Here is an exchange between Wynn Manners and Margaret Starbird discussing the very intriguing fact that the great Martin Luther believed Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married.
Poet-Mystic Wynn Manners writes:
…we have a statement attributed to Luther by John Schlaginhaufen. It’s from
a section of the Works called Table Talk and collects freewheeling conversations
Luther enjoyed with friends.
“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, [he was an
adulterer] with Magdalene, and still again with the adulterous woman in John 8
[:2-11], whom he let off so easily. So the good Christ had to become an
adulterer before he died.”
*
Christus adulter. Christus ist am ersten ein ebrecher worden Joh. 4, bei dem
brunn cum muliere, quia illi dicebant: Nemo significat, quid facit cum ea? Item
cum Magdalena, item cum adultera Joan. 8, die er so leicht davon lies. Also mus
der from Christus auch am ersten ein ebrecher werden ehe er starb.
*
Q: After reading “The DaVinci Code” by Dan Brown, I was looking for background
material for the claims made in that book, especially concerning the “hidden
messages” in Da Vinci’s artwork and also the author’s apparent view of the early
Christian church. I have been reading a book entitled “Secrets of the Code”
edited by Dan Burstein, which covers some of this subject matter. At least twice
in this book the claim is made, without any footnote or citation, that Martin
Luther believed that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married to each other. Is
there anything that Martin Luther wrote or said to support this claim?
A: In 1515, in his “First Psalm Lectures,” when Luther still applied allegorical
interpretation to his reading of the Scriptures, he made a puzzling statement:
“…Mary Magdalene… came beforehand at the dawn and with untimely haste and
cried and called for her husband much more wonderfully in spirit than in body.
But I think that she alone might easily explain the Song of Songs” (“Luther’s
Works, American Edition, Volume 11, page 510).
Luther was evidently interpreting the Song of Songs (Song of Solomon) in a
traditional way: the bridegroom is the Lord and the bride is his church. Mary’s
love for Jesus, her zeal to finish preparing his body for burial, and her haste
to get out to the tomb on Easter morning were like the ardor of the bride in the
Song of Songs.
Keep in mind that Luther was lecturing on the Psalms for the first time, that
what he meant is not very clear, that he did not in later life indicate he
believed that Jesus was literally married to anyone, that his words are not
something he wrote with care but something he said in lecture, and that
professors do not always express their thoughts clearly.
http://www.getreligion.org/2006/05/what-jesus-wouldnt-do/
*
Yup… he said Jesus was an adulterer, 3 times over (perhaps trying to
rationalize some adulterous relationships of his own?)!
i can’t help but laugh at the obvious desire on the part of most of the people
in the lengthy discussing of these two quotes from Martin Luther, to be
“proving” that he didn’t *mean* what those quotations seem to me to be rather
obviously conveying!
*
At another website:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/luther-said-christ-committed-a\
dultery.html
The first is a comment on Psalm 119:145 in which Luther interprets Mary
Magdalene’s actions at the tomb of Christ as an example of loving devotion. Mary
“came beforehand at the dawn and with untimely haste and cried and called for
her betrothed [sponsum] much more wonderfully in spirit than in the body. But I
think that she alone might easily explain the Song of Songs.”
Luther’s Works: American Edition (LW) unfortunately mistranslates sponsum as
“husband.” In Luther’s medieval monastic context, the word meant something
different. The verb spondeo means “to pledge oneself to” or “to promise oneself
to someone,” as in “to pledge in the vow of marriage.” The male form of the noun
is “fiance” and the female form is “bride.”
The full context of Luther’s remark indicates that he was thinking
allegorically. Influenced by mainstream allegorical interpretations of the Song
of Songs, Luther viewed Mary as the prototypical disciple (a celibate nun?), the
first “bride of Christ,” who had made her vow of unconditional love and
obedience to her sponsum (“betrothed,” “groom”). Even today Roman Catholic nuns
wear a ring to symbolize their betrothal to Christ. On another occasion Luther
argued that all Christians are “brides of Christ” (LW 28:48). He certainly did
not think Jesus and Mary were actually husband and wife. Several unambiguous
statements in his writings clearly indicate that he held the traditional view
that Jesus, like Paul, was celibate and chaste.
*
Whether the word “sponsum” translates as “betrothed,” “fiance” or “groom” — i
think the traditional theologically-minded are just trying to wriggle out of
something they, themselves, are biased against, because it upsets their
*theology*.
