I just watched a show on public television this weekend about Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The promo to the show in the viewing guide promised to explore modern theories about Mary Magdalene.
It was clear to me that much of the debate about Mary Magdalene in modern times doesn't really have anything to do with Mary Magdalene at all, but it has more to do with theologians' views of the role of women in the church. Both sides seemed more than willing to add their own SPECULATION to the scriptures and tended to view the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene in the manner that most backed up their own personal views on the role of women in the church. SIGH........
It seems that folks have been willing to add to the scriptures according to their own mind for a long, long time also. I have to put the Gnostic gospels into this category because as I've stated before, I believe that in order for the SCRIPTURAL CALLING OF JESUS CHRIST TO BE TRUE HE COULD NOT HAVE HAD A MATE.
As far as the many paintings of Mary over the centuries that focus on her in varying degrees of nakedness it is very, very evident to me that the painters' own imaginations were at work. They obviously didn't give a fig about the Jewish cultural norms of the first century. It seems 100% probable to me that Mary herself would be absolutely scandalized by the painters' insistence to show so much skin. Even if the painters themselves were not directly influenced by the Gnostic storyline, it seems evident that they were willing to go there all by themselves.
The Lord Jesus will have a Bride, but she is yet future....HE IS ENGAGED HOWEVER! :)
As the issue of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene's relationship goes I think of the best virtues possible between a teacher and an apparently unattached follower. She was even with his mother during the crucifiction. Talk about a woman who knew where the rubber met the road..... wow!
But as concerning Jesus Christ's relationship with the church, that is another cup of tea altogether. Paul is the one who said in Eph 5:32 (Lamsa version) This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.
The context of that verse is a marriage relationship. So Paul is the one who compared Christ to a husband and the church to a bride. My old TWI mindset of "We are not the bride, but we are the body" seems stupid to me now. The husband and wife were to become one flesh. Within that analogy, WE ARE BOTH BRIDE AND BODY. This seems to be simplicity itself to me now.
But I think that unsound men tend to sexualize both Christ as the head of the body and the simple relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Surely as I can possibly say, Wierwille screwed up the relationship between teacher and student by sexualizing it, and he screwed it up when he refused to consider the plainly stated relationship with Christ and the church. I think that may be because he wanted to be THE MAN.
On the cross Jesus gave special responsibility for the care of his mother to one of his disciples. As the oldest son he (and his wife) would be responsible culturally to care for his mother (that's one of the reasons the first born son gets a "double portion" - to take care of his extended family responsibilities). (Aside: interesting also that he gave care of his mother to one of his disciples - not to the second eldest brother, as one might expect.)
At marriage a husband is supposed to leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. Obviously that doesn't mean he abandons his parents (since that would not be honoring them) - rather, it means his focus, his first attention, is not to his parents' wishes but to his wife's wishes.
Jesus gives no commandment concerning Mary M at the cross. He does not commit her [and any children] to the care of his disciples. Recall also the record and responsibilities of brothers to marry childless widows - a topic about which Jesus himself is confronted by scribes and Pharisees trying to trick him.
Mary M seems to have spent a lot of time in the company of Jesus, but that doesn't mean she wasn't perhaps married to one of his disciples (perhaps one of the 12, perhaps another disciple). In fact, that might make some sense. As a married woman, she would be accompanying her husband in his pursuit of Jesus, and it would not necessarily be very remarkable. A single Jewish woman probably would be remarkable, in those days. We know very little of the disciples' or apostles' wives; only that Peter had a wife who once had a fever. Other than that - we know nothing of their private lives.
Those seem like good considerations of Mary Magdalene's life Twinky, Thanks.
The only thing that bothers me about speculating about Mary's life is when it only exposes the folly of the one's who speculate.
Like the gnostics who think she bore the Lord's child. Which if it didn't appear to be completely unscriptural I would be willing to consider that He might have chosen to have kids.
And their speculation only robs us all from the awesome and inspring records that do tell us of the words and relationship that really was between them.
I agree with you that if she was a single woman in those days it would be remarkable. I don't mind thinking of her as a remarkable woman at all. But she might have been married still, how can one say for sure?
