The original article can be found here
http://thefenwickreview.holycross.edu/archives/newtheology
Professor Tat-Siong Benny Liew holds a doctorate and teaches at the Jesuit College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Mas.
Professor Liew's numerous publications reveal an unconventional approach to gender, sexuality, and race in the biblical texts.
"Mistaken Identities but Model Faith: Rereading the Centurion, the Chap, and the Christ in Matthew 8:5-13" (2004), provides a representative example of his style of exegesis. Professor Liew and his co-author, Theodore Jennings, argue that Matthew 8:5-13, the story of the centurion who goes to Jesus to ask for healing for his servant, ought to be interpreted in terms of a sexual relationship.
The text: (8:5-9, 13)
"And when he had entered into Capharnaum, there came to him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, and is grieviously tormented. And Jesus saith to him: I will come and heal him. And the centurion making answer, said: Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof: but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed. For I also am a man subject to authority, having under me soldiers; and I say to this, Go, and he goeth, and to another, Come, and he cometh, and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. And Jesus hearing this, marvelled; and said to them that followed him: Amen I say to you, I have not found so great faith in Israel ... And Jesus said to the centurion: Go, and as thou hast believed, so be it done to thee. And the servant was healed at the same hour."
Matthew’s account, runs the argument, does not concern a centurion and his servant, but a centurion and his lover/slave. "The centurion’s rhetoric about not being 'worthy' of a house visit by Jesus (8:8) may be the centurion's way of avoiding an anticipated 'usurpation' of his current boylove on the part of his new patron [Jesus]," they assert.
(Ah, the 'may be' is what in advertisng terms is called a 'weasel': words or phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made, when instead only a vague or ambiguous claim has actually been communicated.)
Is there any evidence to suggest the supposed relationship between centurion and servant? None. Is there any to suggest that Jesus was bi- or homosexual and furthermore either a predatory person, or one so weak He would not be able to control himself at the sight of such a presumed beautiful servant?
Furthermore, “The way Matthew’s Jesus seems to affirm the centurion’s pederastic relationship with his παῖς, we contend, may also be consistent with Matthew’s affirmation of many sexual dissidents in her (sic) Gospel.”
Oh really? Here's another one: According to Strong, the Greek term παῖς can mean "a child, boy or girl, infants, children, servant, slave, an attendant, servant, specially a king's attendant, minister"
So how about the centurion is actually being guarded, because the 'servant' is not his, but actually belongs to the household of Pilate, the regional governor? Or that the servant himself is Pilate, making secret overtures to Christ? After all, Pilate seemed loathe to handle the case when Christ was arrested, and sought every means to avoid passing judgement.
+++
In 2009, Professor Liew edited "They Were All Together in One Place?: Toward Minority Biblical Criticism." He was primary editor, wrote the introduction and contributed an essay: “Queering Closets and Perverting Desires: Cross-Examining John’s Engendering and Transgendering Word across Different Worlds.”
Here Professor Liew explains that he believes Christ could be considered a "drag king" or cross-dresser: "If one follows the trajectory of the Wisdom/Word or Sophia/Jesus (con)figuration, what we have in John’s Jesus is not only a "king of Israel" (1:49; 12:13– 15) or "king of the Ioudaioi (the Jews)" (18:33, 39; 19:3, 14– 15, 19– 22), but also a drag king (6:15; 18:37; 19:12)"
Let's look at the verses in question:
When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone. (6:15)
Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. (18:37)
And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. (19:12)
... I don't see it.
+++
Professor Liew asserts that Jesus’s “excessive” and “deceptive” speech would be considered “feminine” in the culture of the time:
"Women pollute since their moist and soft nature is also more susceptible to the assaults of wanton desires, erotic or otherwise. In short, women are wet and (thus) wild. I am suggesting that John’s constant references to Jesus wanting water (4:7; 19:28), giving water (6:35), and leaking water (19:34) speak to Jesus’ gender indeterminacy and hence his cross-dressing and other queer desires"
O ... M ... G
Professor Liew’s understanding of Jesus in “Queering Desires” suggests an unusual interpretation of the Holy Trinity.
Later, he treats the Passion. Jesus is not only beaten (18:22– 23; 19:3) and flogged (19:1); his body is also nailed and his side pierced (19:18, 23a, 34, 37; 20:24– 28). Oddly, John defines Jesus’ masculinity with a body that is being opened to penetration. Even more oddly, Jesus’ ability to face his “hour” is repeatedly associated with his acknowledging of and communing with his Father (12:27– 28; 14:12, 28; 16:10, 17, 28; 17:1– 25; 18:11), who is, as Jesus explicitly states, “with me” (16:32) throughout this process, which Jesus also describes as one of giving birth (16:21– 22). What I am suggesting is that, when Jesus’ body is being penetrated, his thoughts are on his Father. He is, in other words, imagining his passion experience as a (masochistic?) sexual relation with his own Father.
Professor Liew’s unconventional readings of Scripture has brought a new theological perspective to Holy Cross. The position and prestige which accompany an endowed chair in Religious Studies testify to the esteem in which his work is held by the College’s administration and academic community. He continues to be held up as an example and a bold successor to the learned and discerning tradition of our Catholic and Jesuit College of the Holy Cross.
