16, Paul greets only three married couples in a
chapter that names 29 people. However, even more remarkably, among 12 persons mentioned by name in
Colossians (11 men, not counting Jesus, and one woman) not one is married. The only household named explicitly
is that of Nympha, a woman (4:15). The patriarchal code exhorts wives to be submissive to their husbands, but the
only woman mentioned by name is the head of her own household and a leader of the church that met in her house
in Laodicea!
Moreover, the situations of all 12 persons named in Colossians (single/widowed/ divorced) shows that the church
(like Jesus’ original circle) represents an alternative to the patriarchal households – in effect the deconstruction of
33
such households. The letter comes from “Paul” and his longtime companion, Timothy (1:1). Although patriarchal
codes emphasized the submission of slaves, the conclusion of Colossians reveals that Onesimus, Philemon’s slave
(Philemon 10-11), has been set free (voluntarily, as Paul had requested) and is Paul’s emissary (Colossians 4:9).
Onesimus, Luke and Tychicus are called Paul’s “beloveds” (Colossians 4:7, 9, 14). Tychicus (4:7-8), bearer of the
letter (perhaps the author), and Epaphras (1:7-8; 4:12-13; Acts 19:10) appear to follow the lifestyle of Paul and
Timothy as an itinerant same-sex couple.
In addition, Colossians names three colleagues of Paul and Timothy who also continue being Jews (literally “of the
circumcision”): Aristarchus, Mark (Barnabas’s cousin), and Jesus/Justus (4:10-11), single men with the lifestyle of
unmarried itinerants. Obviously, like Paul in Galatians and Philippians, the author of Colossians does not oppose
circumcision of male Jews but rather the imposition of circumcision and the Law on Gentile males. According to
Colossians, baptism, of both women and men, now takes the place of circumcision (males only), as a sign of
belonging to the people of God (2:11-12). Neither Paul (1 Corinthians 7) nor Colossians was interested in
promoting the physical fertility that God had commanded in Genesis 1:26-28 but in the multiplication of the housechurches (1:6) and the fruit of the Christian character (1:10). Inasmuch as baptism in the early centuries was
performed with the baptized naked, having taken off their old clothing to dress in new clothes, Colossians speaks
of the new life in Christ as stripping off the vices of the previous life to be clothed with the virtues of the new life
(3:9-10). The author warns against a spurious asceticism (“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”, 2:21) and
also against idolatrous sexual excesses that harm the neighbor (“greed,” 3:5; Eph. 5:3;  1 Thessalonians 4:3-8;
Romans 13:8-10).
In the early years the house churches probably met primarily in houses headed by women or itinerant couples (like
Prisca and Aquila) and not in traditional households (Romans 16). Colossians appears to represent a second stage
where more household patriarchs were converted, and that prompted the development of household codes
(radically modified by the Lordship of Jesus Christ, with priority given to weaker members). Nevertheless,
Colossians demonstrates that the non-patriarchal ecclesiastical structures continued and formed the basic context
for the patriarchal household codes. Colossians’ inclusion of so much information “subversive” to patriarchy
demonstrates that the letter does not represent a type of male conspiracy to place every Christian in a patriarchal
household.
Colossians and Philemon. Although Colossians by style and theology is closely related to Ephesians, also
remarkable is the way it includes references to situations and nine persons mentioned in Paul’s letter to Philemon:






Paul in jail plus Timothy, co-sender (Colossians 1:1; Philemon 1);
Epaphras, founded the church (1:7-8) and intercedes for her (4:12-13; Philemon 23, jailed with Paul);
Onesimus, now colleague (4:9), before slave (Philemon 10-18);
Archippus, minister (4:17); not a son of Philemon(?) (Philemon 2);
Aristarchus, jailed with Paul, and Mark, Barnabas’ cousin (4:10; Philemon 24);
Luke, beloved physician, plus Demas (4:14; Philemon 24);
(Also Tychicus, 4:7-9, “bearer” of the letter, may have been its actual author; cf. Ephesians 6:21; Titus 3:12; 2
Timothy 4:12; Acts 20:4).
Of 11 men named in Colossians, nine had already been named in Philemon, which was written earlier (exceptions:
Tychicus and Barnabas). Philemon names a woman, Apphia, traditionally considered to be Philemon’s wife but
most likely an unmarried leader in the church. Colossians speaks of Nympha and the church in her house (4:15)
but includes the first of the codes for patriarchal households (Haustafeln), commanding submission on the part of
wives. None of the 11 men named in Colossians is married, six are mentioned in pairs, and the patriarchal
household (not the same as today’s “nuclear family”) is mentioned only in the code. If Archippus (4:17), like
Onesimus, earlier formed a part of Philemon’s patriarchal household (Philemon 2), he now, also like Onesimus,
has been freed of this structure.
34
Sexual Minorities and Women in Philemon (54-55 A.D.) and Colossians (75-85 A.D).
As Sabine Bieberstein points out:  Philemon is the only New Testament letter that already in its initial greeting
names a woman, Apphia, and she remains present during the reading of the letter, which takes place under her
“critical eyes” (1998/99:676-8; cf.  2 John 1, addressed “to the elect lady [metaphor for the church?] and her
children, whom I love in the truth;” also the final greeting to Prisca and Aquila in Rom. 16:3-5. In other words,
Paul takes the “private” matter between Philemon and his runaway slave and makes it a public concern for
consideration by everyone in the church community in Colossae, as well as by Paul’s six male companions in
Ephesus (vv. 23-24 + Onesimus, vv. 10-12).
But who was this Apphia? Traditional patriarchal interpretations of Philemon assume that Paul addressed a
nuclear “family”: Philemon with his wife Apphia and son Archippus. Modern feminist theology, however, has
made clear the probability that Apphia and Archippus were not Philemon’s wife and son but his fellow house
church leaders who would help assure that Philemon carried out Paul’s proposals.
Paul describes Timothy as “brother” (member of the church where all equally are “brothers” and “saints”) and
Philemon as “beloved” and “fellow worker.” Similarly, Paul describes Apphia simply as “the sister” and
Archippus as “our fellow soldier,” an identification that would by no means suggest that he was Philemon’s son.
The fact that the letter comes from Paul and Timothy, accompanied by five other single men, supports the
interpretation of Apphia and Archippus as individual church leaders, not Philemon’s wife and son. In Paul’s letters
very few married couples are referred to (only three couples amongst the 28 persons indicated in  Romans 16;
see below on Colossians).
The imposition of the oppressive nuclear family ideology complicates unnecessarily the interpretation of the text.
From the fundamental hermeneutical principle of simplicity, we should avoid overloading the text with
superfluous elements (“wife”…”son”) – especially the imposition of any ideology foreign to the original historical
context (modern nuclear family /family values). During its first four centuries the church respected this principle.
Only beginning with Theodore of Mopsustia (ca. 400 A.D.) did interpreters begin to impose their nuclear family
theory that Apphia was the “wife” of Philemon and that Archippus was their “son.” Then for 1600 years (until the
late twentieth century) patriarchal church leaders managed to deny to Apphia her role as leader, leaving her only as
Philemon’s wife (inferior and submissive) and mother of Archippus.
Moreover, Paul describes Philemon’s house, where the church met, as “your” (2b, singular); cf. the “your” plural
referring to the house of Prisca and Aquila (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:15; see also Col. 4:15). Although the evidence
disappears in some modern translations, it is also important to observe how Paul usually addresses Philemon
personally (with verbs and pronouns almost always in singular: 2b, 4-22a, 23-24) and to note how rarely the
Apostle includes Apphia and Archippus (see the plural “you” in v. 3 and 22b including the church). Paul even
commands Philemon (22a imperative singular) to “prepare lodging for me” – not including Apphia as we might
expect from the plural in 22b (Barth y Blanke 2000:256).
The patriarchal identification of Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus as a “family” (a couple with an unmarried adult
son) would make them the only nuclear family named by Paul in his letters. In that case, we would have to ask
whether the “son” Archippus, an unmarried, mature adult, weren’t gay! Paul addresses the male Philemon as
“beloved” (literally; see NRSV “our dear friend”) and refers to Onesimus as his “child” (v. 10, not begotten, but
“birthed” as by a woman; cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Thes. 2:7; James 1:18), also deeply loved (“my own heart [literally
‘bowels/intestines’]”, v. 12). The explicit “love triangle” in this letter thus consists of three men, not any supposed
nuclear family. Quite possibly Onesimus much later became “Bishop Onesimus.” According to the list of
patriarchs of the Greek Orthodox Church, he became the second or third Bishop of Bizancio. Or possibly, after
35
being liberated, he became Bishop of Ephesus (Ignacio de Antioquía, Ef.1.3; Allen Dwight Callahan 2009:330-31). Such
leadership capacity could explain in part Paul’s zeal to free him from slavery (see Col 4:9).
Studying Philemon, Paul’s shortest letter, along with its ghastly history of racist and patriarchal manipulation, can
give us a helpful shove down the path of divine truth. Black theologian Peter Gomes, for example, pointed out that
in contemporary debates concerning sexual minorities, the church today repeats the same errors in Bible
misinterpretation that so many committed in the past when the Bible was used to promote violence against Jews
(anti-Judaism), slaves, Blacks, and women. Moreover, in the light of modern biology and psychology, we no
longer believe that our compassion flows from our “bowels/intestines” (literally in Phlm. 7, 12, 20; “heart” in
modern translations, which also is prescientific). The presence of such prescientific elements in the Bible (as
Galileo demonstrated regarding astronomy/cosmology) warns us against the fundamentalist practice of taking
isolated scriptural texts as pretexts to oppress women, Blacks, and sexual minorities.
Although feminist and African-American studies have examined the domestic codes for patriarchal households in
 Colossians and Ephesians (both probably deuteropauline) with a critical eye, they have not sufficiently
scrutinized the place of sexual minorities (an overlapping category) in the house-churches. In  Romans 16 Paul
greets only three married couples in a chapter that refers to 28 individuals. However, even more remarkably,
among 12 persons mentioned by name in Colossians (11 men, not counting Jesus, and one woman), not one is
married. The only household named explicitly is that of Nympha, a woman (4:15). The patriarchal code exhorts
wives to be submissive to their husbands, but the only woman mentioned by name is the head of her own
household and a leader of the church that met in her house in Laodicea!
Moreover, the situations of all 12 persons named in Colossians (single/widowed/abandoned/divorced) show that
the church (like Jesus’ original circle) represents an alternative to the patriarchal households – in effect the
deconstruction of such households (Mark 3:31-35). The letter comes from “Paul” and his longtime companion,
Timothy (1:1). Although patriarchal codes emphasized the submission of slaves, the conclusion of Colossians
reveals that Onesimus, Philemon’s slave (Philemon 10-11), has been set free (voluntarily, as Paul had requested)
and had become Paul’s emissary (Colossians 4:9). Onesimus, Luke and Tychicus are called Paul’s “beloveds”
(Colossians 4:7, 9, 14). Tychicus (4:7-8), bearer of the letter (perhaps the author), and Epaphras (1:7-8; 4:12-13;
Acts 19:10) appear to follow the lifestyle of Paul and Timothy as an itinerant same-sex couple. In addition,
Colossians names three colleagues of Paul and Timothy who also remain Jews (literally “of the circumcision”):
Aristarchus, Mark (Barnabas’ cousin), and Jesus/Justus (4:10-11), single men with the lifestyle of unmarried
itinerants.
Obviously, like Paul in Galatians and Philippians, the author of Colossians does not oppose circumcision of male
Jews but rather the imposition of circumcision and the Law on Gentile male believers. According to Colossians,
baptism, of both women and men, now replaces circumcision (of males only), as the initiatory sign of belonging to
God’s people (2:11-12). Neither Paul (1 Corinthians 7) nor Colossians was interested in promoting the maximum
physical fertility that God had commanded in Genesis 1:26-28 but rather in the multiplication of the house
churches (1:6) and the fruit of the Christian virtues and character (1:10). Inasmuch as baptism in the early
centuries was performed with the baptized naked, having taken off their old clothing to dress in new clothes,
Colossians speaks of the new life in Christ as stripping off the vices of the previous life to be clothed with the
virtues of the new life (3:9-10). It warns against a spurious asceticism (“don’t touch, don’t taste, don’t handle,”
2:21 and also against idolatrous sexual excesses that harm the neighbor (“coveting,” 3:5; Ephesians 5:3;  1
Thessalonians 4:3-8; Romans 13:8-10).
In the early years, the house-churches probably met primarily in households headed by women or itinerant couples
(like Prisca and Aquila) and not in traditional homes (Romans 16). Colossians appears to represent a second stage
where more household patriarchs began to convert, and that prompted the development of household codes
(radically modified by the Lordship of Jesus Christ [Col. 3:18, 20, 22-24; 4:1], with priority given to weaker
members). Nevertheless, Colossians demonstrates that the non-patriarchal ecclesiastical structures continued and
36
formed the basic context for the patriarchal household codes. Colossians’ inclusion of so much information
“subversive” to patriarchy demonstrates that the letter does not represent some type of male conspiracy to place
every Christian in a patriarchal household.
