Shabbat shalom and welcome back to the fourth and last segment of Part 2 of the series on Reconstructing the Johannine Community. Last week we looked at the marital status of Christ and the apostles, and in particular the apostle Peter and then the Saviour Himself. We put flesh to the bones of the story of Peter's wife and his mother-in-law, Glaphys, thanks to the historical evidence that is available to us through Josephus. Peter is the only apostle whose marriage we know anything about. But does the marriage at Cana tell us anything more about marriage in the leadership of the first generation of Messianic (Christian) leaders?

Not directly, no. To get our next clue we must go to back in time to the many messianic prophecies in the Tanakh (Old Testament). One of Christ's titles is the "Son of David" which appears 17 times in the Messianic Scriptures (New Testament). This is both because King David was His ancestor in the Royal Bloodine and because David is portrayed as a type or foreshadowing of the Messiah Himself. One of these commonly identified messianic prophecies is Psalm 45, verses 6 and 7:

"Your throne, O Elohim (God), will last le-olam-va-ed (for ever and ever);
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore Elohim (God), your Elohim (God), has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy (gladness)" (Ps.45:6-7, NIV).

Here King David's throne is also called Elohim's (God's) Throne. This is both because David is Yahweh's appointed regent but also because David is a type or foreshadowing of Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ). For this reason Israelite monarchs were called "elohim" which did not mean that they were 'gods' in the sense that we use the word 'god' in English (as Deity). Rather, if I might remind you, in Scripture the word 'elohim', a word meaning 'powers' or 'mighty ones', is used to describe seven categories of being, both human and divine:

• 1. Yahweh our Heavenly Father (the Supreme or Almighty Elohim);
• 2. Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ) His Divine Son;
• 3. The Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit);
• 4. Malakim (angels);
• 5. Demons (fallen angels);
• 6. Pagan deities (idols and the demonic powers behind them); and
• 7. Human rulers (especially the judges but also the monarchs in Israel like David). [1]

Once when the Judeans picked up stones to throw at Him for blasphemy, it was because the Saviour declared that He and the Father were echad or one. Reading from the 10th chapter of John's Gospel, beginning at verse 24:

"The Judeans (Jews) gathered around Him, saying, 'How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah (Christ), tell us plainly.' Yah'shua (Jesus) answered, 'I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in My Father's name (Yahweh) speak for Me, but you do not believe because you are not My sheep. My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and the Father are echad (one).' Again the Judeans (Jews) picked up stones to stone Him, but Yah'shua (Jesus) said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone Me?'" (John 10:24-32, NIV).

Then they explain their contention with Him:

"We are not stoning you for any of these [miracles],' replied the Judeans (Jews), 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be Elohim (God)" (John 10:33, NIV).

Hence Yah'shua's (Jesus') reply which I want you to pay close attention to:

"Yah'shua (Jesus) answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are elohim (gods)'? (Ps.82:6) If He (Yahweh) called them 'gods,' to whom the Davar Elohim (Word of God) came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about the One whom the Father set apart as His very own [Son] and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse Me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am Elohim's (God's) Son'? Do not believe Me unless I do what My Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe Me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.' Again they tried to seize Him, but He escaped their grasp" (John 10:34-39, NIV).

Yah'shua (Jesus) was quoting from Psalm 82:6 which begins with a description of the "Great Assembly" (Ps.22:25; 35:18; 40:9-10, NKJV), variously translated ,r referred to, as the "Congregation of the Mighty" (82:1, NKJV), the 'Divine Council' and the 'Council of Yah's Elohim', in other words - as the footnote records in your own NKJV Evidence Bibles - the "elohim, mighty ones, that is, the judges." [2] In other words, Yah'shua (Jesus) was reminding the enraged, offended Judeans ready to stone Him that they had absolutely no grounds for accusing Him of blasphemy because 'elohim' - which is both a uniplural and a plural word that can be translated as either 'God' or 'gods', respectively - was a title used both of the Almighty (Father Yahweh) and of human Israelite judges, which included the monarchs like King David who were also judges. And though He was, of course, most definitely claiming to be Elohim (God) in the sense of being the Almighty, He was simultaneously making the claim to be a Judge in Israel. This He was doing on at least two (if not more) counts, both as a literal, legitimate descendant of King David in both His father Joseph's and His mother Mary's genealogical lines but also as a duly appointed, and therefore officially recognised, Rabbi or Teacher of Israel, as I pointed out last week.

Now I mention all of this both to inform and remind you of the meaning of the word 'elohim' in Hebrew, because this truth is not generally known or taught to most Christians, and to highlight the importance of Psalm 45 to which we are about to return. Thus the word 'elohim' can refer to both Immortal Beings (members of the Elohim- or Godhead who are 'everlasting' or 'eternal' Beings - 'le-olam-va-ed') and mortals like ourselves. And you will remember (as this is a good moment to remind you) that the Hebrew word olam and the corresponding Greek word æon, when refering to deity, always describes the eternal (everlasting, for ever and ever) but when applied to human beings always refers to a long, fixed duration - an age or eon [3]. Thus those humans consigned to hell at the Final Judgment remain there, not eternally, but for a very long period of fixed duration of time. Additionallly, when used in a dual prophetic context, as in this instance, both should be applied simultaneously when used in messianic revelations such as Psalm 45. Thus the 'King' here refers to both King David (the type), who was mortal (an æonian being), and to King Yah'shua (Jesus) who, as the Almighty, is immortal (an eternal being), yet the man part of Yah'shua (Jesus) was mortal (or æonian) too (until His resurrection, making his human part eternal as well). Yah'shua (Jesus), the 'God-Man', was both, and hence He could appeal to Psalm 82:6 in His defense as either Elohim (God) or Man. Here He was following His own future counsel to be later given to His talmidim (disciples) to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves" (Mt.10:16, NKJV). Thus He could appeal to both or either of the human and divine aspects of the messianic prophecies, being both the legitimate human King of Israel and the Divine King of the Universe. Here He appeals to the human aspect to deflect the murderous intentions of His adversaries from the divine aspect as His "time had not yet come" to be killed.

