DID JESUS MARRY, AND DID HE LIVE THE PATRIARCHAL LAW?
TRUTH Vol. 14 JANUARY 1949 NO. 8 DID JESUS MARRY, AND DID HE LIVE THE PATRIARCHAL LAW? It has always
been our conception that Jesus, in his lifetime, not only availed
himself of the marriage rite, but that, in accordance with his teachings
in the present dispensation (D&C., Sec. 132), he became the husband
of several worthy and beautiful women, and the father of a number of
children. We are now induced by many of our friends who consider this an
appropriate time for its introduction, to present the article in the
columns of TRUTH. Doubtless, "because of the plain and most
precious parts of the Gospel of the Lamb", as spoken of by Nephi (
1 Nephi 13:32 ), having been taken from the Jewish scriptures, this
subject as pertaining to the life of the Savior has been shrouded, more
or less, in mystery. The law of celibacy as practiced by the clergy in
the Roman Catholic church has had its part in impressing a large portion
of the so-called Christian world that marriage, while legal and proper
as an indulgence to be enjoyed by the laity, yet strict piety on the
part of the clergy and the great responsibility resting upon this group,
render marriage not only undesirable for them but a sacrament forbidden. Some of Paul’s sayings as recorded in the New
Testament, have been erroneously construed to imply that Paul did not
enter into marriage, and that he taught not to marry rendered men and
women more capable of serving the Lord and spreading the truths of the
Gospel. "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it
is good for them if they abide even as I, but if they cannot abide let
them marry: for it is better to marry than that they should commit
sin." (I Cor. 7:8,9 I.T.). Without a clear understanding of the
context and the special point Paul sought to drive home, the statement,
as quoted, is taken by many as a disapproval by Paul of the marriage
state as a high and glorious principle, and therefore the Savior, being
without sin, perfect and having full power over his emotions, naturally
would not indulge in such a human practice. While to mortal and sinful
man, subject to the weaknesses of the flesh, the indulgence of marriage
is permitted as a means of providing a legitimate outlet for their
physical and sexual emotions; yet it were better for them to entirely
subdue such emotions, turning their energies into more useful channels.
And around this myth of sophistry and human reasoning, we have built a
high wall as around a legendary castle wherein the Savior of mankind
dwells and into which castle there must not enter the thought of sex or
any indulgence of an earthly nature. But what of the law? Did not Jesus say,
"Behold I am the law and the light. Look unto me and endure to the
end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I
give eternal life. Behold I have given unto you the commandments;
therefore keep my commandments." Nephi 15:9, 10. Jesus being the lawgiver could not be a lawbreaker. He
that makes and promulgates the law must not break it, but shall all the
more be law-abiding. It was obedience to the law that made it possible
for God to become God. Let Him break the eternal laws and He must needs
surrender His godship—a God dethroned would be the result. "Jesus Christ", said the Prophet Joseph F.
Smith, "Never omitted the fulfillment of a single law that God
has made known for the salvation of the children of men. It would
not have done for him to have come and obeyed one law and neglected or
rejected another. He could not consistently do that and then say to
mankind, ‘Follow me.’ " A part of his schooling in mortality
was to bring himself in subjection to all the laws that his Father had
instituted for the salvation of Mankind. There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven
before the foundation of the world, upon which all blessings are
predicted; and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience
to that law upon which it is predicated. D&C 130:20-21 The law of Baptism is an example. That law is eternal
and irrevocable. Only through compliance with it can man enter the
kingdom of Heaven. Jesus could not evade that law. "Suffer it to be
so now:, said he, when John, because of a feeling of inferiority
hesitated, "for thus it becometh us to fulfill all
righteousness." Baptism is an ordinance administered primarily for
the remission of sins. Jesus was said to be without sin, and yet he
could not fulfill the law of righteousness without submitting to
baptism, as every other man and woman are forced to do in order to
obtain salvation. This law is eternal; it applies to all worlds that
have ever been created or that ever will be created. The earth itself,
as well as all Gods and Saviors, together with their offspring, must
accept this law or forfeit salvation. There is a law of procreation just as eternal and
as fixed in its demands and consequences, as the law of Baptism. God
himself is obliged to render obedience to this law; indeed it is
directly through the operation of this divine law that makes godship
possible—without it there could be no God as rational beings
comprehend Him. After placing Adam and Eve on earth, God’s first
commandment to them was to "be fruitful and multiply and replenish
the earth and subdue it." Surely, if the indulgence of the marriage
state be immodest and not in accord with the highest ideals of chastity
and godliness, the Lord would not have introduced the subject to and
commanded its practice by His immortal children, making it a solemn duty
to engage in the marriage relation. Adam and Eve were immortal beings.