Yeshua & Magdalene did *not* live their lives to be conforming to the
expectational strait-jacket of *future* Christian theology.
i would interpret the quotation as indicating that Martin Luther — at that
point (probably) believed they were the equivalent of “married” (groom
definitely implies that & i think pointing to the Song of Songs, via the later
*Christian* interpretation is obfuscation & misdirection).
It seems highly probable that Yeshua & Miriam may well have shared the Song of
Songs together, as lovers — it certainly would’ve enhanced the meaningfulness
of their espousal unto each other (assuming a *copy* would’ve been available for
them, privately) — but i seriously doubt it meant the same to *them* — if they
shared it — than the theological overlay of later generations of the
sexually-uptight ecclesiasticals!
Can we possibly imagine the ludicrousness of Yeshua reading the Bridegroom parts
of the Song of Songs & Peter reading the Bride parts to each other?! i *know*
that Paul says that in Christ there is no male nor female — but let’s be
realistic here!
*Peter* saying to Yeshua:
“Your lips cover me with kisses;
your love is better than wine.
There is a fragrance about you;
the sound of your name recalls it.
No woman could keep from
loving you.”
And then Andrew is saying, later,
“How handsome you are, my dearest;
how you delight me!
The green grass will be our bed;
the cedars will be the beams of our house,
and the cypress trees the ceiling.
I am only a wild flower in Sharon,
a lily in a mountain valley.”
& then Christ says to Peter:
“The curve of your thighs
is like the work of an artist.
A bowl is there,
that never runs out of spiced wine.
A sheaf of wheat is there,
surrounded by lilies.
Your breasts are like twin deer,
like two gazelles.
<…>
Your braided hair shines like
the finest satin;
its beauty could hold a king captive.”
Yeah… RIGHT!!!
And the women ask:
“Who is coming from the desert,
arm in arm with her lover?”
Oh, it is Peter! — wearing her veil, while walking arm-in-arm with her Lord!
i don’t doubt, for a moment, that the *Song of Songs* could very well describe
Yeshua’s & Mary Magdalene’s relationship — but i sure can’t see Jesus standing
in front of the congregation of *any* Christian Church whose services i’ve ever
attended — reading the male parts & all the married men in that congregation
reading the *woman’s* parts!
At least the pious fantasy of the Church Fathers kept it in the Biblical
anthology for us & that is a grace!
i *do* agree with Martin Luther, however, that “…that she alone might easily
explain the Song of Songs”. Indeed, i think that a *real* Mary Magdalene could
easily explain the Song of Songs with *far* more depth-of-perception than all
these theologians, priests & preachers over the past nigh-unto 2,000 years!
Finally, if anyone, here, is interested in reading however much of Martin
Luther’s “Table Talk” — it can be accessed here:
http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/documents/Table_talk/table_\
talk.html
Cheers!
~~wynn
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Our favorite Scholar-and-Author Margaret Starbird responded to the above thusly:
Thanks for sharing the article about Martin Luther's comments about Mary Magdalene. I cited the "Table Talks" quote from Martin Luther's informal conversations in my [book] "Mary Magdalene, Bride in Exile" (2005) My “take†on Martin Luther’s comments from “Table Talkâ€: I think Martin Luther was (maybe unconsciously?) aware of the repressed tradition of Cathars/ Albigensians that Mary Magdalene was the SAME as the woman at the well AND the woman found in adultery whom Jesus set free from her tormentors. Clearly the earlier tradition had become convoluted over time, resulting in his confused version of what the 13c. heretics believed was an intimate union. These ideas floated around in the oral tradition, rarely written...
The French chronicler of the crusade against the Cathars (Pier vaux de Cerney) recorded that Cathars and residents of the village Beziers were incinerated when the church where they sought refuge from the armies of the Pope and French King. He attributed this action, which occurred on the feast day of Mary Magdalene, 22 July, 1209, to "divine providence" in just retribution for their "slanderous assertion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were lovers. "In memory of Her"-- Margaret "The Woman with the Alabaster Jar" www.margaretstarbird.net
I think the issue of what Martin Luther believed is best handled within the context of his own time and his own teachings. The lack of further development of the idea and the lack of any response, whether positive or negative, suggests that his ideas were not out of line for 16th century Germany.
As to Maryam, Yeshu’ and the Song of Songs, the Jewish tradition of the time would probably apply. (So also Martin Luther’s understanding of his reference would be governed by the then current understanding of the work.)
As far as I am aware, the Song of Songs was ‘spiritualized’ well before the Second Temple Period, and only within the past couple centuries has its erotic content been taken seriously.