I am saying all of this to prepare you for what follows in Psalm 82 that is both ignored in the the lists of messianic prophecies normally cited by believers and (more often than not) deliberately mistranslated. As I read the next verses after verse 2, I want you to remember that this passage is both speaking of:

• 1. The human King David Himself (as a royal elohim or judge); and
• 2. The Messianic King in the messianic line who would come after Him, who was both:
  • a. The Immortal, Divine Elohim (Mighty One, Power, God); and
  • b. The Redeemer-Man (a human judge or elohim);

in other words, Yah'shua the Messiah (Jesus Christ), the Elohim-Man or God-Man:

"All your robes are fragrant with myrrh and aloes and cassia;
from palaces adorned with ivory
the music of the strings makes you glad.
Daughters of kings are among your honourable wives (ishshah) (GB) / lovely wives (ishshah) (NAB, RNAB) (honoured women - NIV);
at your right hand is the Queen (Shegal) ('royal bride' - NIV = Bathsheba)
in gold of Ophir.

"Listen, O daughter, consider and give ear:
Forget your people and your father's house.
The king is enthralled by your beauty;
honour him, for he is your master (lord)"
(Ps.45:8-11, NIV/Geneva Bible/NAB/RNAB).

This is a description of a Royal Wedding, both King David's to Bathsheba and therefore of the Messiah. Remember, David was a prophetic type of the Messiah, the Messiah being, then, the anti-type. Now David had eight known full weddings altogether - seven legitimate and one the evil fruit of adultery - to Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon - who became Queen.

Bathsheba, you will remember, was originally the lawful, bona fide wife of Uriah the Hittite whom David had murdered in battle when he failed in his plan to conceal the pregnancy caused by his adultery - the loyal Urial refused to leave the front and sleep with her as he was on duty. Irrespective of the sordid historical circumstances behind this marriage, Bathsheba nevertheless became what in Hebrew was known as a shegal or queen-wife, since she was the mother of the king's successor to the throne, Solomon. She is mentioned here in verse 9 as sitting at the king's right hand, "the royal bride (shegal) in gold of Ophir".

Two kinds of wife are in view here but this is not immediately apparent in our English translations owing to translator-bias and fudging of the text. In addition to the shegal or queen-wife (Bathsheba) are the ishshatot which, like its Greek counterpart guné, can be translated as either 'women' or 'wives'. The context is plainly David's own family of plural wives, for you will remember his other seven wives - Mikal, Achinoam, Abigail, Ma'akah, Haggith, Abital and Eglah - were the daughters of kings and princes, and so ishshatot ought here to be translated 'wives', something that only the Geneva Bible of 1560 (beloved of the Puritans), the modern 1970 New American Bible and the recent 2011 Revised New American Bible (Catholic translations) do. The RNAB, which I used a lot, is one of the best Catholic translations (see the table below). These are not David's concubines but 'honourable wives' or 'lovely wives' with full inheritance rights - full brides would never be treated as concubines for you will remember that a purpose of such unions was often to cement national alliances. It's one reason Solomon took so many wives, including a Princess of Egypt, even though they were pagans and marriage with pagans was forbidden by Yahweh - marriages that would lead his heart astray and into apostacy.

The reason most of our Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Bible translators fudge the word ishshatot (plural of ishshah), which in context can only mean one thing - 'wives', not 'women' - is because ever since the Emperor Justinian enacted man-made laws governing the the estate of marriage, plural marriage (or 'polygamy') has been demonised by Rome, and for no other reason. And since this psalm is a messianic prophecy, you can see why the orthodox churches get uncomfortable, and are nearly always biased in favour of 'women', defending their bias in the same way King James Onlyers defend known Catholic falsifications in the Biblical text like the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8) to defend promote the Trinity doctrine as the exclusive interpetation of the make-up of the Elohimhead (Godhead). This is why some translations even go so far as to obscure the original intent and p'shat or plain sense of the Hebrew text even more by rendering 'ishshatot' not only as 'women' but sometimes as 'bridesmaids', 'maids of honour' (JB), 'ladies of honour' (NRSV) 'maidens of her train' (Moffat), 'noble ladies' (NASB) and at other times, even 'virgins' (e.g. NEB), 'honored guests' (NET) 'favourites' (JPS 1917) and 'precious ones' (LSV, ISRV, HalleluYah, Youngs Lit.Trans.) to name a few outrageous examples. One or two translators of paraphrase versions let their imaginations really run wild and render the words 'honourable ishshatot' as 'concubines' (NLT, LB) even though there is a special Hebrew word for a concubine, namely, pilegesh. It's very, very naughty of them...and I am being generous in calling them only that.