They had been created perfect. The earth was perfect. Perfection
breathed its life into every flower and shrub and animal. Certainly God
would not introduce among them a principle tending to degrade, and
demand its practice. Through the power of Lucifer earth became corrupted to
the point where God found it necessary to destroy all life except a few
chosen specimens spared to replenish the earth after its baptism by
water. After the deluge, the commandment was re-given to the Prophet
Noah and his family: Bring forth with thee every living thing that is
with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl and of cattle, and every creeping
thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may BREED ABUNDANTLY in
the earth and be FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY upon the earth—and a
commandment I give unto you (Noah), be ye FRUITFUL and MULTIPLY; bring
forth ABUNDANTLY on the earth and MULTIPLY therein. (Gen. 9:2,8,14 I.T.) Thus was the word of God and the law of the universe
irrevocably re-fixed in the hearts of human kind. It was fixed by divine
command and its application was to be universal and unending. "The
law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the
Lord is sure, making wise the simple." Ps. 19:7. Why build an earth, a home for the children of God,
unless it is to be inhabited? Would a man build a great mansion with no
expectation of its being occupied? The mating instinct for the purpose
of bringing forth offspring is as much a part of the divine plan as was
the atonement of Christ. Indeed the Savior announced the law in latter
days, leaving no possible room for doubt as to its meaning. The Prophet
of this dispensation, Joseph Smith, made inquiry of the Lord with
reference to His justification of His servants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
Moses and others, touching the doctrine of their having many wives and
concubines. The Savior answered thus: Behold! And lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer
thee as touching this matter: Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive
and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all
those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same; for
behold! I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye
abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this
covenant, and be permitted to enter into my glory; for all who will have
a blessing at my hands, shall abide the law which was appointed for that
blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the
foundation of the world: and as pertaining to the new and everlasting
covenant, it is instituted for the fullness of my glory; and he that
receiveth a fullness thereof, must and shall abide the law, or he shall
be damned, saith the Lord God. ***. D&C 132:2-6. Mark you, the Lord is answering His servant
relative to the principle of marriage as practiced by His ancient
worthies. And so important did God deem that subject and opportune the
occasion, that He reiterated an ancient covenant and gave it forth to
this dispensation as a NEW AND EVERLASTING COVENANT. Did Jesus Christ
our Lord view marriage as a "principle of mere inclination and
indulgence" to be permitted mankind, but too noisome and coarse in
its nature to become a part of his life? Let us consider his words
further: When they (referring to those who have lived in
mortality and died without being sealed in marriage by divine sanction),
are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage but
are appointed angels in heaven; which angels are ministering servants,
to minister for those who are worthy of a far more and an exceeding and
an eternal weight of glory. For these angels did not abide my law (of marriage and
procreation while on earth);l wherefore they cannot BE ENLARGED, but
remain SEPARATELY and SINGLY, WITHOUT EXALTATION, in their saved
condition, to all eternity, and from henceforth are not Gods, but are
angels, of God forever and ever.*** Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter
ye into my law (the law of Patriarchal marriage—polygamy) and ye shall
be saved. But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise
of my Father, which He made unto Abraham. God commanded Abraham, and
Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it" Because
THIS WAS THE LAW. ***Was Abraham therefore under condemnation? Verily I
say unto you may; for I, the Lord, COMMANDED IT. D&C 132
2-6,16,17,32,35. A word from Apostle Orson Hyde on the marriage
question: JESUS OBEYED MARRIAGE LAW I DISCOVER THAT SOME OF THE Eastern papers represent
me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at
our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee,
that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat
children. All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this—they
worship s Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his
Father. I worship one that is just pure and holy enough "to fulfil
all righteousness"; not only the righteous law of baptism, but the
still more righteous and important law "to multiply and replenish
the earth." Startle not at this! For even the Father himself
honored that law by coming down to Mary, without a natural body, and
begetting a son; and if Jesus begat children, he only "did that
which he had seen his Father do." J. of D. vol. 2:210 I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to
pas through the most pious countries in Christendom with a train or
women, such as used to follow him, fondling about him combing his hair,
anointing him with precious ointment, washing his feet with tears, and
wiping them with the hair of their heads and unmarried, or even married,
he would be mobbed, tarred and feathered, and rode, not on an ass, but
on a rail. What did the old Prophet mean when he said (speaking of
Christ), "He shall see his seed, prolong his days, etc.?" Did
Jesus consider it necessary to fulfill every righteous command or
requirement of his Father? He most certainly did. *** He came to
fulfill. Did he multiply, and did he see his seed? Did he honor his
Father’s law by complying with it, or did he not? (to multiply and
replenish the earth). Others may do as they like, but I will not charge
our Savior with neglect or transgression in this or any other duty. J.