God help us ...
http://thefenwickreview.holycross.edu/archives/newtheology
Professor Tat-Siong Benny Liew holds a doctorate and teaches at the Jesuit College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Mas.
Professor Liew's numerous publications reveal an unconventional approach to gender, sexuality, and race in the biblical texts.
"Mistaken Identities but Model Faith: Rereading the Centurion, the Chap, and the Christ in Matthew 8:5-13" (2004), provides a representative example of his style of exegesis. Professor Liew and his co-author, Theodore Jennings, argue that Matthew 8:5-13, the story of the centurion who goes to Jesus to ask for healing for his servant, ought to be interpreted in terms of a sexual relationship.
The text: (8:5-9, 13)
"And when he had entered into Capharnaum, there came to him a centurion, beseeching him, And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, and is grieviously tormented. And Jesus saith to him: I will come and heal him. And the centurion making answer, said: Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof: but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed. For I also am a man subject to authority, having under me soldiers; and I say to this, Go, and he goeth, and to another, Come, and he cometh, and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. And Jesus hearing this, marvelled; and said to them that followed him: Amen I say to you, I have not found so great faith in Israel ... And Jesus said to the centurion: Go, and as thou hast believed, so be it done to thee. And the servant was healed at the same hour."
Matthew’s account, runs the argument, does not concern a centurion and his servant, but a centurion and his lover/slave. "The centurion’s rhetoric about not being 'worthy' of a house visit by Jesus (8:8) may be the centurion's way of avoiding an anticipated 'usurpation' of his current boylove on the part of his new patron [Jesus]," they assert.
(Ah, the 'may be' is what in advertisng terms is called a 'weasel': words or phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made, when instead only a vague or ambiguous claim has actually been communicated.)
Is there any evidence to suggest the supposed relationship between centurion and servant? None. Is there any to suggest that Jesus was bi- or homosexual and furthermore either a predatory person, or one so weak He would not be able to control himself at the sight of such a presumed beautiful servant?
Furthermore, “The way Matthew’s Jesus seems to affirm the centurion’s pederastic relationship with his παῖς, we contend, may also be consistent with Matthew’s affirmation of many sexual dissidents in her (sic) Gospel.”
Oh really? Here's another one: According to Strong, the Greek term παῖς can mean "a child, boy or girl, infants, children, servant, slave, an attendant, servant, specially a king's attendant, minister"
So how about the centurion is actually being guarded, because the 'servant' is not his, but actually belongs to the household of Pilate, the regional governor? Or that the servant himself is Pilate, making secret overtures to Christ? After all, Pilate seemed loathe to handle the case when Christ was arrested, and sought every means to avoid passing judgement.
+++
In 2009, Professor Liew edited "They Were All Together in One Place?: Toward Minority Biblical Criticism." He was primary editor, wrote the introduction and contributed an essay: “Queering Closets and Perverting Desires: Cross-Examining John’s Engendering and Transgendering Word across Different Worlds.”
Here Professor Liew explains that he believes Christ could be considered a "drag king" or cross-dresser: "If one follows the trajectory of the Wisdom/Word or Sophia/Jesus (con)figuration, what we have in John’s Jesus is not only a "king of Israel" (1:49; 12:13– 15) or "king of the Ioudaioi (the Jews)" (18:33, 39; 19:3, 14– 15, 19– 22), but also a drag king (6:15; 18:37; 19:12)"
Let's look at the verses in question:
When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone. (6:15)
Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. (18:37)
And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. (19:12)
... I don't see it.
+++
Professor Liew asserts that Jesus’s “excessive” and “deceptive” speech would be considered “feminine” in the culture of the time:
"Women pollute since their moist and soft nature is also more susceptible to the assaults of wanton desires, erotic or otherwise. In short, women are wet and (thus) wild. I am suggesting that John’s constant references to Jesus wanting water (4:7; 19:28), giving water (6:35), and leaking water (19:34) speak to Jesus’ gender indeterminacy and hence his cross-dressing and other queer desires"
O ... M ... G
Professor Liew’s understanding of Jesus in “Queering Desires” suggests an unusual interpretation of the Holy Trinity.
Later, he treats the Passion. Jesus is not only beaten (18:22– 23; 19:3) and flogged (19:1); his body is also nailed and his side pierced (19:18, 23a, 34, 37; 20:24– 28). Oddly, John defines Jesus’ masculinity with a body that is being opened to penetration. Even more oddly, Jesus’ ability to face his “hour” is repeatedly associated with his acknowledging of and communing with his Father (12:27– 28; 14:12, 28; 16:10, 17, 28; 17:1– 25; 18:11), who is, as Jesus explicitly states, “with me” (16:32) throughout this process, which Jesus also describes as one of giving birth (16:21– 22). What I am suggesting is that, when Jesus’ body is being penetrated, his thoughts are on his Father. He is, in other words, imagining his passion experience as a (masochistic?) sexual relation with his own Father.
Professor Liew’s unconventional readings of Scripture has brought a new theological perspective to Holy Cross. The position and prestige which accompany an endowed chair in Religious Studies testify to the esteem in which his work is held by the College’s administration and academic community. He continues to be held up as an example and a bold successor to the learned and discerning tradition of our Catholic and Jesuit College of the Holy Cross.
God help us ...