This is a perfectly good example of massaging a word to make it fit a preconceived idea or doctrine. Thus Western Christian and secular translators are almost as bad their Masoretic counterparts who have gone one stage further by changing letters and words in the original Hebrew ground text in order to deliberately obscure messianic passages, thus deflecting readers away from the One whom they otherwise perfectly fit, namely, Yah'shua (Jesus). So I must at the very least honour the translation committees of both the NAB and RNAB for being honest enough to render the correct translations, not forgetting the translators of the Geneva Bible too. Surprisingly, perhaps, given how 'conservative' the Catholic Church has tended to be, one or two modern scholarly Catholic Bibles are letting the text speak for itself and are refusing to allow preconceived church doctrine to colour their translation work. At least amongst Catholic scholars this seems to reflect a growing liberalism of the positive kind, a reason Catholic Bibles now include Protestant scholars on their translation teams, and vice versa, and a reason I now use a number of more recent Catholic Bible translations in my work. It's a breath of fresh air to say the least! (Also see Video #IGC005 on Bible Translations).

So translator bias is why you have got to be careful not to give carte blanch to English translations and be prepared to check things up carefully. Now I know very well why the translators have done what they do. Since this is so clearly a messianic prophecy, with David pointing to Christ, then the incomplete conclusion normally reached is that the "royal bride in gold of Ophir" is a reference to the mystical or allegorical wife of the Messiah, namely the Messianic Community or Church, forgetting the other seven 'honourable wives' in the imagery. This is true only of the Divine Messiah, of Yah'shua (Jesus) as Elohim (God), and then only in a secondary, spiritual, allegorcal sense. We, as believers, are collectively a single Allegorical Wife, the Royal Wife, but we are also many, here respresented by David's seven other wives, seven being the number of completion, that's to say, the full compliment of the obedient saved. But the Messiah was, and is, also human, and lived on the earth like his prophetic type, David. Thus the word ishshatot cannot simply refer to allegoiral 'wives' (us). His human self must have been literally married in mortality like David, and these wives would then have become a human type of divine allegory.

I hope you will remember, as our study of the Book of Revelation has shown, the believers who are raised in the Second Resurrection after the Millennium, are not part of the Bride of Christ because they're disobedient, Torah-violators! They sing the 'Song of the Lamb'(as they acknowledge Christ) but not the 'Song of Moses' (as they refuse to obey all the Torah mitzvot or commandments) (Rev.15:3; cp. 12:17, 14:12 & 22:14). Spiritually speaking, I suppose, the nearest Old Testament marital equivalent to such a believer would be a concubine, which anciently was not a full-wife, a suitable metaphor for disobedient Christians and Messianics. And concubines had no inheritance rights in the same way disobedeient believers (represented by Paul to be like the brightness of the moon) cannot inherit the glory of the faithful ones (represented by Paul to be like the brightness of the sun - 1 Cor.15:41). A reason there are no concubines in the New Covenant is because, unlike the Old Covenant, the New Covenant is the fullness and the allegorical Mystical Bride of Messiah cannot therefore include them. When Christ returns at the beginning of the Millennium it is for the faithful Bride, not the disobedient believers. They must await final judgment along with the unbelievers (who in Paul's symbolism receive an even lesser glory represented by the faint brightness of the stars in the night sky). That is the difference between the first and second resurrections as far as believers are concerned.

Since the reference here in the psalm is clearly to David's seven co-wives and not to mythical 'bridesmaids' or indeed to his concubines, the 'women of honour' have to refer to someone in the Messiah's Household both literally (in the primary sense) and allegorically (in the secondary sense), since the anti-type (the allegory) always prefigures the type (the literal), not the other way round. In other words, the notion of an allegorical, mystical 'wife' would have no meaning without there first being a literal concept of a 'wife' to be its illustration. These 'honourable wives' are not therefore 'visitors' or 'wedding guests' as some suggest, nor are they 'bridesmaids' or 'ladies in waiting'. You see Yah'shua (Jesus), as the literal son of David genealogically, is also like David, only perfect in respect of His marriages, which David was not. Mikal, Saul's daughter, was, as we know, not a perfect wife, and David the adulterer was not the perfect husband. Now the idea that the mortal Messiah had to have been literally married is anathema to Roman Christianity and its offshoots. Why? Because Romanism exalts celibacy as the 'royal way', an absurdity to believers in both Old and New Covenants. So, again, kudos to the RNAB team. Which brings us back to the marriage at Cana.

Now were this one passage in the Psalms the only evidence that Yah'shua (Jesus) was not only married, but many times like David, we would need to exercise extreme caution, and indeed we still need to do that for the obvious reason that such a doctrine has enormous implications and could potentially rock the whole orthodox Christian boat, unhinging one of its historical assumptions, namely, that the mortal Yah'shua (Jesus) was unmarried and celibate, a belief enshrined in the Roman Cult of the Virgin Mary whom they claim not only brought forth the Messiah parthenogenically by means of a virgin birth (as is true) but also, we are asked to believe, the rest of Yah'shua's half-brothers and -sisters, the literal off spring of the much older Joseph, too! Catholicism demands that we stretch credulity to the limit because someone who is both impregnanted and gives birth to children cannot remain a virgin. It's physically impossible. (I'm here speaking of Yah'shua's/Jesus' half-brothers and -sisters). So the Catholic Church has formulated various fudges to explain how a perpetual virgin Mary could have been the mother to other children.

