CHAPTER THREE

Which Church Tradition?

The previous chapters were not meant to suggest that popular and passionate writers on the question of a married Jesus have been entirely deficient of a reasoned case in favor of the proposition. Indeed, a number of them have provided compelling evidence. What I am trying to do in this chapter is to isolate that evidence from speculation and partisan hyperbole and then determine if there are any cold, hard facts which remain.

The first question to wrestle with is "What sources are we willing to rely upon?" That is a tough one because reliable sources are really a question of faith. For instance, do we want to believe that Julius Caesar gave an accurate description of the Celts? He was their conqueror in Gaul and wanted to conquer them in Britain. Do his memoirs represent an unbiased opinion? When he said that British men were cannibals who shared their wives in common, was that true or was that wartime propaganda?

When some historians tell us that King James the First was a homosexual, is that truthful or just gossip propagated by his enemies?[1]

We like to think that there are certainties when it comes to history. We like to think that everyone will know until the end of time that George Washington was the first President of the United States. But is that really true? He was the first President under the Constitution of the United States, but he was not our first President. The United States existed for over a decade as a confederacy before it adopted the Constitution. During that time, the Continental Congress had presidents who presided at their deliberations. You can see here how interpretive methods will change the perception of a fact.

Thousands of years from now, perhaps the only remaining proof that there ever was a "United States of America" will be the monument of Mt. Rushmore. "These by thy gods, oh House of America!" may be the mantra of our primitive successors who will look upon the magnificence of those four images and feel compelled to worship them. Will there be descendants who know the legends of our presidents and will they be persecuted because they believe them to be mere men unworthy of adoration?

Imagine the dilemma of skeptics who do not believe that Jesus Christ ever existed. Not only of Jesus Christ are there skeptics, but there are Jews who do not believe that King David or Abraham ever existed. They believe the whole Bible is a literary fiction. They are not interested in the kinds of questions we are dealing with here because, in their minds, it's like trying to reconstruct the script of a long-forgotten screen play from which we have only a few scraps of scribbled notes. What is the point of arguing over whether Jesus was married or not if He never existed in the first place?

If we reason from a purely utilitarian point-of-view, we could say it matters to everybody because so many people believe that Jesus really existed and that He was truly the Son of God. The belief that He was celibate has profoundly affected how Western civilization has looked at sexuality. Had we believed that He was a homosexual, how would that have affected our sexual mores? Would the best and brightest among us be aspiring to emulate Him in such a way? Of course, they would. Had we believed that He was a polygamist, would that not have profoundly affected the direction of our civilization in a different way? Yes, indeed it would have. So, even to the skeptics, because they have to live in a culture that is influenced by the Christian religion, this question is of great importance.

But what should be our sources? Our sources must be the records which have been used to present Jesus Christ to the world: principally, the Bible. Should that be our only source? It is for many people. If they cannot find the answer to this question in "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John", then there is no answer. Religious dogma tells them that all that we know about Jesus comes from the Four Gospels. However, as we discovered in a previous chapter, the records about Jesus grew from the life of the Church, the community of followers which He left behind. Are the Four Gospels the only reliable sources available to us? What about the Gospel According to the Hebrews? What about the writers of the Early Church - such as Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, and so on - who tell us things about Jesus which are not found in the Gospels? Are they frauds? How is it possible to dismiss them when it is upon the strength of their witness, and others of their time, that we have the Gospels in the first place? Is Church Tradition a reliable guide on this question?

The unexpected answer to that question is "No, it is not." That is so because there is more than one Church Tradition. We have to do some detective work here. As will be demonstrated shortly, the early Fathers - from the middle of the 2^nd Century on - believed and taught that Jesus was celibate. The New Testament appears to be silent on this question. There is a murky period between about 70 AD and 150 AD, when the records are scanty and require reconstruction.

Do the later 2^nd Century leaders really represent the 1^st Century Church? Most scholars think so. If that is true, then why not just let it be? Why make waves and reopen the case?

It’s because there are too many anomalies. Sometimes, the Fathers were sloppy and let information pass through that was not consistent with a celibate Christ. We have hints that there was an earlier tradition which either the Fathers did not understand or changed because they did not agree with it.[2]

For example, Terrance Sweeney, in his Forward to Margaret Starbird's book, The Woman with the Alabaster Jar, presents us with this one: if Jesus was never married, why didn't St. Paul use Him as an example of celibacy instead of himself? Would that not have clinched the case for celibacy, the fact that Jesus was celibate? Undoubtedly, if Jesus was not married, Paul would have used that in His argument. The fact that Paul was constrained to use himself as a standard for emulation - even at one point admitting that it was his own doctrine with no authority from Jesus (1 Corinthians 7:6 & 12) - seems to be a compelling contradiction of the traditional view. It smells of a cover-up.

William Phipps: The Voice Crying in the Wilderness

Perhaps the most academically disciplined and useful study on the question of a married Jesus is the book by William E. Phipps, Was Jesus Married? The Distortion of Sexuality in the Christian Tradition, published in 1970. Long out-of-print, it was republished in recent years as The Sexuality of Jesus. In the opinion of this author, it remains the standard in the field by which all other works must be measured. Any rebuttal to the proposition of a married Jesus which does not address the issues raised by Dr. Phipps is necessarily truncated and useless.

Now, Dr. Phipps is no cult freak. He is a Presbyterian and was for many years the department head of Philosophy and Religion at Davis-Elkins College in West Virginia. When Harper & Row first published his book in 1970, it raised some eyebrows and in a brief moment of fame, he made the pages of some important newspapers across the country. As a scholar, he was not given to sensationalism and speculation. Consequently, his book never circulated like the more flamboyant and iconoclastic books of Baigent and Company: Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Messianic Legacy. Yet, these authors, and others like them since then, have relied upon Phipps' scholarship as the chief cornerstone for their historical revisionism. What is remarkable, more than anything, is that no other academic has dared to follow in his footsteps. He remains alone in this field of inquiry.

