Return
to Title Page
HIEROGAMY & THE MARRIED MESSIAH
(Web Edition)
By
James Wesley Stivers
© Copyright, 2006
Chapter
Four Concluded
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Since the foregoing study has sometimes
meandered through various digressions, perhaps a more complete summary –
numbered according to logical consistency – might assist the reader in grasping
the essential arguments in favor of a married Jesus.
1. From the
Introduction, onwards, we have returned to the issue of the humanity of Christ.
Our sexuality is so fundamental to the meaning of our humanity – at least in
this life – that to separate it from the reality of Christ’s humanity seems
absurd. The Biblical witness insists
that Jesus was truly a human being, with all of the wants and needs
characteristic of our species. Most
humans are driven by a biological and psychological urge to mate, and to mate
abundantly. In compliance with the
demands of religious dogma, we pretend it is all for procreation and
companionship. But in reality, unlike
the animals which mate only when the female is in estrus, the human sexual urge
is simply old-fashioned lust. How can
anyone take seriously the claims of the humanity of Christ, if it excluded this
aspect of sexuality?
2. The historic Church, with few exceptions, has
taught us that lust is always an evil motive which reflects our fallen
natures. This is Augustine’s view. The reader will recall the argument in
reference to eunuchs and their usurpation of Christian leadership at the behest
of the Roman Emperors. A celibate clergy
facilitated state control of the Church, and the doctrine of human depravity was
a useful tool in solidifying that control.
The witness of the Church has been tainted by this aspect of political
subservience and must be recognized for what it really was, and is: propaganda.
3. We briefly surveyed the abiding presence of a
dissenting tradition within the Christian movement - from the time of the Ebionites who taught a more earthy, Old Testament view of
human sexuality, to the Gnostics and Medieval heretics who saw Mary Magdalene
as Christ’s consort. The Grail legends,
free-thinkers of the Renaissance, and modern heresies, such as Mormonism, have
nurtured this view. Although disparate
groups within this dissenting tradition, they show unity in a persistent
dissatisfaction with the idea of a celibate Jesus. And while the notion of a phallic
Christ has never been declared - “ex cathedra” - as a heresy, yet it has
aroused such rage among churchmen that few have escaped their murderous zeal
unscathed.
4. The
failure of the historic Church to speak positively to the idea of a married
Jesus has created a spiritual and psychological vacuum among millions of Church
drop-outs who have dabbled in paganism, Wicca, and other alternative religions,
seeking to find a faith which will unite their spirituality with their
humanity.
5. While it
was not clearly delineated, the importance of a married Jesus to the Protestant
Reformation cannot be overlooked. If
Luther can be viewed as representative of the Protestant movement, his railing
against a celibate priesthood implies either a married Jesus or an absurdity - the idea of a Church led by married
clergymen whose head was celibate.
It is absurd to argue for the moral superiority of a married clergy when
the first priest and founder, the Lord Jesus Christ, was not himself
married. In this sense, it is
appropriate to assert that the doctrine of a married Jesus is an imperative of
Protestant doctrine and a completion of the Reformation.
6. We saw
anomalies in the Scriptures, such as Paul’s appeal to his own experience of
celibacy. If the life of the eunuch is
the higher path, why would not Paul point to Jesus Christ as the appropriate
role model. He
said, “Follow me, as I follow Christ,” yet he does not declare a celibate
Jesus. Why not?
We also discovered other anomalies, such as
Mary Magdalene’s pleading with who she thought was the gardener at the
tomb. Why would she assert the rights of
a widow – to claim the body of Jesus - if she was not indeed the widow of the
deceased?
The accumulation of these kinds of
unexplained anomalies removes the burden of proof from the claim that Jesus was
married. It is left to those who deny that He was married to show a
unifying explanation for these anomalies.
7. Further on this matter of the burden of proof,
we found that William Phipps’ treatise reached this same conclusion, but from a
different collection of facts: Jesus
taught as a rabbi in the synagogues (Mark
His parents were also faithful to the
law. According to the customs of their
people, they would have contracted a marriage for their son while He was still
a young teenager.
It does no good for the detractors and
deniers to simply assert that Jesus was bringing a new law into the world. They have failed to show why this new law
would have disparaged marriage so far as to relieve Christ of its moral
obligation. Excuses are cheap and
plentiful. There have been no compelling
reasons, consistent with the Creeds and the Scriptures, which have relieved
them of this burden.
