Posted on 04/18/2014 6:24:00 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Did Jesus have a wife? According to Karen L. King, an academic from Harvard, the answer might exist in the fragment of an ancient Coptic manuscript. On this slip of papyrus, Jesus is quoted as saying “my wife,” and because of that, King notes, “this fragment seems to be the first case where we have a married Jesus who appears to be affirming that women who are mothers and wives can be his disciples.”
This story broke in 2012 and was immediately qualified by protests from other academics, who claimed the textual fragment King cited was likely a forgery. These protests arose not because King asserted that Jesus had a wife or that mothers and wives could be disciples but because the text King cited was likely bogus.
However, just in time for Holy Week this year, the pesky “Jesus wife” fragment has reemerged, this time with a verification of the fragment’s authenticity and, with it, a possible vindication for King’s claims. At least that’s what the headlines suggest.
Excited newspapers and websites speculate that if the text is actually authentic, might King’s claims about a married Jesus also be true? Before answering that question, we should add some qualifiers. First, King herself clarified that she never intended to present the fragment as evidence that Jesus was married, but merely as evidence that some Christians may have believed that he was. Second, the fragment’s authenticity, even if it were established, would not mean its provenance is the same as that of the canonical Gospels. King claims her tests show it was written four to eight hundred years after the New Testament texts.
One would think these qualifiers would defuse any controversy, but that hasn’t been the case. Sensational stories have incessantly raved that Jesus had a wife, meaning he likely had sex, thus presenting us with a juxtaposition of two realities that perennially vex and stimulate the culture: religion and human sexuality.
To add more heat to the fire, observers have insinuated that if Jesus was married, it proves he was not who the Church claims him to be. The Church’s privileged authority to interpret Christ’s identity and mission therefore collapses. The Church must have been either misguided about Jesus or, worse, guilty of an intentional hoax. This last possibility has fueled pulp-fiction dreams for decades, from Irving Wallace’s The Word to Hugh Schonfield’s The Passover Plot to Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. You would have thought the culture had exhausted this pipe dream by now, but evidently not. The rabbit hole only grows longer.
All of that said, what’s most problematic about this controversy is that it centers on an uncontroversial question. Christians readily agree that Jesus was and is married, and the Church has always presented him this way. However, the real controversy is about who, precisely, his spouse is — and that question has nothing to do with a papyrus fragment.
The texts of the New Testament, which are far older than the “Jesus wife” fragment, make the extraordinary claim that Jesus of Nazareth speaks and acts in the person of the God of Israel. This is the reason the Gospel of Mark testifies that those who encountered Christ were “amazed and afraid,” and it was for this reason that the charges of blasphemy were leveled against him, accusations that led to his torture and execution. The New Testament authors suggest that Jesus’ claim to divinity was vindicated by the extraordinary event of his resurrection from the dead. Jesus of Nazareth simply is the God of Israel, who has come to his people in a manner that took all of Israel, indeed all of the world, by surprise.
The purpose of this extraordinary revelation was to effect reconciliation between God and the people he had chosen as his own. This relationship is identified in the Old Testament as that of a covenant, and the best way to understand this covenant is to look at it as a kind of marriage between God and his people. Or to say it another way, God’s purpose throughout history was to marry his people.
We see this intention throughout the Biblical narrative. It’s evident in the erotic poetry of the Old Testament Song of Songs. It’s clear in the prophecies of the Book of Hosea, in which God desires reconciliation with an estranged wife. The New Testament uses nuptial imagery in presenting Christ as the long-anticipated bridegroom and the Church as a transformed bride, reconciled to her spouse. Finally, in the Book of Revelation, all things come to their fulfillment in the wedding feast of Christ and the Church.
In other words, Jesus, the God of Israel, has a wife. She is just not the kind of wife we might expect. Her identity becomes clear only once we understand who Jesus of Nazareth was and is. Only then do we see that he married the Church, the people of God.
We don’t need an centuries-old fragment to reveal Jesus’ wife, for we can meet her today wherever the Church resides.
— Father Stephen Grunow is the CEO of Word on Fire Catholic Ministries.
Except the Bridegroom hasn’t yet fetched the Bride. Only the Father knows the time.
The Church has always been referred to as “The Bride of Christ”.
Amen.
He’s not married YET.
The gnostics — Book of Thomas, Book of Mary, Book of Judas, etc., are also centuries old too. Same for the Quran. — That doesn’t mean I believe any of them.
There are some very logical reasons the gnostics aren’t part of our Bible. This new centuries old find would fall into the same category.
According to academia, the entire Bible is mythology, but find an unsubstantiated scrap of text dealing with the Bible and it is solid fact.