It is easy to forget that Yeshu’ was neither beatnik nor hippy, but was a Jew during the late Second Temple Period. While he may have been influenced by Cynics in Sephoris, his traceable references are all Jewish and his target audience was Jewish, though the changes imposed at Jamnia were only characteristic of the Pharisees during his lifetime.
Be Well,
Bob Griffin
Jesus: Son of God, husband and father?
Most Christians would be appalled if you suggest that Jesus could have gotten married and had a child or children. But if you asked those same Christians, “Do you think Jesus would have been a “Perfect†husband and father if He was allowed to get married; everyone will say an emphatic resounding “Yesâ€. Jesus was a perfect child and grandchild etc. He was also a perfect uncle, nephew, and cousin to His family.
All Christians believe that God created the human race and Jesus is God becoming man (Emmanuel —God with us). Therefore Christians think that God is committing incest with the human race that He has created if Jesus is allowed to get married. But God is a “Spirit ONLY†being. The human flesh, bone and blood that Jesus has was passed down from Adam and Eve to Joseph and Mary, for the flesh of Jesus isn’t God (but only houses God’s Spirit)! In the same way, the portable dwelling place of God was The Tabernacle; but the materials that The Tabernacle were made out of, only housed God, and in no way would you consider created materials as revealing the essence or person of God.
There is no New Testament verse or verses that reveal that Jesus got married and had a family; but equally important, there are no Bible verses that forbid Jesus getting married and having a family. If you go back 2,000 years, it was common for a man in his early 20’s to get married and have children; if he didn’t get married, he was a shame and disgrace to his whole family. Also, don’t forget, for Jesus to be a Rabbi 2,000 year ago he had to be mature and at least 30 years of age, and to give council to married couples he had to be married. Jesus didn’t reveal His Deity until “His time had come†(when He is about 30 years of age and starting His ministry), the earlier years are silent, so that Rachael’s 5 sons won’t be needlessly killed.
The reason that it is ok for Jesus to get married is because Jesus is flesh, bone and blood just like Mary Magdalene his human wife. A human Joseph having sex with a human Mary gave Jesus a human body. The created human body of Jesus is having sex with another created human body of Mary Magdalene (Mary of Bethany, the sister of Lazarus) in marriage and their marriage bed is undefiled. Therefore you can’t say that God is having sex with Magdalene; simply because God doesn’t have a body, but He did put His Spirit in the body of Jesus.
God created sexual procreation and sexual pleasure for humans. Sexual temptation is like a snake biting you, and you need an anti-venom serum. To resist sexual temptation and mental lust, God provides a way for males and females to escape sexual temptation; it is called a marriage commitment. When two people marry, the marriage bed is undefiled and they can meet each other’s sexual needs and desires so that they won’t be as tempted to sin against God, their bodies or another person.
We say that God became a man in order to show us how to love God, self and others. Isn’t it logical that if Jesus was married and had a child; then Jesus could not only show us how to be a better child of God, but He also could show us how to be a better mate and parent (just like some preachers today)? Satan doesn’t want Jesus or men and women in the Ministry “Who know God’s Word†to be examples of being a Godly mate and parent; because Christianity and the family would flourish.
God could have made a sperm cell and impregnated Mary with a y chromosome of a male; but this action would start a “New†family tree for humanity; because only Mary’s branch would be descendents of Adam and Eve and the Davidic Covenant. If you are going to say God fashioned DNA for Jesus from Joseph’s DNA and impregnated Mary with it; why not skip the miracle and let Joseph “Enjoy†the pleasure of sowing his own seed in Mary (this would also make Mary very happy!) L.O.L. I think God has a good sense of humor; the Pharisees couldn’t stand the thought of the ex-prostitute Mary Magdalene touching the Rabbi Jesus, much less marrying Him. Jesus healing on the Sabbath Day and marrying an ex-prostitute would really upset those people who think that they are better or more righteous than others.
All Christians these last 2,000 years have been told that if they “Really really†love God and want to be like Jesus; then they will choose permanent celibacy and go in the ministry and offer their family tree, their own needs and desires on the altar of what is expedient for their church denomination. Christians in secular jobs don’t get the privilege or honor bestowed on the religious elite celibate who is in a marriage with piety (self righteousness) and celibacy (moral purity).
But a Christian in a secular job can also be preoccupied by his or her own goals and agendas and abandon their responsibilities to his or her family and basically live their life as if they were still celibate and care-free. Egotism, piety, and self-centeredness have ruined the testimony of more single and married Christians than Satan could ever hope to be responsible for. Everyone should put God first, family second and church third. Francis Schaeffer made a statement something like “God doesn’t make a distinction between secular and religious; for we are to do all things, to the Glory of Godâ€.