of D. vol. 4:259-260. In the face of such a clear exposition of the law
and of its fixed purposes and endurance, as expounded by the lawmaker
Himself, no system of logic may be devised excusing the full acceptance
and the literal living of the law by the Lord himself. Indeed he could
make no greater claim to virtue and perfection than his Father—Himself
having married and obeyed the law of procreation—Christ being His
royal Son, begotten in the flesh. And to this end man and woman were
born. Paul understood the principle. Said he: But I would have you know (addressing the
Corinthian Saints), that the head of every man is Christ; and that the
head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. *** For the
man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man
created for the woman’ but the woman for the man. *** Nevertheless,
neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man
in the Lord. I Cor. 11:3,8,11. They (man and woman) are one and must necessarily
operate together as one (husband and wife) or they are not perfect. We glean from an article published in TRUTH 13:249, by
M. Zvi Udley, Th.M., PhD, whom we understand is a profound Hebrew
scholar, the following: Jesus said once that he came to fulfill the law: the
first positive commandment of the Bible, according to rabbinic
understanding (Maimonides Minyan ha Mitzvet, 212) is that dealing with
the propagation of the human race (Gen. 1:28); thus it has been
considered the duty of every member of the House of Israel to marry at
an early age. The late rabbis set eighteen as the age for marriage (Ab.
V. 24): and anyone, they maintained, who remained after twenty without
marrying was cursed by God Himself. "But", says the critic, "can you
produce no proof of these marriages? Are you founded on simple
exegesis?" Indeed not! But first, let us recall the two other
passages of Scripture that prophesy of a married Messiah: Psalms 45:9,
King’s daughters are among thy honorable women (Benoth melekim
bikrotheka); even more clearly than the English does the Hebrew show
this to mean an amorous association, for the word is more correctly
translated "sweethearts"—with a definite implication that a
marriage has been performed! Further in Isaiah 53:10, it is plainly
recorded that "he shall see his seed", by what is meant that
at his crucifixion he shall see one, at least, of his own children
present: some old accounts of the crucifixion plainly record that one of
the women at the cross carried in her arms a child. Was this not his?
*** What does old Celsus say, who was a physician during the first
century, whose medical works are esteemed very highly at the present
time? His works on theology were burned with fire by the Catholics, they
were so shocked by what they call their impiety. Celsus was a heathen
philosopher; and what does he say on the subject of Christ and the
Apostles, and their belief? He says, "The grand reason why the
Gentiles and Philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ was,
because he had so many wives; there were Elizabeth and Mary, and a host
of others that followed him." However, we can say that the wives of
Jesus were: Mary Magdalena, Martha, Mary, Elizabeth, Quetzalpetlatl. Did Jesus have children? There seems to be evidence
that such was the case" In 1873 M. Clermont-Ganneau discovered near
Bethany on the Mount of Offence certain sarcephagi of extremely ancient
times. On these were small crosses, but none of the usual symbols of
Jewish burials, "which leaves no doubt of the religion of the
persons whose remains were preserved in them." M. Clermont-Ganneau,
writing of these discoveries in the PALESTINE EXPLORATION FUN QUARTERLY,
1874, pp. 7-10, notes the following to have been buried there: Salome,
wife of Judah; Judahm, son of Eleazar (Lazarus); Eleazar, the son of
Nathan; Martha, daughter of Pesach; SIMEO, SON OF JESUS; Salomzion,
daughter of Simeon. Other sarcephagi had been destroyed earlier.
Concerning them writes Cleremant-Ganneau: "By singular coincidence,
which from the first struck me very forcibly, these inscriptions, found
close to the Bethany road, and very near the site of the village,
contain nearly all the names of the personages in the Gospel scene which
belonged to the place: Eleazar (Lazarus), Simon, Martha…a host of
other coincidences occur at the sight of all these evangelical names
***" The "Simeon son of Jesus" was called in one
of the inscriptions "the Priest: (HaKohan), and M. Clermont-Ganneau
concluded: "*** this Simeon might very well be the second Bishop of
Jerusalem. But then would arise *** the grave question of the marriage
of Christian priest, since Simeon has a daughter named Salamsion".
M. Clermont-Ganneau’s French name suggests him to be Catholic, and
bound to the doctrines of celibacy; however, the first 15 Bishops of
Jerusalem were circumcised Jews, and the earlier ones, at least,
certainly obeyed the marriage commandments! It seems the only reason
Clermont-Ganneau did not candidly state his beliefs was the question of
a married clergy, for throughout his article he suggests this Simeon to
have been the Bishop of Jerusalem. He promised to write a complete paper
on the subject when he had more carefully examined all the find. It was
an important find from the standpoint of archaeology, for it was the
first actual discovery of the name "Martha", which "would
alone be sufficient to make this collection important from an exegetic
point of view"; yet, his promised paper was never published! Why?