You are right. The naysayers and heretics will not inherit the Kingdom of God, or be part of Jesus ‘Bride Supper of the Lamb’. Choices have consequences.
YES he is!
He got married that very first Easter weekend, via the agony, cross, and empty tomb.
Within 60 years of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, false gospels were being spread. Early manuscripts with false doctrine, proves the writings of Paul valid, he warned the early Church about such.
That being said, taking a wife is not a sin.
My question is that is seems the great majority of Christians claim to follow the Bible as the Word of God. Why are there Catholics, Baptist, Lutherans, etc. etc.?
Shouldn't there be only One Church? And if so, which is it?
I know I will now be accused of all types of blasphemy and such, but it is a real request from someone trying to get it right and somehow “Baptism by Desire” seems to fall short. My background is Holy Cross high school, Loyola University. I am not a Biblical scholar as many here are, but my numerous inquiries to Priest, Monsignors and Brothers all fell short and ultimately fell back to: “It's a matter of Faith”, A Grace I am still searching for.
Actual Christians do endeavor to follow the Bible as the Word of God. The reason there are denominations are manifold, and not all of them are so-called Protestant. There are denominations known as Rites within Catholicism, are there not? What is the difference? Different emphases, different ceremonies, different rites, focusing more heavily upon one aspect of Scripture than another denomination, which focuses more upon another. But, both are Scriptural, both are sound of doctrine, both are Christian.
There were seven churches in Paul's time, all had strengths and weaknesses. He both lauded and chastised each. It is no different now. Christians will agree upon fundamental salvific matters, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, born of a virgin, who was crucified, died a physical death and rose victorious over death and sin on the third day for the salvation of all who repent and believe on Him. These are the "church," the Body of Christ, which knows no denomination.
In Jewish culture he is.
My prayer is that all who are Christians, regardless of denomination, heed the prayer of Jesus in John 17 that “all will be one.”
There is one church, those written in the book of life.
As for organizations of believers? Head, neck, feet, hands?
Amen!
There is only one church, that is the believers in Jesus Christ no matter which church they attend, he is not a religion but a personal savior. Denominations are Man’s theology, however, one tenant of Faith that must be there is Jesus is the Passover Lamb for sin. Otherwise, it’s heresy or a cult belief to Christianity.
I think the best way to understand Jesus is to know he is ‘the Passover lamb’, which was sent to replace the old sacrifice done per the Old Testament to cover sin. The Jews were covered under their Old Testament and God made provision for them to go to heaven in the New Testament. I’ll send that scripture via separate post. Jesus was a Jew, Christians are Jews by adoption...simple as that, we are all God’s family. Christian persecution and Anti-Semitism are related.
A Testament is a Will, which designates the inheritance. In the Old T it was yearly Passover sacrifice of a lamb; and in New T when Jesus was sacrificed; it was a once and for all sacrifice for those who accepted him and repented of sin. The Bible says sins are not covered without a blood sacrifice.
Those who find so many different ways to heaven are deceived into believing that God is not God. However a book that has survived thousands of years of people trying to destroy it and they can’t, plus all prophecy has come to pass and we are in the last book...well, that’s quite a track record. I wouldn’t bet against it.
Baptism is also a part of Salvation, however the denominations disagree on how that is done. I think it’s done any way possible as a ‘required obedience’ from God of ‘putting off the old man, washed and cleansed in the blood, as a new beginning.
We do not go to heaven based on works, however, faith without works is dead....it’s a heart circumcision that becomes obvious through the person’s transformation as God’s love on the inside will make them want to do right.
I hope this helps, it is my own personal belief and that of most people I know in Christianity. I am an independent voter, so I guess that should tell you I am a non-denomination Christian. I relate best to full gospel Christians, who believe in the whole word of God by letting scripture interpret itself instead of theology books/churches. Going to Church will not save you, it is a accepting Jesus as Savior, repenting of sin, and recognizing Baptism as obedience to a new life, as one let’s Jesus presence in your life change you into the person you were supposed to be all along.
I speak directly to God in the name of Jesus, however it does say ‘confess your sins one to another’ which explains a public confession but that can be done anytime. I am not Catholic. However I am not taking issue with their way of confessing sins, only that reading God’s word and praying directly has given me a peace that has helped me through many a crisis.
This is a simple explanation and everything is not covered, but getting to Heaven is what I addressed...I’m sure I’ll get some flack from someone whose belief is different, I’m just answering you as I see it from my perspective.
God is Love, so Blessings to you.
**Shouldn’t there be only One Church? And if so, which is it?**
Indeed, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Here is promised scripture to understand the Israelites as God sees them: Romans Ch 11:23-32 Israel shall be saved...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.