September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« Medical Equipment Determines Human Value? | Main | Darwin Dissenter »

October 11, 2012


A few weeks ago when STR raised this topic I was intrigued with the various comments and especially those dealing with the Bride of Christ in the various tenses. It makes perfect sense of course. He both "has" a Bride and "will have" a Bride. We are, and, we will be, etc. Depending on the context of the discussion, either this worldly or that worldly, one could raise the topic either way. He was. He is. He will be.

Let me add one thing, which is not a statement of any sort of truth-claim, but just a reflection. We hold that Word is made Flesh, both in Him and, ultimately, in Mankind. The issue with Christ is Ransom. Spotless. Sinless. I do not see, really, how a marriage here in this life would have corrupted the Ransom. Such is not sin. And it is sin, in particular His sin, which is at the core of this. And, in marriage, there is no sin. His accusers find no fault in Him, other than claiming to be equal to God. Rome is not concerned with this, and the Jewish community is split, initially, though ultimately all deny Him.

There is much more to our, or my, experience with Him than simple dogma. There is the living God. The touching God. The God Who rescues. The God Who Is. The Really Real. Given the technology that exists today, and will exist, and given the hate which thrives against the God Who is Love, don’t we expect some sort of fabrication which will pass every “test” whether it be a document or a grave or a stone or a bone, someday? What has such to do with Him Whom we *Know*? What has Marriage to do with sin? Well, quite a lot it seems: The God Who is Love calls us, you and I, His Bride, and He then spreads His arms wide, and pours Himself out, and cries “Forgiven!” And we hate Him for it.

But that is not the end of it. It is when we are hating Him the most, with a white hot hate, there, up on a Hill, it is then, in that very moment, that He loves us the most. And Infinity there pours Himself into the Finite, and the two become one, and Love begets yet more Love.

I am not at all shocked by this forgery. Our most reliable sources of history, the Gospel writers and secular writers like Josephus, would surely have written of a wife had He had one. Jesus' mission wasn't to have a wife, it was to save humankind. The problem, here, is not that He could have had a wife, it's the fact detractors to Christianity ignorantly would proclaim this as a death knell to our religion and thusly confuse people already weak in their walk with Christ. Jesus being married affects the concept of the Church as the Bride of Christ, yet even if He was married, it wouldn't really change things doctrinely to the extent that Christianity would be destroyed. Rumors and lies have tried to quell our beliefs for years. This attempt just goes to show how prideful and arrogant our society has become that we believe we are the ones that will finally defeat Christianity.

10 to 1 the Harvard professor that published the original piece won't be held accountable...

F - accountable for what?

John, why would Josephus mention that Jesus had a wife if he had one, and how would Jesus having a wife destroy Christianity?


I think part of John's point was that Jesus' having a wife would not destroy Christianity. He thought it might affect the theology that surrounds the Bride of Christ metaphors in the Bible.

I'm not even sure of that. The fact that every Christian has a head, I think, has little bearing on Christ being the head of the Church. Nor, I think, does the fact that Christ had, and continues to have, a physical body affect the Church's role as the body of Christ (with Christ as the head).

Putting these ideas together. Very few brides that I know of are the headless bodies of their husbands...though who knows, maybe one day the law will be changed to allow a man to marry his own body (except his head). I mean, who am I to judge. Be that as it may, I don't think that this fact has much bearing on talk about the Church's role either as bride or body of Christ.

You are most likely right that there is not a terribly strong reason to think Josephus would mention a wife. It seems less likely that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John would be silent about it. Though, of course, they might have been. And making any definitive claim about Christ's marital status based on the silence of Scripture is surely a fallacious appeal to silence.

John is right about one thing though. You can be sure that, were Jesus married, and were that ever discovered without question, the Academy would be very quick to short-stroke the discovery into the wholesale discrediting of the historicity of the Bible. The 'scholars' would surely make that appeal to silence in a heartbeat.

Some would probably be given chairs for championing the contradictory view that Christ's having a wife proves that He is an entirely legendary figure...or a woman...or both.


I think right now people are assuming that the Harvard scholar, Karen King, is a victim of the forgery. She was fooled herself. She's not the forger.

I don't think she needs to be fired over that. I don't believe she can be, since I think she's tenured. But Harvard may quietly encourage her to seek opportunities elsewhere. And she may be inclined to do so, since she'll probably be drawing a heavier, less interesting, teaching load. And she'll probably be passed over for merit increases.

The comments to this entry are closed.