Although Colossians by style and theology is closely related to Ephesians (both probably deuteropauline), also
remarkable is the way it includes references to situations and nine persons mentioned in Paul’s letter to Philemon:
- Paul in jail plus Timothy, co-sender (Colossians 1:1; Philemon 1);
- Epaphras, founded the church (1:7-8) and intercedes for her (4:12-13; Philemon 23, jailed with Paul);
- Onesimus, now colleague (4:9), before slave (Philemon 10-18);
- Archippus, minister (4:17); not a son of Philemon (Philemon 2);
- Aristarchus, jailed with Paul, and Mark, Barnabas’ cousin (4:10; Philemon 24);
- Luke, beloved physician, plus Demas (4:14; Philemon 24);
(Also Tychicus, 4:7-9, “bearer” of the letter, may have been its actual author; cf. Ephesians 6:21; Titus
3:12; 2 Timothy 4:12; Acts 20:4).
Of 11 men named in Colossians, nine had already been named in Philemon (exceptions: Tychicus and Barnabas).
Philemon names a woman, Apphia (traditionally considered to be the wife of Philemon, but probably an unmarried
fellow house-church leader; see above). Colossians speaks of Nympha and the church in her house (4:15) but
includes the first of the codes for patriarchal households (Haustafeln; 3:18-4:1), commanding submission on the
part of wives. None of the 11 men named in Colossians is married, six are mentioned in pairs, and the patriarchal
household (not the same as today’s “nuclear family”) is mentioned only in the code. If Archippus (4:17), like
Onesimus, earlier formed a part of Philemon’s patriarchal household (Philemon 2), he now, also like Onesimus,
has been freed of this structure.
13. 1-2 Thessalonians: The woman (feminine side) in Paul and his companions
“...though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ. But we were gentle among you, like a nurse
tenderly caring for her own children. So deeply do we care for you that we are determined to share with you
not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you have become very dear to us” (1 Thes. 2:7-8).
At times Paul seems to reflect his contemporaries’ common gender ideologies regarding rigid differences between
men and women, proper social roles, the supposed inferiority of women, and their corresponding submission to
men (1 Cor. 11:2-16; Romans 1:26-27; cf. the textual problem of  1 Corinthians 14:34-35). This traditional side
of Paul’s thought became even more strongly developed in the deutero-Pauline and pastoral letters. As a result, the
diversity and complexity of Paul’s own dialectic in this area became obscured.
1 Thes. 2:7-8 (cited above) is perhaps the best example among many where Paul transcends the dominant male
chauvinist ideology of his culture (see also Paul as “mother” in Galatians 4:19; Philemon 10, egennnẽsa, “birthed,”
not “begat”; Gaventa 1998:31-34). As always, gender ideology had been built into the very structure of the language,
making it difficult to discern and overcome. For example, “act like a man” was the common Greek way of
referring to the virtue of courage. Paul, however, exhorted the entire church at Corinth, women included, to thus
“act like men” (1 Cor. 16:13; Greek: 'andrízomai). In Romans he expressed his gratitude to Priscilla (Prisca) for
demonstrating such (male-like) courage in saving his life (Romans 16:3-4). The fact that Paul typically mentions
Priscilla first and then her husband does not give the impression he is describing a timid, submissive woman, but
rather a church leader who even corrected the theology of the erudite and eloquent Apollos (author of Hebrews?;
Acts 18:24-26).
When Luke indicates that at the founding of the church in Thessalonica “not a few of the leading women” were
among those who responded to Paul’s teaching (Acts 17:4), he probably refers to upper-class Greek women
37
attracted to Judaism who attended the synagogue. Notably, 1 Thessalonians names only men (Paul, Silvanus, and
Timothy, all single) and is addressed primarily to men. (See the possible reference to women in 4:4 under the
ambiguous image of a “vessel or implement” [Greek: skeuos“; see excursus below], but if that were so, they would
be the sexual property of a man.) However, the exhortation in 5:20 to not despise prophecies implies respect for
the leadership of women in worship.
When Paul established the church in Thessalonica (Greece), his co-workers included prominent women (Acts 17:4)
and in 1 Thessalonians Paul compares himself with a nursing mother (1 Thes. 2:7-8). In 2 Thessalonians, however,
although the “brothers” (2 Thes.. 1:3; 2:1; 3:1, 15) undoubtedly included many women, specific references to
women do not appear. The same tranquil restfulness and eagerness to listen (`esukhía) that 1 Timothy (2:11-12)
counseled for women, as well as men (2:2), 2 Thessalonians (3:12) also recommends to all (see “peace” as the
frame of the letter’s theology, 1:2; 3:16; Jouette M. Bassler 1991:71-85). Bassler points out that in the Greek tradition
peace commonly indicated the state of rest following war, strife, or tribulation (thlipsis, “oppression, affliction”)
and that in 2 Thessalonians peace has ecclesiological, social, and eschatological dimensions (p. 77). As in the
prophets, cosmic eschatological (and ecological!) peace is the fruit of God's decisive act of liberating justice (Isa.
32:15.17). “Busybodies” of both genders are encouraged to respect the privacy rights of others (2 Thes. 3:11; see 1
Tim. 5:13; 1 Peter 4:15; Luke 12:13-14). The images of Jesus in his Second Coming (1:7-10) who destroys the
Oppressive Tyrant (2:3-10) are militant (masculine?) figures. Each letter presents itself as coming from Paul,
Silvanus and Timothy, all unmarried (1 Thes. 1:1; 2 Thes. 1:1).
Excursus. Since the patristic era, commentators have written much about 1 Thessalonians 4:4 and the sense Paul
intended when he used the Greek word skeuos (vessel, jar, dish, recipient, utensil):
“…that each of you should learn to control his own body” (NIV; note: “or learn to live with his own wife”)
“…how to control your own body” (NRSV; note: “or how to take a wife for himself”)
(a) The majority, following Tertullian (c. 160-220 A.D.), Theodoret (c. 393-460 A.D.) and John Chrysostom (c.
347-407 A.D.), conclude that skeous is a metaphor for each person’s body in its sexual aspect (NRSV, NIV, NJB),
that could even be a euphemism for the male penis (Danker BDAG 2000:927-928; Bruce 1982:83; Morris 2007:123f; Marshall
1983:108f; Wanamaker 1990:151-59; Ascough 2000:325-27; Jennings 2006:675). Donfried (1985:342) points out that, by using
skeuos as a euphemism for the penis, Paul alludes to the phallic symbolism dominant in the idolatrous worship
common in Thessalonica. In 1 Sam. 21:5-6 David refers to the purity of the “instruments/bodies” of his troops
(Hebrew keli) but to indicate abstention from sexual relations with women, whether wives or prostitutes (Wanamaker
153). Jennifer Glancy reminds us that the Hebrew Bible and Jewish tradition permit the male to have sexual access
to his slaves and thus suggests that Paul exhorts males to control the penis and find recipients morally neutral for
their sexual desires, as slaves would be for their owners (2002:60-1).
(b) Others, following Theodore of Mopsustia (c. 350-428 A.D.) and St. Agustine (354-430 A.D.), conclude
that skeous is a metaphor for “wife” (RSV; Malherbe 2000:226-28; Jewett 2003:1419; Furnish 2007:89-91). Had Paul used
the word for woman/wife (gyne) that would have been quite clear. 1 Peter 3:7 refers to the woman/wife as “a more
fragile vessel (skeuos),” but thus implying that men also are fragile “vessels.” Moreover, had Paul used this
metaphor for the wife, it would reflect his patriarchal context: a text written by a man would address only men and
consider the woman as the sexual property of the man and that each man should seek to acquire such a sexual
property. However, Paul and his companions, like Jesus and almost all his apostles, had no wife and followed a
different model, not that of the patriarchal household (Mark 3:31-35; Matthew 19:12; Luke 14:26; 18:29-30; 1
Corinthians 7). If in 1 Corinthians 7 the Apostle discourages marriage and recommends celibacy, how could he
urge all the men in the church in Thessalonica (bachelors?) to acquire wives? (See “each of you” in 4:4; 
Romans 16; Hanks 2006.)
(c) Possibly Paul deliberately chose an ambiguous metaphor (skeuos, utensil, instrument = body, penis, vessel =
wife) pertaining to both sexes, married or single (Gaventa 1998:53; Foulkes mss). Although a modern reader becomes
38
frustrated with the ambiguity of the metaphor, Paul’s teaching would have reflected previous oral instruction (4:2,
6) and thus the Thessalonians would have easily captured the broad sense of his metaphor (Gaventa 1998:53).
Some suggest that Paul exhorts all the single men to acquire wives in order to avoid porneia (1 Thes. 4:3,
prostitution, sexual immorality) and being dominated by covetousness (1 Thes. 4:5), reflecting the teaching of 1
Cor. 7:1-2, 9. But such counsel would contradict the Apostle’s clear preference for remaining unmarried (1 Cor.
7:7-8). Moreover, 1 Cor. 7:1-7 includes the situation, perspectives and necessities of women and insists in
mutuality in marriage. But if we take skeuos in 1 Thes. 4:4 as a metaphor for woman/wife, she is the man’s sexual
property, with no indications of mutuality, and the perspective of the text is strongly patriarchal. Given the
ambiguity of the metaphor, would it not also be possible to include homoerotic relations? (See Stott [1991] and Jewett
[2003] on the development in theology from 1 Thes. 4:1-8 to 1 Corinthians 7.)
The Greek Word skeuos occurs 22 times in the New Testament (cf. 1 Sam. 21:5 in the LXX):
Literal meanings: vessel, jar, dish, recipient, utensil, thing, object.
1. Luke 8:16, no one lights a lamp and hides it in a jar/vessel.
2. John 19:29, a jar full of vinegar.
3. Rom. 9:21, one vessel for honor and another for dishonor (see 9:22-23 below).
4-5. 2 Tim. 2:20-21, objects/vessels/utensils of gold and of silver….object/vessel/utensil of honor.
6. Rev. 2:27, clay pots / potter's vessels / pottery.
7-8. Rev. 18:12ab; every object of ivory, every object of precious wood.
1-2.
3.
4-6.
7.
8.
Mark 3:27, to plunder the goods of the strong man // Matthew 12:29.
Mark 11:16, carrying things / objects /utensils / merchandise.
Acts 10:11,16; 11:5, an object/something (like a great sheet).
Acts 27:17, lowering the ship’s tackle/sea anchor (cf. fem. skeuen, 27:19, the ship’s tackle)
Heb. 9:21, the utensils/objects/vessels (used in the Temple worship).
Metaphorical meanings for persons:
1. Acts 9:15, chosen instrument (Paul).
2-3. Rom. 9:22-23, the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction…the vessels of mercy.
4. 2 Cor. 4:7, our body…is like a vessel of clay.
5. 1 Thes. 4:4, possess your own vessel, /control your own body/penis, have your own wife.
6. 1 Peter 3:7, your own woman/wife, as with a more fragile vessel.
Greek ktaomai, “to gain possession of, procure for oneself, acquire, get…something” (BDAG 2000:572; 7x NT):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Mat. 10:9
Luke 18:12
Luke 21:19
Acts 1:18
Acts 8:20
Acts 22:28
1 Thes. 4:4
“do not provide / acquire gold, nor silver, nor copper in your belts.”
“I give the tithe of all that I earn.”
“with your perseverance you will gain your lives/souls.”
“with the money…Judas bought/acquired a plot of land.”
“obtain/purchase the gift of God with money.”
“I acquired this citizenship for a great deal of money.”
“each of you should learn to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor
*The difficulty of taking skeous as a metaphor for “body/penis” is in the verb, since it is not coherent to speak of
“acquiring or procuring” something that we already have.
*The difficulty of taking skeous as a metaphor for “wife” is in the noun itself, since to refer to the woman/wife as
an acquired “recipient” seems rather insulting.
39
Commentators like John Stott (1991) and Robert Jewett (2003) suggest that we should appreciate the development in
pauline thought, which begins with a quite patriarchal concept in 1 Thes. 4:1-8 (50-51 A.D.), the woman as an
inferior being (bought and controlled by the man), but becoming more equal in 1 Cor. 7:1-7 (56 A.D.), where the
woman participates in decisions and has equal sexual rights. But, given the ambiguity of the metaphor skeuos,
would it not also be possible to include homoerotic relations? If a conservative evangelical like Stott can accept a
feminist type development in pauline thought from 1 Thes. 4:1-8 to 1 Corinthians 7, especially in the light of
modern scientific knowledge of sexual orientations, no reason remains for rejecting the possibility of further
development involving homoerotic love. At any rate, whether the “brothers” in 1 Thes. 4:1-8 are unmarried (who
ought to acquire a spouse to resolve their problem of sexual temptation, as in 1 Cor. 7:2) or are unmarried and
should remain so (but learn to control their temptations, like Paul in 1 Cor. 7:1, 6-8), the text treats of sexual
minorities – unmarried like Jesus and Paul and the great majority of their companions..
A Queer Relectura/rereading of 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8:
1. Contrary to all the commentators, Paul never seeks to impose an “ethic” or “moral” consisting of laws or
absolute norms for every time and place, but rather explicitly describes the disciple’s life as involving a “walk”
(4:1ab, 12) and a praxis (prassein, 4:11), terms that presuppose a concrete historical context that changes over time
and thus requires continuous adjustments, guided by the Holy Spirit (4:8b) in the face of new realities.
2. The authority behind the pauline instructions is not the Law of Moses (with all its 613 commandments) but
rather the person of the “Lord Jesus (4:1-2) who revealed “the will of God” (“sanctification”, 4:3) in two great
commands: to love God (“please God”, 4:1) and one’s neighbor (fraternal love, love for one another, 4:9-10).