8. When we approach the arguments presented in
Chapter Four, the deniers find new challenges.
If Jesus was not married, the meaning of His office as the last Adam
begins to break down. The first Adam was
given the Dominion Covenant which involved the procreative mandate. If Christ was truly the last Adam, He would
have been the one and only legitimate heir to the Dominion Covenant. How could He have fulfilled this Covenant without
procreating?
9. We showed that Christ was also an heir of
both the Abrahamic and the Davidic Covenants.
In both of these covenants, procreation was an essential moral
obligation. How could Jesus claim to be
a true son of
10. As we proceeded through Chapter Four, we
discovered that the legal criteria for citizenship in
11. Many have supposed that Christ had a sexual
capacity, but that it was never used.
However, that is not a solution either, because it does not address the
issue of nocturnal emissions. With a
sexual nature, Jesus would have had ejaculations, either voluntary ones or
involuntary ones. In both instances,
such ejaculations would have been sins of uncleanness according to the
standards of the Old and New Testaments.
The only appropriate ejaculations according to Biblical ethics were
those during sexual intercourse. Our
modern culture simply cannot comprehend the seriousness of this kind of
sin. A single instance of inappropriate
ejaculation would have disqualified Jesus as the sinless Messiah.
12. We discovered that the ancients considered
virility to be a sign of Divine favor.
That Christ manifested this aspect of God’s glory seems to be implied by
the reference in the Patristic writings to Christ as “the unicorn of
prophecy.”
13. Furthermore, the Old Testament defines the
family as a harem. The royal harems were the central institutions of any given
society in the ancient world. If Jesus was truly the titular head of the house
of David, He would have inherited the royal harem in some manner.
14. According to Biblical Law (Exodus 21), the
followers of Jesus would have been defined as His menservants and
maidservants. Maidservants who had no
husbands when entering a new household for service were de facto members of the master’s harem. Consequently, by operation of law, the
unmarried disciples of Jesus were considered his wives, whether He had sexual
relations with them or not.
15. We found evidence of this harem in textual
anomalies in the New Testament. In
Luke’s Gospel, we found a passing reference to the Messianic harem as the gnostoi at the
scene of the Crucifixion. We found it
again in Acts 6 in reference to the order of church widows. These texts are usually overlooked by
commentators who regard these references as props for a more important drama
involving the men. Yet, they are
critical in understanding the marital relationship of Christ with these women.
16. We saw that one of Christ’s followers, Mary
Magdalene in particular, was His personal attendant who daily washed His
feet. The task of footwashing was a
defining aspect unique to the wife or concubine in the ancient world. It was also the usual prelude to sexual
relations. To suppose that this woman attended
to Jesus in this way, yet was not used in a sexual manner, defies the very
meaning of this custom in the ancient world.
17. This kind of evidence demands that we revisit
Biblical texts and Patristic references which portray the Messiah as a father
and a family man. No longer does the
preponderance of evidence require us to look at these unusual texts
allegorically, but rather, they demand that we first interpret them
literally. Thus, when the prophet Isaiah
says of the Messiah that “He shall see his seed,” he speaks literally of Christ’s
children.
18. And then, finally, we must confront the
meaning of the Creeds. The early Fathers
tell us that all of these references to a married Messiah must be taken
symbolically to mean Christ and the Church, that He is married in His Divine
nature, but not in His human nature.
Yet, the Creeds give ultimate primacy to both natures: to Christ as man
and as God. To say that He fulfilled
some prophecies in His Divine nature and not also in His human nature is to
deny the Creeds. It breaks the
continuity of the Incarnation in history and destroys any meaningful
fulfillment of the Prophets. It is a
tactic of evasion and diminishes the Gospel because it leaves unredeemed some
aspects of the human condition. In reference
to human sexuality, the failure of Christ to enter this part of our existence
would prove His inability to save mankind in the totality of its humanity. It would concede that the creation is a
failure and would require that the human species be made into something else
before it could be worthy of salvation.
Having made the case for a married Jesus,
let us now investigate further its relevance to the doctrine of hierogamy.
Proceed to Chapter Five