Christian organizations benefit the most if all Protestant and Catholics in the ministry take a permanent vow of celibacy these last 2,000 years, in order to be in the ministry of God’s Word? . The Church is like an international corporation, and salaries are the churches greatest expense; and if all ministers were allowed to marry and have 3 or 4 children, they would need to be paid between 2 and 3 times more money to meet their family’s needs. The church saved trillions of dollars over the last 2,000 years (based on 21 Century money value). And if they embrace a vow of poverty to their celibate lifestyle, then they won’t ever ask for a pay raise. Everyone will be equal and have a socialist mindset that will free them from the “Love of money†(the root of all evil) only now to be blind-sided and consumed by the “Lust of the fleshâ€; with no mate to fulfill a marriage vow with.
Satan also benefits from all Catholic and Protestant Christians in the ministry staying single. The thought of millions of Godly men and Godly women in the ministry having a mate and children scares the hell out of Satan L.O.L. because they know God’s Word and would teach it and be an example to their family members on how to love God and be better Christians. If all the Christians over the last 2,000 years had of refused to take a permanent vow of celibacy; then there could be a billion plus more Christians alive in this 21 Century doing God’s Work. When a permanently celibate Christian is saying that a married Christian couple is sinning when they use a condom during intercourse because that “Closes the door to the possibility of creationâ€. You might say the couple is aborting the concept of children by using a condom; while the other Christian by staying single is aborting the concept of a loving mate, children, grandchildren etc.
Jesus and all the Apostles and disciples had a right to “Take a wife†because they are all 100 % human beings. Jesus could have come into this world “Full grown†just like Adam and Eve. But God had already created the “Institution of Marriage†and the “Institution of the familyâ€; so there was no need for Jesus to come into this world “Full grownâ€.
For the most part, all Catholic men and women in the Ministry are Godly moral Christians. And for the most part, all Protestant men and women in the Ministry are Godly moral Christians. I am not suggesting that all Christians in the Ministry should be married, nor am I saying that all Christians in the Ministry should be single. God doesn’t call anyone to be miserably single or miserably married. And God calls very few Christians to permanent celibacy, because it is better to marry than to be consumed by sexual passion (especially if you are young). Someone has said that the best or only time to take a permanent vow of celibacy is on your death-bed L.O.L. If you are deathly ill and in extreme pain, sexual temptation is at its lowest intensity.
We should realize that Jesus is our perfect example on this earth of what a perfect human child/teenager/adult, mate, and parent would look like; for He embraces all of our humanity, anything less, just means that Jesus isn’t human like us in our humanity.
Sincerely, ArthurTrafford.com Arthur@ArthurTrafford.com
P.S. Why do Christians get fearful, anxious and angry if I purpose that Jesus was a 100% human male just like Arthur Trafford.?
What makes Jesus unworthy to be blessed with a mate and a family?
Why would it be a sin for Jesus to be married, since His marriage bed would be undefiled? Many of the Apostles were married and we don’t know anything about their wives or children. You cannot presume Jesus stayed single just because The Bible is silent on the issue.
If His wife is know by everyone in the community, that information would be redundant; and also unnecessary because this is not His wife’s Ministry!!!
Did Jesus have all the same body organs that all “Normal†human males have? The Bible doesn’t mention His stomach, intestines, colon or sex organ; but I assume He had all those body parts L.O.L.
Jesus is humanly speaking, “Just like usâ€, but without a sin nature!!!
When I say that Jesus could have had a wife and children, I am not saying that Jesus started a “Royal bloodlineâ€. Jesus said that “His Kingdom is not of this worldâ€. All Jews and gentiles that have a personal relationship with and commitment to Jesus The Christ are part of “Spiritual Israelâ€; and Christians should never embrace a type of caste-system and call themselves Jew, gentile, slave, free, male and female.
Throughout Christendom there have always been Christians who have sought to live in opulence, and be an ecclesiastical, academic, athletic, or social elite type of person. These people trying to say they have Royal blood in their veins; just means they have a problem with the “lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of lifeâ€.
Since it rains on the just and the unjust it is obvious that someone being egotistical and pious about their blood line just means that when they die their money and prestige with be of no importance to them; but others will try to capitalize on their dead relatives name recognition, fame, fortune or power.
It is a “Spiritual” Royal bloodline that Jesus started
Sincerely,
ArthurTrafford.com