Was it because a full study of the find disclosed that this "Simeon
the Son of Jesus" was the Bishop of Jerusalem? I fully believe this
to be the case. Orthodox Christians have purposely destroyed valuable
historical evidences which would prove embarrassing to them; that such
was probably the case here is suggested by the fact that several ancient
writers imply that Simeon the Bishop of Jerusalem, and President of the
Church, (died c. 106 A.D.), was of the family of Jesus. It would be only
natural for Jesus’ son, when he was old enough, to succeed James, the
brother of the Lord, on his death, to the Presidency of the Church. In
all probability Simeon was a son of Jesus and Martha, and was that child
who appeared at the crucifixion. Speaking on the subject of Christ and his apostles and
their belief, Celsus says: The grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers
of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was, because he had so many
wives; there were Elizabeth and Mary, and a host of others that followed
him. Commenting on the above, Elder Jedediah M. Grant
stated: The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment
in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was
evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the
philosophers who arose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a
plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. J.
of D. 1:345-6. Then Jesus, being the great lawgiver to this earth,
and having announced the law of procreation under the relationship of
the Patriarchal order of Marriage, must of necessity have entered into
the law himself. Proof that he did so is not lacking even in the Jewish
scriptures, meager as they are in their recording of sacred events
pertaining to the life and ministry of the Lord and especially to the
domestic life of not only Himself but many other noted historical
characters. This may be accounted for, at least in part, by the fact
that among the Jews in that day the universality of the marriage
practice was commonplace in the minds of the people, so much so that
little attention to the functions and operations of the law was given by
the historians. For Jesus, the supposed son of Joseph the Carpenter, to
have entered into marriage would, in the very nature of things, have
excited no unusual attention; he would have been regarded an oddity had
he not done so. Jesus was begotten and born in the usual way. He grew
to perfect manhood, possessed of full physical powers. Tall and comely
with ruddy countenance; well balanced, of even temperament, strong and
intellectual; "whose personal form was perfect in proportion and
beauty", said Brigham Young. He was a leader of men, fearless but
kind and gentle, and devoted to all things righteous. In him was deep
and abiding sympathy for the down-trodden, charity toward the weak and
erring, while he gave no quarter to the defamer, the hypocrite or the
debaucher. He was the literal Son of God, sired under perfect connubial
conditions. His mother had received the birth and rearing that made for
perfect motherhood. History records that Joachim and Anna were the
parents of Mary the mother of Christ; that Anna, as Hannah of old, was
barren and she, with her husband, grieved much because of their
misfortune. In response to prayer an angel visited Joachim and said: Be not afraid, Joachim, nor troubled at the sight of
me, for I am an angel of the Lord sent by Him to you that I might inform
you that your prayers are heard, and your alms ascended in the sight of
God. For He has surely seen your shame, and heard you unjustly
reproached for not having children: for God is the avenger of sin, and
not of nature; and so when He shuts the womb of any person, He does it
for this reason, that He may in a more wonderful manner again open it,
and that which is born appear to be not the product of lust, but the
gift of God. *** Therefore, Anna, your wife, shall bring you a daughter,
and you shall call her name Mary; she shall, according to your vow, be
devoted to the Lord from her infancy, and be filled with the Holy Ghost
from her mother’s womb; *** So in the process of her years, as she
shall be in a miraculous manner born of one that was barren, so she
shall, while yet a virgin, in a way unparalleled, bring froth the Son of
the Most High God, who shall be called Jesus, and, according to the
signification of his name, be the Savior of all Nations. Book of Mary—Lost
Books of the Bible, Chapter 2. The circumstances of the conception and birth of
Christ therefore, gave him the heritage of a perfect body and mind. He
was no weakling, this man Jesus. In the great council of the Gods before
the world was formed, he successfully contended with the adversary of
light-0-Lucifer, a son of the Morning—and won! It was a battle of
giants with Christ the victor! And yet so natural and commonplace were
his mortal environments—his growth and manners—that those knowing
his kin-folks refused to impute to his birth and life a divine
conception and mission. They said: Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother
called Mary; and his brethren James and Joses, and Simon and Judas? And
his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all
these things, and they were offended in him. For to their finite minds it was inconceivable
that a God could come from the womb of mortal Mary. And though born the
Son of God, he grew up as a natural man, possessed of human strength and