On the cross Jesus gave special responsibility for the care of his mother to one of his disciples. As the oldest son he (and his wife) would be responsible culturally to care for his mother (that's one of the reasons the first born son gets a "double portion" - to take care of his extended family responsibilities). (Aside: interesting also that he gave care of his mother to one of his disciples - not to the second eldest brother, as one might expect.)
At marriage a husband is supposed to leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. Obviously that doesn't mean he abandons his parents (since that would not be honoring them) - rather, it means his focus, his first attention, is not to his parents' wishes but to his wife's wishes.
Jesus gives no commandment concerning Mary M at the cross. He does not commit her [and any children] to the care of his disciples. Recall also the record and responsibilities of brothers to marry childless widows - a topic about which Jesus himself is confronted by scribes and Pharisees trying to trick him.
Mary M seems to have spent a lot of time in the company of Jesus, but that doesn't mean she wasn't perhaps married to one of his disciples (perhaps one of the 12, perhaps another disciple). In fact, that might make some sense. As a married woman, she would be accompanying her husband in his pursuit of Jesus, and it would not necessarily be very remarkable. A single Jewish woman probably would be remarkable, in those days. We know very little of the disciples' or apostles' wives; only that Peter had a wife who once had a fever. Other than that - we know nothing of their private lives.
He gave his Mother's care to John, the beloved disciple. Why? I believe because at that time, his natural half brothers didn't believe in his Messianic office. They did later, however. At one point, even the Lord's mother was swayed by her other sons' beliefs when we read in the Gospels that they were outside of one synagogue and the people inside told the Lord that His family was outside. The remark about the family members were that they thought that Jesus was "beside himself", or in other words they thought he was plumb crazy for believing that He was the Messiah.
Jesus was a rebel in the best sense...at least to prevalent cultural taboos. We do not know if Mary M was married or not. Could have been a widow, which is far more likely which would then have allowed her to travel with others. Besides, even at the cross as legend goes, when the Roman guards allowed only the family of Jesus in, Mother M included Mary M as part of the family. Whether this actually happened, who knows.
But absolutely, I do not believe that the Lord Jesus ever slept with her, this would have broken Mosaic laws, and therefore, Jesus could not have been the spotless Lamb of God.
I'm not certain about why he gave his mother's care to John, but it makes sense to me that John was the best one to care for her, no matter what the entire situation looked like.
But everything that you just said makes sense to me.
JEFF
p.s. Sometimes I wonder if the Lord will ever let those folks that promoted the idea of a sexual relationship to just feel real stupid when and if they get to meet the Lord and Mary Magdalene.
Hey, Jeff, we all had some very silly ideas at one time!!
Be thankful for the grace that allows us to have stupid ideas, and then change our minds to something more appropriate.
I suppose the promoters of such off-the-wall conjectures at least get people thinking - something - of Jesus. Which is better than disregarding him altogether.
Maybe some people will even be provoked into reading the Book?
Hey, Jeff, we all had some very silly ideas at one time!!
Be thankful for the grace that allows us to have stupid ideas, and then change our minds to something more appropriate.
You are absolutely right. I think that sometimes I feel so betrayed and wounded by the ones who would rather ruin a person's life than admit to this type of folly that I can forget that it doesn't have to be hard.....sigh.
I suppose the promoters of such off-the-wall conjectures at least get people thinking - something - of Jesus. Which is better than disregarding him altogether.
Maybe some people will even be provoked into reading the Book?
Recommended Posts
brideofjc
The Lord Jesus will have a Bride, but she is yet future....HE IS ENGAGED HOWEVER! :)
Edited by brideofjcLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Good point Bride,
As the issue of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene's relationship goes I think of the best virtues possible between a teacher and an apparently unattached follower. She was even with his mother during the crucifiction. Talk about a woman who knew where the rubber met the road..... wow!
But as concerning Jesus Christ's relationship with the church, that is another cup of tea altogether. Paul is the one who said in Eph 5:32 (Lamsa version) This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.
The context of that verse is a marriage relationship. So Paul is the one who compared Christ to a husband and the church to a bride. My old TWI mindset of "We are not the bride, but we are the body" seems stupid to me now. The husband and wife were to become one flesh. Within that analogy, WE ARE BOTH BRIDE AND BODY. This seems to be simplicity itself to me now.
