Man Jesus Loved. Theodore W. Jr. Jennings

chapter 6, I turn to the question of the theological and ethical significance of the gay-affirmative interpretation of this relationship. I maintain that such an interpretation is helpful not only for gay readers of the Bible but also helps to clarify the nature, and relationship between, human and divine love.

       The Texts

      Prior to an attempt to interpret the material concerning Jesus and the disciple he loved, a review of the textual materials on which such an interpretation is based is necessary. We begin with a survey of the relevant sections of the Gospel of John.

The first reference to this figure comes in the account of Jesus’ last meal with his disciples. John’s account (John 13–17) is quite extraordinary.¹ Unlike the other three “Gospels,” or the brief account we find in Paul (1 Cor. 11:3–26), nothing whatever occurs relating to an institution of the “Last Supper” as a meal to be celebrated by the community following Jesus’ death. Instead, we find Jesus stripping naked and washing the feet of his friends—something that Peter at least regards as quite unseemly.²

      The only feature that this account has in common with other accounts of Jesus’ last meal with his disciples is the reference to the imminent betrayal of Jesus by one of the disciples. Precisely in connection with this detail, we encounter for the first time the singling out of one of the disciples as in some special way loved by Jesus.

Saying these things Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified and said: “Amen, Amen, I tell you that one of you will betray me.” The disciples looked at one another being perplexed about whom he speaks. One of his disciples was lying in Jesus’ lap, the one Jesus loved; so Simon Peter nods to this one and says: “Tell, who is he talking about.” That one, falling back on Jesus’ chest says to him: “Lord, who is it?” Jesus answers: “It is the one to whom I will give this morsel when I dip it.” So when he had dipped the morsel he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot. (John 13:21–26)³

      This text is preceded and followed by the assertion that Jesus loved all the disciples (13:1, 34). Jesus’ farewell discourse to the disciples continues to the end of chapter 17.

      Following the long discourse and the account of his arrest, we come to Jesus’ trial. Here we find a passage that, although it does not explicitly refer to the disciple Jesus loved, is sometimes considered as part of the relevant data:

      Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, but Peter was standing outside at the gate. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out, spoke to the woman who guarded the gate, and brought Peter in. (18:15–16)

      Then follows the account of the trial, presumably overheard by both Peter and “another disciple.” After the trial and execution of Jesus we come to the scene at the foot of the cross.

      But there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, the sister of his mother, Mary [the wife] of Clopas, and Mary the Magdalene. Jesus, seeing his mother and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he said to his mother “Woman, see your son.” Then he says to the disciple, “See your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own. (19:25–27).

      The account of Jesus’ death in this text is remarkably unlike that which we encounter in other narratives. After Jesus’ side is pierced, the account concludes with the observation: “And the one who saw has testified and his testimony is true and that one knows that he speaks truly—that you also may believe” (19:35).

      A reasonable conjecture, though not explicitly stated, is that “the one who saw” is the one previously identified as the disciple that Jesus loved. But at this point the conjecture rests on the use of the masculine possessive pronoun (his testimony), since the only male witness to the cross identified in the text is the disciple loved by Jesus.

      Following the burial of Jesus, we have the account of the discovery of the empty tomb, which again is markedly different from what we find in the other Gospels:

      Now on the first [day] of the week Mary the Magdalene comes early, while it is yet dark, to the tomb, and sees that the stone had been taken from the tomb. So she runs and comes to Simon Peter and to the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and says to them, “They took the Lord from the tomb and we don’t know where they put him. Peter and the other disciple went out therefore and came to the tomb. And the two ran together; and the other disciple ran ahead more quickly than Peter and came first to the tomb, and stooping sees lying the sheets, but he didn’t go in. So Simon Peter comes following him, and entered the tomb, and he sees the sheets lying, and the kerchief, which had been on his head, not with the sheets but separate, having been wrapped up in one place. Then the other disciple, who had come to the tomb first, also entered and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not know the writing, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples went back to their own homes. (20:1–10)

      A number of resurrection appearance stories follow: first to Mary the Magdalene (20:11–18); then to a group of disciples in their hideout (20:19–23); then, eight days later, to Thomas “the twin,” in company with the others (20:26–29). Then, after what looks like a conclusion to the narrative (20:30–31), we encounter a long resurrection narrative that occupies the entire final chapter. In this narrative we hear again of the disciple Jesus loved. The most significant sections of this narrative for our purposes are reproduced below (with summary indications of the connecting links). “There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called the twin, Nathaniel of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples. Simon Peter says to them, ‘I am going fishing.’ They say to him, ‘We’re coming with you.’ They went out and embarked on the boat; but that night they caught nothing.”

      Then Jesus, incognito, gives them instructions from the shore about where to put their nets, with the result that they fill the nets. Then, “that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, ‘It’s the Lord!’ When Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on his clothes, for he was naked, and threw himself into the sea. But the other disciples came in the little boat” (21:7–8).

      They then have a fish fry on the beach for breakfast. There follows a long dialogue in which Jesus asks Peter three times if Peter loves Jesus. Each time Peter responds affirmatively and is told to tend or feed Jesus’ sheep. When Peter protests his love, Jesus talks about Peter having to be held up when he gets older, which the narrator tells us means that Peter also will be crucified. Jesus then tells Peter: “Follow me” (21:15–20).

      Turning, Peter sees the disciple that Jesus loved following them, who also was the one who leaned on Jesus’ chest at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is the one betraying you?” Peter seeing this one says to Jesus, “Lord, and what of him?” Jesus says to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!” The saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple is not to die. But Jesus didn’t say that he doesn’t die, but: “If I want him to stay until I come, what’s it to you?”

      This is the disciple witnessing concerning these things and having written these things, and we know that his witness is true. (21:20–24)

      The narrative ends with the notice that Jesus did many other things.

      This final appearance of the disciple Jesus loved links up to the first appearance at the supper and echoes the word at the death of Jesus that he is a true witness. Here it becomes clear that the one referred to in 19:35 was probably the beloved disciple, because here the passage states explicitly that he is the faithful eyewitness whose testimony is somehow said to be basic to the text of the narrative.

      I have cited these texts at such length so that the reader may see exactly the extent of the material with which we are concerned. I have also attempted to give a fairly literal rendering for the same reason. Interpretation of the texts and the consequences of a homoerotic interpretation are the subjects of the next five chapters.