One of these 'explanations' is to claim that these half-brothers and -sisters of Yah'shua (Jesus) were not Mary's literal children in the flesh but the offspring of another, earlier marriage between Joseph and an earlier wife. When this hypothetical earlier wifey died, Joseph brought their children with him to His unconsummated betrothed marriage to Mary so that she could remain forever 'untarnished' by sex. Thus Mary, according to this hypothesis, became their step-mother! Now whilst this is admittedly a possible explanation (Joseph was, after all, much, much older than Mary), anyone with a modicum of common sense should be able to sniff damage control-in-the-making here a mile off. But gullible people will believe anything they are told especially if it has a supernatural, miraculous twist to it. I even heard a claim made by a Monophysite Bishop in Australia (who recently became prominent in social media when he survived an attempted assassination attempt on him in public made by a fanatical Moslem) that Mary was an orphan and Joseph was Mary's temporary adoptive father while she grew up, betrothing her only to prevent her from being thrown on the street when she came of age. The motivation behind this story? To try to make her perpetual virginity more convincing with a suitable background story. Sorry, but that's just more stuff-and-nonsense, an attempt to avoid the plain sense of the text, by inventing fables.

Having shocked some, if not most, of you with this information from the Psalms let's put on Sherlock Holmes' deer-stalker hat again and go hunting for more evidence. Part of the problem we face in bringing this information to you is that a similar teaching (though not an identical one) is believed by one or two notorious cults who have exploited it to evil ends [4]. So I want to urge extreme caution from the outset whilst inviting you not to be close-minded. I am here to make you aware of possibilities, not to proclaim or promote a new dogma. Nor should this be taken as a license for hot-headed carnal men to go rushing off and marrying multiple women. Quite the opposite. This ministry actively discourages this way of life, not because it isn't divinely sanctioned and lawful but because in the current climate of lawlessness and sexual immorality that prevails today, most Westerners would not live this way of life righteously and would cause much unnecessary grief, as some who have tried it without a proper spiritual grounding already have. Most believers are barely able to keep together a monogamous marriage these days, witness the high divorce rates in the churches, and this because of the general loss of basic marriage and family skills thanks to the Marxist-inspired 'woke' culture that has eroded away most Christian values that were still taken for granted when I was young. If you would like to see our policy on this matter more fully laid out, see our Statement on Plural Marriage.

That said, it should be remembered that though plural marriage was practiced in ancient Israel across the whole spectrum of society and in all income brackets, it was usually only the monarchs who could afford to do so on any appreciable scale, and even these men often went to outrageous excess, the prime example being Solomon himself. Most of those who lived the patriarchal marriage way of life the way the Creator intended did so modestly, like the father of the navi (prophet) Samuel, Elkanah, who had two wives - the very unspiritual and nasty Penninah and the godly Hannah. Even the Father of the nation of Israel itself, Jacob, had only four wives. Foolish Solomon had a thousand wives and concubines, which was a grotesque excess forbidden by the Torah, as did many of the Kings of Israel and Judah after him [5]. Though the Bible does not restrict the number of wives a man may have, it does strongly suggest that he should only be allowed to take as many as he can reasonably afford, take care of and love to the full. The ideal and perhaps average would appear to be 7 if we are to judge by the number of David's legitimate wives who are illustrative of important prophecy and the seven prophesied in Isaiah 4:1 who will take hold of one man after the slaughter of the Great Tribulation in the end times - in the time rapidly approaching now.

This is not, however, the only evidence that Yah'shua (Jesus) was married. In fact, there is evidence that He was married with more than one wife whilst in mortality. If He wasn't then there were some mighty strange things happening in the Gospel accounts that might lead us to believe that Yah'shua (Jesus) was acting in an immoral way, which is inconceivable since He was sinless. And if He had been, His enemies would in any case have pounced like lions on any perceived flaws in order to accuse Him of being against the Torah (Law) as well as their own traditions. By these means they would have discredited His ministry. But they didn't so we may reasonably conclude that if He was marriaged that He behaved within the moral and ethical Torah of His, and our, Father in Heaven.

The most likely candidate for a wife of Yah'shua (Jesus) is Mary Magdalene from the Gaililean village of Migdal (Magdala). Her rôle is ambiguous in all four Gospels and she is not even named in two of them (Matthew and Mark) until quite late. Not until the crucifixion is she clearly indentified as one of the talmidim (disciples). Only in Luke is she given greater prominence early on in Yah'shua's (Jesus') ministry and she is seen to accompany Him on His travels, again suggestive of a married woman following her husband around. Single women absolutely did not go following religious teachers and nevi'im (prophets) around in those days and, given all the scandals we sometimes hear of in the mega-churches with ministers having affairs with their secretaries or other staff, nor should they in ours! The temptations are just too great. We are commanded to avoid even the appearance of evil (1 Thess.5:22-23). In those days single women had to be accompanied by a relative. Yah'shua (Jesus) would have been scandalised for this alone and accused of being an adulterer or fornicator had single women followed Him around without an accompanying relative or chaperone, let alone the wives of other men. This is historical reality as well as common moral sense.

The outrageous suggestion that Mary of Magdala was a prostitute belongs to speculation only, assumed only because the woman who anointed Yah'shua's (Jesus') feet was said to be a "sinner". (Such extra-biblical claims are also made because of the purported visions of such Catholic mystics as Anne Catherine Emmerich who claimed to have been shown the minute details of the life of Christ). But there is no evidence this was Mary Magdalene, though it could have been. I would not wish to be guilty of lashon hara by making an accusation that cannot be verified, especially as she isn't alive to defend herself. So I refuse to do that for the same reason I will defend the integrity of the Italian composer Salieri who moral character is scandalously demonised in the Hollywood movie about Mozart called Amadaeus in order to create a sensational, but nevertheless fictional, storyline. Though it is true Mary had seven devils cast out of her (Lk.8:2) in my experience, as a minister involved in deliverance ministry, most people have a number of demons in them that need removing, including believers, particularly if they are converts from sinful lifestyles. From the biblical data we cannot conclude what her problem was, whether it was extreme possession, demonic strongholds or something else. The fact that there were "seven" is interesting in itself symbolically-speaking but this also is the subject of an other much longer discussion another time.