3. Such sanctification and love (cf. 1 John 1:5; 4:16, 23) consists of not harming but doing good to the
neighbor (Rom. 12:17-21). Thus in the sexual sphere the disciple will avoid porneia (1 Thes. 4:3b): adultery and
other types of sexual activity that harm the neighbor and thus fail to fulfill the intent of the Law (Rom. 13:8-10).
4. Porneia (1 Thes. 4:3b) has its roots in “covetous passions” (4:5), prohibited in the tenth of the Ten
Commandments and included among the things opposed to love (Rom. 13:9) and to justice (see the pagans who
“do not know God,” who is just and who punishes those who fail to respect the rights of others (1 Thes. 4:5-6).
5. The opposite of sanctification is “uncleanness/impurity” (akatharsía, 1 Thes. 4:7), which in this context
refers not to ritual laws related to worship but to all that contradicts justice and love for the neighbor (4:9-10; see
Rom. 6:19).
6. “Sanctification” (4:3-8) and fraternal love (4:9-10) also imply respect for the privacy of others (4:11a), and
Paul recommends manual labor (see his own example, making leather tents, Acts 18:3) in order to avoid poverty
and dependence (4:11b-12).
7. In light of all these exhortations to stimulate the edification of viable communities, the skeous metaphor in
4:4 probably points to the necessity of “learning to control your own body/genitals in a holy and honorable manner
(as in NRSV, NIV).
14. 1-2 Timothy: Paul seeks to encourage his disciple, beloved but timid
Although 1 Timothy mentions no women by name, their leadership in the early churches is emphasized, since only
here in the New Testament do we find a lengthy section devoted to the order of widows (1 Tim. 5:3-16; Bassler
1984:23-41; Tamez 2004:100-07; Krause 2004:96-109). Such women, independent of the patriarchal households,
consecrated themselves to Christian ministry, but needed economic assistance from the churches (Bonnie Thurston,
40
1989).
Paul himself had counseled that widows should not remarry (1 Corinthians 7:8-9), since he apparently
expected Christ’s second coming shortly (7:26, 29-31). 1 Timothy, to the contrary, counsels remarriage, especially
for young widows (1 Tim. 5:11-15), to avoid having the church become overburdened economically with the
support of too many widows. Here again we see that the Bible does not offer universal “ethics” or “morals” but
wise counsel reflecting concrete and distinct historical contexts.
On the other hand, 1 Timothy teaches that to be enrolled on the list of widows supported economically by the
church, one requirement was to have been married only once (5:9). However, this would make it impossible for a
remarried young widow who was widowed again to be supported by the church. As in the case of widows of
Hellenic households in Jerusalem, for whom the church instituted the order of deacons (Acts 6:1-7), the widows’
poverty makes it evident that this condition was particularly common in the case of women (see the poor, widows
and orphans in the Hebrew Scriptures, and Yahweh’s wrath against their oppressors, Exodus 22:21-24).
A related concern in 1 Timothy is tranquility in community and public life (2:2) and that prayers for all humans be
expressed in peaceful worship, without interruptions caused by fighting between the men (2:8) or by women
determined to correct their husbands publicly during worship (2:9-15). Recognizing that when we speak we are
not listening, 1 Timothy insists that the most profound worship occurs in moments of quietness, when we wait
silently and listen to the Holy Spirit (2:2, 11-12; cf. James 1:19). In the Christian tradition, the Quakers have most
developed this “sacrament of silence.” The tranquility/silence that 1 Timothy recommends for women (2:11-12;
see 1 Peter 3:4) is also indicated as a norm for all, men included (1 Tim. 2:2; see 1 Thes. 4:11; 2 Thes. 3:12; the
same Greek root can even indicate Sabbath rest, Luke 23:56).
The “submission” that 1 Timothy recommends to wives (2:11) is also a responsibility of husbands (Ephesians 5:21,
25-33). However, the prohibition against women teaching men (1 Tim. 2:12) differs from Paul’s teaching. In his
own letters Paul recognized and accepted women who, with all liberty, prophesied (1 Corinthians 11:5) and taught
(Philippians 4:2-3), and traveled as “apostles” (Junia in Romans 16:7; see also Prisca, 16:3; Acts 18:26). Even
John Calvin acknowledged that 1 Timothy’s argument to support the prohibition of women teaching men (Adam’s
creation prior to Eve in Genesis 2) was not convincing since John the Baptist came before Jesus but had less
authority (and the animals were created before humans in Genesis 1!)
The conclusion of the argument in 1 Timothy 2:15 also is quite problematic since many women are saved without
ever marrying or having children, and the Scriptures – especially Paul – insist that we are saved through faith and
not by works. 1 Timothy here may speak with casual hyperbole, not meant to be taken literally, to refute those
who prohibited marriage (4:3). In other words, a woman need not be a virgin nor abstain from sexual relations in
order to be saved, but we should not suppose that every Christian woman is going to marry and have children.
Regardless, perhaps the teaching of 1 Tim. 2:11-15 concerning the silence and submission of women represents
wise and perhaps necessary counsel for certain women in a historic context, like the parallel cases of advice for
widows (to marry, 1 Timothy 5 or not to marry, 1 Corinthians 7). Other historical contexts, however, would
require very distinct teaching, and other biblical texts tell us of active women who teach and exercise authority
over men: in Romans 16 see the deaconess Phoebe, the apostle Junia, Prisca/Priscilla (and Aquila); in 1 Corinthians
11 the women prophesied; in Mark 16 and John 20, Mary Magdalene as apostle to the apostles; in the Hebrew
Bible, Miriam (Ex. 15:20); Deborah (Judges 4:4); and the prophetess Huldah (2 Kings 22 // 2 Chronicles 34).
Although 2 Timothy names 25 men and only four women, the prominence of the women is notable. This
recognition reflects Timothy’s personal experience, since he was first instructed in the Hebrew faith by his mother
Eunice and grandmother Lois (1:5). With his Jewish mother, Timothy had followed the Jesus way since shortly
before his first contact with Paul, who chose him as his companion (in Lystra, 49-50 AD). Acts 16:1-3 indicates
that Timothy’s father was a Gentile but not necessarily married with Timothy’s mother. Paul sends greetings to
Timothy from a woman companion in Rome, Claudia (2 Tim. 4:21). The apostle also salutes Prisca (Priscilla) and
Aquila for the last time (4:19), naming Prisca first, as was his custom (the only exception is  1 Corinthians
16:19, written for a situation where women were overturning patriarchal traditions; see 1 Cor. 11:2-16; cf. the
41
scribal gloss, 14:34-35). In a letter that stresses the positive importance of women, many find shocking the
pejorative reference to “weak women” easily misled by false teachers (gynaokária, 3:6).
Timothy himself seems to have been somewhat timid (2 Tim. 1:7-8), insecure (1 Tim. 4:12), quite emotionally
attached to Paul (2 Tim. 1:4), and of delicate health (1 Tim. 5:23), all perhaps consequences of continual emotional
repression. Paul treats him as his own beloved child (2 Tim. 1:2), although Timothy must have been 35 to 40 years
old, according to chronology presupposed in the letter (with Paul’s imminent death in 65 AD some 15 years after
Timothy’s call in Lystra). Timothy’s timidity may have resulted from a sense of shame, a theme Paul repeatedly
returns to in the letter (1:8, 12, 16; 2:15).
Of 29 persons named in 2 Timothy, six probably had been married: Prisca and Aquila are the only married couple
named (4:19a), but probably Lois and Eunice, Timothy’s grandmother and mother respectively, probably also had
been married (1:5, possibly widows later). Reference is also made to Jesus’ ancestor David (2:8, who had nine
wives, two concubines + Abishag) and Onesiphorus’s household (probably his widow and children, perhaps also
with slaves), since he apparently had recently died (1:16-18; 4:19). If such was the situation, only here does the
New Testament encourage prayer for someone deceased.
2 Timothy names 22 other men plus Claudia (a woman) as individuals. Six men are mentioned in pairs: four
because they had abandoned either Paul (Phylegus and Hermogenes, 1:15) or the truth (Hymenaeus and Philetus,
2:17), plus Jannes and Jambres (3:8, Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses, according to a Jewish tradition).
Also Demas had abandoned Paul (4:10) and Alexander the coppersmith, who had done him much harm (4:14-15).
In more positive contexts, in addition to Timothy and Jesus (1:1-2), 2 Timothy names Crescens, Tychicus, Titus
and Carpus (4:10-13), plus Erastus and Trophimus (left sick in Miletus, 4:20); also Mark who was with Timothy in
Ephesus (4:11). With Paul in Rome when he pens his last testament are four men (Luke, 4:11; Eubulus, Pudens,
and Linus, 4:21) plus the woman Claudia (4:21; total, 23 individuals).  Romans 16 presents a similar picture,
naming only three married couples among 37 persons. Obviously sexual minorities were dominant in these
contexts, a perspective suppressed in traditional commentaries (cf. Lewis R. Donelson 1997;  Titus, Philippians,
Colossians).
With his martyrdom imminent, the Paul of 2 Timothy focuses especially on God’s promise of life (1:1, 10), which
includes not only the Greek concept of immortality (1:19), but also the Hebrew concept of bodily resurrection (2:8,
11-12; see Jerusalem Bible note 2:18). In the face of his death, Paul shows himself fully confident of having
fulfilled God’s purpose in his life (4:7) and anticipates being rewarded in eternal life with the crown of a winning
athlete (4:8). However, by the grace of God no one need be a “loser” and all may be winners (4:8b), even someone
who had been “the foremost of sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15).
15. Titus and his Cretan gay shaman
Surprisingly, Titus, a “Greek” (Gentile and uncircumcised, Galatians 2:3), does not appear in the Acts of the
Apostles. Nevertheless, as administrator of offerings from the Gentile churches for the impoverished Jewish saints
in Jerusalem (2 Corinthians 8:6), he was an outstanding companion of Paul. The apostle sent him to mediate
between factions in the Corinthian church (2 Cor. 7:5-7), and expressed profound affection for his loyal
collaborator (2 Cor. 2:13). In Acts, Luke almost overlooks the important offering for the saints in Jerusalem (24:17)
and avoids supplying details concerning the local controversies that might create a bad impression of Paul for the
Roman authorities. Perhaps because Titus was Paul’s emissary in controversial situations Luke does not mention
him in Acts.
42
The letter to Titus, as the other two “pastorals” (1, 2 Timothy), probably was not penned directly by Paul but by a
colleague. The three pastoral letters appear to have been written no earlier than 85 AD, some 20 years after Paul’s
death. The language and the theology of the pastoral letters differ a great deal from the letters by Paul himself.
However, inspired by God’s Spirit and preserving a certain unity with Paul’s spirit (1 Cor. 5:3-5) and continuity
with apostolic teaching, they may well preserve many traditions and memories of the Apostle himself.
Although Titus speaks of marriages with submissive women (without naming any), the letter only mentions by
name seven single men: Paul himself, Titus and Jesus Christ (1:1-4), Artemas and Tychicus (3:12), and the lawyer
Zenas and Apollos (a couple on a mission, 3:13). In a letter that stipulates that each elder should have one wife and
believing children (1:5-6; also 1 Timothy 3:2), Paul, his emissary Titus and his four colleagues in mission (as
Jesus’ emissaries) did not conform to this norm (not universal ethics!).
Moreover, although Jude (v. 14) cites the Apocryphal Jewish 1 Enoch, the letter to Titus goes even further, citing
the pagan Cretan poet Epimenides of Knossos, Crete (sixth century BC), even describing him as a “prophet” who
testified against his own countrymen truth significant for the churches (Titus 1:12-13, see HCSB and NIV notes).
William Percy points out that, according to Greek sources, Epimenides was a kind of Cretan gay shaman who
traveled to Athens to help the magistrate Solon in his reforms, including the institution of homoerotic love, in
accord with the Cretan model (1996:174-76) – yet Paul’s famous sermon in Acts (17:28) also cites him favorably!
Commonly the Titus citation from Epimenides is taken as a kind of ethnic slur:
“Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons” (Titus 1:12).
In the Hellenic world Cretans were considered liars, since they claimed that Zeus’ tomb was in Crete. The letter to
Titus apparently exploits the readers’ xenophobic prejudice to support its argument against false teachers in Crete
(vv. 10-14). The caricature’s bitter hyperbole makes it difficult to believe that the author of Titus had any hope of
persuading the Cretans to submit to his authority.
In patriarchal societies prohibitions of various types of sexual “uncleanness” were usual, since such societies
sought to guarantee maximum fertility and legitimate heirs. As with Jesus (Mark 7:1-23; Matthew 15:10-20; John
13:10) and Paul (Romans 14:14-23), Titus subverts traditional sexual ideologies regarding “uncleanness” with its
radical affirmation: “To the pure all things are pure” (Titus 1:15). According to this letter, when we refuse
solidarity with the poor and fail to help them with good works, that is what now constitutes an “abomination”
(1:16).
16. Hebrews: Sarah, Rahab and, the queerest of all – Melchizedek!
Hebrews mentions only two women by name: Abraham’s wife Sarah (11:11; see her involvement in bigamy and
promoting divorce in Genesis 16 and 21) and Rahab, the prostitute (11:31; cf. various unnamed women of faith in
11:35). Concerning Sarah Hebrews says: “It was equally by faith that Sarah, although past the age, was
empowered to conceive [literally: ‘deposited seed’], because she trusted that God who had made the promise would
be faithful to it” (11:11). The Greek text thus attributed to Sarah the male role of “depositing seed” (the existence
of the feminine ovule fertilized by semen was not scientifically recognized until the 19th century;  Hebrews,
Peter van der Horst 1996:112-34; Johnson 2006:291-2). To avoid anachronism our translations commonly change Sarah’s
role and reduce her to a parentheses: “By faith he [Abraham received power of procreation, even though he was
too old (Sarah herself being barren) because he considered him faithful who had promised” (11:11, cf. NIV and
NRSV).
