The reports all over the news about the papyrus, the Harvard professor and the wife of Jesus seemed straight out of a Dan Brown novel, not least, one suspects, because they sounded like that to the journalists concerned.
My co-author, Chalcedon is unconvinced it is genuine, taking the line of one of the experts quoted here that it is a patchwork of quotations from the gnostic ‘Gospel of Thomas’ put together by a non-native Coptic writer. Until proper tests are made on the ink, no one will know for sure whether it is a fake; but even if it is genuine, so what? That was what I asked Chalcedon. His answer is here:
The so-called ‘gospel of Thomas’ is one of a number of texts from the second or third centuries of the Christian era which take the general line that Jesus was a man. One of the ways they do this is to emphasise his humanity. To say He was married is an obvious way of doing so. If this fragment is not a forgery, it is representative of a non-orthodox line of thought. It proves that the unorthodox were not orthodox; a conclusion of surprise only to the modern journalist.
As C explained it to me, this is part of a debate over the ancient heresy known as ‘docetism’. Those influenced by Greek philosophy in Alexandria rejected the idea that anything which was transcendent like the spirit could mix with something base like the body, so if, as they were happy to believe, Jesus was a great Spirit, He could not have been human. Other Christians argued against this by stressing the bodily reality of Jesus – He was born of a woman, He got hungry, He suffered. Those who objected to the idea that God could have lowered Himself so, argued that all these things were simply acts – God pretending to be human; some even went so far as to say that Jesus was occupied by the Spirit of God, who departed from Him on the Cross – a line with some influence on early Islam.
Some have argued that it would make no difference is Jesus had been married, as Christians are not anti sex or anti-women; that is to miss the point. This is not about the modernist agenda or feminism, it is about our faith. The Gospels and St. Paul, our best sources, are clear that Jesus did not have a wife; they mention Peter’s wife, and if the Lord had had one, they’d have mentioned her, as the Church is certainly not anti-women or anti-sex.
But stop there, as my co-author told me, “Jesus has a wife, the one He has always had – His Church. The Apocalypse (21:9) presents the Church as the Bride of Christ. All four Evangelists present Christ as the bridegroom (do a search), and the Fathers all saw the Bride as the Church. Now unless someone wishes to accuse Christ of sin, that should be that.”
That seems to me the critical point. It is because it would make a lie of the universal tradition of the Church that it matters whether Jesus was married. Yes, and yes a thousand times, He was a man, with all the usual urges no doubt, but He was also God. That is how the Church has received Him, and how it treats Him.
servusfidelis said:
“All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.” (John 1:3). Just this fact alone tells me that Christ is God and that all creatures were made by Him and given life by Him. To claim that Christ would “marry” a human would almost be as sordid as a man who would made an android and then marry it: a sophisticated version of the sex dolls. Or who would doubt that the chasm between divine and human is even greater than that between a man and a worm? Would I then as a man ever consider marrying a worm? I think not. Christ’s love for our worm is His desire for our eventual adoption and the sharing of divinity in the Heavenly Kingdom. The Bride of Christ has always been the people who belong to the Church, who is the Bride: or are they also calling Christ a philanderer as well? The new Gnosticism, as C was pointing out, is not very new at all and we will certainly see more of it in the future.
Good post Jess. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Thank you my friend. I was a bit nervous, and C is putting up a post later (hurrah).
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
Nothing to be worried about. You did a great job. Looking forward to C’s post.
LikeLike
Lyn Leahz said:
Bravo Jessica! Bravo! You did excellent dear sister!
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Thank you my dear sister 🙂 This is a hard one in many ways – and I think you made some excellent points 🙂
LikeLike
Lyn Leahz said:
I agree Jessica. I don’t believe it is real at all. However, IF it were, let us all remember that marriage is one of the holiest things there is, and so is intimacy with a husband and wife. Again, I do not believe Christ was married…. but an interesting question would be…IF He had been..why would that cause problems for so many people in their minds? Is it because sex and relationships are looked at anymore as perverse because of what society and the enemy have done? Taking the holiest thing on earth there is as a direct reflection on the reltationship of God and the church and perverting it so much that we are conditioned to thinking of it as something dirty? If two are married before God, then marriage and intimacy is directly symbolic of something so holy we can’t imagine.