A point of interest is the home of Mary, Migdal or Magdala, which means in Hebrew "Village of Doves". The dove is, as we know, a symbol of the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit), of which there are seven (Rev.1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6). Bearing in mind the feminine identity of the Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) we might like to think about Yah'shua's (Jesus') mysterious saying found in John's writings, "He who has the Bride is the Bridegroom" (Jn.3:29), a reference not just to Yah'shua (Jesus) possessing the true believers (Jn.17:9,24) but anointed with the sevenfold Ruach haQodesh (Holy Spirit) too (Jn.1:32; Mt.3:16; Mk.1:10; Lk.3:22). Mary of the 'Village of Doves' would indeed be a fitting symbol of the divine Bride, more so as Mary in the Hebrew (Miriyam) means "bitter", a state of heart all three biblical Marys would experience at the crucifixion of their Master, an indication of the suffering they would have to go through. Like Mary the mother of Christ, all three Mary's would all have their hearts pierced by a metaphorical sword (Lk.2:34-35).

Mary Magdalene's friends included those of the comtemporary aristocracy and so she was probably a woman of some wealth. Mark points out the enormous cost of the perfume with which the woman anointed Yah'shua's (Jesus') feet so some say this could have been Mary Magdalene. However, John puts this matter straight by categorically saying that this was Mary of Bethany, the sister of Lazarus (Jn.11:1-2; cp. 12:23), not Mary Magdalene, even though the two, I believe, are closely linked. A marriage such as that to Mary Magdalene would have given Yah'shua (Jesus) access to the upper classes and perhaps explains why He had adherants there.

In the case of Mary of Bethany, the anointing with this expensive perfume is given great prominence in the Gospels so that one is left with the clear impression that it is more than a spontaneous gesture by a devoted follower. It is more like a royal anointing and you will remember that Yah'shua (Jesus) claims He is being prepared for His death and burial (Jn.12:7). By the end of His ministry Mary of Magdala and Mary of Bethany are always listed as part of the inner circle of female talmidim (disciples). But the greatest witness of their close and intimate association with Yah'shua (Jesus) must surely be the resurrection for it was to Mary Magdalene, was it not, that He first revealed Himself? It was Mary who wished to throw her arms around Him but who was restrained, something an unmarried woman would never have done. No, Mary of Magdala is rather 'special', receiving preferential treatment as one would expect of a wife, and according to some apocryphal writings this caused some jealosy among the male talmidin (disciples). We need pay no attention to the erroneous supersititions of later generations who attempted to blacken the name of Mary in order, I suspect, to preserve Yah'shua's (Jesus') purity as a 'good Catholic'.

There are at least two others who could well have been wives of Yah'shua too, and I have already hinted at one of them, namely the two sisters of Lazarus. Mary and Martha of Bethany showed a familiarity with Yah'shua (Jesus) which would have been unbecoming for women at that time, whether married or single. Lazarus, as we have seen, was, like Mary Magdalene, wealthy, and even possessed a private tomb. Lazarus may well have been a part of the contemporary aristocracy too. Both Mary and Martha of Bethany are linked to resurrection like Mary Magdalene in the matter of their brother Lazarus' death and you willr ecall that Martha made confession of her belief the messiahship of Yah'shua (Jesus) and her confidence in the resurrection (Jn.11:23-27).

When Lazarus died Mary sat shiveh at home, the traditional way to mourn and did not come out to meet Yah'shua (Jesus) as Martha did. Mary was the more obedient of the two sisters. Had she been single she could have - and would have - come out to meet Yah'shua (Jesus), for according to the custom of the day a woman 'sitting shiveh' was strictly forbidden to emerge from her house except at the express bidding of her husband! Thus in this incident the behaviour of Yah'shua (Jesus) and Mary conforms precisely to the traditional comportment of a Yehudi (Jewish) man and his wife. There is no doubt that Yah'shua (Jesus) exercises some sort of authority over Mary and Martha (Lk.10:38-42) and there is a strong allusion to a marriage between Him and Mary. The two Mary's show the same kinds of affection and devotion as one would expect of married women.

If Mary of Bethany was one of Yah'shua's (Jesus') wives, then Lazarus was His brother-in-law. Interestingly Lazarus is only known to us in the Gospel of John (excluding the secret Marcan account which I spoke of earlier in this Johannine series). That he has some sort of preferential treatment as one would expect of a family member is evidenced in many places. For one thing, he was raised from the dead, something Yah'shua (Jesus) only did a few times during His mortal ministry. Importantly, Lazarus was also menaced by Yah'shua's (Jesus') enemies unlike the other talmidim (disciples) - the chief cohenim (priests) not only wanted Yah'shua (Jesus) dead but Lazarus too (Jn.12:10)! According to Mark's secret account he was a talmid (disciple). And yet he mysteriously disappears from the narrative, apparently absent at the crucifixion and is never mentioned again thereafter. What happened to him?

