The Narrow Path Ministries

This question intrigued me, so I did do some research and was surprised by what I learned. I think it is an important question that actually gives us better understanding of what the Bible teaches. But I am very interested to hear other's thoughts before I share mine. God bless you! Dwight

[user account removed]

He could have in the sense that it wouldn't have been sinful.

But he wouldn't have and didn't b/c he already had a bride in mind (the church)

^^^ Praise the Lord for that.

Feminine ideas about god, or a consort of a god is a recurring theme in religious history. Whether it is ancient middle eastern or greek, hindu. Catholicism's emphasis on Mary I believe is a reflection on this theme as well.

Modern scholarship hypothesizes that YHWH's wife was Asherah. [sic] You can read about it here.

http://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium-1.547147

And of course, there has been conjecture about Jesus having a wife for centuries.

A basic question, then, is: why does the idea of a feminine deity keep "bubbling up" in religion?

My hunch is that Jesus didn't. Not from a theological standpoint. Nor strict adherence to the biblical record.

Because none of the non-canonical gospels mention it. When you read the infancy narratives outside of the canonical gospels, you can see their attempts to answer questions that were being asked in the early days of Christianity. "If he was god, what was he like as a child? Did he have the powers of God?" I especially like on of the infancy narratives because it portrays Jesus as a very difficult and argumentative child with a religious teacher. At first this seemed incongruous. But then I realized it reflects something about Jesus that they understood, but we kind of miss. He was really annoying to religious teachers. Somehow our reading takes the edge off. But it's there. So it's no surprise that conjecture at the time saw him that way as a child.

Thus.. if there was conjecture about Jesus having a wife in the 1st centuries, it would have made it into a non-canonical gospel. It being there would not mean that he did. But it would show that it was a question they were asking. It seems like they weren't.

Okay, I have read these verses many times but didn't quite catch the full meaning until I considered this question:
Matthew 9:14-15; Matthew 22:1-14; John 3:29; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:22-32; Revelation 19:7-9; Revelation 21:9-22:5

From these verses, it appears that from the beginning of the New Testament, Jesus was always the bridegroom of the church. Our wedding clothes of fine linen are our righteous acts which we have done by faith in Him. One day, after this earthly life, we will be married to Him (corporately) and will reign with Him for all eternity. Could it be that WE ARE the New Jerusalem? After all, why would Jesus marry an inanimate object like a city? Remember, the names of the 12 tribes are on the 12 gates and the names of the 12 apostles are on the 12 foundations stones of the wall. So, the remnant of God's people, Old and New Testament, are strongly associated with this city. Could this be why "in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are they given in marriage...", because we will be married to the Lamb?

Some additional thoughts: If Jesus was always a bridegroom to the church, it would be unthinkable for Him to take a wife on earth. If a betrothed Jew took another woman, wasn't that considered adultery? Also, Paul said that a married man has his interests divided between pleasing his wife and the things of the Lord. It is unthinkable then that Jesus could ever enter into an earthly marriage and have His interests divided. Imagine Jesus taking a wife on earth and the woman says, "I can't take all this God stuff anymore. I"ve had it. I'm divorcing you!" and then she leaves. What if they had children? Since Jesus was God, would His son be the son of God? The whole idea is confusing, bizarre, inappropriate and just unthinkable.

This looks like a fairly thorough treatment on the subject.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdrober ... -evidence/

It's funny how Dan Brown's "flexibility" with historical research, even liberal research, led me to question whether I was right that the non-canonicals don't mention Mary Magdelene as Jesus' bride. Bart Ehrman, the premier hostile scholar to christianity, wrote a devastating book on the subject.

http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Fiction-The ... 0195307135

Because none of the non-canonical gospels mention it. When you read the infancy narratives outside of the canonical gospels, you can see their attempts to answer questions that were being asked in the early days of Christianity. "If he was god, what was he like as a child? Did he have the powers of God?" I especially like on of the infancy narratives because it portrays Jesus as a very difficult and argumentative child with a religious teacher. At first this seemed incongruous. But then I realized it reflects something about Jesus that they understood, but we kind of miss. He was really annoying to religious teachers. Somehow our reading takes the edge off. But it's there. So it's no surprise that conjecture at the time saw him that way as a child.

The infancy narratives were gnostic writings. The gnostics wrote many "gospels" and other articles which they fraudulently claimed to be apostolic.
In one of them, Jesus forms a clay bird and gives it life, and it flies away. That's just not the type of "magic" that Jesus did. In one of these gnostic writings, He gets angry at a child and kills him. There is no record in the memoirs of Christ (or "canonical gospels" if you will) which tell of Jesus ever killing anyone.

Could it be that WE ARE the New Jerusalem?

It's funny that you ask this as I always have taken it as a given that the "church" IS the New Jerusalem. I was raised a JW and that's their take on it and it always made sense. Is there a different view in Evangelical circles?

Regards, Brenden.

TheEditor wrote:It's funny that you ask this as I always have taken it as a given that the "church" IS the New Jerusalem. I was raised a JW and that's their take on it and it always made sense. Is there a different view in Evangelical circles?

These days the dispensational view is, I think, the most common, i.e. that it's a literal, physical city, a 1500-mile cube, or maybe pyramid-shaped, made of transparent gold, that will come down out of the sky and land on the earth. Before dispensationalism, it's clear from older commentaries that it was considered symbolic of the church, either present-day or in the eternal state.