Let me explain here once more; I don’t believe Christ was married. However, for those who do have doubts, I am attempting to explain something so that this whole concept doesn’t matter in regards to one’s image of the Lord. I don’t believe He would have been married because His focus was serving God, teaching, and His death and ressurrection. Furthermore, Paul even comments on how people should marry if they have desire, but it is better not to marry becuase then you serve God and God alone.
But for the sake of people’s thoughts or ideas or opinions being changed due to this thing, I say these things. IF He was (He wasn’t..but IF) was He not God in the flesh? And is marriage NOT a holy thing before God? Had He been, and had it been recorded had He been, it would have been the best instruction tool by example for married people today. However, again I say, Christ’s focal point was not to serve a woman, or for a woman to serve Him.. Christ served God alone, and I believe that wholeheartedly.
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
All good points if Christ “only” had a human nature; but He didn’t. The theological implications would be huge if were proven that Christ married. Even from His discourse to His apolstles we see Christ teaching: “there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive this” (Matt. 19:11). Not one of His apostles were married to our knowledge, except Peter (and it is conjectured that he was a widower). Would Christ not set the example and follow His own advice? So it would make a difference to our understanding of Christ and from a theological perspective would bring His Divinity into question.
LikeLike
Lyn Leahz said:
I agree wholheartedly. I am only making that point for the naysayers who are filled with doubt and believe such trash….just to beat the enemy at his own mind game..if that makes sense. I am not among those who are taken by such nonsense and blasphemy.
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
I know you do Lyn. I’m just saying that theologically, if it were true, the ramifications would stand Christianity on its head.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
They would indeed my dear friend 🙂
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
The most isidious part of all these stories of the Dan Brown ilk is the doubt that it sows in believers and those that were just starting to hear Christ calling them within their souls. I have a nephew who, by watching the junk on TV, thinks that we are the product of animals that were inseminated by alien beings who come back from time to time to force us to mine gold which is somehow supposed to be good for their atmosphere. This is the type of space cadets our media is forming out in the world and this is just more fodder for their idiocy. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I fear that is all part of the effect. I see that Chalcedon’s post is up – I must go and read it 🙂
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
It’s very good. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Yes, it is. I need to read it again to get it all, but I like how he contextualises it 🙂
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
Very succinct and to the point. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Very like him 🙂
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
Must be nice to have your own resident historian to consult with. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
It is. But he is one of those professors you hope you don’t get if you are lazy and want a good grade. Work hard and you’ll get a fair grade – but that is not too popular nowadays 🙂
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
No. In our country if you are a good liberal or progressive you’ll get a good grade; no need to study, just go and protest with a crowd of dissenteres. I don’t think C would like to teach in our colleges. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
He did do a spell in Missouri in the early 1990s, but mainly research. With C if you work hard you get the grade – if you don’t, you flunk it. This does not make him popular; but this does not worry him. He says if he was popular he wouldn’t be doing his job. 🙂
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
That’s the truth. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
And as such, not popular. 🙂
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
Well not among students but we like him. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
He’ll be pleased. I think he is more popular with the students than he realises, but I shan’t tell him. 🙂
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
I would imagine so. Some of my toughest professors were my favorites because they challenged me. The others were more like additional students rather than a professor who gained their respect. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
He certainly challenges them 🙂
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
The sign of a good and respected professor. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I think so 🙂 x
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
Me too 🙂 x
LikeLike
Lyn Leahz said:
And..it is my knowledge that the apostles left their family, t heir wife, and everything to go and follow Jesus.
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
Indeed they did. 🙂
LikeLike
Lyn Leahz said:
Marriage is a holy thing, but a thing for the flesh. If we remember Jesus’ words is that there is no marriage between man and woman in heaven. It was as a human example for a spiritual reflection of the Lord, and for childbearing to replenish the earth. Id on’t think Jesus had a need for marriage. However, I am stating what I said for those who are sitting around doubting and having bad thoughts about Jesus.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Yes, you are quite right to address those who think such things Lyn – and very useful your thoughts are too – as ever 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Indeed – we certainly know that Peter did, and there’s no reason to suppose he was the only one.
