It's sometimes alleged that Jesus was a bachelor because Jesus was gay.
Some people say Jesus was gay, not because they really believe that, but because they like to get a rise out of Christians. They know some Christians will wax indignant if they make outrageous statements about Christianity, and they like to push their buttons.
Some people say Jesus was gay, not because they really believe that, but because they want to destroy Christianity, and one tactic is to redefine Jesus. They know a gay Jesus is inimical to biblical, orthodox Christianity. It's like a computer virus.
I suppose one argument for the gay Jesus is that he spent so much time in the exclusive company of other men. That, however, would be a fallacious inference.
i) For instance, Jack and Warnie Lewis were middle-aged bachelors who spent lots of time in the exclusive company of other men, belonged to men's clubs, yet there's no evidence they were gay. (Jack eventually married, late in life and unexpectedly.)
ii) More to the point, in the context of 1C Palestinian Judaism, the fact that Jesus spent so much time in the exclusive company of other men is actually evidence that he wasn't gay. If Jesus was suspected of being homosexual, he'd have no disciples. Back then, normal Jewish men had an extreme aversion to sodomites. And in addition to their personal aversion, they'd avoid the company of known or suspected homosexuals to protect their own reputation. Associating with sodomites would invite gossip and innuendo that they were homosexual, too. If they suspected that Jesus was gay, they'd go out of their way to avoid being seen in his company.
iii) To my knowledge the traditional Jewish polemic against Christianity doesn't allege that Jesus was homosexual. It accuses him of sorcery, blasphemy, or illegitimacy. If there were rumors that Jesus was homosexual, wouldn't that be a fixture of the traditional Jewish polemic against Christianity?
So why was Jesus a bachelor? The NT doesn't say, so we can only speculate.
1. As God-Incarnate, Jesus has an anomalous psychological makeup. On a two-minds Christology, the human mind of Jesus is to some degree conditioned by the divine mind. God Incarnate may not be psychologically suited to marriage.
2. In paganism, male gods and demigods fraternize with human women. As God Incarnate, Jesus might wish to avoid heathen associations with licentious gods.
3. The notion of God Incarnate having a sexual relationship with a human woman seems analogous to other sexual sins which transgress natural boundaries, viz. parental incest, bestiality, and pedophilia.
4. Jesus didn't come to have a normal social life or normal lifespan. Rather, he came to die. And he knew ahead of time when he was going to die. Even if there weren't theological impediments to Jesus getting married (see above), that might well be a major deterent.
Take single men and women diagnosed with an incurable degenerative illness. They may be asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis. Their illness is a time-bomb, just waiting to detonate.
Or take someone who's diagnosed with an inoperable brain aneurysm. In their head is a ticking time bomb.
They may forego marriage and kids due to the prospect of incapacitation or premature death. They make a great personal sacrifice.
5. Imagine the havoc it would wreak in church history if Jesus had kids. That would foster the cult of Christ's sons and daughters. There might be rival cults, since each dominical son or daughter would their own family tree. What if two or more dominical descendants had a theological dispute with each other?
Imagine the theological clout the descendants of Jesus would have. Instead of following the Bible, Christianity would be diverted into a family cult. People with dominical bloodlines would command slavish followers. There'd be disputes over dominical lineage.
6. If Jesus had a wife and kids, he'd be neglecting his family by spending so much time on the road. An absentee husband and father.
7. Conversely, it would be quite impractical for Jesus to take his family with him as he traveled by foot all over Palestine. Exposure to the elements day and night.
Some of his disciples may have been married while some of his disciples may have been bachelors. There's be no semblance of privacy, sleeping out of doors. That's not a problem if it's just a bunch of men. It is a problem when you throw men and women together, some married, some unmarried.
Traditionally, men often team up for male-only expeditions. They can go at their own pace. Don't have to worry about protecting or providing for women and children in tow. Privacy is not an issue.
That's true in historical explorations. Military situations. Some missionary situations. Take Mormon missionaries who pair off: two young guys. Nothing gay about that arrangement.
(That's not a plug for Mormonism–just a sociological observation.)
Your (3), (4) and (5) nail it down. (You have no (7) between (6) and (8)) :)
ReplyDeleteForgive my repeating your points, but they are worth repeating.
1. As you note, one sense in which it would be improper for Jesus to indulge in sexual relations with a woman would be the other-worldy nature of a woman having sex with the God-Man Jesus and vice versa.
2. On (1), if Jesus *had* had sexual relations then there is no doubt that this would be wielded as evidence *against* his being God incarnate. One can almost hear the objections: 'If this was God in the flesh come to save sinners, then why is he indulging himself with such worldy things outside of his remit!?'
This shines a torch on the insincere nature of the objection.
3. Again, as you note, Jesus was here on serious business. As serious as you can get. The last thing on His mind would be getting involved with a woman, even allowing for His human nature.
4. Grant that it did cross Jesus' mind, and grant there were no theological impediments to His getting married. Would that be responsible, knowing that He would be leaving a young widow?
5. On (4), Insert children into that mix. Good grief. As Steve notes... the drama! It would be The Da Vinci Code on crack.
6. The objection is insincere. Just mischievous atheists trying to make Christians' heads explode :)
I think that there is something else to be said on the level of social observation. I am coming from the vantage point of flesh, human observations.
ReplyDelete1) There seems to be a custom of brideprice (or bridewealth) found in the Bible. This is the practice whereby a the bridegroom's family had to give some kind of property (including even money) to the bride's family.
Now, if Jesus' family after a certain point was that of a single-parent because of Joseph's death, then they may have lived on the edge of poverty. What this means is that coming up with a decent brideprice would have been difficult for Mary. So in the eyes of many a Israelite, Jesus might have been slim pickings. As such they would not have even approached his family inquiring into the possibility of Jesus a husband for their daughter.
2) Additionally, there may also have been yet still a stigma attached to Mary on account of her having a child prior to actually coming together with Joseph. Yes. We know that this was the work of God, but gossip and rumors might have still made the rounds. Why marry into Mary's family, when the whispers have been bad?
- Yes. There was all that stuff with the angels and shepherds and Elizabeth, Zechariah and Anna but Jesus' life until He actually began His ministry, was at least in terms of appearances underwhelming.
I think that from the standpoint of fleshy, human eyes and reasoning, Jesus was not a prize catch. Isaiah also mentions that in terms of looks, he was nothing special. Nondescript.
Yet still another thought comes to mind. Jesus' culture - if I am not mistaken was in general a culture of arranged marriage and they married quite young. If this is so then the marriages were arranged by the parents with the help of some local rabbis. So in the main, it would have fallen on Mary to work out the details of Jesus' marriage.
ReplyDeleteYet if Mary understood that Jesus was the Messiah and had a mission (as we can gather from the Wedding at Cana), then her first reaction to any marriage inquiries or proposals would be to turn them away. Jesus as an obedient Son would have obliged.
That's a good point about Mary warding off potential romantic interests given her knowledge of Jesus' mission.
DeleteHaving said that, regarding Jesus being an 'obedient Son', I think His self-knowledge would have necessitated that He had no need for Mary to rule on that matter. Jesus knew what He was put on this earth to do, and we know that He was single-minded and unwavering in His mission. So while I agree that Mary would have warded off any romantic interests, the God-Man was not dependant upon Mary making that decision for Him.