Given the marginalization of women in Hebrews, the exaltation of Rahab, the Gentile prostitute who showed
solidarity with the Israelites in the conquest of Jericho, is notable (11:31; Joshua 2). Just as James places Rahab
43
and Abraham on an equal footing as examples of sexual minorities with faith (James 2:25), Hebrews presents
Rahab as comparable to Sarah in faith (Matthew 1:5 includes her in Jesus’ genealogy). This exaltation of Rahab in
the Bible is consistent with the presentation of Jesus as a “friend of tax collectors and prostitutes” and with the
teaching of Paul, who did not rebuke the prostitutes but Christian husbands who paid for their services (1 Cor.
6:12-20). Churches that condemn sex-workers deviate widely from the teaching and example of Jesus and the New
Testament authors (Matthew 21:31-32).
Furthermore, according to the Hebrew Scriptures, Sarah herself must be reckoned among the sexual minorities:
first she is called “sterile” (a patriarchal and pre-scientific perspective); second, she arranges for Abraham to take
as concubine her slave Hagar (putting her in a kind of menage en trois that endured several years); and finally she
demands the dismissal (divorce) of Hagar with her son Ishmael, Abraham’s first-born. Genesis even accuses Sarah
of “oppressing” Hagar (Hebrew: 'anah, Genesis 16:6). 1 Peter depicts Sarah as a pious, submissive wife (1 Peter
3:5-6), but in Genesis she is strong, not always submissive, and is the first person in the Scriptures accused of
“oppression” (of Hagar; Hebrew: 'anah, Gen. 16:6; Paul J. Achtemeier 1996:104; Hanks 1982:37, 49; 1983:15, 126).
Nevertheless, for many contemporary readers, more problematic than Hebrew’s omission of heroic women of faith
(like Deborah), is the interpretation of Christ’s death as a kind of child abuse, a sacrifice in which God (like
Abraham threatening Isaac in Genesis 22) cruelly abuses his son (Mary Rose D'Angelo 1992:366). Mary D’Angelo
concludes that Hebrews implies divine approval for child abuse (2:10; 5:8; 12:4-11). Similarly, with reference to
Hebrews 12:5-11, which cites Proverbs 3:11-12, Donald Capps maintains that the author of Hebrews gives
evidence of having suffered abuse as a child (which may have included sexual abuse; Donald E. Capps 1995). Capps
recommends as preferable Jesus’ teaching that God is a kind Father (see Q, the Sermon on the Mount, the parable
of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15:11-32) and the teaching of Matthew, where Jesus introduces a new era in adultchild relationships in which children are treated with dignity and respect (18:1-4 // Mark 9:33-36 // Luke 9:46-47;
similarly Isaiah 11:1-9 and Psalm 8). Also Hebrews 12:8 easily leads to child abuse with its pejorative reference to
those who are “bastards and not sons,” another example of the patriarchal culture supporting an ideology through
language control ( James).
Hebrews’ focus on Christ as high priest may be manipulated to prohibit the ordination of women. Nevertheless,
Jesus was a layman and not descended from the priestly tribe of Levi, but he exercised a priesthood similar to that
of Melchizedek (see below). Consequently, we may understand Jesus’ priesthood as involving a rejection of
traditional patriarchal ordination and a basis for accepting the spiritual leadership of women, sexual minorities and
the physically challenged (7:11-19; 8:3-5; Isaiah 56:3-5).
Hebrews defends the integrity of heterosexual marriage against those who despised it (13:4; adherents of some
neoplatonic philosophy? Note the use of “bed” as a sexual euphemism with a positive sense; cf. “bed-males”  1
Timothy, 1 Corinthians). However, the homeowners expected to practice hospitality and resist the temptation to
love money (13:2, 5) may have included many who were not married ( Romans 16). Sexual minorities certainly
receive the strongest affirmation throughout the book. Above all, Jesus, unmarried and not of priestly descent, is
the new high priest whose sacrifice, “once and for all time” (10:10), puts an end to all previous sacrifices and
priesthoods. Since Jesus was a layman, not descended from Aaron nor from the tribe of Levi, Hebrews portrays his
priesthood as prefigured by the Gentile king and priest, Melchizedek of Jerusalem – whom the Scriptures present,
not only as never married, but even as having neither parents nor descendants (7:1-3, sexual minority, really
“queer”!;  Hebrews, L. T. Johnson 2006:177).
Melchizedek’s story clarifies antiquity’s prescientific concept of procreation, since Hebrews even affirms that
when Melchizedek went out to encounter the patriarch, Abraham already carried in his loins descendants (such as
Levi) who were born centuries later (7:10; logically Jesus also;  Hebrews, L.T. Johnson 2006:180)! Often the
Bible is cited against abortion because the unborn are already viewed as human beings (Psalm 139; Luke 1, etc.).
However, should we also then conclude that all semen in male “loins” contains real human beings destined to be
born even generations later? Campaigners against abortion must assume rather a modern scientific understanding
44
of procreation. They cannot start simply from biblical texts that affirm the existence of life before birth, because
such biblical texts also presume that human life exists in semen even centuries before conception.
Not only isolated cases (Rahab, Sarah, Abraham, Melchizedek) but the great majority of persons named in
Hebrews represent sexual minorities of some type. In the list of heroes of the faith in Hebrews 11, for example,
only two, Enoch and Joseph, appear to be legitimately married to only one wife. Nevertheless, unmarried Abel
died by violence at the hands of his brother Cain, who apparently incestuously married a sister. Noah had only one
wife, but became drunk after the Flood, lay naked and apparently was raped by his son Ham (Genesis 9:18-28,
euphemistic language; see NRSVSB note). Isaac and Jacob married close relatives (incest, according to Leviticus),
and even Moses was the son of an incestuous relationship (Ex. 6:20; Lev. 18:12).
17. James: Married, but not so secret admirer of Rahab
Despite his closeness to the Hebrew Scriptures, James already is at a certain distance from the oldest traditions of
the New Testament that deal with the poor, the weak and the marginalized: The Christian Jews he addresses are in
exile (1:1), but are not itinerant prophets like Jesus and his closest disciples. James’ readers live in an established
community of “sisters and brothers” (2:6-7, 15; 1:27; 2:25-26), although shaken by conflicts (of class? 4:1-3).
James is one of three New Testament authors who are married (see also Peter and Jude, 1 Cor. 9:5). Nevertheless,
his exaltation of Rahab (an unmarried sex worker) and Abraham (a bigamist who divorced his concubine) and his
disregard for common family values and responsibilities, place him closer to the original ideal of itinerant prophets
than to the teaching of some later writings (1 Peter, the deutero-Pauline and pastoral letters). James prophetically
denounces oppression and the abuse of wealth, but does not advocate totally abandoning household, possessions
and business (cf. Luke 14:26; 18:29).
18. 1 Peter: First Pope, but married (and preferring Mark as travel companion)
Throughout human history we find immigrant strangers accused of importing strange sexual practices. The
Hebrew Bible itself warns against certain sexual abominations as typical of the Egyptians and Canaanites
(Leviticus 13:3, 24-30; 20:23). In European and Latin American history we find descriptions of “sodomy” as a
vice imported by the Italians, the French, the English and various indigenous peoples. In Africa homosexuality
commonly has been attributed by one tribe to another, to the Arabs, or to Europeans and Americans (Stephen O.
Murray y Will Roscoe 1998:xi-xxii, 267). John Boswell has demonstrated how homophobia and anti-Semitism developed
in the twelfth century, eventually culminating in the Nazi Holocaust that killed thousands of homosexuals and other
minorities together with some six million Jews (John Boswell 1980:15).
In 1 Peter the apostle is portrayed as accompanied only by Silvanus/ Silas (5:12) and his spiritual “son” Mark
(5:13), both unmarried. In the entire New Testament, James, Jude (Jesus’ brothers) and Peter are the only married
authors (1 Corinthians 9:5), but Peter’s wife (unnamed in the New Testament) is not mentioned in 1-2 Peter. If
these two letters were not written by Peter personally, then James and Jude would be the only books in the New
Testament written by married authors. But even if 1-2 Peter, James and Jude really wrote the books that bear their
names, only 5% of the New Testament would come from married authors, while 95% would come from sexual
minorities. The emphasis in 1 Peter on the churches as a “household of God,” then, has a special significance not
only for persons who were literally pilgrims and immigrants (John H. Elliott 1990:714; cf. Moses Chin 1991:94-112), but
also for persons who did not have literal spouses and children. A new household [“family”], the community of the
disciples of the unmarried Jesus, replaces patriarchal households in God’s cosmic liberation project (Mark 3:31-35;
Rom. 8:18-39).
45
For the “unclean” Gentile immigrants this letter addresses, many of them sexual minorities (unmarried), 1 Peter
focuses on the people of God as a “spiritual house” (2:5) and “household of God” (4:17). As in the entire Bible,
and contrary to dominant modern ideologies reflected in some translations (such as the NIV), 1 Peter never talks
about “family” but about “house(hold)s.” In accord with this focus on the “house,” 1 Peter uses other words of the
same root: “construction of a building” (2:5), with a foundation (5:10) and “house servants” (2:18). Even when 1
Peter addresses married couples (3:7), his use of the phrase “live in the same house/under the same roof” reminds
us that it was common to include slaves, widows, orphans and other unmarried relatives under such a roof. Such
couples did not live alone or only with their own children. In God’s new community, the unmarried Jesus’ new
household, persecuted immigrants without shelter could find a home and feel accepted. God’s people throughout
the world constitute a “brotherhood” (only in 1 Peter 2:17; 5:9) whose principal characteristic is fraternal love
(1:22; 2:17; 3:8; cf. 4:8-9; 5:14). This brotherly/sisterly love, 1 Peter reminds us, implies respect for privacy rights
(4:15, “meddler”). Even if the Greek word is not interpreted as “one who pries into other people’s affairs,” but as
fraudulent acts, other texts insist on respect for privacy (2 Thes. 3:11; 1 Tim. 5:13; Luke 12:13-14; see Jesus’
“messianic secret” in Mark; cf. modern privacy invasions by state, technology and media; Paul J. Achtemeier 1996:31013).
Despite the sexual minority status of many in 1 Peter and the bias reflected in many translations, the letter says
remarkably little about sexual sins. When allusion is made to the Ten Commandments, the condemnation refers to
murder and theft, but not adultery (4:15). When the recipients’ former pagan lifestyle is recalled, three terms refer
to the use or abuse of alcohol, and only one possibly to accompanying sexual misbehavior (4:3-4; epithumíais may
simply mean desire or covet, not necessarily sexual “lust”). For 1 Peter, angels and infants may experience strong
desire without sin, but the author emphasizes the danger of undisciplined desire that gives rise to unjust acts that
harm others (1:12-14, 22; 2:1-3, 11; 4:1-5; 5:2-3; see James).
19. 1-3 John: Friendship, not family, the foundation of civilized society
Usually the New Testament speaks of the church as a community of sisters and brothers (1 John 3:11-17; 2 John 1,
13; Matthew 23:8-12). This image refers to the household to which one belongs by birth, not by choice. In 3 John,
however, the church (vv. 6, 9-10) is not a hierarchy of officials governing patriarchal families. The image of
brothers and sisters (vv. 5, 10) is surpassed by that of the church as a community of “friends” (v. 15). Jesus
himself chooses this image when he said: “ do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not
know what the master is doing; but  have called you friends, because  have made known to you everything that 
have heard from my Father” (John 15:15). In addition to the intimacy, Jesus underscored the depth of
commitment toward his friends: “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John
15:13; cf. “brothers” in 1 John 3:16 (NIV) and “enemies” in Romans 5:6-11).
In the mid-seventeenth century in Great Britain, a religious movement under the leadership of George Fox (and
later William Penn in America) called themselves simply “Friends,” but were soon named “Quakers” by their
opponents. They were characterized by a rejection of traditional ecclesiastical ordained male hierarchies, the
recognition of women as leaders, and opposition to oaths, military service and slavery. In 1963, six years before
the Stonewall riots and more than a decade before the American Psychiatric Association reached similar
conclusions (1973), British Quakers concluded that homosexuality is simply “sexual left-handedness” and began to
openly welcome sexual minorities within their worship services.
Although only males are named in 3 John, women undoubtedly were among the “friends” who exchanged
greetings (v. 15) and probably among the poor missionaries whom Gaius welcomed (vv. 5-8; see also “the elect
lady and her children” addressed in 2 John). Although friendship is one of the most important themes in
philosophy and literature (including the Bible), few theologians have written about it. Thanks to feminist theology,
as expressed in works such as those of Carter Heyward, Mary Hunt, and Elizabeth Stuart, this situation is changing.