LikeLike
Lyn Leahz said:
I hope I have made sense and have not come across wrong… I DO NOT BELIEVE Christ has a wife and I think because people’s minds are conditioned to thinking “OH my! He’s not the same! He woudld have been with a woman..which means they would have had intercourse! How dirty!” Thus, changing their opinion and possibly their faith in the Lord, that this is none other than a diversion by the enemy to lead people astray. That is why it needs pointed out to those who have doubts about this that, “Hey, if He did…look..it’s not dirty..but it is a HOLY thing!” Do I make sense? Or am I being confusing? LOL!!!
LikeLike
Mr. V. said:
Lyn,
As Jessica said in her post, there is nothing wrong with marriage, of course, or of having a wife and a family. But the Son of God became man in order to provide a perfect sacrifice for men’s salvation, not to start a family.
This whole business of Jesus having a wife was an attempt by heretics of the early church period to take away from the divinity of Christ. I fully believe the fragment is real and not a forgery. However, all that shows is that someone discovered a piece of writing from an ancient group of heretics. It is not proof of anything relating to Jesus’ life.
LikeLike
Lyn Leahz said:
Hey you guys, I said I agreed with Jessica…one hundred percent…everything she wrote is right on. I also said that I was stating what I said for those who doubt and want to think something negative about our Lord. I also stated I don’t believe Jesus was married..in fact, I think it is blasphemous because it totally goes against His word. I want to reiterate that. I stand in agreement here. I feel I explained myself pretty well.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
You did Lyn, and what you said is very useful for those who believe that somehow we are against sex – which, alas, some do 🙂
LikeLike
Lyn Leahz said:
LOL!!! That wasn’t what I meant..but it’s okay. Love ya bunches and bunches sister. God bless you! Thank you for your kind words.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
LOL 🙂 xx
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
Christ came to do His Father’s will, which He did perfectly. He did not come to fulfill the human ideal; i.e. the faithful pure and loving family. The human family is, after all, just a reflection of the unity that Christ already has in the Trinity. He has no need for embracing a reflection of what He has in Actuality within the Godhead. Theologically it makes Christ a mere human being (made in the image and likeness of God) without being part of the One Triune God in Truth. That negates Christianity in a profound way.
LikeLike
Lyn Leahz said:
I’m in agreement. If i tsounds like I am not, please re read my posts more carefully..thanks and God bless.
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
I understood that Lyn, I’m only trying to make a point to those who might not. 🙂
LikeLike
Lyn Leahz said:
I understand..but I am making sure because it is just too easy to be misunderstood on the internet (no voice inflection, facial expression, body language, etc.; plus, no one really knows you personally.) Sadly to say, there will be may who will believe this atrocious thing…so, for those who do, and will not believe, or have doubts, I want to give them a postive thought on it…
LikeLike
servusfidelis said:
Understood. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No, you make perfect sense Lyn, and none of the objections to the idea come from being against sex, but rather from the nature of the Incarnation 🙂
LikeLike
Lyn Leahz said:
🙂 Not here dear sister…. I didn’t take anyone objecting for this reason here. I’m sorry I am having a time coming across right. I am saying that there are people out in the world who will buy into this thing, and for them, it might cause them to view Jesus differently as their Lord and Savior…which is the plan by our enemy for this entire scheme and lie to begin with. So, for those people who will sway in their beliefs toward such a lie, I am giving them a different light in which to look at it. I did not think that any of us here were against it for those reasons. I think we are against it because we know the truth, and we know better. But the world doesn’t, nor do the lukewarm Christians that are easily being led astray today by false doctrines.
LikeLike
Mr. V. said:
Lyn wrote:
“Hey you guys, I said I agreed with Jessica…one hundred percent…everything she wrote is right on. I also said that I was stating what I said for those who doubt and want to think something negative about our Lord. I also stated I don’t believe Jesus was married..in fact, I think it is blasphemous because it totally goes against His word. I want to reiterate that. I stand in agreement here. I feel I explained myself pretty well.”