Only two people are ever described as a person whom Yah'shua (Jesus) "loves" - Lazarus and John (Jn.11:3; 21:20). Indeed John is called the, not 'a', talmid (disciple) (Jn.21:24). Why? Can it truly be said that this was favouritism on the part of the one who was "no respecter of persons" (Ac.10:34), or was this a title? Was "the beloved disciple" an allusion to his special position as the future chief of the apostles and the bearer of deep, sacred truths? Why does he never identify himself as 'John'? Only once, in Revelation 1:4, does he use his name - otherwise it is simply "the elder" (2 Jn.1:1; 3 Jn.1:1), leading liberals to speculate that there are two or three 'Johns' in the Gospels. What happened during the six days of instruction that Yah'shua (Jesus) gave to the resussitated Lazarus? What was that all about? And what did Thomas mean when, upon learning of Lazraus' death, he declared: "Let us also go, that we may die with him" (Jn.11:16)? Was this merely an act of misguided devotion and courage? Was this only because of the risk of Yah'shua's (Jesus') followers being arrested and killed in Judea by the religious authorities? Or does this have a Johannine spiritual meaning attached to it?

To harmonise all the texts some have erroneously come to the conclusion that John the apostle and Lazarus the brother of Mary and Martha are one and the same. Were it not for the fact that the Scriptures clearly teach that John was a poor Galillean fisherman this would indeed be compelling unless he somehow got rich and migrated to Judea. But we find no evidence for this. Rather, the fisherman, like Peter, became a 'fisher of men'. Yet there are many similarities between the two and if the Secret Gospel of Mark is reliable they may have been about the same age. The cause of Lazarus' death is not given so we cannot say if it was related to age or not. The most we can say is the Lazarus was a kind of Judean counterpart of the Galilean Apostle for both were beloved of Messiah.

Lazarus, which in the Hebrew means "without help" or "lost" was found by Messiah when He visited Bethany, which in the Hebrew means "House of Figs" (the modern Arab village of el-Azariyeh or Lazarieh), on one of His southern circuits. If John and Lazarus had been one and the same it would have been hard to conceal the fact. So I think we can dismiss that hypothesis. Lazarus mysteriously "disappeared" at the end of the Gospels again leading some to suppose that he was John. They argue that this must be so because John immediately took Yah'shua's (Jesus') mother into his own home (Jn.19:27) - all the other talmidim (disciples) were from Galilee and had left their homes behind, but Lazarus's was in Judea. They also say that that also explains why John writes so much about Judea and seems to know the topography of Jerusalem so well, whereas the Synoptists are Galilleans and focus on Messiah's ministry in the north. Fascinating a hypothesis though this is, it is flatly contradicted by John's Gallilean origin. So once again we mus dismiss the idea that John and Lazarus were one and the same person.

>

Finally, let us resolve one more mystery today. Do you remember Peter's jealosy of John? Peter was told that he would be martyred, though did not understand Yah'shua's (Jesus') meaning:

"Peter turned and saw that the talmid (disciple) whom Yah'shua (Jesus) loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Yah'shua/Jesus at the supper and had said, "Master, who is going to betray you?") When Peter saw him, he asked, "Master, what about him?" Yah'shua (Jesus) answered: "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow Me." Because of this, the rumour spread among the brothers that this talmid (disciple) would not die. But Yah'shua (Jesus) did not say that he would not die; he only said, 'If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?'" (Jn.21:20-25, NIV, JNT & HRV).

John and Peter had very different missions indeed. Peter was to be an evangelist and be martyred for his witness like the other 10 apostles. John became a custodian - the custodian of Yah'shua's (Jesus') mother and possibly His wives and (were there actually any - I am myself doubtful) His children too, as well as the custodian of some of the deeper mysteries of the Kingdom of Elohim (God) that we find hinted at throughout his writings.

Early pre-Catholic tradition says that John and Mary, the mother of Yah'shua (Jesus), died in Ephesus [6] and that Lazarus, Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany, Martha of Bethany, and Joseph of Arimathea and a few others were taken to Masillia (today called Marseilles) in southern Gaul (France). Joseph was sent by the apostle Philip on a mission to England to establish the Messianic Community (Church) there while Lazarus, Martha and the two Mary's remained in Gaul. Tradition maintains that Mary Magdalene died at either Aix-en-Provence (just north of Marseilles) or Sainte Baume To the east of Marseilles), and Lazarus at Masillia (Marseille) itself after founding a Metropolitan Assembly or Bishopric there. But that, as they say, is also another story!

My purpose today has been to show that there is more than is commonly found in the Catholic and Protestant traditions. I have barely scratched the surface of the Gospel of John about which volumes could be written. I have chosen only to look at the marriage at Cana. As yet we have not linked the opening verses of the Gospel of John with Cana. Yah'shua (Jesus) was married, as we have seen, with most likely three women, an appropriate symbolism in itself given He was also Elohim (God). The first of these marriages may very well have taken place at Cana. Why? Because Mary Magdalene was a local girl from the nearby village of Magdala. I am personally sceptical that was His marriage if for no other reason that He was invited to it, so we don't need to invent ways of 'explaining' that verse away. I do, however, most certainly believe that the marriage at Cana was a symbol of both His literal marriages and the allegorical Mystical Marriage of Messiah. There are just too many symbolic coincidences for this not to have been so. His other two wives were Judeans from Bethany, further south.

This in itself ought to point us to another important symbolism, namely the future unification of the 10 northern tribes of Israel with the 2 southern tribes of Judah. If Yah'shua (Jesus) had more wives we are not told of them - it seems unlikely to me that He would have waited until He was 30 to marry His first - Yehudi (Jewish) boys were expected to take their first bride when they were as young as 18, but this as we have no concrete evidence we must leave this in the realm of speculation and not occupy ourselves with the matter further. The number of His wives is not nearly as important as the fact that He was married, that He was related by marriage to Lazarus who seems to be strongly paralleled by John himself. I am sure John must have been aware of this. And perhaps even more important than that as far as we are concerned today was the fact that John was taught the mysteries of the Kingdom of Elohim (God) which are wholly absent from the Synoptics and which are barely hinted at in John's own Gospel. I suspect all of this is why many orthodox Christian scholars and religious leaders are terrified of the Gospel of John, doing all they can to misinterpret it or, in the case of some, even going as far as to say it is a forgery.