mortal tendencies. Though he were a son (of God), said Paul, yet
learned he obedience by the things which he suffered, and being made
perfect (through such suffering), became the author of eternal salvation
unto all those who obey him. Heb. 5:8,9 The boy Jesus grew to manhood under a training and
environment perfect as mortal conditions could provide and, reaching
maturity, his princely attraction doubtless drew unto him those charming
women whom heaven had prepared to become his nuptial mates. It was easy,
and natural, too, for such women to fall in love with Jesus. Among his early acquaintances, no doubt, were Lazarus,
his devoted friend, and Martha and Mary, the sisters of Lazarus. One
would naturally assume that in the home of this friendly trio Jesus
found solace and comfort, and that he repaired to that haven of rest as
often as circumstances permitted. Nor would such visits furnish reason
for criticism by the neighbors at Bethany, for the friendly
relationship, though it should later bloom into courtship and marriage,
would be looked upon merely as commonplace in the light of Jewish
customs and beliefs of the day. No doubt, as time went on, the
acquaintance, at first but casual and friendly, grew serious. "Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister (Mary)
and Lazarus", was the simple statement made by one of his
biographers, John, known later as the "beloved disciple". What meant that love? Was it not an affection reaching
the innermost precincts of the heart? And pointing to the great event as
mentioned by the Prophet Isaiah, "When thou shalt make his soul an
offering for sin he shall see his seed." (Isa. 53:10). How could he
see his seed (children) save he first sired them? He must needs marry
and fulfill that eternal law which he himself had enunciated and through
the operations of which he was given a body. And that these charming
maidens did become the wives of Jesus, in the light of their mutual
association following the early acquaintance spoken of, must be
admitted. Commenting on this phase of the subject, Prof. Orson Pratt,
the great scriptorian, once wrote: The Psalmist David prophecies in particular
concerning the wives of the Son of God (Psalms 45). We quote from the
English version of the Bible, translated about 350 years ago (or about
the year 1500): "All thy garments smell of myrrh and aloes, and
cassia when thou comest out of the ivory palaces where they have made
thee glad. King’s daughters were among thy honorable wives: upon thy
right hand did stand the queen in a vesture of gold". That the Master had taken wives from among the
daughters of kings as well as from those of more humble birth—all of
royal birth in the sight of God—is to be assumed as most likely; and
doubtless the Psalmist sang that masterful song under the inspiration of
the Holly Spirit. But let us return to the maidens, Mary and Martha: Martha, by temperament was born to serve. She was the
housekeeper, the home manager. She found pleasure and took pride in
this, her special gift and calling. Mary was more contemplative and
given to spiritual meditation. While Martha was preparing the meal or
making their home ready for their royal husband, it was Mary’s wont to
sit at the feet of her Master and receive his counsel and the
meditations of his soul. On one such occasion, it is related that "Martha
was cumbered about much serving and came to him, and said, Lord dost
thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? Bid her
therefore that she help me." (Luke 10:40) How like a wife of
Martha’s nature and disposition to vent such a plaint. And here note:
that no mere friend would venture a like criticism in company of so
noted a guest. Had Jesus been a visitor only what right had he to bid
Mary to assist Martha? It was the voice of a displeased wife to her
husband. Had such a relationship not existed, such faultfinding, in the
very nature of things, would have been deferred at least until after the
guest’s departure and the sisters were alone. But in the relationship
of husband and wives the mask of conventionality is torn aside and the
truth is spoken. Hence Martha’s mild complaint. She felt imposed upon
and, much like the wife of today, hesitated not to register her
feelings. But Mary was being ruled by deeper emotions. She "sat at
Jesus’ feet and heard his words." Doubtless the meaning of his life was opening unto her
deeper understanding. She was beginning to learn his true mission and
the nature of his impending sacrifice. Little did she care for meat and
drink to sate the physical body, for she was now drinking in divine
revelry from the fountain of life and from such a draught one can never
thirst. Her spiritual eyes were opening and, who knows, perhaps the
event of coming motherhood was strangely and deeply thrilling her soul. Martha, Martha, thou art careful (filled with care)
and troubled about many things; said the husband, but one thing is
needful and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken
away from her. Luke 10:41-42. The clearer meaning of Mary’s mission was unfolding.
She was learning of the great sacrificial event to come and of her hero
King’s final triumph! The hour came. Six days before the Passover when
the stage was set for Jesus’ betrayal and crucifixion it is related he
come to Bethany to the home of Martha and Mary. How natural that he
should go to their home and spend with them the few precious moments
before his death! There they made him a supper; and Martha served.
***Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and
anointed (both the head and) feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her
hair. Mk. 14:3,4,6. John 12:2,3. At the seeming extravagance of Mary, it is related,
that Judas Iscariot complained and characterized the act a wanton waste,
as he stated the precious ointment could much better have been sold and
the means devoted to the poor, but Jesus said: "Let her alone; for
she hath preserved this ointment until now, that she might anoint me in
token of my burial." John 12:7, I.T. And who, let us ask, among all the women of the
village, could have been better qualified to thus anoint the Master than
a devoted wife to whom he had so tenderly taught the significance of his
coming death, burial and resurrection? Who among all the women, but a
wife, would have license to rest on the bosom of the Lord, anoint his
body and wipe his feet with her hair? In the sickness, death and healing of Lazarus, another
example of wifely confidence and devotion is shown by Martha and Mary,
who sent—not for the doctor or High Priest, but for Jesus, their Lord
and husband, although he was a long distance away. Others had been
healed by the Savior from a distance without personal contact, but in
this case Jesus preferred to be with those who, by relationship, had a
higher claim on his cheering presence, and he journeyed to them.
"Lord, behold he whom thou lovest is sick:, was the message of the
sisters, brief but sufficient in the circumstances. Martha met him as he
approached the village, uttering in sadness: "Lord, if thou hadst
been here my brother had not died." Jesus, giving comforting
assurance, tenderly inquired after Mary, as a loving husband would
naturally do. "And when Mary heard that Jesus was come she arose
quickly and came unto Him", and reaching him, "she fell down
at his feet"—and a customary salutation on the part of a wife in
that day, "saying unto Him if thou hadst been here my brother had
not died." The same sweet confidence shown as when later these
loving companions entertained and anointed their Lord! How much unlike a
mere friendship or respect for priestly gown are such actions. They
breathe close relationship and a familiarity belonging only to the
sacred ties of husband and wives. The two sisters had become the wives
of Jesus—He was their husband. To him and him only they looked for
comfort, and they looked not in vain. He was their stay and staff.
Understanding the true order as later expressed by Paul—"that the
head of every man is Christ and the head of every woman is man"—they
appealed to their head, their husband, with the faith and confidence
born of a perfect love. ____________________ Another Mary entered into the life of Jesus. She was
known as the Magdalene. She had been sorely vexed by the power of Satan.
Jesus, by his superior authority, had healed her and cast out from her,
as the scriptures state, "seven devils". Praising God, she
followed him. From that time she became a part of his life and
participated in every major event thereof. Something of the touching romance that brought the
lives of the two—Jesus and Mary Magdalene—together, resulting in a
beautiful courtship and final marriage, as we just assume from the
circumstances, is told in records discovered in recent years. According to these records the father of the Magdalene
was a wealthy merchant, an importer of spices and perfumes from Arabia,
his residence being in Magdala. As a child Mary experienced poor health
and in young womanhood she became subject to epileptic fits, in
consequence of which, her father sent her to a sanitarium and nunnery,
where she spent long hours in study, prayer and meditation. She was
finally released and with many servants and great wealth at her command,
she moved to Bethany, where she established residence. Though naturally
a pampered and spoiled child, because of her ill health, as she grew up
she became possessed of many charms of beauty and grace; she was
intelligent and grew to command great respect and matronly influence.
Many charitable acts were credited to her life. One day in June, while walking out, accompanied by
servants, she espied a man crossing a wheat field, and was immediately
attracted by his youthful and kindly mien. Inquiring of her Egyptian
servant regarding the identity of this man, she was informed that he was
Jesus, of whom all had heard so much. She waved her hand at him and he,
the Christ, ignored the salutation and proceeded meditatively on his
journey; at which rebuff the woman was stung and in anger asked: "Who
is he, to be so bold as to slight the great Mary Magdalena?"
She threatened to make him pay for the insult. That night "she dreamed a vision"; she saw
the Christ on a celestial throne surrounded by a great retinue of
Princes and officers. She visioned his future greatness, and the scorn
she had felt was changed to veneration. She relates the vision to her
maid servant and ponders its meaning. The first week in August she
retires to her garden and finds Jesus sitting under a sycamore tree.