You did explain yourself well. My apologies…I was not censuring you or criticizing you in any way. The beginning of my comment was repeating really what both you and Jessica had written. The second half of what I wrote was in reaction to the whole media buzz about the idea of Jesus being married, and my opinion of this ancient writing. My comment was meant to be a furthering of what both you and Jessica had written, not a criticism or refutation or anything of the sort. My apologies if it came off that way; I can be occasionally clumsy in the way I word things.
LikeLike
Lyn Leahz said:
Oh honey, you are fine. It’s the curse of email and posting…no facial expression, body language, voice inflection..just words for people to sometimes (and I do the same myself) read the wrong meaning into them. No offense taken. It probably sounds like I’m offended at times, but I’m not. If anything, I’m the type of person that gets all worried someone is misunderstanding me, but not mad or angry. I am very very slow to anger… I think oftentimes so many of us try so hard to explain what we mean so much, that it is then when we get misunderstood..and I’m the worst! Dont’ worry about it. For the record, if I ever sound upset, mad, etc. just know that it is the furthest from the truth. I get my feelings hurt easily or worried, but not angry. If i ever sound that way, I’m sorry. I don’t mean to. God bless you!
Know this too, I am not Catholic. So we are going to have differences in what we believe. In respect to my dear sister I love sooooo much, Jessica, knowing this is ‘her’ website and she is Catholic, I will never ever come here and argue differences in theological beliefs..because I come here on my own knowing this. I will agree with her articles, and oftentimes, there might be those theological beliefs I disagree with, but I will overlook it and say nothing, just as she does on my page.
We are ALL sisters and brothers as long as we share this one most important thing: Jesus Christ is the Messiah..the Son of the living God, and that He willingly gave up His life on the cross so we could be set free from sin. In so doing, we were given access to the Holy Spirit. So, we agree on this, and the Holy Trinity..and that is what is MOST important.
We are not all one family, however, who believe contrary to the above statement. Such as the people who claim there is no Holy Trinity, or Jesus was just a prophet, or the like. Anyone who denies Jesus and the Holy Trinity cannot be saved. The Bible says so.
I have seen noone here make any such claims contrary to this…so I feel that we are of the same family, understanding we have this one most important thing in common, and therefore remaining prayerfully silent on the rest. And so it is, in Christ, as my sisters and brother you are, I love you all. God bless you.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
That’s right on the button dear sister. 🙂
I am actually an Anglo-Catholic, which means to an Anglican I’m a Catholic, and to a Catholic I am an Anglican 🙂
Like you, dear sister, what matters is we believe in Christ and the Trinity. For the rest, well, the more we discuss these things, the less the gap history makes between us matters 🙂
LikeLike
Tom Mcewen said:
I do not believe the Lord was married. He came to do God’s will to redeem mankind, whatever personal life that would interfere with that mission must go over the side. To love a woman when you are destined to be rejected, to be thought evil, a child of the devil. arrested by the revered leaders of your nation, beaten, then condemned to death in the Roman manner as a criminal, branding all these things on a woman who is your life, is cruel and evil, it always evil to bring harm by intent. And Christ’s life was 100% intent, God’s will, not Jesus’ will, Christ holding any personal intents that reject God’s will is evil. Christ is not evil. To bring the fact that your nation rejected and hate your husband, to have him pointed out as a criminal and blasphemer of the seat of Moses is not kind nor loving. Christ was the good workman, who labored for the day of resurrection. Mary was necessary and was the a true sense the handmaiden of the Lord, a sword pierced her heart, why do the same to more then one. You can only have one master, one loyalty, one mission, and when that mission is death, then death is the master and death is the final destination, not life.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Absolutely spot on Tom. 🙂
LikeLike
Lyn Leahz said:
Here’s an article I posted on this subject from a Christian News source. You might be interested. http://lynleahz.com/2012/09/23/my-thoughts-on-the-gospel-of-jesus-wife/
LikeLike
Lyn Leahz said:
YOu guys will love this video! Watch! http://lynleahz.com/2012/09/24/gary-stearman-on-the-wife-of-christ/
LikeLike