46
Mary Hunt concludes that friendship, not the family, is society’s fundamental institution, and that heterosexual
marriage at its best is only one example of friendship (Mary E. Hunt 1991:9). We cannot “define” words so rich and
profound as “friends” and “friendship,” since it would be presumptuous to try to control their meaning and
linguistic use. As in the case of “love,” each new experience reveals more unimagined facets and nuances. In
addition, different historical and cultural contexts profoundly affect our experience of friendship: to have a friendneighbor in a rural context in ancient times was very different from the friendship between professionals in a
modern urban center. Nonetheless, we may indicate certain common dimensions of authentic friendship that the
Bible emphasizes:
a. We like to think that we choose our friends, or, as in the experience of the rich (Proverbs, below), others
choose us. Such freedom is a luxury not enjoyed in many small villages, where to be “neighbor” is to be “friend,”
with the exception of enemies. Jesus warns us that in the community of his followers, the decision is not our
concern since he has already chosen his friends (John 15:16). Furthermore, since Jesus is “a friend of tax collectors
and ‘sinners’” (Matthew 11:19 // Luke 7:34 = Q), we may find it difficult to learn to accept and love all whom
Jesus befriends.
b. We may prefer friends with whom we share interests, but Jesus pointed out that his friends share the
common task of proclaiming the Good News and constructing new communities as the first fruits of the coming
New Order (John 15:16). To be a Christian is not to remain isolated (Hebrews 10:25) but to form part of one of
these communities that transcend patriarchal families (Mark 3:20-21, 31-35; John 19:25-27). However, because
we are finite, limited, we are not able to have innumerable friends. Even Jesus avoided taking the entire multitude
up to the Mount of Transfiguration (Mark 9:2) nor did he ask that the twelve keep watch with him, but chose only
three (Mark 14:32-34).
c. The book of Proverbs contains many teachings about friendship. With an almost brutal realism, it notes that
the rich have many friends while the poor lose the few they have (Proverbs 14:20; 19:4, 6-7). In accord with divine
wisdom, a friend should be:




faithful (Proverbs 17:17; 18:24; 27:10)
true (16:28; 17:9; 27:6; 28:23; 29:5; see Galatians 4:16)
sensitive, courteous (25:17, 20; 26:18-19; 27:14)
wise (27:9, 17; see David and Jonathan, 1 Samuel 23:16).
d. Intimacy with a friend makes us vulnerable. The Psalms remind us that intimacy and vulnerability entail the
possibility of betrayal (Psalm 35:11; 41:9; 55:12-14, 20-21; 109:4). Few long-lasting friendships have remained
free of some sense of betrayal. Only the capacity to forgive makes it possible for a friendship to endure, but by
God’s grace a crisis may enable the friendship to reach a new level of commitment and intimacy ( Philippians).
Bibliography: Friendship ( also Philippians)
Aelred of Rievaulx [1110-1167 A.D.] (1977). Spiritual Friendship. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications.
Anders, Isabel (1992). The Faces of Friendship. Cambridge/Boston: Cowley.
Andiñach, Pablo R. (1997). Cantar de los Cantares: El fuego y la ternura. Buenos Aires: Lumen.
Aristóteles [384-322 B.C.] (1970). Ética a Nicómaco. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Políticos. (Especially Book 8,
Chapters 2 and 6).
Boswell, John (1980/92). Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (passim). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press / Cristianismo, tolerancia social y homosexualidad (passim). Barcelona: Muchnik.
 (1994/97). Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (passim). New York: Villard Books / Las bodas de la semejanza
(passim). Barcelona: Muchnik.
Boyd, Stephen B. (1995). The Men We Long to Be. New York: HarperCollins.
47
Carpenter, Edward ([1902] 1935). Ioläus, an Anthology of Friendship. London: Albert and Charles Boni.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius [106-43 a.C.]. De Amicitia. Various editions.
Clapp, Rodney (1996). A PECULIAR PEOPLE: The Church As Culture in a Post-Christian Society. Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity.
Elredo de Rieval, San [1109-67 d.C.] (1977/1982). Spiritual Friendship. Kalamazoo: Cistercian / “La amistad espiritual.”
Caridad, Amistad. Buenos Aires: Claretiana; De Spiritali Amicitia, original version in Latín; many editions in several
languages (see John Boswell (1980/92), VIII, note 41); cf. Cicero, his source, supra.
Fitzgerald, J. T., ed. (1996). Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech: Studies on Friendship in the New Testament
World. NovTSup, 82. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
 (1997). Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship. Atlanta: Scholars.
Fowl, Stephen E. (2005). A Commentary on Philippians. THNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. (Includes a theology of
friendship, based on Philippians.)
Heyward, Carter (1989). Touching Our Strength: The Erotic as Power and Love of God. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
(See especially 119-155.)
Hunt, Mary E. (1991). Fierce Tenderness: A Feminst Theology of Friendship. New York: Crossroad.
Konstan, D. (1997). Friendship in the Classical World. Cambridge: Cambridge.
Leib, Frank B. (1997). Friendly Competitors, Fierce Companions: Men’s Ways of Relating. Cleveland: Pilgrim.
Little, Graham (1993). Friendship: Being Ourselves with Others. Melbourne: Text.
Nardi, Peter M. (1999). Gay Men’s Friendships: Invincible Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago.
O'Donovan, Oliver (1997). “Homosexuality in the Church: Can there be a fruitful theological debate?”. In The Way
Forward? Christian Voices on Homosexuality and the Church, ed. Timothy Bradshaw, 20-36. London: Hodder &
Stoughton.
Raymond, Janice (1986). A Passion for Friends: Toward a Philosophy of Female Affection. Boston: Beacon.
Ringe, Sharon H. (1999). Wisdom’s Friends: Community and Christology in the Fourth Gospel. Louisville: Westminster
John Knox.
Stuart, Elizabeth (1995). Just Good Friends: Towards a Lesbian and Gay Theology of Relationships. London: Mowbray.
Sullivan, Andrew (1998). Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex, and Survival. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Vasey, Michael (1995). Strangers and Friends: A new exploration of homosexuality and the Bible. London: Hodder &
Stoughton.
 (1997). “The Way Forward? Christian Voices on Homosexuality and the Church: A Response”. Lesbian and Gay
Christian Newsletter, London (winter 1997): 20-21.
20. Revelation: The celibate followers of the Lamb vs. the Great Whore (Babylon = Rome)
The great value of Revelation for sexual minorities is the book's fervent insistence that God is just and sovereign,
with a plan to liberate the weak and oppressed from all persecution and oppression (cf. Tina Pippin y J. Michael Clark
2006:754). Reflecting the fact that slaves in antiquity commonly were sexually exploited, John denounces the slave
trade in “bodies and souls of men” (18:13, NIV; see 19:18;  1 Timothy 1:10, where “male-beds, men-stealers”
probably refers to sexual exploiters of kidnapped young male slaves in prostitution, not to our modern scientific
concept of “homosexuals” with a certain orientation). Sex workers themselves, however, whether male or female,
undoubtedly would have felt much more accepted sitting beside the Sea of Galilee at Jesus’ feet, than in the seven
churches of Asia Minor listening to the Seer’s insulting rhetoric denouncing the idolatrous Empire as the “great
whore” (Revelation 17–18).
No example of a traditional family appears in all of Revelation; all the people without exception are sexual
minorities. See “the same-sex pair” in Revelation 11, “a pair of prophetic males” (Pippin and Clark, 756). For
centuries the declaration that sexual relations with women “defile” (14:4) inspired inexpressible joy among
48
medieval monks who delighted to fantasize about themselves as “virgins” married to the Lamb (John Boswell
1980:216-18). Since the Reformation, pro-marriage Protestants commonly have concluded that this text is one of the
most difficult in the New Testament. Yarbro Collins suggests that Revelation here makes clear the author’s hatred
and fear of women and sexual instincts (Adela Yarbro Collins 1992:694-708), which are common in cases of internalized
homophobia ( John, the Beloved Disciple; L. William Countryman 1988:135-38). As in Paul’s letters ( 1 Corinthians), a
tension exists in Revelation between traditional rigid concepts concerning gender and more flexible concepts. The
undefiled “virgins/celibates” (Rev. 14:4) are masculine (Tina Pippin 1994:113), but like good transsexuals, at the end
of the book they form part of the feminine bride, wife of the masculine Lamb (21:9-27).
When Revelation speaks of “Sodom” (11:8, with Egypt and Jerusalem), the city is viewed as a symbol of violence,
oppression and persecution (see the lack of hospitality in Genesis 19), not of homoerotic relations. Likewise, when
Revelation refers to certain persons as “dogs” excluded from the New Just Community (22:15), the reference is to
apostate Christians who sacrificed to idols and betrayed their brothers and sisters to the Imperial authorities (cf.
21:8).* The apocalyptic genre maintains an absolute dichotomy between good and evil (without shades of gray)
and in the same way in the sexual sphere portrays only celibates and prostitutes, or contrasts a virgin to the great
harlot. Ordinary married couples are conspicuous by their absence in this book.
Appropriately, then, although the Creator’s throne is decked in green (4:3), in chapter 10 John has a vision of a
mighty angel, described as dressed to lead a Gay Pride parade “with a rainbow on her head” (10:3). This Rainbow
Angel’s message to the churches (who today are forever studying “homosexuality” – instead of homophobia and
the causes of heterosexuality) is “THERE WILL BE NO MORE DELAY” (10:6)! The oppressors are always very
astute in finding new excuses that exempt them from the immediate practice of justice.
As is common in other New Testament books, also in Revelation the women mentioned are sexual minorities (
Matthew, where the only exceptions are Pilate’s wife and the mother of James and John, perhaps a widow; 27:19;
20:20). In Revelation, without exception, not only all the women, but also all the men, are sexual minorities. In
the symbolism of the book the New Jerusalem, the future yearned for, is presented under the image of a bride
adorned for her husband, the “lamb” (19:7; 21:1–22:5). In 14:1-5 the “bride” is presented under the image of
144,000 “virgin” males never defiled by sexual relations with women (perhaps a symbol of the economic relations
with the Empire). All the people of God (Israel + the Church, not simply the Virgin Mary) appear under the image
of the woman clothed with the sun (12:1-6, 13-17), a single mother, who gives birth to her firstborn (without
mention of a generative father).
In contrast to the positive images of women, we have the negative images (also of sexual minorities): the great
“whore” Babylon (= Rome; ch. 17–18) and the false prophetess Jezebel (2:20-23, recalling the infamous queen
who opposed the prophet Elijah; see 1 Kings 16:31; 19:1-3). Adela Yarbro Collins (1984) has shown how
Revelation functions as a form of “catharsis” (emotional cleansing, as occurs with Greek tragedies and the works
of Shakespeare) to reduce the great discrepancy we feel (“the cognitive dissonance”) between what is (injustice,
oppression, violence, persecution) and what should be (freedom, justice, love in solidarity, fullness of life).
Revelation also may provoke a catharsis by convincing readers that what should be already exists in reality: The
creator God is majestically seated on the celestial throne, while the slain Lamb opens the seals and directs the
course of human history toward a triumphal culmination. For readers staggered by so much oppression and
violence, Revelation offers a strategy of psychological transference to alleviate their fury. Remarkably, John never
*
William Countryman 1988:231-32; Richard B. Hays 1996:185; Gregory Beale 1998:1101-3 and Grant Osborne 2002:791. Recently a
few commentators have suggested that the “dogs” excluded from the new Jerusalem may be a metaphorical reference to “male
homosexuals, pederasts, or sodomites,” since in the parallel vice list in 21:8 the equivalent term is “abominable”; see David Aune
1998:1222-24; cf. 1130-31. However, at most the text refers to sexual acts, not orientation (and only by males, not females); and in
keeping with the meaning in Leviticus, if male homoerotic acts are in view, it would only be male-male anal penetration (without
condoms;  Romans). Moreover, the equivalent term in the parallel vice list of 9:20-21 refers to idolatry, which also is what Ezekiel
usually specifies as the content of the “abomination” related to Sodom. Hence, as in Romans 1, in the case of Rev. 21:8 the context
indicates sexual acts undertaken in the context of idolatrous worship, such as cultic prostitution.
49
suggests that the followers of the Lamb resort to counter-violence but rather encourages them with the visions of
God and Christ now doing battle for them and defeating their oppressors.
Appendix 1. Theodore W. Jennings on the Beloved Disciple in The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic
Narratives from the New Testament (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2003). Summary:
John 13:21-30 The last supper. Exodus stipulated that the Jewish Passover should be celebrated in each home
with the participation of the parents and children of each household (Ex. 12:1-28), but Jesus celebrated the meal in
Jerusalem with his male disciples, all unmarried with the exception of Peter and without women or children present
(Deut. 16:1-8). Although Jesus loved all his disciples as intimate friends and beneficiaries of his sacrificial
solidarity, remarkably only one disciple is singled out as the disciple whom Jesus “loved” (agapao; 13:23; see this
Greek verb in  Song of Songs, LXX). This focus on the Beloved Disciple makes clear that this special relation
involved a kind of love that was different from that which Jesus shared with the other disciples. Thus already in
this first text it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the difference is characterized by erotic desire or sexual
attraction. Such an impression is immediately strengthened when we observe how this different kind of love is
manifested in the narration, since we read that this disciple was “leaning on Jesus' bosom” (13:23, KJV; Greek, en
to kolpo) and “reclining on Jesus’ breast” (Greek stethos, 13:25; cf. stethos in 21:20 below). In this way the text
thus signals that the character of this special love consisted in physical closeness, corporal intimacy, which is to say
that the disciple loved by Jesus with a different kind of love experienced physical intimacy as a common habit.