But I think that unsound men tend to sexualize both Christ as the head of the body and the simple relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Surely as I can possibly say, Wierwille screwed up the relationship between teacher and student by sexualizing it, and he screwed it up when he refused to consider the plainly stated relationship with Christ and the church. I think that may be because he wanted to be THE MAN.
(edited for spelling)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Interesting thread, Jeff.
Another thing that you might want to consider:
On the cross Jesus gave special responsibility for the care of his mother to one of his disciples. As the oldest son he (and his wife) would be responsible culturally to care for his mother (that's one of the reasons the first born son gets a "double portion" - to take care of his extended family responsibilities). (Aside: interesting also that he gave care of his mother to one of his disciples - not to the second eldest brother, as one might expect.)
At marriage a husband is supposed to leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. Obviously that doesn't mean he abandons his parents (since that would not be honoring them) - rather, it means his focus, his first attention, is not to his parents' wishes but to his wife's wishes.
Jesus gives no commandment concerning Mary M at the cross. He does not commit her [and any children] to the care of his disciples. Recall also the record and responsibilities of brothers to marry childless widows - a topic about which Jesus himself is confronted by scribes and Pharisees trying to trick him.
Mary M seems to have spent a lot of time in the company of Jesus, but that doesn't mean she wasn't perhaps married to one of his disciples (perhaps one of the 12, perhaps another disciple). In fact, that might make some sense. As a married woman, she would be accompanying her husband in his pursuit of Jesus, and it would not necessarily be very remarkable. A single Jewish woman probably would be remarkable, in those days. We know very little of the disciples' or apostles' wives; only that Peter had a wife who once had a fever. Other than that - we know nothing of their private lives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Those seem like good considerations of Mary Magdalene's life Twinky, Thanks.
The only thing that bothers me about speculating about Mary's life is when it only exposes the folly of the one's who speculate.
Like the gnostics who think she bore the Lord's child. Which if it didn't appear to be completely unscriptural I would be willing to consider that He might have chosen to have kids.
And their speculation only robs us all from the awesome and inspring records that do tell us of the words and relationship that really was between them.
I agree with you that if she was a single woman in those days it would be remarkable. I don't mind thinking of her as a remarkable woman at all. But she might have been married still, how can one say for sure?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
He gave his Mother's care to John, the beloved disciple. Why? I believe because at that time, his natural half brothers didn't believe in his Messianic office. They did later, however. At one point, even the Lord's mother was swayed by her other sons' beliefs when we read in the Gospels that they were outside of one synagogue and the people inside told the Lord that His family was outside. The remark about the family members were that they thought that Jesus was "beside himself", or in other words they thought he was plumb crazy for believing that He was the Messiah.
Jesus was a rebel in the best sense...at least to prevalent cultural taboos. We do not know if Mary M was married or not. Could have been a widow, which is far more likely which would then have allowed her to travel with others. Besides, even at the cross as legend goes, when the Roman guards allowed only the family of Jesus in, Mother M included Mary M as part of the family. Whether this actually happened, who knows.
But absolutely, I do not believe that the Lord Jesus ever slept with her, this would have broken Mosaic laws, and therefore, Jesus could not have been the spotless Lamb of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Dear Brideofjc,
I'm not certain about why he gave his mother's care to John, but it makes sense to me that John was the best one to care for her, no matter what the entire situation looked like.
But everything that you just said makes sense to me.
JEFF
p.s. Sometimes I wonder if the Lord will ever let those folks that promoted the idea of a sexual relationship to just feel real stupid when and if they get to meet the Lord and Mary Magdalene.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
(Aside)
Hey, Jeff, we all had some very silly ideas at one time!!
Be thankful for the grace that allows us to have stupid ideas, and then change our minds to something more appropriate.
I suppose the promoters of such off-the-wall conjectures at least get people thinking - something - of Jesus. Which is better than disregarding him altogether.
Maybe some people will even be provoked into reading the Book?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
You are absolutely right. I think that sometimes I feel so betrayed and wounded by the ones who would rather ruin a person's life than admit to this type of folly that I can forget that it doesn't have to be hard.....sigh.
Thanks Twinky.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.