The idea that Jesus was gay is not new and, if he was gay, he must have had someone to be gay with.
The strongest candidate for the role of Jesus’ GBF is “The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved” and he can only be found in the Gospel attributed to John.
In the Gospel attributed to John, the writer uses this “mysterious” literary character to give the reader access to his protagonist’s (Jesus) innermost thoughts. This strange and enigmatic character is not mentioned in any of the Synoptic Gospels, nor is the character ever mentioned in any other non-canonical source.
Over the last 1850 years, most people have accepted the official line established by the early Church: that the writer of the 4th Gospel was John, son of Zebedee and that it was an avatar of himself he wrote into his Gospel as “The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved” but there’s a problem! We know that John son of Zebedee was around the same age as Jesus so he would have been dead by the 70s of that first century. (Read more on John son of Zebedee here)
The problem for the Church was that the Gospel attributed to John was not written until the middle of the second century and it was written anonymously. Their solution to this obviously embarrassing discrepancy was to ignore the evidence and insist that the Gospel was indeed written by John, the son of Zebedee, who was a witness to the events of the life of the Jesus of History. In that way, they were able to imply the validity of their radical text and at the same time, they were also able to imply that the Gospel was written in the first century, not the second – a “two-for-one” if you like.
As the band, Depeche Mode, said so well in 1989, everyone has their “own personal Jesus” and hasn’t time proved them right! As the years have passed, and as society has become so drastically progressive, it was inevitable that more and more people would begin to see Jesus as a gay man. (read more on Gay conspiracies here)
Strangely enough, most people don’t need any actual evidence to support their vision of Christ. However, some brave souls did at least try to make an effort to prove that their controversial conclusions have some validity in the historical text.
They reasoned that if Jesus was gay he would need someone to be gay with as we mentioned above. The Disciple whom he “Loved” seemed to fill that need. So once again, the “Disciple Whom Jesus Loved” was and is being used to validate the preconceived ideas of a powerful minority.
But is it true?
There are five scenes in the Gospel of John that include the disciple “Whom Jesus Loved” but only two need concern us here: the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.
The Last Supper: John 13:23
“Now one of his disciples, whom Jesus Loved, was lying back in the bosom of Jesus. Simon Peter, then, is nodding to this one to ascertain who Jesus was talking about – saying “Tell us who it is he is referring to.”
So he (the Disciple Whom Jesus Loved) leans back on the chest of Jesus and says “Lord who is it?”
Jesus answers him saying “It is him who I give this morsel to”. He dips his bread in the food and gives it to Judas Iscariot. And with that, Satan enters into Judas. Jesus then says to Judas, “Whatever you must do, do quickly.”
Now no one lying back at the table knew to what purpose he said this to him.”
Analysis:
In order to use this text as evidence that the Jesus of History was gay, you have to prove two things:
- That the phrase, “The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved” implies male to male sexual love and that the person in question was indeed male.
- That the phrase “Leans back on his chest” actually describes what happened in reality and that it occurred as physically described.
Let’s take point one first.
The active word here is “Loved” in English and the problem is that we have only one word for that feeling in English. In Greek there are six. All references to this disciple use the Greek word “Agapao” (Strong’s G25), which describes the unquestioning and platonic love we have (or used to have) for our families.
If the writer had wanted to imply that the disciple was the sexual partner of the Jesus of History he could have used the Greek word “Eros” or indeed “Ludus” (which we get the words “Erotic” and “Lewd”. Unfortunately, for those who would like to “out” Christ, that is not what is written. As soon as the gospels are read in their original Greek, any suggestion of homosexuality evaporates.
However, looking at the text it is clear that the writer did intend the reader to understand that the disciple whom Jesus loved was indeed male, as the male pronoun is used.
Looking at the second point, “Leans back on his chest” – due to this phrase, the scene, as written, doesn’t work. The Last Supper was a meal. Nobody can eat with an adult lying on their chest. Jesus wasn’t a pillow. If he had an adult male lying on his chest he would not have been able to eat, nor would he have been able to pass bread to Judas Iscariot. He would also have been able to hear what Simon Peter was saying. The scene, as written, is ridiculous, so why would this Greek writer have written something so obviously not history?
The metaphor “to be in the bosom of someone” is a Hebraism taken from the Torah. When someone was said to be in the bosom of Abraham, it means that he has a close relationship with Abraham. It doesn’t mean that he was physically permanently lying in the poor man’s arms.
It is obvious that the writer, in his attempt to give the ring of truth to his Greek fiction, added a large portion of Hebrew sauce, but the writer of the 4th Gospel over egged his pudding. Having everyone lying on the chest of Jesus illustrates perfectly the fact that the writer was not a Hebrew and was not describing a real event.
The Crucifixion: John 19:26
“Now there stood beside the cross of Jesus his mother and the sister of his mother, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. Jesus then perceiving his mother and the Disciple Whom He Loved standing by, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold your son!”
Looking at the Disciple Whom He loved, he said, “Behold, your mother!”
And from that hour forward the Disciple took her to his own.”
Analysis:
I agree with Professor James Tabor, If “The Disciple Whom Jesus Loved” was any of the disciples the writer had already mentioned he would have just inserted their name at this point. There must have been a reason why he couldn’t have just used the name of this mysterious person. The brothers of the Jesus of History are conspicuous by their absence.
We can see in the writings of Saint Paul (Saul of Tarsus) that the Christ cult distanced themselves from the Hebrew family of the Jesus of History in order to protect the authority of Rome. We know that it was Jacob (James) the brother of the Jesus of History who, in reality, took over the Nazarene movement when Jesus died – not Saint Peter. James the Just (Jacob the Zadik) was the eldest brother after Jesus and there is a reason why his real Hebrew name (Yacob) has always been Latinised as James whilst every other Jacob in the Bible has been translated correctly. The Roman Church had to erase the humanity of Jesus and to do that that had to erase or repackage his family.
The Gospel of Thomas explains the love that the Jesus of History had for his brother:
The disciples said to Jesus, “We know you will leave us. Who is going to be our leader then?” Jesus said to them, “No matter where you go you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being.”
The touching and heart rending exchange echoed here in the 4th Gospel gives us a glimpse of a son saying to his mother not to fear as she had another son who would care for her.
Conclusion:
It is obvious that the “Disciple Whom Jesus Loved” was his brother James the Just (Yacob Zadik) with whom he had a close relationship. It is the only person who fits the text and the historical reality confirmed by non-canonical sources.
If Jesus was gay, it is unlikely that he would have been Gay with a man known to history for his purity.
If you enjoyed this blog, you may like to watch our video: “Was Jesus Gay – Is Father Christmas Gay?”
If you would like to examine the Gospel of John from the point of view of the Jesus of History, you might like this blog.
(Side note: it is unlikely he was referring to the later anonymous Narrative Gospel, which the early church fathers arbitrarily decided to attribute to Matthew as Matthew is a narrative Gospel, in Greek syntax and most likely written much later.) Within the Synoptic Gospels it is obvious that the ‘Sayings’ were copied from a primary external source. The ‘Sayings’ are internally coherent and confirm to Jewish philosophy.
From this analysis of the first chapter of the Gospel of John, we can see that there is really not much difference between this fictitious Gospel attributed to ‘John’ and Reverend Gideon Jasper Richard Ouseley’s admittedly fictitious Gospel, ‘The Gospel of the Holy Twelve’.