Peter and the other apostles appear to recognize and take for granted this relation between Jesus and the Beloved
Disciple. Peter also takes for granted that Jesus would share intimate secrets with the Beloved Disciple which
would be unknown by the other apostles and about which they would have to inquire (13:24-27). Thus the natural
and least forced reading of the text is that, while loving all his disciples, Jesus shared a love with one for whom he
was the lover.
19:25b-27 The cross. The Beloved Disciple is present at the cross with four women: Jesus’ mother, an aunt,
Mary of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. Jesus recognizes the presence of his mother and the Beloved Disciple and
speaks first to her: “Woman, behold your son,” then to his disciple: “Behold, your mother.” And John adds, “And
from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.” What does this scene signify? Some suggest that Jesus
seeks to divert attention from himself to teach his disciples that they ought to care for one another. But why then
does Jesus ignore the presence of the other women? Others propose that the text indicates the special relation
between Jesus and his mother, a sentimentality appropriate for Mother’s Day. But just as he did at the wedding at
Cana, so in this scene Jesus refers to Mary as “woman,” not as mother (see the texts about Mary, even more
negative, in Mark 3:32-33 and Luke 11:25-27). Moreover, such an interpretation fails to account for Jesus’
concern for his disciple evident in his first words to Mary and indicating that she should take special responsibility
for the Beloved Disciple: “Woman, behold your son.” But when we recognize that Jesus and the Beloved Disciple
constituted a couple who are lovers, the meaning of Jesus’ words becomes transparent: Jesus recognizes his
special relation with this disciple as something similar to engagement or marriage and the Beloved Disciple comes
to occupy the place of Mary’s adopted son. If the text treated of Mary Magdalene, no one would doubt that such
would be its meaning (see Ruth and Naomi in Ruth 1:16-17). But John signals that the homoerotic relationship
between Jesus and his Beloved Disciple implies responsibilities that transcend death. We ought not allow the
gender of the Beloved Disciple obscure the obvious meaning of the narrative. Moreover, the text makes clear that
Jesus’ relation with his beloved is not clandestine.
20:1-9 The tomb. Jennings concludes that this episode provides little help for understanding Jesus’ relation with
the Beloved Disciple ( John, 2003:29). The good news of the resurrection in John 20 focuses mainly on the
experiences of Mary Magdalene. However, Jesus rejects her efforts to have physical contact with him (20:17) and
not she but only the Beloved Disciple (male) is signaled as the object of a different kind of love (20:2), previously
defined as physical intimacy with the sharing of secrets (Jesus addresses Mary Magdalene simply as “woman” as
he did with his mother). The Beloved Disciple is again with Peter, the only married apostle. In the race for the
tomb the Beloved Disciple, apparently younger and/or in better physical shape than Peter, arrived first.
50
Nevertheless, the Beloved Disciple took no advantage but granted Peter the privilege of entering first into the tomb.
Readers who recall the importance of the gymnasiums in Greco-Roman culture and the importance of good
physical condition, especially among the homoerotic sector, will not be surprised that the Beloved Disciple
presents himself as the winner in the race (see the images in Song of Songs of the beloved leaping on the
mountains; cf. the young man who escaped nude in Mark 14:50-52). Although the Beloved Disciple, on arriving at
the tomb, did not see Jesus as had Mary Magdalene, by believing without seeing him, he presents himself as the
paradigm of faith for future generations. He appears to make the transition to a spiritual relation with less
difficulty than Mary had. If she were a prostitute, as so much tradition affirmed, it is notable that John 20
privileges her and the Beloved Disciple, sexual minority representatives, as the first to perceive the good news of
the resurrection.
21:1-14 Breakfast on the beach. As in three other texts (13:21-30, 20:1-9 and 21:20-23), the Beloved Disciple
appears as companion and friend of Peter (in all the scenes, except with the mother at the cross, the Beloved
Disciple appears in some kind of competition with Peter, and even at the cross the absence of Peter, after his triple
denial, is notable (Acts 1:13; 3:1, 3-4, 11; 4:13, 19; 8:14). Although Peter is presented as the active leader, taking
the initiative to involve the other disciples in a night of fruitless fishing, the Beloved Disciple is the one who
manifests greater spiritual discernment by being the first to recognize Jesus on the beach (21:7). Immediately Peter,
fishing in the nude, puts on his clothes (21:8), since his relationship with Jesus does not involve presenting himself
nude, and leaps into the sea (although it would be more common to take off clothes before entering the water).
Peter and the Beloved Disciple are of the same sex but their complementary relationship is notable, since that is
supposed to be characteristic of heterosexual relations, according to the common modern sexual ideology.
21:20-24 “Feed my sheep.” “Turning, Peter sees the disciple that Jesus loved following them, who also was the
one who leaned on Jesus’ chest….” For the third time the texts indicate that the character of the special love Jesus
had for the Beloved Disciple consisted in physical nearness and corporal intimacy (13:23, 25). That the essence of
the relation included a physical intimacy is indicated by the last reference that identifies the Beloved Disciple as he
who “during the supper had reclined on Jesus breast” (griego, stethos, 21:20). Obviously in this last scene it is Peter
who plays the dominant role as leader responsible for pasturing Jesus’ community of disciples, while the Beloved
Disciple is simply there, in the background, as expected of a lover or spouse, while Jesus conducts a personal
conversation with someone else. Although the text unmasks the myth that the Beloved Disciple would live until
Jesus’ Second Coming, his character as the disciple whom Jesus loved in a different way does not change. Even
with the final editing of the book the text signals the permanence of this different kind of love, “stronger than
death” (Song of Songs 8:6).
Reconsidering the Gospel of John (summary of Jennings, chapter 4, pp. 55-74)
1. Terminology (pp. 55-58). Of the three common words that express love in Greek, eros never occurs in the
New Testament, nor in the LXX. In John the words philia and ágape are used as synonyms. With reference to the
Beloved Disciple, four times John uses the word ágape (13:23; 19:26; 21:7, 20), but one time philia (20:2). In
classical Greek philia refers to a symmetrical love of friendship. Some commentators have imagined that ágape
only expresses a spiritual and sacrificial love, but to the contrary, the LXX translation of the erotic poems in Song
of Songs always uses a form of ágape (p. 57). “In the Greek of the Septuagint and of the New Testament, the term
ágape substitutes for eros in designating the asymmetrical form of love” (56).
2. Sublimation (pp. 58-61). Some accept homoerotic relations but insist that they ought to be “platonic”
without sexual relations, as in the Greek and oriental traditions of asceticism, which gained expression in
Christianity above all in monasticism. However, none of the Gospels supports asceticism, least of all John.
3. Negation of Body? (pp. 61-64). In various texts John “spiritualizes” certain material concepts (the new
birth, 3:4; water, 4:4,31-34; bread, 6:26-27, etc.). However, other texts present a dialectic of taking a spiritual
reality and making it physical (above all, the Word made flesh, 1:14; see 9:6, 11, 15; 11:39; 19:28, 34; 20:5-7, 20,
51
25, 27). “The Fourth Gospel, then, is characterized by a double movement [dialectical]: a very marked tendency to
allegorize physical reality and, at the same time, a marked tendency to physicalize spiritual reality (p. 63; see the
tendency in Gnosticism to find expression in both asceticism and in sexual promiscuity).
4. The Law (pp. 64-66). Had Jesus in John always insisted on obedience to all the 613 laws of the Pentateuch,
the condemnation of one kind of homoerotic practice in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 [which refer to male-male anal sex in
idolatrous practices] would have made a homoerotic relation between Jesus and the Beloved Disciple impossible.
However, after telling us that “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), John’s Prologue also indicates that “the Law
was given by Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (1:17; notably, John contrasts not only Law
with grace, like Paul in Romans 6:15, but also between Law and truth). Although John cites various texts from the
Hebrew Bible as prophecies fulfilled by Jesus, the absence of commandments (such as we have in the Sermon on
the Mount, Matthew 5–7 // Luke 6) is noteworthy, as is the reduction of all the commandments to the one new
commandment to love one another (John 13:31-35).
5. Purity (pp. 67-68). The prohibition of male-male anal sex in idolatrous worship in Leviticus 18 and 20
occurs precisely in the Holiness Code, that part of the Law most rejected by primitive Christianity (see Jesus in
Mark, breaking the laws that prohibit touching a corpse, a menstruating woman, a leper, etc.). In John, Jesus even
offers his flesh to eat and his blood to drink (6:51-58).
6. Conventionality (pp. 68-69). Jesus’ attitude regarding conventional morality and lifestyles is one of
“insistent, persistent subversion” (68).
The Hidden Tradition (Jennings, chap. 5, pp. 75-91)
Aelred of Rievaulx (12th century), English abbot, pp. 75-80 (see Boswell 1980:225-26; 1992:244-50).
Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593) and the English Renaissance, 81-82 (see Greenberg 1988: 349).
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), English philosoher, 82-86.
Georg Walther Groddeck (1866-1934), Austrian psychoanalyst, 86-87.
Anglican Canon Hugh Montefiore, sermon in August 1967, Great Saint Mary’s in Cambridge, 88-90.
Robert Williams, Just as I am (Harper, 1992, pp. 116-21), 90.
Terrence McNally (1939- ), Corpus Christi (play, 1998), 90 (see John M. Clum, “McNally, Terrence” in Gay
Histories and Cultures, ed. George E. Haggerty [New York: Garland, 2000]), 578-79.
Goss, Robert E. (2006). “John”. En The Queer Bible Commentary, ed. Deryn Guest, Robert E. Goss, Mona
West, Thomas Bohache, 560-62. London: SCM.
Wilson, Nancy L. (1995). Our Tribe: Queer Folks, God, Jesus, and the Bible. New York: HarperCollins.
In addition to these authorities whom Jennings cites, see “Beloved Disciple,” in Encyclopedia of Homosexuality, ed.
Wayne R. Dynes, 125-126. New York: Garland, 1990.
Note. Robert Gagnon on the Jewish background of Jesus’ and Paul’s sexual teaching.
Gagnon, Robert (2001). The Bible and Homosexual Practice. Nashville: Abingdon.
Via, Dan O. and Robert A. J. Gagnon (2003). Homosexuality and the Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress.
In his two books on homosexuality and the Bible (2001; 2003) and in his Web site treatment of the centurion, and
in his review of Ted Jennings’ work on Jesus and the Beloved Disciple, Robert Gagnon (www.robgagnon.net)
emphasizes the importance of a supposed Jewish unanimity condemning homoerotic relations:
Given the fact that actual instances of homosexual behavior among Jews of this period [200 B.C.E. – 200 C.E.]
are not attested, the number of texts that speak directly to the issue of homosexual intercourse are sufficiently
numerous and unanimous to ensure an accurate assessment of what Jews thought…. As we shall see, the
52
evidence suggests that early Judaism was unanimous in its rejection of homosexual conduct” (2001:160;
emphasis mine).
What Gagnon overlooks, of course, is that texts cited as proving such a consensus constituted part of a larger
cultural context characterized by similar unanimity advocating patriarchy, sexism, heterosexism and
ethnocentricity, which presumed the inferiority of women and foreign national/ethnic groups and accepted only
“natural” sexual relations within marriage for the purpose of maximizing procreation. Since the teaching and
praxis of Jesus and Paul (both unmarried) clashed with such patriarchal and nationalistic prejudices, we cannot
assume simply from their Jewish identity that they shared all the cruel prejudices expressed in the elite male
documents, mainly from Alexandria/Egypt, then a hotbed of a kind of Platonism (reflecting the late views and
rhetoric of Plato in the Laws) which neither Jesus nor Paul advocated. As John Stott, the late renowned evangelical
expositor, emphasized in his critique of E. P. Sanders’ meticulous examination of Jewish texts on another question:
“Is it not well known that popular religion may diverge widely from the official literature of its leaders?” (Romans,
1994:28). Gagnon seems unaware of the problem of using elite writers from Alexandria’s cosmopolitan Jewish
community to understand popular culture in another country – Palestine’s largely rural, peasant Jewish population.
In contrast, some New Testament writings were written by and for common people and most were used directly by
the common people, including uneducated peasants and slaves.
If we cross-examine the specific witnesses Gagnon cites for the presumed Jewish consensus (that Jesus and Paul
supposedly shared), the argument appears even weaker. Gagnon admits in his introductory remarks, “The relevant
texts are primarily from Philo and Josephus” (2001:160), aristocratic males, steeped in Neoplatonism/ Stoicism,
who lived outside of Palestine (Philo in Alexandria; Josephus, mainly in Rome, married four times). To take such
figures as reflecting the attitudes and practices of the entire Jewish population in Palestine (and Tarsus, in Paul’s
case) would be comparable to taking the pronouncements of elite males in the Vatican as reflecting the convictions
of ordinary Roman Catholic women and men throughout the world (when some 90% are known to reject Vatican
teaching on birth control and supposedly “Roman Catholic countries” like Spain and Argentina have adopted gay
marriage. And since procreating heterosexuals commonly constitute more than 90% of the population, we can by
no means take the homophobic prejudices of this overwhelming majority as reflecting attitudes of sexual minority
representatives (like Jesus, Paul and most of their co-workers and intimate disciples) who did not want to marry,
did not seek to maximize procreation and who found in their circle of “friends/disciples, brothers/sisters” an
alternative “metaphorical family.”