"this time" she mused, "he will not refuse my
invitation." She bids him enter her house for a drink of choice
wine. The Master, with characteristic gentility and dignity, declines
the proffered drink, adding, however, —and his kingly countenance
softened with a smile of tender affection—"Mary, I love
thee!" Mary, subdued and thoroughly contrite, falls and weeps
at the feet of her lover. His true self is revealed unto her. All her
days following this touching incident she attended the Christ,
administering to his needs. With her wealth she keeps and sustains him
and his apostles in all their doings, completely foregoing her previous
social activities. She was first to be at the tomb and to find it empty
on that sacred Sabbath morn; seeing this she weeps bitterly; confronted
by one whom she supposes to be an attendant, she demands to know where
the body has been removed so that she might retrieve it and place it in
a suitable sepulcher. Then Christ reveals his identity, saying,
"Mary, why weepest thou?" bidding her to go and inform the
apostles of the great triumph over death. In this interesting item of history the healing of
Mary by the Christ is not mentioned, but doubtless that event had much
to do with the woman falling at his feet in worship. Her soul was deeply
touched and that which might be expected to result in a mere worldly
love was suddenly turned into a devotion—a wifely worship—that has
sung its strength and tenderness down through the ages. At the crucifixion of Jesus, Mary Magdalene was
foremost among the women watching and she was prepared to administer
unto him "for his burial"—among which was Mary Magdalene and
Mary, mother of (Jesus and) James and Joses; "and there was Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary sitting over against the sepulcher";
"and when the Sabbath was passed Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother
of James and Salome, had brought sweet spices that they might come and
anoint him". (Mary the sister of Martha had previously anointed him
for his burial.) "And very early in the morning the first day of
the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun."
Now, when Jesus was risen the first day of the week, he appeared first
to MARY MAGDALENE (Mark 16:1). It is related that Mary had been to the
sepulchre early in the morning and discovered it to be empty. She
naturally turned away weeping because the body of her Lord was missing.
She sought whom she supposed to be the gardener for direction, and when
this personage addressed her familiarly as "Mary", she turned
herself and said unto him, Rabboni, which is to say, master (or
husband). And here let me digress briefly to say that the term
"Lord", "Master", or "Rabboni", were
common salutations of wives to their husbands in that day. The terms
"Lord" and "Master" are still used by wives in
England and other European countries. So when Mary addressed Jesus as
Master, it is fair to assume she was addressing her husband. But to
continue: "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet
ascended to my Father, but go to thy brethren, and say unto them, I
ascend to my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God."—John
20:1-28. Now, who would be most apt to be sitting over against
the sepulcher waiting for the dawn of morning, in such a tragedy? Would
it be the casual friend or disciple, or would it be the mother and the
wife? To whom would one expect a devoted husband to appear first, --a
casual friend or his wife who bore with him many of the burdens of the
heat of the days before his crucifixion? The natural and proper thing
happened. Mary Magdalene, one of the wives of Jesus, was at the tomb at
daybreak on the first day of the week, at the earliest hour the grave
could be visited according to Jewish custom and law. He appeared unto
her first and gave her a divine message. Through her his apostles were
informed of the resurrection event, and through her, his devoted wife,
his resurrection was glorified. Retrospecting briefly, there was the marriage feast in
Cana of Galilee: "And the mother of Jesus was there".
"And Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage."
(John 2:1,2). And when an additional supply of wine was needed, Jesus
was appealed to and he produced it, turning, as the record states, water
into wine, thereby performing what is recorded as his first miracle. Now, it was said to be a Jewish custom at weddings for
the bridegroom to furnish the wine, or such other cheer producing
beverage as might be selected for the occasion. On this occasion it
appears that the normal supply had been depleted and the mother, being
in charge of the arrangements, informed her son of the fact, and Jesus,
performing a double service, provided a superior wine, unlike that which
was partaken of during the first part of the festivities, and
"manifested forth his glory", through the miracle, thereby
strengthening the faith of his disciples in him. If this was not the wedding of Jesus, whose wedding
was it? If it was not his wedding, why request him to furnish wine? Had
Jesus been a guest only—and a distinguished guest, he would certainly
have been—it is unthinkable that he would be called upon, in the midst
of the festivities, to augment the wine supply; for what should an
invited guest have to do with bearing the expense of part of the wedding
supper? Could such a breach of etiquette happen in polite society in
this day? Only on the theory that he himself was the bridegroom, and
that it was his place to do so, can the incident be explained. And in
the light of the fact that the marriage took place in Galilee, where
Mary Magdalene evidently lived (see Matt. 27:55,56), it needs no great
stretch of imagination and does no violence to reason, to assume the
bride on the occasion was that same Mary from whom Christ had previously
cast seven devils, and to whom the revelation of the resurrection of her
Lord was later to be given. Jesus understood the law; he announced it as a
governing law to earth’s inhabitants, the principle of which was later
proclaimed by the inspired Paul—"Man is not without the woman,
nor the woman without the man in the Lord." In the beginning God created man in His own image,
male and female created He them; not one individual but two. The man,
Adam, was not complete, nor ever could be, until his counterpart, Eve,
was added to the creation. They two became perfect in the Lord. And in
order to go on in perfection to eternal lives, they must be fruitful and
multiply and replenish the earth, their home and coming kingdom. As our Father Adam found it necessary to a complete
salvation and exaltation to multiply and replenish the earth, so
naturally Jesus, appointed to come forth in the meridian of time, had
just as perfect understanding with reference to his duties in
parenthood. Jesus was born to be Christ, but worlds without end he could
not have attained that high station and become a joint heir with his
Father, without first doing that which his Father had done before him.