What did Yah'shua (Jesus) spend six days instructing John/Lazarus on in privately? Why was the youth wearing only a single garment both after the six days and when Yah'shua was arrested? Why did John/Lazarus take Yah'shua's wives to southern France? What rôle does the Johannine tradition have to teach us in these last days in a world where Christendom is almost entirely dominated by a corrupted Petrine tradition recrafted to justify Catholic claims to authority? What of the second James? What was his rôle in all of this? These are questions we will have to answer another time.

One other question I need to bring up as I am sometimes asked this: if Yah'shua (Jesus) was married to the two Mary's and Martha, what is their status in the eternities given our teaching on eternal marriage? How could finite human beings, even resurrected, be possibly married to the resurrected Messiah whose full glory was then manifest? I have two answers to this question. Firstly, the legal one. These marriages were contracted under the Law of Moses which were temporal in duration only. Therefore, it may be argued, they will not be married to Messiah in the eternities. On the other hand, 'in spite' of the resurrection, the second member of the Elohimhead (Godhead) does retain His humanity in perpetuity as the permanent link between man and Elohim (God). In His resurrected humanity, like us in ours one day, He will still be connected to us. Perhaps the Mary's and Martha's will be connected to Him in that way too? I don't know. Maybe they will have human husbands. Did they have children with Him? Personally, I don't think there was time to raise a family, but it's not impossible.

We shall have to put these matters on the shelf of speculation and leave them there until Yah'shua (Jesus) returns and tells us the whole story. None of this is salvational material but it is clearly significant if it's true. That's for you to decide, to agree, or agree to disagree. If nothing else, it adds another layer of validation (should such even be needed, and I don't necessarily think it is, yet could be) to a way of life of the first resurrection qodeshim (saints, set-apart ones) of the Most High prophesied for the Millennium and beyond. And if this is the principle way of the Holy City, then obviously it cannot be placed on the shelf but needs to be dealt with here and now. If you want to make an in-depth Bible study on the subject, you can read the book, The Truth About Biblical Marriage. One day we shall meet Abraham, Jacob, David and other righteous sons of Elohim (God)and their wives who lived this way and still do - whom Yahweh calls His friends (e.g. Jas.2:23) in the same way Yah'shua (Jesus) called His faithful talmidim (disciples) His friends, and us too when we are obedient (Jn.15:14).

My hope, as we conclude this subject, is that you have not only managed to put more pieces of the Johannine puzzle into the pot but have also succeeded in assembling some of them, enough to give you a rather clearer picture of the historical Yah'shua (Jesus) and perhaps see what Yahweh is hinting at in connection with what is coming around the corner in the Mellennial Zion. Those who are called to pursue this path will pursue these questions further and may receive instruction, and those who are not, will not, and must remain as they are. Whatever your call, may you respond enthusiastically to it and complete your mortal assigment faithfully in preparation for the eternities. Next week we shall look at the three Johannine epistles and see what they contain. Yahweh bless you and keep you in Yah'shua's (Jesus') Name. Amen.

Endnotes

[1] See Holy Echad Marriage & the Elohim Principle
[2] The Evidence Bible, New King James Version, Commentary by Ray Comfort (Bridge-Logos, Alachua, Florida: 2011), p.778
[3] See our study on biblical Time
[4] Some fundamentalist Mormon groups are guilty of this and have acquired notoriety because of their vile practice of permitting child brides similar to Islam. One modern fundamentalist LDS spinoff even claims to be in the lineage of Christ's own children, regarding themselves as extra-special because they have Christ's genes. There is, of course, no evidence for this, nor would being in any hypothetical bloodline make the slightest bit of difference. They even tattoo their children with numbers, marking them as 'extra holy'. This is a pernicious cult that has ruined many lives. Hence the need to be careful of abuses of this principle.
[5] For a comprehensive exposition of multiple marriage in the Bible, written for African converts practicing that way of life, see The Truth About Biblical Marriage
[6] The Catholic belief that Mary was taken into heaven without tasting death is one of the four Marian papal dogmas. The 'Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary' was defined by Pope Pius XII on 1 November 1950 in his apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus and built upon the 1854 dogma of the 'Immaculate Conception' of Mary which declared Mary was conceived free from original sin. Both ideas have their founation in the heretical doctrine of the 5th century that Mary is the much older 'Mother of God' ITheotokos) idea that was canonised up in the Council of Ephesus in 431 at the suggestion of Nestorius, archbishop of Constantinople. This manmade doctrine is celebrated by the Roman Catholic Church, the eastern Orthodox Church, the Oiriental Orthodox Churches, the Church of the East and (perhaps suprisingly) by the Protestant Lutheran and Anglican Churches too.