In addition to Philo and Josephus, obviously quite weak as witnesses to first-century views in Palestinian Jewish
heterosexism and homophobia, Gagnon cites seven witnesses (2001:161), all of whom are even weaker:
1. “In the Letter of Aristeas 152 (ca. 200-100 B.C.E., Alexandria?), the author tells us that Jews are morally
superior to the gentiles in that the latter ‘not only draw near (or procure) males but also defile their mothers and
even their daughters. We [Jews] are quite separated from these practices’.” Note: Probably from Alexandria like
Philo, but a century or two further removed historically from Jesus and Paul – yet supposed to confirm attitudes of
everyone in Palestine, including all the sexual minorities who didn’t want to marry. One must also ask, if incest
was never practiced by Jews, why Leviticus 18 and 20 had to dedicate all those detailed prohibitions to incestuous
practices.
2. “In Sybylline Oracles 3 (ca. 163-45 B.C.E, Alexandria), we read that when the Romans come to dominate
the world, ‘immediately compulsion to impiety will come upon these men. Male will have intercourse with male
and they will set up boys in houses of ill-fame… and it will throw everything into confusion’ (184-87); the Jews
‘are mindful of holy wedlock, and do not engage in impious intercourse with male children, as do…many
nations…, transgressing the holy law of immortal God’ (596-600); and ‘avoid adultery and indiscriminate (or:
confused) intercourse with males’ (764).” Note: Also from Alexandria, but this witness apparently thinks only of
pedophilia, attributing the practice to the triumph of the Roman Empire (an ingenuous new theory regarding “the
cause of homosexuality”? – or just a victim of imperial oppression seeking to ridicule the oppressor?).
53
3. “The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 190-92, 212-14 (ca. 50 B.C.E. – 100 C. E., Alexandria?) urges that
‘the limits of sexual intercourse set up by nature’ not be transgressed by ‘intercourse between males,’ ‘nor should
females imitate…the sexual role of men.’” Note: At last, a witness perhaps roughly contemporary with Jesus and
Paul, but still reflecting attitudes of cosmopolitan Jews in Neoplatonic/Stoic Alexandria (we begin to suspect that
elite male Jews in Alexandria were high on homophobia). One might also imagine that their dry Egyptian climate
helped preserve more written fragments for modern scholars to contemplate. However, the preservation of the
Alexandrian texts was mainly due to “repeated copying by Greek-speaking Christians of the Eastern Empire /
Byzantium. Philo, Josephus, Wisdom of Solomon, psPhokylides were all among the Greek texts brought to
western Europe by the Greek scholars fleeing the fall of Constantinople in the 15th century” (Jim E. Miller,
personal correspondence).
4. “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (of uncertain date and location: ca. 150 B.C.E. – 200 C.E. in
Syria?) speaks disparagingly of ‘corrupters of boys’ (paidophthoroi; T. Levi 17:11) and of Sodom, which
‘exchanged the order of its nature’ (T. Naph. 3:4).” Note: Disapproval of corrupters of boys being equated to
condemnation of all homoerotic relations is rather like taking Nathan’s condemnation of David’s adultery as
condemnation of his heterosexuality! Similarly for the attempted gang rape of two visiting angels to Sodom, but
echoing something like the old notion regarding the cause of homosexuality: evidently the entire city (or all the
males therein – women don’t count) one day woke up and decided to become homosexual!
5. “In Sybylline Oracles 5 (ca. 70-132 C.E., Egypt) the writer declares, ‘With [Rome] are found adulteries and
illicit (or unlawful) intercourse with males’ (166), and predicts a future time when there will be no ‘illicit (or
unlawful) love of boys’ (430; cf. 387, which condemns Rome for ‘pederasty’)”. Note: Alas, after the brief Exodus
escape to Syria(?) we are back in Egypt, where another elite male Jew wants to blame everything on Rome and
speaks only of pederasty/love of boys.
6. “Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:4 (ca. 200 C.E.) states: “These are they that are to be stoned: he that has sexual
intercourse with his mother, his father’s wife, his daughter-in-law, a male, or a beast….” Note: Some 170 years
after Jesus’ crucifixion a Jewish commentary emphasizes the death penalty stipulated in Leviticus 20 for a series of
sexual sins. This commentary, rather than Jesus’ own words, Gagnon presents as evidence of what Jesus thought,
even though in his actual recorded teaching Jesus rejected the death penalty: “Let him who is without sin cast the
first stone,” John 8:1-12! And as Bernadette Brooten pointed out, the provision of Lev. 20:13 would involve
putting to death even a youth raped by an older male, since both were considered contaminated.
7. “Wisdom of Solomon 14:26 (ca. 30 B.C.E.- 50 C.E., Alexandria) might also be added to the list: idolatry is
the source of every evil, including ‘change of birth/origin’ (see ch. 4).” Note: We’re back in Alexandria, where
another elite male Jew, perhaps roughly contemporary with Jesus, sets forth the theory that idolatry is the cause of
what may be a reference to homoerotic practices – a text Paul may echo as he prepares his rhetorical trap in 
Romans 1:18-32.
Of the seven witnesses Gagnon cites, in addition to Josephus and Philo of Alexandria, five reflect elite Jewish male
views in Egypt (especially Alexandria in four cases), but none reflects the views of ordinary Palestinian Jews and
the majority reflect the views of Jews in another century, not the period when Jesus lived. The only Palestinian
source Gagnon cites, almost as an afterthought, is from the ascetics in Qumran: “The texts I cite above address
homosexuality explicitly [lesbians?!]…. The Qumran community did not expressly forbid same-sex intercourse,
but it did prescribe punishments for any member who even accidentally exposed his genitals to another (male)
member (1QS 7:12-14)” (Gagnon 2001:162).
Were a lawyer today to present evidence from a poll taken of married Roman Catholics a century from now in
Mexico as evidence of opinions on how unmarried Roman Catholic Americans today feel on any sexual issue he
would be laughed out of court. Yet Gagnon can present no Gallup-type poll but only a few scattered literary
54
fragments, mainly preserved in a country with a favorable dry climate. Gagnon cites such testimonies to establish
that Jesus must have shared the homophobic attitudes reflected among elite male Jews, mainly in Egypt, especially
Alexandria. However, if we simply approach the texts in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament without
pontificating about any such presupposed imagined “unanimity” of negative conviction, we may perceive a great
deal more diversity than expected. Which is simply to point out that the actual New Testament texts are our safest
guide to the thinking and teaching of Jesus (and Paul) – not the prejudices of elite cosmopolitan Jewish males in
Alexandria a century or two before or after the New Testament documents. Gagnon’s method in this area is more
like the old dogmatists, who combed the Bible for proof texts for their predetermined ideologies rather than
allowing the Bible to display its glorious diversity.
Appendix 2. Who was the Beloved Disciple? As Jennings points out, traditionally books about the
Beloved Disciple focus only on the question of his identity and overlook the basic question about the kind of
relation indicated by the texts. Jennings establishes that the relation was homoerotic. If that is correct, when we
return to the question “who?” the New Testament provides many candidates for this homoerotic relationship (Goss
2006:560-63). Nevertheless, whomever the Beloved Disciple may be, John’s texts make clear that he was only one
disciple, with a homoerotic relation of permanent commitment (the words at the cross). The principle candidates
are:
1. The Apostle John, son of Zebedee, brother of James (the traditional interpretation, dominant and without
competition until the 20th century). Evangelical Baptist Craig Blomberg concludes that we have "strong
circumstantial evidence” indicating that the Beloved Disciple was the apostle John (1997:170). Blomberg cites B. F.
Westcott’s classic declaration of the argument for considering John as the Beloved Disciple and author of the
Gospel in The Gospel According to St. John (1908: x-lii), with support from Leon Morris in Studies in the Fourth
Gospel (1969:139-292). Westcott sought to demonstrate that the Fourth Gospel was written by a Palestinian Jew, an
eye-witness and in particular the apostle John, who was the Beloved Disciple (see Raymond Brown 2003:189-94).
1.1 In favor of this interpretation (see Brendan Byrne 1992:658-59):




The silence of the Gospel of John regarding the apostle John, if he were not the Beloved Disciple (other
texts in John that may refer to John are 1:35-42; 18:15-16; 19:35; 21:24;
This disciple appears as Peter’s companion, as does John in the Synoptics and Acts;
John 21:20-25 indicates that the Beloved Disciple was a historical figure who played an important role in
the life of the Johannine community and whose recent death provoked consternation (21:23);
Beginning with Ireneus and Polycarp at the end of the second century the church fathers support this view.
1.2 Against (see Brendan Byrne 1992:659):




It is difficult to attribute a book like John to a Galilean fisherman;
The tendency to combine narrations with long symbolic discourses does not support the hypothesis that the
author is an eye-witness;
A Galilean eye-witness probably would not ignore the events that occurred in Galilee (cf. the Synoptics) in
order to focus on Jerusalem;
John omits various important events where (according to the Synoptics) the apostle John was an eyewitness: the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter; the transfiguration; the agony in Gethsemane.
Many conclude that the Beloved Disciple, although not the author of the Gospel, founded the Johannine school and
was its leader during the epoch of its consolidation (Alan Culpepper 1994:264-66; Brendan Byrne ABD I 1992:659). As eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry, his testimony served as the basis of inspiration for the author of the fourth Gospel (Gary
Burge 2000:163).
55
Note Among those who argue for other identifications of the Beloved Disciple are included R. Alan Culpepper
(1994]); Joseph A. Grassi (1992:117-118); Vernard Eller (1987]); and Theodore W. Jennings (2003). Eller and Jennings
conclude that the Beloved Disciple was Lazarus. Only in the last half of John do we find explicit references to the
Beloved Disciple (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20), but cf. Lazarus in 11:3; also see Richard J. Bauckham, "The
Beloved Disciple as Ideal Author" (1993: 21-44); J. H. Charlesworth, The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness
Validates the Gospel of John? (Valley Forge, Pa: Trinity Press International, 1995) .
2. Lazarus, the only person named in John as loved by Jesus (John 11:3, 11, 36; see 11:25-26 and 21:23; 
John, Floyd Filson, 1949; J. N. Sanders 1954-55; 1957; Vernard Eller 1987; Jennings 2003:51-52). [But it is difficult to explain
why an important person would be named in John 11 and 12 but left anonymous in John 13–21, according to
Brendan Byrne, (“Beloved Disciple”, ABD I 1992:659). Moreover, the Beloved Disciple is introduced as a new
personage in John 13:23 with no indication of having appeared previously in the Gospel; and no patristic authority
identified the Beloved Disciple as Lazarus – it is only a modern hypothesis (see Alan Culpepper 1994:76-77).]
3. Mark (John Mark), associated with Peter (Acts 12:12; 1 Peter 5:13), who also may be the young man who
fled naked (Mark 14:50-52).
4. The Rich Young Man, loved by Jesus (Mark 10:21), an element censured by Matthew and Luke (see the
parallel texts).
5. An elder/presbyter, author of 2-3 John.
6. Gentile believers. Rudolf Bultmann in his commentary concluded that in the scene with Mary at the cross
(19: 25b-27), the mother represents Jewish believers, while the Beloved Disciple represents Gentile believers (
John, 1971:483-85).
7. The Johannine community (itinerant prophets).
Bibliography: Who was the Beloved Disciple?
Bauckham, Richard J. (1993). "The Beloved Disciple as Ideal Author." Journal for the Study of the New
Testament 49, 21-44.
Burge, Gary M. (2000). “Beloved Disciple.” In Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 163. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Byrne, Brendan (1992). “Beloved Disciple.” In The Anchor Bible Dictionary I, ed. David Noel Freedman, 658661. New York: Doubleday.
Charlesworth, J. H. (1995). The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? Valley Forge,
Pa: Trinity Press International.
Culpepper, R. Alan (1994). John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend. Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina Press.
Eller, Vernard (1987). The Beloved Disciple. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Grassi, Joseph A. (1992). The Secret Identity of the Beloved Disciple. New York: Paulist, 1992. See "A Note on
This Close and Affectionate Relationship," pp. 117-118.
Jennings, Theodore W. (2003). The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament.
Cleveland: Pilgrim.
General Bibliography
Achtemeier, Paul J. (1996). 1 Peter. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Althaus-Reid, Marcella (2001/2005). Indecent Theology. London/New York: Routledge / Teologia Indecente.
Barcelona: Belaterra.
56
––––– (2006). “Mark.” The Queer Bible Commentary. London: SCM.
Ascough, Richard S. (2000). “The Thessalonian Christian community as a professional voluntary association”.
JBL 119 (2), 311-28.
Atwood, Richard (1993). Mary Magdalene in the New Testament Gospels and Early Tradition. Bern, Germany:
Lang.
Aune, David (1998). Revelation 17–22. WBC 52C. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Barth, Markus and Helmut Blanke (2000). The Letter to Philemon. ECC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Bassler, Jouette M. (1984). “The Widow’s Tale: A Fresh Look at 1 Timothy 5:3-16. Journal of Biblical Literature
103/1 (March), 23-41.
––––– (1991). “Peace in All Ways: Theology in the Thessalonian Letters.” Pauline Theology, vol. 1,
Thessalonians, Philippians, Galatians, Philemon, ed. Jouette M. Bassler. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Bauckham, Richard J. (1993). "The Beloved Disciple as Ideal Author." Journal for the Study of the New
Testament 49 (1993): 21-44.