"He that hath seen me hath seen the Father", he told his
apostles. Why? Because he was in the express image of the Father, was a
partner with him, and had done what his Father had done before him.
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself
but what he hath seen the Father do; for what thing so ever He doeth,
these also doeth the son likewise. For the Father loveth the son, and
showeth him all things that himself doeth." Could anything be more natural than for the Father to
teach the Son both by precept and example, as Abraham doubtless taught
Isaac, and as Isaac taught Jacob, etc.? Like father like son. The Father
had married and had sired children. Jesus was one of them. He taught
Jesus the law of procreation and Jesus, learning from his Father,
followed in the footsteps thereof, for the "Son can do nothing of
himself, but what he hath seen the Father do." They were one in
thought and action; they motivated alike and, to be literally like his
Father, Jesus must needs become a father. It is through the law of
procreation that holy men become Lord of lords, King of kings, or father
of fathers. It was Jesus’ right to so become and he embraced the
fullness of that right. Then, too, it was the son’s place to bring glory
unto the Father that he might in turn receive glory from the Father.
This was accomplished in part through the posterity of the Son—his
sons and daughters—which greatly added to the Father’s kingdom,
thereby tending to glorify the Father. Jesus was glorified in being
permitted to sire offspring; thus they glorified each other. "Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that
thy Son may also glorify thee:*** I HAVE GLORIFIED THEE ON THE EARTH: I
have finished the work which thou gavest me to do." (John 17:1,4).
These were no idle words Jesus spoke unto his Father. "I have
glorified thee on the earth", and he might have added—"by,
among other things, fulfilling the law of procreation, thereby raising
up seed to thy name’s honor and glory", for "Lo, children
are an heritage of the Lord; and the fruits of the womb is his reward.
As arrows are in the hands of a mighty man; so are children of the
youth."—Psalms 127:3,4). Of what greater blessings can a man conceive than a
heritage of numerous and honorable posterity, which is an essential
element in and the very foundation of Godship? In this, as well as in
other details, did Christ fulfill the law. Jesus not only became a married man, but he lived the
fullness of the Patriarchal order of marriage. Martha, Mary her sister,
Mary Magdalene, Phoebe, Sarah, Rebecca, Josephine and others might have
been members of his royal household. Certainly, at least some of them
did so become, and he, like his Father before him, became a father; For they are given unto him to multiply and
replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfill the
promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world,
and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they might bear the
souls of men; for HEREIN is the work of my Father continued, that HE
MIGHT BE GLORIFIED. D&C 132:63. Jesus Christ had a natural birth; he had lived a
natural life and, in fulfillment of the prediction of the Prophet Isaiah
that he should see his own seed, he became a father. He beheld with
mortal eyes his children and he blessed them that their fruitfulness
should continue. "And who shall declare his generation?" said
Isaiah. The posterity of Jesus Christ has been carefully nurtured and
preserved through all the years following his crucifixion, and today
that seed is manifested in many of the faithful sons and daughters of
God who have laid their all on the altar for the building up of God’s
Kingdom on earth. His seed is among us and the sublime faith—the
determination and courage exhibited in their lives today do honor to the
Royal Progenitor. In the great sacrificed, agonizing as it was, the Son
of God did not flinch nor falter. Power was in him to both lay down his
life and take it up again. As the first fruits of the resurrection his
body came forth from the tomb not having seen corruption, and he—a
father—ascended to his Father clothed upon with glory, immortality and
eternal lives, inheriting thrones, dominions, principalities, powers and
exaltations, and possessing in fullness, the blessings of his
progenitors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He has gone to prepare a place
for not only his own posterity, but also for those who, like himself,
have accepted, or will do so, the fullness of the Gospel plan, including
the eternal principle of marriage in the Patriarchal order; and who,
with their numerous wives and children, through their faithfulness, will
take up their eternal abode in the Celestial kingdom of God and, with
the matchless conqueror and King—Jesus Christ—become "Priest
and Kings, receiving of the fullness of His glory" and joint heirs
with him to all the Father hath.
The
following article on the Patriarchal Law of Marriage, and proving Jesus’
acceptance of the Law, was written by the Editor, Joseph W. Musser, in
September 1932.