Further Reading

[1] Was Yah'shua (Jesus) Married?", 4-part Series
[2] Would a Married Yah'shua (Jesus) Have Been Sinful?
[3] The Virgin Birth and Yah'shua's (Jesus') Marriage
[4] Was Yah'shua Married? A Reader Objects

Abdon, a judge of Israel in the time of the judges; perhaps the same as 'Bedan' (Uncertain, Judges 12:14)

Abijah, king of Judah, son and successor of Rehoboam (14 wives, 2 Chronicles 13:21)

Abraham, faithful friend of God and father of the Hebrew nation, "father of the faithful" (3 + concubines, Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah, Genesis 16:1,3; 25:1)

Ahab, king of Israel (Wives, 1 Kings 20:3)

Ahasuerus, title of the king of Persia, assumed to be Xerxes (Women, Vashti, Esther, Esther 1:9)

Ashur (2 wives, Helah and Naarah, 1 Chronicles 4:5)

Belshazzar, king of Babylon at the time of its fall; he to whom Daniel interpreted the writing on the wall (Wives, Daniel 5:2)

Benhadad, the king of Syria (Uncertain, 1 Kings 20:3)

Caleb (5 wives, Azubah, Jerioth, Ephrath, Ephah, Maachah, 1 Chronicles 2:18-19,46,48)

David, youngest son of Jesse and second king of Israel, "after God's own heart" (Wives and Concubines, Abigail, Ahinoam, Michal, Maacah, Rizpah, Bathsheba, 1 Samuel 25:39, 43-44; 2 Samuel 3:3,7; 5:13; 1 Chronicles 14:3; 2 Samuel 12:7-8, 24)

Eliphaz (2 wives, Timna, Genesis 36:11-12)

Elkanah (2 wives, Hannah, Peninnah, 1 Samuel 1:2)

Esau (3, Judith, Bashemath, Mahalath, Genesis 26:34; 28:9)

Ezra (2 wives, Jehudijah, 1 Chronicles 4:17-18)

Gideon, fifth judge of Israel who led the Israelites against the Midianites (Wives, Drumah, Shechem, Judges 8:30)

Heman (Uncertain, 1 Chronicles 25:4)

Herod the Great (10, Elpide, Phedra, Mariamne, Doris, Malthace the Samaritan, Cleopatra, Pallas, Elpis, Josephus, Ant. 17, 19f.; War 1,562; The Jewish War 1.473 (Whiston))

Hezron (3 wives, Abiah, 1 Chronicles 2:9,21, 24)

Hosea (2 wives, Gomer, Hosea 1:3; 3:1)

Ibzan (Uncertain, Judges 12:9)

Tribe of Issachar (Wives, 1 Chronicles 7:4)

Isaiah (2 wives, Isaiah 7)

Jacob, father of the twelve patriarchs of the tribes of Israel, "the prince of God" (4 wives, Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, Zilpah, Genesis 29:23,28; 30:4,9)

Jair (Uncertain, Judges 10:4)

Jerahmeel (2 wives, Atarah, 1 Chronicles 2:26)

Jehoiachin, king of Judah (Wives, 2 Kings 24:15)

Jehoram (Wives, 2 Chronicles 21:14)

Jeroboam (14, Michaiah, Flavius Josephus Jewish Antiquities 8.282 (Whiston))

Jerubaal (Uncertain, Judges 9:5)

Joash (2 wives, 2 Chronicles 24:3)

Joseph (Uncertain, George Lamsa, in Gospel Light, Harper & Row, p. 5-7, his commentary)

Judah (2 wives, Tamar, Daughther of Shua the Canaanitess, 1 Chronicles 2:3-4)

Lamech (2 wives, Adah, Zillah, Genesis 4:19)

Machir (2 wives, Maachah, Zelophehad, 1 Chronicles 7:15-16)

Manasseh (2 wives, The Aramitess, 1 Chronicles 7:14)

Mered (4 wives. Jehudijah, Bithiah, Hodiah, 1 Chronicles 4:17-19)

Moses (2 wives, Zipporah, Tharbis of Meroë the Ethiopian Woman, Exodus 2:21; Numbers 12:1)

Nahor (2 wives, Milcah, Reumah, Genesis 22:20-24)

Rehoboam* (78 wives, Mahalath, Abihail, Maachah, 2 Chronicles 11:18-23)

Saul (2 wives, Ahinoam, Rizpah, 1 Samuel 14:50; 2 Samuel 3:7)

Shaharaim (2 wives, Hushim, Baara, 1 Chronicles 8:8)

Shimei (Uncertain, 1 Chronicles 4:27)

Simeon (2 wives, Canaanitish Woman, Genesis 46:10, Exodus 6:15)

Solomon* (1,000 wives, Sidonians, Tyrians, Ammonites, Edomites, 1 Kings 11:3)

Terah (2 wives, Genesis 20:12)

Zedekiah (Wives, Jeremiah 38:23)

Ziba (Uncertain, 2 Samuel 9:10)

Unnamed (Uncertain, 1 Corinthians 5:1)

YAH'SHUA/JESUS (5 metaphorical wives, Parable, Matthew 25:1-13; + millions of the redeemed who are the Church, Revelation 19:6-9);

YAHWEH/GOD THE FATHER (2 allegorical wives, Aholah/Samaria, Aholibah/ Jerusalem, Analogy, Ezekiel 23:4, Jeremiah 3:6-14; 31:31-34; + millions of true Israelites throughout all ages)

____________

*Men who broke Yahweh's marriage laws by marrying to excess. Though the Bible no where stipulates a maximum number of wives (as the Quran does), 7 is often portrayed as an 'ideal maximum' for those who have a good name (e.g. Is.4:1).

Taken from The Truth About Biblical Marriage: Men of the Bible with Plural Wives

This page was created on 6 April 2000 Last updated on 17 May 2024

Copyright © 1987-2024 NCAY - All Rights Reserved