Beale, Gregory K. (1998). The Book of Revelation. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Bieberstein, Sabine (1998/99). “Der Brief an Philemon, Brieflectüre unter den critischen Augen Aphias”.
Kompendium Femistische Bibelaulegung, 666-82. Gütersloher. Chr. Kaiser.
Blomberg, Craig L. (1997). Jesus and the Gospels. Nashville: Broadman & Holman.
––––– (1998). “The Christian and the Law of Moses.” Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts, ed. I.
Howard Marshall and David Peterson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Bock, Darrell L. (1994). Luke. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Bohache, Thomas (2006). “Matthew.” The Queer Bible Commentary, ed. Deryn Guest, Robert E. Goss, Mona
West, Thomas Bohache. London: SCM.
Bohache, Thomas, Robert Goss, et al (2006). “Acts”. The Queer Bible Commentary, ed. Deryn Guest, Robert E.
Goss, Mona West, Thomas Bohache. London: SCM.
Boswell, John (1980/92). Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press / Cristianismo, Tolerancia Social y Homosexualidad. Barcelona: Muchnik.
Briggs, Sheila (1989). “Can an Enslaved God Liberate? Hermeneutical Reflections on Philippians 2:6, 11”.
Semeia 47 (1989):137-53.
Brown, Raymond E. (1997). An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday.
−−−−− (2003). Introduction to the Gospel of John, ed. Francis J. Maloney. New York: Doubleday.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971.
Burge, Gary M. (2000). “Beloved Disciple.” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 163. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Burr, Chandler (2007). “Homosexuality, Religion, and the Biological Sciences”. Homosexuality and Religion: An
Encyclopedia, ed. Jeffrey S. Siker. Westport, Ct.: Greenwood Press.
Byrne, Brendan (1992). “Beloved Disciple.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, I:658661. New York: Doubleday.
Callahan, Allen Dwight (2009). “Onesimus”. The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 4:330-31.
Nashville: Abingdon.
Capps, Donald E. (1995). The Child's Song: The Religious Abuse of Children. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Charlesworth, J. H. (1995). The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John?. Valley Forge,
Pa: Trinity Press International.
Chin, Moses (1991). “A Heavenly Home for the Homeless: Aliens and Strangers in 1 Peter.” Tyndale Bulletin 42
[1991]: 94-112.
Collins, Adela Yarbro (1984). Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of Apocalypse. Philadelphia: Westminster.
––––– (1992). “Revelation, Book of”. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, 5:694-708.
New York: Doubleday.
––––– (2007). Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Corbo, Virgilio C. (1992). "Capernaum". The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, 1:866-869.
New York: Doubleday.
57
Corley, Kathleen E. (1989). “Were the Women around Jesus Really Prostitutes? Women in the Context of GrecoRoman Meals”. Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers, ed. David J. Lull, 487-521. Atlanta:
Scholars Press.
Countryman, L. William (1988). Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications
for Today. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Culpepper, R. Alan (1994). John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend. Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina Press.
D'Angelo, Mary Rose (1992). “Hebrews.” The Women's Bible Commentary, ed. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H.
Ringe. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Dahl, N. A. (1995). “Euodia and Syntyche and Paul's Letter to the Philippians”. The Social World of the First
Christians, ed. L. M. White and O. L. Yarbrough. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Danker, Frederick W. (2000). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. Third ed. (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich). Chicago: University of Chicago.
de Boer, Esther (1997). Mary Magdalene: Beyond the Myth, trans. John Bowden. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity.
Donelson, Lewis R. (1997). "Studying Paul: 2 Timothy as Remembrance". Society of Biblical Literature 1997
Seminar Papers, 715-731. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Donfried, Karl P. (1985). "The Cults of Thessalonica and the Thessalonian Correspondence". New Testament
Studies 31 (1985): 336-56.
Duling, Dennis C. (1993). “Matthew and Marginality.” Society of Biblical Literature 1993 Seminar Papers.
Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Eller, Vernard (1987). The Beloved Disciple. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Elliott, John H. (1990). A Home for the Homeless: A Social-Scientific Criticism of 1 Peter, Its Situation and
Strategy. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Fee, Gordon D. (1987/1994). The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / La
Primera Epístola a los Corintios. Buenos Aires: Nueva Creación.
Fehribach, Adeline (1998). The Women in the Life of the Bridegroom: A Feminist Historical-Literary Analysis of
the Female Characters in the Fourth Gospel. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press.
Foulkes, Ricardo (mss). 1-2 Tesalonicenses.
Fredrickson, David E. (2000). “Natural and Unnatural Use in Romans 1:24-27: Paul and the Philosophic Critique
of Eros”. Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture, ed. David L. Balch. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
Furnish, Victor Paul (2007). 1 Thessalonians; 2 Thessalonians. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon.
Gaventa, Beverley Roberts (1998). First and Second Thessalonians. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Glancy, Jennifer A. “Obstacles to Slaves’ Participation in the Corinthian Church”. Journal of Biblical Literature
117/3 (1998): 481-501.
––––– (2002). Slavery in Early Christianity. New York/Oxford: Oxford University (Fortress, 2006).
Gomes, Peter J. (1996). The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart. New York: William Morrow.
Good, Deirdre. "Eunuchs in the Matthean Community". (Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Society of Biblical Literature, Boston.)
Goss, Robert E. (2006). “Luke” and “John”. The Queer Bible Commentary, ed. Deryn Guest, Robert E. Goss,
Mona West, Thomas Bohache. London: SCM.
Grassi, Joseph A. (1992). "A Note on This Close and Affectionate Relationship." The Secret Identity of the
Beloved Disciple, 117-118. New York: Paulist.
Grau, Günter, ed. (1995). Hidden Holocaust? Gay and Lesbian Persecution in Germany, 1933-45, trans. Patrick
Camiller. New York: Cassell.
Gray-Fow, Michael (1986). “Pederasty, the Scantian Law and the Roman Army”. Journal of Psychohistory 13
[1986]: 449-60.
Greenberg, David F. (1988). The Construction of Homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Hanks, Thomas D. (1982/1983). Opresión, Pobreza y Liberación: Reflexiones bíblicas. San José, Costa Rica: Editorial
Caribe. / God So Loved the Third World: The Biblical Vocabulary of Oppression. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1983;
reprinted Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000.
58
––––– (1985). “Jacques Ellul: The Original Liberation Theologian?”. Cross Currents 35, no. 1 [1985]: 17-32.
––––– (1997). “Paul's Letter to the Romans as a Source of Affirmation for Queers and Their Families”. Our
Families, Our Values, ed. Robert Goss y Amy Strongheart, 137-49. New York: Harrington.
––––– (2006). “Romans”. The Queer Bible Commentary, ed. Deryn Guest, Robert E. Goss, Mona West,
Thomas Bohache, 582-605. London: SCM.
––––– (2010). El Evangelio Subversivo. Buenos Aires: Editorial Epifanía.
Harrill, J. A. (2006). Slaves in the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Haskins, Susan (1993). Mary Magdalene: Myth and Metaphor. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Hays, Richard B. (1996). The Moral Vision of the New Testament. San Francisco: HarperCollins.
Hearon, Holly E. (2006). “1 and 2 Corinthians”. The Queer Bible Commentary, 606-23. London: SCM.
Horner, Tom (1978). Jonathan Loved David. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Hunt, Mary E. (1991). Fierce Tenderness: A Feminist Theology of Friendship. New York: Crossroad.
Jennings, Theodore W. (2003). The Man Jesus Loved: Homoerotic Narratives from the New Testament.
Cleveland: Pilgrim. Spanish translation: El Hombre que Jesús Amó, www.fundotrasovejas.org.ar/ovejas.htm ,
"Libros On Line”.
––––– (2006). “1 and 2 Thessalonians”. The Queer Bible Commentary, ed. Deryn Guest, Robert E. Goss, Mona
West, Thomas Bohache, 669-83. London: SCM.
––––– and Tat-Siong Benny Liew (2004). “Mistaken Identities but Model Faith: Rereading the Centurion, the
Chap, and the Christ in Matthew 8:5-13”. Journal of Biblical Literature 123/3 [Fall 2004], 467-494.
Jewett, Robert K. (2003). “1 and 2 Thesalonians”. Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, ed. James D. G. Dunn
and John W. Rogerson, 1413-1427. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Johansson, Warren (1984). “Whosoever Shall Say to His Brother, Racha”. Homosexuality and Religion and
Philosophy, ed. Wayne R. Dynes and Stephen Donaldson, Studies in Homosexuality 12. New York: Garland,
212-14; reprinted from Dabiron and Gay Books Bulletin 10 [1984]:2-4.
Johnson, Luke Timothy (1999). TheWritings of the New Testament, ed. rev., 372-79. Minneapolis: Fortress.
––––– (2006). Hebrews: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Jordan, Mark D. (1997). The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Keener, Craig S. (1999). A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Kinukawa, Hisako (1994). Women & Jesus in Mark: A Japanese Feminist Perspective. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.
Krause, Deborah (2004). 1 Timothy. London/New York: T & T Clark/ Continuum.
Lampe, Peter (1991). “The Roman Christians of Romans 16.” The Romans Debate. Revised ed., ed. K. P.
Donfried, 216-30. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson.
Lincoln, Andrew T. (1989). “The Promise and the Failure.” Journal of Biblical Literature 108, no. 2 [summer
1989]: 283-300.
––––– (1990). Ephesians. WBC 42. Dallas: Word.
Mader, Donald (1992). “The Entimos Pais (Beloved Slave) of Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10”. Homosexuality
and Religion and Philosophy, ed. Wayne R. Dynes and Stephen Donaldson, 223-35. Studies in Homosexuality
12. New York: Garland.
Malherbe, Abraham J. (2000). The Letters to the Thessalonians. Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday.
Malina, Bruce J. and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (1998). Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John.
Minneapolis: Fortress.
Marshall, I. Howard (1983). 1 and 2 Thessalonians. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Martin, Dale B. (1995). The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press.
––––– (1996). “Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences.” Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality:
Listening to Scripture, ed. Robert L. Brawley. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Merkel, H. (1991). "Appendix: The 'Secret Gospel' of Mark". New Testament Apocrypha, ed. Wilhelm
Schneemelcher. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Miller, James E. (1997). “The Centurion and His Slave Boy”. (Unpublished paper presented in the 1997 annual
meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, San Francisco.)
Morris, Leon (1969). Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
––––– (1959/91/2007). The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
59
Moxnes, Halvor (2003). Putting Jesus in his Place: A Radical Vision of Household and Kingdom. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox.
Murray, Stephen O. and Will Roscoe, eds. (1998). Boy-Wives and Female Husbands: Studies of African
Homosexualities. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Nolland, John (2005). The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Osborne, Grant R. (2002). Revelation. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Percy, William C. (1996). Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Pippin, Tina (1994). “The Revelation to John.” Searching the Scriptures, vol. 2, A Feminist Commentary, ed.
Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. New York: Crossroad.
––––– and J. Michael Clark (2006). “Revelation/Apocalypse.” The Queer Bible Commentary, ed. Deryn Guest,
Robert E. Goss, Mona West, Thomas Bohache. London: SCM.
Pitre, Brant James (1999). “Marginal Elites: Matthew 19:12 and the Social and Political Dimensions of Becoming
‘Eunuchs for the Sake of the Kingdom’”. (Unpublished paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of
Biblical Literature, Boston.)
Ricci, Carla (1994). Mary Magdalene and Many Others: Women Who Followed Jesus, trans. Paul Burns.
Minneapolis: Fortress.
Ringe, Sharon H. (1995). Luke. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Saddington, D. B. (2006). “The Centurion in Matthew 8:5-13: Consideration of the Proposal of Theodore W.
Jennings, Jr., and Tat-Siong Benny Liew”. Journal of Biblical Literature 125/1 [Spring 2006], 140-142.
Schaberg, Jane (1992a). “Luke.” The Women's Bible Commentary, ed. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
––––– (1992b). “How Mary Magdalene Became a Whore,” Bible Review 8, no. 5 [October 1992]:30.37.
Schottroff, Luise (1995). Lydia's Impatient Sisters: A Feminist Social History of Early Christianity, trans. Barbara
and Martin Rumscheidt. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.
Stott, John R. W. (1991). The Message of Thessalonians. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity.
Tamez, Elsa (2004). Luchas de poder en los orígenes del cristianismo. Un estudio de la 1ª Carta a Timoteo. San José, Costa
Rica: DEI.
Theissen, Gerd (1986/87). In the Shadow of the Galilean: The Quest for the Historical Jesus in Narrative Form.
London: SCM.
Thompson, Mary R. (1995). Mary of Magdala: Apostle and Leader. Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press.
Thurston, Bonnie Bowman (1989). The Widows: A Women's Ministry in the Early Church. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Valantasis, Richard (2005). The New Q, 80-84. New York/London: T&T Clark.
van der Horst, Pieter W. (1996). “Sarah’s Seminal Emission: Hebrews 11:11 in the Light of Ancient Embrylogy“.
En A Feminst Companion to the Hebrew Bible in the New Testament, ed. Athalya Brenner, 112-134.
Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic.
Wanamaker, Charles A. (1990). Commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Westcott, B. F. (1908). The Gospel According to St. John. London: John Murray.
Williams, Joel F. “Literary Approaches to the End of Mark's Gospel.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 42, no. 1 [March 1999]:21-35.
Wilson, Nancy L. (1995). Our Tribe: Queer Folks, God, Jesus, and the Bible. New York: HarperCollins.
60