I often listen to Hallerin Hilton Hill during the morning drive and The Phil Show in the afternoon. Lately Phil has been asking his audience questions about “Jesus’s wife”. Specifically…did He have one?
This is a very stupid question.
Today, on (my other radio option) The Big Show, the inane origin was revealed. Our culprit was…inevitably…a distaff professor at the Harvard School of Divinity. Oh, “inevitably” is unfair. A dude got rich from the idiotic lie, why shouldn’t gals horn in? Sex sells, even when it’s slash fic about The Bright And Morning Star.
Obviously blasphemy does not bother me. It’s preferable to apathy. But this is such stupid, stupid, stupid boring heresy. All it takes is minimal Biblical knowledge and two working brain cells to disprove it. And yet the sweaty defamation recurs, generation after generation after generation. Dadgummit humans, do I have to do all your dadgum thinking? Christ was not married.
The Lamb of God also never got it on, shacked up, had a one-night’s stand, or hid the salami or shagged boffed boned or screwed. There is no doubt that He lusted, just as there’s no doubt He never surrendered to temptation. Because…and this may be news to those who didn’t have Scripture drilled into their heads every night for eighteen years…Christ is engaged. He has a fiancé of which I am possibly a mono-cellular component. (Which doesn’t make me gay. Just insignificant.)
So according to Scripture: 1) Jesus is without sin, and 3) Jesus is engaged. Given that—and this is a puzzle so simple even an Ivy Leaguer should get it—what is 2)?
2a) Jesus was chaste His entire earthly life.
2b) Jesus cheated, thus negating the entire Book from which leeches like Brown and King suck.
So…2b, or not 2b? That is the question. If you can’t answer, could you climb out on a lofty tree limb and cut down the tree it’s attached to? Please?
Thanks.
World's Only Rational Man 
I’m on board with this, though I think technically, or theologically, you couldn’t say Jesus ever lusted, either. (That is, if Christianity is true.) Not in the sense of never having gotten the normal sexual rush you get just from being alive and conscious in the world and seeing that a woman is beautiful and sexually attractive, or waking up with a woody, but in the sense of looking at a babe and objectifying her as a sexual object. (Isn’t that what lust is?) That’s technically a sin (I guess ultimately a sin against charity?), and since Jesus didn’t sin, he didn’t do that either. So, we can conclude (again, this is assuming Christianity is true) Jesus was tempted in every way, including the temptation to commit sexual sins, including the temptation to lust, but didn’t actually lust, properly speaking.
How to think about being the bride of Christ is a head scratcher, not just for the gender bending. I think the mono-cellular component is a good approach, but it might give the wrong impression, for instance, that Jesus wouldn’t really know us much in the divine union up there because we’d just be a cell, while in fact we’d be known deeply and personally in unimaginable ways. (Or another way of looking at it, being a cell of the bride of Christ sounds too much like being absorbed in the nirvanic sea in the heaven of Eastern monism, where we are finally free of ego and attachment and heaven is a kind of non-being.)
How we could be a tiny piece (which must be true) AND also be totally known and related to as an exalted person (which must also be true)–that’s hard to wrap my head around.
I regard basic lust as temptation, which explains our differences here. Also I believe He, unlike most of us, dealt with all temptations. For example, I’ve never had a problem with envy, probably due to overwhelming pride. Some people never seem to notice sloth, but it’s eaten up a lot of my life.
And like you, I don’t worry about understanding the relationship between redeemed Humanity and the Lord. My personal relationship with Him will be as close as I want, regardless of his relation to greater entities of which I might be a teeny component.
I shouldn’t even be talking about this since I pestered New Atlantean to do a special Bollywood Babes feature for his Wednesday Wenches.
But, to set the record straight, that wasn’t lust.
That was love.
“He has a fiancé…”
I could snark about the gender of that noun, I could.
(Heh heh heh.)