Meet Israel's Openly Gay High Priest

by PublishingCult 8 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • PublishingCult
    PublishingCult

    Aristobulus III of Israel (53 BC – 36 BC) was the last scion of the Hasmonean royal house, brother of Herod the Great's wife Mariamne, and paternal grandson of Aristobulus II. He was a favorite of the people on account of his noble descent and handsome presence, and thus became an object of fear to Herod, who at first sought to ignore him entirely by debarring him from the high priesthood. But his mother Alexandra Maccabeus (63 BC – 28 BC), through intercession with Cleopatra and Mark Antony, compelled Herod to remove Hananel from the office of High Priest and appoint Aristobulus instead.

    To secure himself against danger from Aristobulus, Herod instituted a system of espionage against him and his mother. This surveillance proved so onerous that they sought to gain their freedom by taking refuge with Cleopatra. Their plans were betrayed, however, and the disclosure had the effect of greatly increasing Herod's suspicions against his brother-in-law. As he dared not resort to open violence, he caused him to be drowned while he was bathing in Jericho.

    This article was taken from the Jewish Encyclopedia (1903).


    *** it-1 p. 163 Aristobulus ***
    (A·ris·tob´u·lus) [Best (Noblest) Counselor].
    An individual, some of whose household in Rome were sent greetings by Paul.—Ro 16:10.


    "According to Josephus, Alexandra asked Cleopatra, queen of Egypt, to intercede with Mark Antony on her son's behalf. Antony ignored her request, but he summoned Aristobulus on the advice of Delius, a Roman who had visited Jerusalem and admired both the lad's good looks and the beauty of Mariamne." Jewish Virtual Library

    Alexandra II would not be thwarted and sent a secret letter to her friend, Queen Cleopatra VII in Egypt, King Herod’s arch rival and nemesis. Cleopatra, in turn, sent a letter to Mark Antony seeking his assistance in the appointment of Alexandra’s son to the office of the high priest. When Antony’s lover, Dellius, was in Jerusalem, he saw the young prince, Aristobulus, and immediately admired both he and his sister, Miriamme I, now the wife of King Herod. He told Alexandra, to send paintings of her two children to the legendary Roman which she did. Herod, in his true style, with every servant reporting to him about everyone else, found out, but kept his peace till a future day. King Herod was in a bind. Herod had become king of Judea because of the favor to him by Mark Antony. He knew that Cleopatra would every moment she could, seek to influence Antony to remove the royal Jewish throne from the man, Herod, whom she hated.(BibleSearchers.com)

    I also saw a documentary about King Herod which described this scene in detail and corroborates the above. It was well known the Mark Antony was bisexual. Aristobulus’ mother, Alexandra was no doubt using the paintings sent to Mark Antony of Aristobulus to entice Mark Antony to appoint her son to the office of High Priest. This was a blatant overture appealing to Mark Antony’s love of young beautiful men. Mark Antony actually sent for Aristobulus, but Herod intervened fearing Ari would be made King and appointed Ari as High Priest, thus Ari never made the journey to meet Antony.

    What if Ari had made the trip to be by Antony’s side?

    Does one entice such a powerful leader appealing to his sexual appetites then refuse to appease those appetites? Of course not. That would be foolish. One may rightfully conclude that Ari was in fact gay or bi-sexual, in this case openly so. Even if he wasn’t, he was willing to submit sexually to another man. If homosexuality were really prohibited by the Levitical Law, this would certainly be in direct violation of that Law and would have resulted in Ari’s execution by the Jews.

    I think this is evidence that the Jews in Herod’s and Ari’s time did not view homosexuality the same as today’s Christians interpret Levitical Law, and neither does it particularly harmonize with Christian Fundamentalists' view of homosexuality.

  • Satanus
    Satanus

    Homosexual acts, at the time weren't a big nono, like today. In fact, upper class, married greeks and some of the romans of the same level routinely held catamites, young men to have sex w. Even the bible avers to this, in the young slave, near death whom his master 'loved'. Jesus healed him, of course. No problem to jesus, iether.

    S

  • PublishingCult
    PublishingCult
    Even the bible avers to this, in the young slave, near death whom his master 'loved'. Jesus healed him, of course. No problem to jesus, iether.

    I had nearly forgotten about this account in the Bible.

  • Quendi
    Quendi

    bookmark

  • skeeter1
    skeeter1

    Thanks. I didn't know this. I learned something.

  • Pahpa
    Pahpa

    It should be noted that many Jews rejected the Temple priesthood

    and arrangement because of its Roman connections. Some even

    withdrew from Jerusalem and established their own societies.

    While homosexuality may have been practiced and tolerated by Roman

    society, it is obvious that it was forbidden in the Christian fellowship.

    One only has to read Paul's counsel on the subject to show that it

    not to be allowed. It may be another reason that the Romans

    considered Christians as "anti-social" and outcasts.

  • Larsinger58
    Larsinger58

    Overt homosexuality and aesexual romance between two men were two different things.

    Case in point, Jewish folkloric versions of Nehemiah depict him as infaturated with the handsome Artaxerxes. When he requested to return home he is depicted sitting on the king's lap and "batting his eyes" at the king. Elsewhere he is depicted as extremely flamboyant. The context of this is confirmed by Herodotus who says Cyrus and the Persian court insisted on eunuchs as court officials because they knew no personal ambitions for wives or children and were totally devoted to their masters, who became their family and primary loves.

    Likewise, the love affair between Jonathan and David, with all that kissing and exchanging vows is not considered to be sexual, yet this demonstration of affection between two men was acceptable. And it was to some extent romantic because David compared the love of Jonathan as being better than any love of any woman he had. Why the comparison with a woman's love if this was just buddy-buddy? This was two men in love with each other without the sexual connection.

