But there is - My foremost complaint is how that affects the betrothal contract He has with his Bride - While it is possible for a man to have two wives, and while one can argue that His death caused any marriage He had here to be terminated, it still impacts the whole idea of the ONE 'woman' he loves, and your proposal turns all of that betrothal stuff right on it's head. That betrothal is our contract with Him!
Very interesting and I'd not considered that. Isn't the bridegroom/bride analogy simply figurative just as the slavery or prisoner analogy often made in the NT? A man can be married to his work (but that may kill his real marriage as you have stated), but Christ as the Jehovah of the OT is God and nothing is beyond him.
Secondly, all things being equal, a married man will no doubt produce offspring - This is a can of worms that comes right out of the DaVinci Code - what a mess if there is a bloodline heir! But we need not worry about all that, because the Bible says He was cut off - That is a particular thing, meaning no blood heir - His line is ended.
Potentially and as an aside I find the DaVinci Code despicable garbage. Its purpose is to undermine Christ and to insult the Catholic Church. I'm not aware of the verse you refer to indicating that Jesus' line is cut off. Take a look at Isaiah 53:10 where it states emphatically that "[Jesus]shall see his seed" is that to be figurative or literal?
But that too suggests He was *not* married, as his brother would be obliged to take His wife and continue His heirs. Some form of the kinsman-redeemer would be enacted upon His bloodline and that bloodline would have continued in all likelihood.
On this point I am not clear as to what you are getting at.
And lastly, as a matter of form, it is an argument from silence - A position that I am usually loathe to take. There is no legitimate evidence that He had a wife, something the Bible would no doubt declare. But it does not. There is nothing, except one pseudo-documentary gnostic strain which one must read with a suspension of disbelief in order to give it any credence at all, not to mention any authority.
Here I agree with you that an argument from silence isn't a strong argument. At the same time there would be a lot of reasons for God to hide the bloodline of Jesus Christ.
My point is that His being married or even being a father doesn't change one bit his divinity or his mission. Interesting discussion and thanks.
Very interesting and I'd not considered that. Isn't the bridegroom/bride analogy simply figurative just as the slavery or prisoner analogy often made in the NT? [...]
Is it? Are they? But that is not my point:
As it is now, ANY passage relating to the betrothal and marriage of Messiah IS the Bride. Introduce a carnal bride, and those passages suddenly have a competitor - How might that competitor be used to take away the promises, intention, and attitude of Yeshua toward His Bride? Note that I am not saying that it necessarily DOES, but that it allows *some* to introduce that competition.
It corrupts the image - Why I am an avid iconoclast is because they (images not ordained by YHWH) corrupt or supplant the images that YHWH set up in the first place. The image of His Bride is that of His one and ONLY... A love that extends beyond time, and even beyond death! A love that is all consuming in His mind. The single and uncorrupted, perfect, SHE. We ALL know what that feels like. We ALL have wished for that one true love. That true love is all there is, all that can be. No other woman can fill that space.
I don't think YHWH would do anything to corrupt or lessen that image. More than any other way, it expresses his yearning for relationship with us, and I don't think that can be understated in the least way. It is portrayed in the absolute, in the strongest sense that Man can understand. How many songs are written of that true love? Of that love unrequited? Of that love found! The heart-wrenching desperation, the heart-ache of yearning, the total obsession, the unbounded joy! Man understands this thing very, very deep in his soul.
[roamer_1:] Secondly, all things being equal, a married man will no doubt produce offspring - This is a can of worms that comes right out of the DaVinci Code - what a mess if there is a bloodline heir! But we need not worry about all that, because the Bible says He was cut off - That is a particular thing, meaning no blood heir - His line is ended.
[...] as an aside I find the DaVinci Code despicable garbage. Its purpose is to undermine Christ and to insult the Catholic Church.
Agreed, though I would extend that to all of the Church, and it points directly to the idea of 'corrupting the image of the Bride'.
Potentially [...] I'm not aware of the verse you refer to indicating that Jesus' line is cut off.
Dan 9:26 springs to mind, but it is thematically sound, primarily, I would suppose, in Psalms... It would take a bit of study to find every reference to Messiah being cut off.
Take a look at Isaiah 53:10 where it states emphatically that "[Jesus]shall see his seed" is that to be figurative or literal?
BOTH:
Isa 53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Notice that He sees His seed and prolongs His days, AFTER His soul is offered up. The children are from His Bride, and we are banking upon that, you and I.
[roamer_1:] But that too suggests He was *not* married, as his brother would be obliged to take His wife and continue His heirs. Some form of the kinsman-redeemer would be enacted upon His bloodline and that bloodline would have continued in all likelihood.
On this point I am not clear as to what you are getting at.
I am suggesting that, barring a barren mate, his bloodline would be in evidence, to which there is no proof, other than the absurd tale of the offspring of Mary Magdalene, and the hideous continuation of that Merovingian line into the kings of Europe. And that certainly cannot be true.
[roamer_1:] And lastly, as a matter of form, it is an argument from silence - A position that I am usually loathe to take. [...]
Here I agree with you that an argument from silence isn't a strong argument. At the same time there would be a lot of reasons for God to hide the bloodline of Jesus Christ.
What reason, pray tell? What mystery? He does nothing but that he tells His prophets.
My point is that His being married or even being a father doesn't change one bit his divinity or his mission.
Technically true - But it can be used to muddle the message, and it is upon us to get that message out, as clearly as we can.
Interesting discussion and thanks.
Likewise - Thank you for your well reasoned reply.