Promoter
of this current controversy- Karen King- is confident that Jesus did indeed have a
wife. Is confident that this was “not
merely a spiritual wife”. That Jesus
did indeed have “sexual intercourse”.
And
Karen seems oblivious to the implications.
Implications which leave her precariously- At The Brink. Implications which no one seems to be
discussing.
Let’s examine those
implications. Implications that I
generally examine at my adult blog... but this has soteriological implications. Has fatal implications.
Now,
as Karen rightly recognizes, the implications of having a wife are indeed
“sexual intercourse”. Are indeed
“conjugal rights” (Exodus 21:10 NASB- contrary to some translations which
prefer the obscure “marital rights”)… but there are other requirements as well.
Requirements
that are discussed in the above passage in the Old Testament. Requirements that were re-affirmed numerous
times in the New Testament. Requirements that were pertinent in those
times… and remain quite pertinent in our times.
So,
according to Exodus 21:11 (just after the Ten Commandments) there are actually
“three things” required for a wife (the NET notes call it a Threefold
Maintenance Clause). The wife is also to
be provided with food and with clothing.
And is to be maintained with
food, clothing and sex (and the reasonable enjoyment thereof) by her husband.
This O.T. passage suggests that being unable (or ‘unwilling’ in the NASB) to maintain
a wife reasonably (and equitably in the case of more than one
wife) indicates unfaithfulness and voids the marriage contract. Permits divorce with no strings attached.
Now,
I just don’t see Jesus with the time or temperament of maintaining a wife reasonably in any gospel account (either canonical or apocryphal accounts). Of providing food and clothing to anyone on a regular basis. Seems to me that this is a huge gospel opportunity missed- unless of course this scenario was problematic!
And
it is problematic. I just don’t see where Jesus might be under
the illusion that he might possibly maintain
a wife. Particularly when he knew that
His earthly life would be chaotic. That
His earthly life would be nomadic. When
He knew that the Son of Man would have “nowhere to lay his head” (Matt. 8:20)…
let alone lay His wife.
When
He knew that His life would be cut quite short.
When He knew that He MUST be in His “Father’s House” from a very early
age (Luke 2:49 and no, not ‘a house that His earthly father built’ as some suggest). When He
knew that He could spend little time with a wife… let alone children.
And
for Jesus to marry based on this
foreknowledge… would be fraudulent.
Would be sinful. Would have
disastrous implications.
Now,
has Karen King considered those obvious implications?
If so, how does Karen King reconcile a sinful savior? Reconcile a deluded savior? Well, I don't see how she can… unless she completely denies
His claims to foreknowledge. Unless she completely
denies His divinity.
In
contrast, the apostle Paul argues that he was certainly qualified to marry. Qualified in a general sense. Qualified- as were the other “apostles and
brothers of the Lord” (1 Cor. 9:5). Yet,
the Lord is not mentioned as being qualified to marry. A far stronger argument that Paul could have used.
An argument from silence, no doubt- yet it is implicit that the Lord was certainly not qualified to marry in the subsequent verse. That Jesus did not "have a right" to refrain from working as did Paul. That Jesus must needs work incessantly while He remained on this earth (John 9:4). That metaphorical "night was coming' for Jesus.
So Paul was indeed qualified to marry- qualified since he was not divine. Since he was not the Lord, and since he did not have the specific
foreknowledge of the Lord. Of a clear and present "night" coming for Paul.
However, Paul was disqualified from marriage for a
very different reason. Disqualified since it was not Paul’s actual desire to marry.
Disqualified-
since it seems that Paul actually had very little passion for a wife (unlike
Gandhi who held contempt
for his wife and women).
That Paul had no significant “burning” for a
wife (1 Cor. 7:9).
Disqualified
since Paul was unusually gifted (1 Cor. 7:7) with eunuchy.
Was
actually made a eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 19:12).
That Paul’s actual “burning” was for the earthly
minded… and a wife was simply ‘no
heavenly good’ for Paul.
Now,
an earthly wife would have been ‘no heavenly good’ for Jesus either. And though He may have been somewhat tempted to take a wife (Heb. 4:15) - a wife
would have seriously compromised His clear and present mission. Would have seriously compromised His
testimony of a far more intimate relationship.
As
Rabbi Rosenblatt wrote recently, “Judaism celebrates the
monogamous, intimate relationship with a spouse as the prototype of the
intimate relationship with God”. And an earthly marriage for the Son of God- would have
modeled something far less intimate.
But
mostly, if counterfactuals may be made (and they may even be made by Calvinists :)- an earthly wife would have fatally compromised the Son of God's pre-existing marriage. A
marriage made in heaven.
An
existing marriage with the Father and Spirit. A marriage needing nothing else and no one
else.
A
marriage needing neither food, nor clothing nor conjugation- since the Father,
Son and Spirit constantly feed, clothe and cuddle each other. Never deprive each other (not even at the cross, where Jesus continued to commit His human spirit to the Father-Luke 23:46).
A
marriage of continuous maintenance. A
marriage of consummate maintenance. A
marriage with no Threefold Maintenance Clause required.
What
a magnificent marriage to consider. A marriage that we might revel in- when our
human spirit is with Christ.
When
our spirit recognizes His divinity. When
our spirit recognizes His salvation.
Pray
that Karen’s spirit revels in His Spirit- and that Karen be clothed with Christ.
As he clothes the lilies and the nebula.