Phipps does not provide any direct evidence of a married Jesus but he offers an explanation as to why we should not expect any. He points out that Jewish males married quite young by modern standards - about age 16. He surmises that Jesus may have been a widower before He began His public ministry. Or, He may have been deserted by a faithless wife, in which case, in keeping with His public teaching against divorce, He may have remained single. It is very possible that the disciples never knew His wife and that might explain the silence in the Scriptures.

Lacking any direct evidence, Phipps engages the question on two main fronts: first, he argues the case that the cultural milieu of a Jew in Palestine in the 1^st Century AD would have required a married Jesus. He does this thoroughly and convincingly.

Second, and more important to Christianity, he analyzes the historical foundation for the denial of a married Jesus. He demonstrates that the early Fathers were just as speculative in denying that Jesus was married as we are in affirming it. Furthermore, he shows that bad theology and outright heresy lie at the foundation of the arguments against the proposition. For these reasons, a married Jesus follows as the appropriate conclusion by default.

We proceed now with a survey of his book by chapter and section.

Chapter I: Tackling a Taboo Question

In this chapter Dr. Phipps acknowledges the professional price one might have to pay in challenging the prevailing view on this subject. The response to his book was overwhelmingly negative. The affinity of priests within the Church for that of their high priest - Jesus Christ - is founded upon the supposition that the work of the kingdom is better done by the sacred minister freed "from the bonds of flesh and blood." Celibate priests are naturally hostile, theologically speaking, to the incongruity of a married high priest.

Many people expressed strong moral objections to a married Jesus, as if sexuality was intrinsically sinful. Phipps was the object of anti-Semitic censure by people who refused to believe that he was a Christian, as no good Christian would ever so smear the reputation of the Lord with the idea that He was married and possessed a sexual nature.

He briefly visits the Mormon view (which will be addressed later in this chapter), some of the marginal speculations of recent years (that Jesus was homosexual, for example) and then shocks us with this one from Martin Luther (p. 12):

Christ was an adulterer for the first time with the woman at the well, for it was said, "Nobody knows what he's doing with her" (John 4:27). Again with Magdalene, and still again with the adulterous woman in John 8, whom he let off so easily. So the good Christ had to become an adulterer before he died.

Phipps is quoting Luther's "Table Talks" recorded by his friend Pastor John Schlaginhaufen (between April 7 and May 1, 1532, No. 1472). No editor has ever disputed its authenticity.

How might we interpret such an astonishing assertion by the great Reformer? We might suggest that he had too much beer. Luther loved his beer and he was sitting at the table shooting the breeze when this remark was made. Pity the man had he lived in the age of electronic recording devices. Who knows the raucous exchanges which might have further embarrassed the pious among us!

The editor of Luther's Works, obviously troubled by this entry, offers this explanation in his footnote:

The probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536 (WA 41, 647) in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer.

That might be true, although this sermon occurred four years after his remarks. We might be willing to believe that he was commenting on a recent sermon but not commentary separated by four years.

George Lamsa, the great Aramaic scholar, provides this opinion of the exchange between Jesus and the Woman at the Well:

Speaking to a woman at a well is resented by most easterners, who suspect the motives of those who do this. Many eastern poets speak of lovers meeting at the well or the spring. This is why the disciples were surprised when they saw Jesus conversing with a woman at the well and judged him by their own standards.[3]

This seems to support the idea that Luther was referring to Christ's violation of convention rather than any immoral behavior.

Regardless, Phipps points out that this record is consistent with Luther's view of sexuality in general. "Luther believed that the satisfaction of all physical appetites was necessary. Consequently, he held that a vow of continence was as impossible to fulfill as a vow to create the stars, or to grow old as Methuselah. Sexual indulgence between a closely associated man and woman was as inevitable as the burning of dry straw when ignited. . . If Luther's assumptions about sex are understood, it is easy to see how he could have declared that Jesus fornicated. Jesus' hunger for food and drink was substantially gratified throughout life . . . If the need for the opposite sex is as demanding as the need for water by a thirsty man, then obviously every man, Jesus included, must satisfy the dictates of his organism." (p. 12)

Chapter II: Sexual Attitudes in Ancient Judaism

In chapter two Phipps examines the genesis of sexuality, Hebrew marital customs, sexual asceticism in the light of the Jewish Scriptures, and the Essenes.

He begins with the account of creation and reminds the reader that God declared all of His works "very good", which includes sexuality. God created male and female for the human species and their coming together, as Jesus said, to become "one flesh" is the destiny of man. Citing the leading Jewish schools of Hillel and Shammai which existed the century before Christ: "No one may abstain from keeping the law, 'Be fruitful and multiply.'"

The Jews have no obsession with the notion of "original sin" or a tainted sexuality like Christians do. Phipps transmits the famous Jewish expression which is characteristic of this outlook: "A man will have to give account on the judgment day of every good thing which he refused to enjoy when he might have done so." As for the Fall of Man, he notes that its sexual interpretation was created by later patristic mythology and does not appear in the early commentaries, Jewish or Christian.

Hebrew marriage customs reflect this attitude. Marriage was expected of all and early. It was the burden of the father to find spouses for his children.

These customs did not change throughout the history of Israel and even into the times of Jesus. Phipps attacks the view that the Essenes were a branch of Judaism which practiced celibacy: "When the Essene discipline manual was discovered at Qumran, scholars expected it to contain references to celibacy. Surprisingly, in none of the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' is there any mention of a member of the community living in an unmarried state." He explains the belief of celibacy among the Essenes to represent the ignorance of later commentators about their doctrine of the war camp: "Any man who is not pure with regard to his sexual organs on the day of battle shall not join in battle" (p. 31). The Essenes were organized as a holy army which required the avoidance of ritual defilement. Frequent abstention from women was not based on misogyny but on the necessities of battle. (As a side observation, this might be the foundation of Paul's advocacy of celibacy, as well.)

At most, the Essenes were the exception within Judaism, not the rule. The Hebrew Scriptures did not teach perpetual warfare and for that reason, we cannot expect that the followers of the Law would have made celibacy perpetual either.

Chapter III: The Sexuality of Jesus

In the light of the Jewish customs of Jesus' day, Phipps asserts that the silence of the New Testament Scriptures on the Lord's marital status would favor the proposition that He was married. The burden of proof lies with those who deny it; for they must show why Jesus and His parents would have defied the ancient Israelite custom of arranging marriages for pubescent children.

He notes that we have no record that Jesus cried as an infant. Should we assume that Jesus was like any other baby and cried when He was hungry or messy? Or should we assume that, since He was the Son of God, He was a perfectly placid child? The New Testament never mentions that Jesus ever laughed or smiled. Are we to assume that laughter is an evil to be shunned by Christians? Or can we assume that Jesus, as any other human being, had light-hearted moments? Jewish villages of Jesus' time had elementary schools due to the scarcity of the sacred scrolls. The Scriptures say nothing about His school attendance. Is it reasonable to assume that Jesus attended school, or must we assume that because Jesus was the Son of God, He did not need to learn how to read? We see here, then, that doctrinal bias will dictate how we answer these questions.

The last Gospel record of an event in the life of Jesus as a child was His experience at the Temple when He was twelve years old. He began His recorded ministry when He was about thirty. That leaves us with eighteen silent years. A lot can happen in eighteen years. The silence of the Scriptures does not favor those who deny Jesus was married.

Phipps moves on to a discussion of the virgin birth and Jesus' relationship with Joseph. He takes the position that a normal humanity would require a normal conception. Citing the Jewish belief that Yahweh is an active partner in all conceptions - in addition to the husband and wife - Phipps adopts a more Ebionite position that looks upon Jesus as a special man imparted with a unique measure of Divine grace, as was His cousin, John.

The relevance of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth to the discussion of the celibacy of Jesus seems to be in the general view of virginity which began to prevail in the 2^nd Century Church: namely, the pagan notion that sacred virgins who were "undefiled" by normal sexual relations were better connected to the gods. When this Hellenistic idea carried over into the Church, the doctrine of perpetual virginity supplanted the previous one in which married men were considered spiritually superior.

As for Joseph's fatherly role, there is no reason to believe that he treated the young Jesus any differently than his other children:

In his time a Jewish father's obligation to a son was clearly defined: "He must circumcise him, redeem him, teach him Torah, teach him a trade, and find a wife for him." What evidence is there that Joseph fulfilled these five duties? Although there are only a few sentences in the New Testament about Joseph, even those show that he was faithful to Jewish standards. In Matthew 1:19 it is stated that he was "a just man," which meant that he regulated his life by the Torah. It is recorded that Jesus was circumcised and redeemed at the age prescribed in the Mosaic law. In accordance with Exodus 13:11-15, a sacrifice was presented at the temple for the first-born son as a symbol of redemption from Egyptian bondage. . . And since both father and son are referred to as carpenters, evidently Jesus was apprenticed in the craft at Joseph's shop in Nazareth. At the age for job training [twelve], Jesus was obedient to his parents according to Luke 2:51; acceptance of the same vocation would have been a prominent way of displaying obedience. (p. 47)

Since we have evidence that Joseph fulfilled his civic duties as a father in Israel in four of the five elements cited above, should we not reasonably assume that he was faithful to fulfill the last one: the one of betrothal? He did for Jesus' brothers (1 Corinthians 9:5).

He who loves his wife as himself, and honors her more than himself; who leads his sons and daughters in the straight path, and marries them near their time of maturity; to his house the words of Job apply: "Thou shalt know that thy tent is in peace." (Jewish saying from the 1^st Century)

Phipps dismisses the assertion by some that Jesus was too poor to pay a dowry for marriage. He argues that since both Joseph and Jesus were carpenters, it does not appear that they were men of abject poverty. And commentators often forget the treasures brought to the Holy Family by the Wise Men. As kings, surely they brought more than token presents. Men, who will traverse from afar, risking life and limb in a hostile dominion, will not dishonor the object of their homage with trinkets. The treasures they brought were bountiful supplies of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. Joseph's escape to Egypt no doubt prevented the confiscation of this wealth by the envious Herod. Being wise and frugal, it can be assumed that Joseph saved these resources for the benefit of Mary and Jesus in later years.

Phipps then turns his attention to the question of the ascetism of the Essenes and whether they influenced Jesus. While sufficient evidence exists that John the Baptist came from among them, the same cannot be said of Jesus. His teachings were in stark contrast to those of John. While John's disciples fasted, the disciples of Jesus did not. John was a warrior in "the original salvation army," "preparing the way of the Lord." Jesus was the bridegroom who preached the Jubilee (Luke 4). Quoting J. B. Lightfoot from a century ago,

When we find Christ discussing the relations of man and wife, gracing the marriage festival by his presence, again and again employing wedding banquets and wedded life as apt symbols of the highest theological truths, without a word of disparagement or rebuke, we see plainly that we are confronted with a spirit very different from the narrow rigor of the Essenes. (p. 51)

Phipps cannot help himself, at this juncture, but to illustrate the inverted values of the later Church Father, Cyprian, who castigated weddings and queried: "What place is there at weddings for one who has no thought of marriage . . .?" Would he have dared to rebuke his Lord?

The Creed of Chalcedon affirms that Jesus was "of one substance with us according to humanity, like us in all respects apart from sin." He experienced the full-range of human emotions and was "tempted in every respect" as we are. With this, Phipps moves into a discussion of our Lord's experience "in the days of his flesh." As we are taught in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jesus "learned obedience" through the things that He suffered. He was "in every respect tempted as we are, yet without sinning" (Hebrews 4:15). By these temptations, we do not mean those messianic temptations which followed His baptism, but rather those temptations "which are common to man." To deny that Jesus ever felt the surge of sexual arousal would be an open denial of His human qualification as a priestly mediator. We will return to this issue in a later chapter; for it challenges us with the question: if Jesus produced semen, since that is the source of sexual arousal, what did He do with it? Did He copulate, did He masturbate, or did He wait for nocturnal emissions? Was He ever unclean from the production of seed? And how does that square with the assertion that He never sinned?

But Phipps does not go there. Instead, he looks at the mundane temptations of married life which are usually not sexual but relational. How did Jesus handle women and family life? Phipps quotes Clement of Alexandria on this question:

True manhood is shown not in the choice of a celibate life; on the contrary the prize in the contest of men is won by him who has trained himself by the discharge of the duties of husband and father and by the supervision of a household, regardless of pleasure and pain - by him, I say, who in the midst of his solicitude for his family shows himself inseparable from the love of God and rises superior to every temptation which assails him through children and wife and servants and possessions. On the other hand he who has no family is in most respects untried. (p. 60)

If we are left to this line of thinking, Jesus would have been deficient in human character, and thus unqualified to be our Savior, if He did not enter this most critical stage of life.

Jesus' relations with women were in stark contrast with the ascetics of all ages, who distrusted and sometimes hated women. Jesus always spoke directly to them, sometimes sternly, but always with compassion. There is no record of Him saying anything disparaging of women like other religions, such as Buddhism. Some of the early Church Fathers - among them being Jerome, Augustine, Cyprian, and Tertullian - all shared a common misogyny: the belief that women, as women, tempted men with the affairs of this life and led them away from heavenly pursuits. Phipps provides extensive proof of this attitude.

Chapter Four: Traditional Arguments for Jesus' Celibacy

The first argument for the celibate Jesus is the notion that Jesus is already the spouse of the Church. It would make Him a bigamist to have been married to someone else. Phipps considers this to be an "unimaginative view" but one which still retains a wide currency in Christian thinking. Arguing from metaphor is always a hazardous venture. Revelation 1-3 presents seven churches, not one. In these texts Jesus would have been a polygamist anyway as some of the Fathers concur. But since it is a sexless polygamy, they were not bothered by the analogy.

Phipps points out, however, that the bridegroom metaphors in the Gospels do not present Jesus as married to the community of his followers. Mark 2:19 (with Synoptic parallels) and Matthew 25:1-13 have been shown to identify the bridegroom as YHWH Himself, and not Jesus. "Moreover, the disciples are compared by Jesus to wedding guests, not to the bride" as in Matthew 22:1-12 (p. 71). "Jesus chose the marriage metaphor to refer to the quality of his relationships to his disciples. . . It was the early Christians who introduced the bridegroom-bride imagery in reference to Christ and the church." (p. 72)

The next argument for a celibate Jesus is the notion that sexual desire is inherently evil. Matthew 5:27-28 is a text used frequently to justify this point of view:

You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her.

As another unimaginative view, Phipps correctly points out that Jesus was not here offering a condemnation of sexual desire in general. He was referring to "adultery", the act of sin with another man's wife. One cannot commit adultery - in the Biblical context - with an unmarried woman. Had Jesus meant to include all sexual desire, He would have used the word "fornication" rather than "adultery". Phipps notes that the word for woman is gune, which can be translated, arbitrarily, as wife or woman. Since Jesus was talking about adultery, the translator should have translated "gune" as wife. Thus, Jesus was saying "every one who looks at a married woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her." Epithumia - the Greek word for lust - is used by Paul in the same sense as "covet" (Romans 7:7). Jesus was teaching against the sin of covetousness, and as always, was taking a stand with the Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17). The word lust is a neutral word meaning "very strong desire." Phipps notes that the word is used in Luke 22:15, where Jesus confides to His disciples, "I have earnestly desired (lusted) to eat this passover with you." It is the Law of God or the object of desire which determines whether the desire is sinful or not.

Luke 14:26 teaches that a man must "hate" his family, including his wife, before he can become Christ's disciple. Texts like this one are used to teach that celibacy is a prerequisite to discipleship.

We might extrapolate from this text that Jesus, if He practiced what He preached, would have been, Himself, a man who "forsook his wife" for the kingdom of heaven's sake. Even though it still would not prove that Jesus was celibate - since He might have been a married man who deserted His wife when He began His ministry - a literal interpretation of what Jesus said leads to other absurdities, as well.

For instance, did Jesus ever display "hatred" toward His mother? No, He was always kind and loving to her. Did any of His disciples do the same? No. Jesus was speaking in hyperbole, and as Phipps points out, His saying is better understood when read with Matthew 10:37: "He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me." Jesus is teaching His disciples not to let their respective families stand in the way of their service to God. It is a matter of priorities.

The strongest text which has been used to support the idea of an unmarried Jesus is probably Matthew 19:12,

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 have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.

Although Jesus did not explicitly include Himself among the number who were "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven," it is generally assumed that He was since the saying indicates that it represents a higher spirituality.

The section involving this question is the largest in Phipps' book, using twelve pages out of two hundred. The context of Jesus' instructions is the issue of divorce and remarriage. Jesus forbade remarriage and the disciples, troubled by the standard, complained that it would be better not to marry in the first place. Jesus responds with this observation about eunuchs, implying, as Phipps thoroughly demonstrates, that Jesus was not forbidding remarriage in all cases, but that celibacy after a frivolous divorce is the higher calling.

Penance might be a better term to describe the continence required after a divorce, because if a man breaks faith with his wife and divorces her, he has forfeited his right to domestic dominion. Jesus is not teaching that celibacy is the better way; it is the punishment imposed upon the servant who is unfaithful in his marital relationship. "For the kingdom of heaven's sake" does not mean the eunuch has a higher calling. Rather, the imposition of celibacy after the divorce is a sanction designed to prevent dishonor to the institution of marriage in God's kingdom. This seems to be an interpretation more consistent with the generally favorable view of marriage which Jesus displays elsewhere.

The next argument in favor of Jesus' celibacy, second only to the one cited above, is found in Luke 20:34-36, where Jesus teaches that "the sons of the resurrection" are "equal to the angels and are sons of God", for which the institution of marriage no longer exists. This is interpreted to imply that Jesus, since He was the Son of God, would be like the angels and not be married either. The angels are sexless, so was Jesus, and so should we.

Phipps reminds us that angels are not incarnate beings. Jesus was an incarnate being. To think that anyone would denigrate sex and marriage because the angels do not participate in it demonstrates the same logical deficiency as those who think that they can jump off of cliffs and defy other laws of nature. Phipps cites Clement's challenge of the ascetics to stop eating and drinking, since the angels don't (p. 94).

We must remember that the context of this passage was the attempt by the Sadducees to refute the doctrine of the resurrection. Their hope was to befuddle Jesus with the relational tangles of a woman widowed seven times. Whose wife will she be in the resurrection? Jesus did not bite the bait. As St. Paul declares, death ends the marriage covenant. The resurrection is a new beginning and the community of heaven will be different then just as it will be on earth. It is not our place to sort these things out. They are left to the wisdom of our Father in heaven. We have the assurance that we will not be separated in heaven from those that we love (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Chapter Five: Paul and Sexual Relations

Phipps proceeds in chapter five with a review of St. Paul's sexual ethics - the supposed champion of celibacy - as it pertains to the notion of a married Jesus. We have already noted 1 Corinthians 9:4-5 in which Paul acknowledges that the apostles and the brothers of the Lord were married. He defends his own right to be married. Phipps clarifies the meaning of this passage by reminding us that the Greek term - guné - can be translated as either "woman" or "wife." Obviously, since the subject matter is about marriage, the context suggests that it should be translated as "wife" or "married woman".

Phipps follows other commentators in this translation in other New Testament passages. He joins Erasmus and Calvin in reading gunaikes in Acts 1:14 - the women disciples who resided in the upper room until the day of Pentecost - as "wives". Clement explains that the apostles took their wives along on their missionary journeys "that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord's teaching penetrated also the women's quarters without any scandal being aroused." (p. 102) Phipps mentions other "husband-wife" teams in the New Testament, such as Priscilla and Aquila in the book of Acts and Andronicus and Julia in Romans 16:7.

What bearing does this practice have on the question of a married Jesus? Once again, Phipps points out the incongruity of a celibate Jesus - who is supposed to be the "Head" and "chief cornerstone" of the Church - setting an example which none of His disciples have followed. Even Paul, who some suppose to have been more spiritual than the other apostles, is generally believed to have been married at one time because he could not have been affiliated with the Sanhedrin otherwise. And some, including Clement and Origen, believed that Paul eventually married again himself, this time to Lydia of Philippi, of whom he refers to as his "yoke-partner" in Philippians 4:3 (p. 107).

The circumstantial evidence cries out for a married Jesus. But do we find any direct evidence in the New Testament? Phipps helps us by referring to Luke 8:2-3 which tells us that "many women or wives (gune)" itinerated with Jesus and the Twelve and "provided for them" (p. 101). It seems unlikely that Jewish society would have tolerated a large band of unmarried men and women roaming over the countryside:

If Jesus married as hypothesized, then his wife, if still alive during his public ministry, may also have accompanied the group. Mary, called Magdalene, is the first named woman (gune) in Luke 8:2 and she may have been his wife (also gune).

While proof of Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene cannot rest on this reference in Luke alone, it should certainly be considered supportive evidence.

Phipps offers a number of other observations on Paul's sexual ethic. But perhaps the final word would be 1 Timothy 4:1-5 in which Paul counsels his successor, Timothy, to reject those "who forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence from foods" as demonically inspired deceivers.

The Remaining Chapters

The issues raised by Phipps in the remaining chapters of his book deal with the descent of later Christians into various compromises with pagan philosophies which were hostile to women, sex, and marriage. They do not have a direct bearing on the question of a married Jesus, except to demonstrate that the doctrine of a celibate Christ arose, not from any apostolic doctrine, but rather from the conclusions of a Christianity which was no longer Biblical. The Greco-Roman dualism between "flesh" and "spirit" captured the imagination of the early apologists, such as Justin. Gentile Christianity, which was cut-off from its roots in the Jerusalem Church, was particularly vulnerable to this deception of man's dichotomy. Of course, it was popular among the Gnostics, which, even though the Church rejected its various forms, it was still influenced through a dialectic process.

It was a slide which took generations to complete. The early leaders were married men. There is some evidence that even the early popes were married. But the doctrine of celibacy prevailed eventually.

Phipps does refer to the Gospel of Philip and the texts cited in an earlier chapter of this book, which allude to Jesus' romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene (p. 136-137). He believes that the Gospel was a product of the Valentinian movement (circa, 130-150 AD), which was later dubbed as a Gnostic cult, but which appears to have been more Ebionite and did teach a married Jesus. "The holy man is altogether holy, even his body" was a doctrine which fits more with the Jewish view of creation rather than the cosmic dualism arising from the Gnostic movement. The Gospel of Philip does not glorify virginity, and for that reason, the 2^nd Century Church lost interest in its message. It cannot be known whether the accusations of the later Fathers against the Valentinians were accurate, but lacking corroborating evidence, the value of the recent discovery of the Gospel of Philip certainly casts serious doubt.

Clement of Alexandria stands out as a beacon in that demented era. Phipps quotes his commentary on the goodness of creation (p. 146):

It is not the sex organs, or marital coitus, which is obscene . . . The sexual parts of man's body deserve not to be treated with prudery but with privacy. It is only the immoral use of sex which is obscene.

Phipps digresses to inform us that an unholy prudery among the Victorian editors of the multi-volume collection, Ante-Nicene Fathers, led them to leave untranslated this text and the entire "Book Three" of Clement's major work, Miscellanies which provides guidance on sexual matters.

He quotes him again:

Those who from a hatred for the flesh ungratefully long to have nothing to do with the marriage union and the eating of reasonable food, are both blockheads and atheists, and exercise an irrational chastity like other heathen. (p. 147)

Contrast Clement's attitude with Augustine, "everyone who is born of sexual intercourse is in fact sinful flesh" (p. 171). "Augustine regarded the involuntary penis erections, spontaneous ejaculations, and the intensity of venereal pleasures as proof that human nature had fallen." (Phipps, p. 172). Augustine in league with Jerome founded the Roman Catholic attitude toward sex which has pervaded all of Christianity. To this very day, Christians are horrified at candor about sexual matters. It causes one to wonder if the pagans of Roman times were justified in calling these people "the enemies of humanity."

Phipps has been a courageous pioneer in this field of inquiry. His work is carefully documented which aids further research. However, his low view of the Virgin Birth is a doctrinal deficiency which weakens his argument, rather than strengthening it. As will be demonstrated in a later chapter, the Virgin Birth is essential to the case of a married Messiah and the doctrine of hierogamy.[4]

The Mormons

It would not be possible to do justice to this subject and not consider the contribution which various Mormon leaders have made to the question of a married Jesus. While it may not be of the caliber of William Phipps’s disciplined study, they ought to be commended for questioning the docetic views of traditional Christians and suggesting a more realistic perspective. My primary source comes from Ogden Kraut's book entitled Jesus Was Married first published in 1969 by Pioneer Press. I am using the 1995 edition.

There are three reasons why some caution ought to be employed when considering his presentation and the presentations of Mormon apologists in general on this question. The Mormon polemic for a married Jesus arose during the 19^th Century and was all entangled with the Mormon justification for polygamy. For this reason, Kraut, who supports polygamy, is naturally interested in presenting a polygamous Jesus. That bias should not dissuade us from a balanced evaluation of the legitimate evidence which points to a married Jesus.

Second, it should be mentioned that the Mormon doctrine of "celestial marriage" has influenced that movement's view of Jesus' marital status. "Celestial marriage" teaches that one's salvation or certainly one's status in the after-life is affected by whether one has entered into marriage in this life. According to this doctrine, Christ's own status would be in question had He not been married.

And third, our evaluation of the Mormon contribution ought to be tempered because of their deference to the "prophetic authority" of their leaders. Religious debate is often clouded by the fear of being labeled as an "unbeliever" or "heretic" within one's own religious group. This is not a fault unique to Mormonism. Virtually all Christian groups have a tendency to ascribe sinister motives to "unbelievers" simply because they remain unconvinced by their evangelism. They never stop to consider that their dogma might represent sloppy scholarship or irrational thought.

Returning to Phipps' work briefly, he refers to Orson Hyde, an early leader of the Mormon Church as teaching that Jesus married Martha and more than one Mary (p. 9). In the words of Phipps,

He wrested biblical support that Jesus married and had children from the suffering servant passage of Isaiah. In Isaiah 53:10 it is prophesied: "He shall see his offspring." These words were interpreted as a literal description of Jesus, who would be born centuries later.

He cites a "confession" by one of Brigham Young's wives which indicates that the founder of the Mormon colony in Utah agreed with Hyde:

Brigham Young, in one of his sermons . . . declared that "Jesus Christ was a practical polygamist; Mary and Martha, the sisters of Lazarus, were his plural wives, and Mary Magdalene was another. Also, the bridal feast at Cana of Galilee, where Jesus turned the water into wine, was on the occasion of one of his own marriages. (p. 10)

Phipps handles these speculations in a balanced manner. While he acknowledges that polygamy was an Old Testament custom which carried over into the period in which Jesus lived, monogamy was the norm.[5] "Even if the New Testament stated that Jesus was married, it would be unwarranted to assume that this meant that he had more than one wife."

Ogden Kraut also uses the argument that the marriage of Cana was Jesus' own wedding. There do seem to be anomalies in the account found in John 2. For instance, why would Jesus, an honorary guest at the wedding, bear any responsibility for the beverages? Apparently, that was the responsibility of the bridegroom, for the "ruler of the feast" commends the bridegroom for saving the best for last (v.9-10). Why was Jesus performing the duties of the bridegroom, if He was not the bridegroom?

And why did His mother assume responsibility for the success of the festivities? Why was she even there? Why were the disciples there? Why did she think that Jesus was responsible for doing something about the problem? And where did she obtain the authority to order the servants around?

While these are tantalizing questions, they do not help us to answer the question of whether Jesus was married or not. These anomalies can be answered by the possibility that the wedding was for a close relative, perhaps a sister or younger brother; in which case, Jesus would have been simply solving a family crisis.

Of course, even if this incident proved that Jesus was married, it would not prove that He was a polygamist. It is important for the reader not to dismiss evidence of a married Jesus, simply because it is presented by an advocate of polygamy.

The Mormon contribution to this question seems to be largely speculative and peculiar to their sectarian doctrine. For instance, Kraut cites a "revelation" received by the Prophet Joseph Smith that the "stem of Jesse" in Isaiah 11:1 is Christ:

Since Christ was identified as the "Stem", it is interesting to note that the "Stem" was to have posterity; according to Isaiah - "there shall come forth a Rod out of the Stem of Jesse and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. (p. 92)

Like Orson Hyde's attempt to literalize Isaiah 53:10, Kraut fails to provide exegetical evidence as to why Smith's interpretation would be correct or why we should literalize these texts. While a literal interpretation of these texts would certainly support - although it would not prove - a doctrine of a married Jesus, these men fail to explain why we should discard nearly two thousand years of exegetical interpretation.

Kraut turns to archaeology. Citing an interesting discovery in 1875 near the ancient village of Bethany in which certain sarcophagi bore the inscriptions of Salome, Lazarus, Martha, Simeon (identified as the "son of Jesus"), and Salomzion, the daughter of Simeon, he thinks we find proof that Jesus had a son and a granddaughter. He thinks that the only reason why this discovery was not hailed by the Christian world is because of its prejudice in favor of a celibate Jesus. (p. 90-91)

That all might be true, but at most, it is suggestive evidence. There are too many other possibilities. There were many men in ancient Judea named "Jesus" (Joshua). Perhaps these empty tombs once contained the remains of the Bethany family. Even if they did, it is just as likely that another person named "Jesus" - perhaps named in honor of the Lord - was the father of this Simeon.

Kraut says, "It is only logical that Jesus and His Apostles would honor all the laws of marriage in order to set the proper example for their followers." I agree wholeheartedly, but that does not prove Jesus was married.

Much of what Kraut offers have been addressed already in our review of the book by William Phipps. What appears to be his single greatest contribution to this discussion is his presentation on Psalm 45, as he quotes Orson Pratt (p. 63-65):

Indeed, the Psalmist, David, prophesies in particular concerning the wives of the Son of God. We quote from the English version of the Bible, translated about three hundred and fifty years ago: "All thy garments smell of myrrh, and aloes, and cassia; when thou comest out of the ivory palaces, where they have made thee glad, King's daughters were among thine honorable WIVES; upon thy right hand did stand the Queen in a vesture of gold Ophir." (Psalm 45:8,9) That this passage has express reference to the Son of God and His wives, will be seen by reading the sixth and seventh verses which are as follows: "Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." This Being, whom the Psalmist here calls God, is represented in the next verses as having "honorable wives".

It should be recalled that Hebrews 1:8-9 treats Psalm 45 as a Messianic prophecy, as Pratt continues:

Paul applies the words of the Prophet David to the Son of God, to the anointed Messiah, who is called God, and whose "throne is forever and ever." Let it be remembered then, that the Son of God is expressly represented as having "honourable wives". King James' translators were not willing that this passage should have a literal translation, according to the former English rendering, lest it should give countenance to polygamy; therefore, they altered the translation to honorable women instead of wives; but any person acquainted with the original can see that the first translators have given the true rendering of that passage.

Kraut provides support for Pratt's assertion by producing facsimile copies of Psalm 45 from The Geneva Bible (the Bible of Calvin and many of the Reformers) and from an Anglican Bible used before the King James Version. All of them do render v. 9 as "honorable wives," rather than "honorable women."

Notwithstanding the Queen is numbered among the "honorable wives" of the Son of God, yet she is called upon to worship Him as her Lord. If her husband were a mere man, she would not be exhorted to worship him. . . (Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 159-160)

Psalm 45 appears to be the most significant argument of a married Jesus which has been offered thus far; yet it presents, seemingly, not just a married Jesus, but a polygamous Jesus, as well. This idea is troubling to the modern mind. It was troubling to the minds of the later Church Fathers. That was why they interpreted these texts allegorically. They acknowledged that Christ was a polygamist, but only in a symbolic sense. They saw these Old Testament wives as figures of the Church and not as real women who would be married to the Messiah. Both Pratt and Kraut have failed to provide any hermeneutical rule as to why we should literalize these texts. Paul allegorizes Messianic prophecies (Galatians 4:22-26). Why should they not be so here? These Mormon commentators have failed to explain how we are to know which prophecies are to be taken literally and which ones are allegorical. It is because their tradition does not provide a consistent rule of hermeneutics. Instead, they must rely upon the shifting spiritual states of their prophetic leaders for guidance.

While Psalm 45 will be explored more thoroughly later in our discussion on hierogamy, it might be helpful to provide the reader with a preview of what is to come. The doctrine of hierogamy recognizes that Jesus, as the titular head of the house of David, was the heir to the royal harem. This harem – also known in the Scriptures as “Zion” or “the daughter of Zion” – was passed down from generation-to-generation among the principal heirs to the Davidic throne, even during the years of captivity. Not all women of the royal harem were available to the heir. Some of them were mothers, sisters, and other female dependents that were forbidden according to the Law of Moses. It was from the royal harem that spouses were provided for the heir’s brethren, servants, and other worthy recipients of the Davidic Covenant. In this sense, the Crown Prince was the family matchmaker, and Jesus, as the Messianic Prince, would have been so, as well. At this juncture, we know of only one person with whom Jesus had any intimacies, and that was Mary Magdalene. Even though Jesus was responsible for the care of this harem – which was later called the Church – we have no evidence to suggest that Jesus was anything other than monogamous.

Feminist Authors: Magdalene as the Daughter of Zion

If we explore the question of a married Jesus from the perspective of Mary Magdalene's story, we gather more valuable information. Herein we find a meaningful contribution from Margaret Starbird's books as well as others, such as Susan Haskins' monumental work: Mary Magdalene in Myth and Metaphor.[6] While lacking certain vital information which will be provided in the next chapter, these books have been effective in dispelling a number of myths about her.

One such myth is that she was a common prostitute. There is no convincing evidence that she was such a person. This view originated with the later Fathers, and one is tempted to see in their descriptions a desire to diminish her stature in the New Testament Church.

The Talmudists confused her with Mary, the mother of Jesus; for in their frequent derogatory remarks about the Virgin Mary, they claim that she was either raped or was a whore, and that Jesus was a bastard child. In their descriptions of this Mary, they call her "a perfumer" or "hairdresser," which, as we shall see, is more applicable to Mary Magdalene.

The usual assumption about Mary Magdalene is that she was from a village in Galilee called "Magdala" which was notorious for licentiousness. Margaret Starbird disputes that traditional view, arguing that,

The actual Greek letters for the epithet "the Magdalene,". . . are very distinctive. The -ene (hnh) ending is not a correct or typical one for designating a person from a particular town or region; to denote a person from a particular region or town, the ending should be -ios. If Mary were from a town called "Magdala," the correct Greek spelling of her epithet would be . . . "Magdalaios."[7]

Starbird says that there appear to be no maps or records in the 1^st Century which identify the existence of a fishing village called "Magdala." The site which was later called Magdala was called "Taricheae" during the time of Jesus. Thus, it seems that the epithet, "Magdalene," must have other significance.

Adam Clarke's Commentaries (Matthew 27:56) cites Lightfoot among those who likewise do not believe that the term Magdalene signifies her place of origin. "A plaiter of hair" is offered as another possibility since "migdala" means in Hebrew "spice, perfume"[8] and "dallah": "something dangling, i.e. a loose thread or hair."[9] Vine's Expository Dictionary associates "dallah" with poverty, disheveled hair and social lowliness (2 Kings 24:14). Song of Solomon 7:5 also uses the word to denote something that "hangs down," as in disheveled hair. Lightfoot gets his information from the Talmud, for he states:

. . . there is mention made in the Talmudic authors of "Maria Magdila" the daughter of Maria, "a plaiter of women's hair", who they say was the wife of "Papus" Ben Juda, but an adultress. They make this "Papus" contemporary with Rabban Gamaliel (of Jafneh) and R. Joshua, and with R. Akibah: who all lived both before and after the destruction of Jerusalem; so that the times did not very much disagree. And probable it is, that the Gemarists retained some memory of our Mary Magdalene, in the word “Magdil.”[10]

But "mag" may refer to "magi" from which we get "magician" and the "wise" men of the Christmas story who brought frankincense and myrrh.[11] Mary may have been a sorceress, a fact which would explain why Jesus had to cast seven demons out of her. The use of ointments, perfumes, herbs and spices were all a part of ancient sorcery, as was disheveled hair for pagan prophetesses. All of these factors may combine to explain why Mary was a footwasher, had expensive ointments, and let her hair down to dry the Lord's feet. It was her vocation which was sained in the service of Jesus. She would have known of the hieros gamos tradition in pagan religions and may have participated in such rituals. But as we explained earlier, she would not have considered performing such a ritual upon Jesus as one of His faithful disciples.

More pertinent to our inquiry, Starbird sees "Magdalene" in Old Testament prophecy:

As for you, O [Magdal-eder], watchtower of the flock, O stronghold of the Daughter of Zion! the former dominion will be restored to you; kingship will come to the Daughter of Jerusalem. Why do you now cry aloud - have you no king? Has your counselor perished, that pain seizes you like that of a woman in labor? Writhe in agony, O Daughter of Zion, like a woman in labor, for now you must leave the city and camp in the open field.

- Micah 4:8-10 [12]

Since no vowels occur in the ancient Hebrew, "Magdal" and "Migdal" (#4029) are indistinguishable in the text. Although obscured in the Septuagint, no reader of the Hebrew would have missed this association. Since this passage is woven in the middle of two important Messianic prophecies which were, no doubt, frequently read by the New Testament Church - vss. 1-7 which speak of the Messianic kingdom and then 5:2 which foretells the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem - it seems likely that "Magdalene" was added as a special epithet to the Lord's companion. Other more tenuous Messianic associations were made by the New Testament authors and by the early Fathers.[13] John the Baptist was the expected Elijah based upon one passage in Malachi 4:5. Is it unreasonable to suppose that the Messianic prophecies also expected a human representation of Zion?

We might find a helpful explanation if we consider the naming rituals of ancient times. Males were usually named at their circumcision, but they also acquired nicknames, epithets, and titles later in life to distinguish them from others and to identify them as special. One's place of origin was just one way of identifying people. One's father was another.

Sometimes, these namings occurred at significant events in the life of the individual. An easy example would be when a man acquired a title when assuming a public office. David the shepherd son of Jesse became David the King. At Jesus' baptism, John named Him "the Lamb of God." Of course, Jesus had many epithets.

Jesus did his share of giving people nicknames. Simon, of course, became Peter (which means "rock") at his confession in Matthew 16. James and John became "the sons of thunder."

So what about Mary Magdalene? Rather than acquiring an entirely new name, her name may have been simply altered to reflect her new status in the Christian community. Remember, Abram was changed to Abraham and Sarai was changed to Sarah (Genesis 17:5, 15).

Mary may have begun as “Miriam Magdala” (the anointer and footwasher) and then became “Miriam Migdala” (the tower and stronghold of Zion). This name change may have occurred at the anointing in Bethany. Mary is always listed first among the women disciples. Jesus commanded that her loving deed be recorded as a memorial to her. She became "God's tower" by being "God's footwasher." All of this would have been lost to Gentile Christians in the 2^nd Century.

Starbird also points out that the use of spikenard occurs only one other place in the Bible: in the Song of Solomon 1:12. It reads:

While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.

Compare with the Bethany anointing:

There they made him supper . . . then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment (John 12:2-3).

How could anyone at that dinner table not have known what she was doing?

Returning to the Song, the very next verse declares:

A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt by breasts.

Is it reasonable to believe that this prophecy was consummated that night between Jesus and Mary as the Bridegroom and Bride, the Messiah and the Daughter of Zion? There will be much more to say about this in later chapters.