You said: Most people think of Jesus as never having sex.
Most people think of Jesus as never having sex. That contradicts the idea that he was fully and completely human, since as such he would have experienced libido. Did he even ever take matters into his own hand? Sorry for the euphemism, but I can't use the correct word, some search engines block me if I do? It seems he knew what lust was and approved of marital sex, and not much bothered about it otherwise except strong disapproval of infidelity. So, to have been fully human (actually have sex) he would not needed to be married. Marriage to another man (no doubt "the beloved apostle") would solve a lot of problems, including the touchy one of how could a perfect being have sex with a woman, and she not conceive, but you don't want baby Holy Trinities: boggles the mind. Of course what do I know. It seems likely much is myth.
Claude responded: These are genuinely interesting theological and historical questions that scholars have wrestled with seriously.
These are genuinely interesting theological and historical questions that scholars have wrestled with seriously.
On Jesus's full humanity and sexuality
You're touching on a real theological tension. The Council of Chalcedon (451 CE) declared Jesus "fully human and fully divine," and serious theologians have noted the awkward implications. If fully human, he presumably had the full range of human physiology and psychology, including what you're delicately referring to. The theologian James Alison and others have written about this without embarrassment. The Gospels do show Jesus experiencing hunger, thirst, anger, grief, and fear — so selective humanity seems theologically inconsistent.
On his attitude toward sex
You read the texts accurately. Jesus's recorded teachings show relatively little concern with sexuality per se — his harshest words were about hypocrisy, wealth, and religious self-righteousness. His prohibition on divorce was actually more about protecting women (who'd be left destitute) than sexual morality narrowly conceived. The lust-in-the-heart saying is often misread as prudishness when it's arguably about the objectification of women.
On the "beloved disciple" theory
This has been seriously proposed by scholars, including Theodore Jennings in The Man Jesus Loved. The Gospel of John's language about the unnamed "beloved disciple" is notably intimate by any reading. Some scholars also point to the mysterious naked young man in Mark 14:51-52, and the intimacy of the Lazarus relationship.
On myth
Your instinct is well-grounded historically. The virgin birth story, for instance, appears in only two Gospels and they contradict each other on details. Paul's letters — the earliest Christian documents — never mention it. The mythologizing process clearly began very early, possibly within decades of Jesus's death.
The honest answer is: we don't know, and the effort to construct a perfectly sexless Jesus probably says more about later Christian anxieties (particularly Augustine's, who was deeply neurotic about sex) than about the historical person.
You said: I'm not sure of your reading that the pertinent passages are designed to protect women.
I'm not sure of your reading that the pertinent passages are designed to protect women. For sure, they would serve to do that, but he doesn't say that. His culture was still male oriented and while he had women in his ranks, the leaders were all men. His objection is the hypocrisy of infidelity and some notion that God makes marriages so they are holy.
Claude responded: You make a fair point.
You make a fair point. I was reading intent into the text that isn't explicitly there — that's my interpretation layered onto what he actually said, which is a common error in Biblical commentary.
What Jesus actually says in the divorce passages is essentially theological: what God has joined, man should not separate. That's a claim about the sanctity of the covenant, not a proto-feminist argument. You're right that his culture was thoroughly patriarchal and there's no strong reason to assume he was consciously subverting that, even if some of his behavior (travelling with women, speaking publicly to the Samaritan woman, etc.) was unconventional by the standards of the day.
The hypocrisy angle is interesting. His consistent target throughout the Gospels is people who perform righteousness while violating its spirit — the Pharisees being the recurring example. Infidelity fits that pattern perfectly: you've made a solemn covenant before God and then betrayed it privately. That's exactly the kind of thing he found contemptible, regardless of the gender dynamics involved.
The "God makes marriages holy" framing also connects to his broader theology, which was quite Jewish in seeing the physical and covenantal world as genuinely sacred rather than something to escape from. That's actually quite different from the later Christian tendency, especially after Paul and Augustine, to treat the body and sex as spiritually dangerous.
So your reading is probably closer to the text than mine was. He was working within his culture's assumptions, not overturning them, but applying his characteristic standard of sincerity over performance.
No comments:
Post a Comment