    That brings up the issue of Jesus and his cousin, John, whom it is said was the disciple that "Jesus loved." Clearly this was not sexual, but was this an attachment similar to what Jonathan and David had? Some of this is suggested in Medieval art where John is often depicted in a very feminine way. In fact, in the DaVinci painting of the last supper, some claim it is actually Mary Magdalene and not John who is sitting next to Jesus (i.e. recount the movie "The DaVinci Code" made such a claim).

    last supper, davinci

    Here is a collection of "St. John in Art": http://home.arcor.de/berzelmayr/st-john.html

    " With the huge commercial success of Dan Brown's novel "The Da Vinci Code", some of the theories from this book became very popular. One of them says that Leonardo da Vinci placed Mary Magdalene and not St. John next to Jesus in his Last Supper painting. But a lot of other artist gave St. John, who was called "the beloved disciple" in the Bible, a certain look, which is now considered by many people as "feminine"...."

    Point being an allusion to a "romantic" but aesexual attachment between Jesus and John, which was santitized and paganized by saying Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and she was his wife, when in reality they are just suggesting that John was Jesus' love preference.

    But clearly this is not sexual! It is just an acknowledgment that two men could be in love with each other and remain celibate. So open relationships between two men was common, though obviously some expressed it sexually while others did not. In Jesus' case, John was his 1st cousin so his special love for him was also in the context of a relative.

    Meaning? This priest might have accepted admiration and affection up to a point, but would not have violated levitical prohibitions against overt homosexual acts. But today, if we saw two men kissing and hugging like Jonathan and David, that would be considered way over the line for display of public affection. Which means, even if this priest drew the line with genital contact, that doesn't mean he wouldn't be enjoying the company of some other man which could lead to a kiss or two, or other non-sexual gesture of affection.

    If you can't imagine this, the easiest way in modern terms for what this might have been would be DATING. That is, two gay men dating but never marrying. Say two men in the congregation who are both gay and they know they are both gay and the whole congregation knows they are gay. They become friends. They know homosexuality is wrong. But they go out to dinner together and keep each other's company, pioneer together, etc. They may even fall in love with each other, but clearly remain celibate and chaste. The endless date. It's okay to date a gay man but not marry him. Marriage and sex are out, but dating and kissing are okay. Apparently?

    Apparently it was okay to court another man, but that's it.

    LS

  • PublishingCult
    PublishingCult

    While homosexuality may have been practiced and tolerated by Roman society, it is obvious that it was forbidden in the Christian fellowship. One only has to read Paul's counsel on the subject to show that it not to be allowed.

    Wrong. If you are going to take "Paul's counsel" at face value devoid of historical context and a discussion of language text translation we have ourselves a serious case of spiritual malpractice here.

    Examples: 1 Corinthians 11:6

    "For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head."

    1 Corinthians 11:14-15 (New International Version, ©2011)

    14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

    So, here, Paul's counsel is clear. It is disgraceful and against nature for a woman to cut her hair.

  • PublishingCult
    PublishingCult

    Lars, thank you for your post and you give some interesting perspective to ponder.

    Regarding David and Jonathan, I just find it very difficult to reconcile that their relationship was merely of a brotherly nature. Would you ever, if you are heterosexual male, compare the love you have for a male friend to the love you feel for a woman? Would that be appropriate in any context absent of same-sex romanticism?

    I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
    greatly beloved were you to me;
    your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" (2 Sam. 1:26).

    “When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his belt.” (1 Samuel 18:1-4)

    Now, imagine if this story had been about Jonathan and a woman. Suppose the author had written that “Jonathan’s soul was bound to Mirriam, and Jonathan loved her as his own soul.” And suppose that upon meeting Mirriam for the first time, Jonathan immediately gave her all his most precious possessions. (The armor and weapons of a prince were important symbols of his power and status.) If 1 Samuel 18:1-4 were about Jonathan’s first encounter with a woman, theologians everywhere would be writing about this as one of the greatest love stories of all time. The story of Jonathan and his love would be the source of dozens of Hollywood films. But because the object of Jonathan’s affection is a man, our cultural prejudice kicks in and we insist (notwithstanding the biblical evidence) that this could not have been more than deep friendship.

    This “culturally correct” reading will not withstand scrutiny. It asks us to put an interpretation on the story that is completely at odds with our own experience of human behavior. When was the last time you saw a heterosexual man, swept away by brotherly love, offer another man his most precious possessions in their first encounter? Suppose the pastor of your church (assuming he is a man), upon meeting another man for the first time, stripped himself of his suit and gave it to the other. Suppose in that same encounter he also offered his most precious possessions — perhaps a family Bible, a wristwatch with an inscription from his parents, and his beloved four-wheel drive pickup truck. Wouldn’t this strike you as more than just a little “queer”? Let’s face it, the author of 1 Samuel is describing a classic love-at-first-sight encounter that happens to involve two men.

    Say two men in the congregation who are both gay and they know they are both gay and the whole congregation knows they are gay. They become friends. They know homosexuality is wrong. But they go out to dinner together and keep each other's company, pioneer together, etc. They may even fall in love with each other, but clearly remain celibate and chaste. The endless date. It's okay to date a gay man but not marry him. Marriage and sex are out, but dating and kissing are okay. Apparently?

    What a wonderful scenario if these two men were Santa and the Easter Bunny. I'm afraid if things went the way your scenario sets forth, there would be some very questionable return visits going on in the real world.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit