Jesus poked it, but will the Christians own it?
Published by punkass marc May 26th, 2006 in Film, Godbaggery, Historical WankeryIt must be exhausting to be an evangelical Christian. There’s so much real stuff to battle — gays, baby-hating feminists, Muslims, Janet Jackson, and an inability to cope with one’s own sexual desires — that piling on debates about what really happened between semi-fictional characters in their fun and friendly book of worship seems excessive. And yet it’s what they do so well, isn’t it?
Lately, the fundies are up in arms over the idea popularized by the Da Vinci Code that Jesus bumped uglies before becoming wall art. They’re even more worked up over the idea that the writings of Martin Luther are being used to justify this accusation.
Owen Gleiberman’s scathing review of the film in Entertainment Weekly has drawn much of the ire:
Yes, a soupçon of research reveals that the Priory of Sion is a hoax invented in 1956, and surely it can’t be proved that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were ever intimate (though Martin Luther believed so). But what we want from a film of The Da Vinci Code is the fervor of belief.
Missouri Pastor Walter Snyder takes the magazine to task:
Old lies never die — they just become fodder for the entertainment industry. That’s the case, anyhow, with the fable that Martin Luther believed that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had gotten married. Now CNN has picked up an Entertainment Weekly review of The Da Vinci Code that perpetuates the fraud. Meanwhile, Code author Dan Brown keeps an archived Time magazine article about the novel which bears the same false testimony on his own web site.Since Brother Martin’s good name is being dragged through the thick Brown mud, I encourage you to read what Luther actually said and study the accompanying commentary in Luther, Jesus, and Mary Magdalene at Aardvark Alley.
Gleiberman never said they were married, just that they did the dirty deed, but I guess it never hurts to put words in someone’s mouth before calling them a liar.
Still, I’m guessing ol’ Walt doesn’t relish the idea of Jesus the Fornicator (the one true son of St. Amanda of Fornicatus?), but isn’t like the OG from EW to get his facts wrong. I figured I would check out the Aardvark Valley link helpfully provided by ye olde pastor.
First, this Aardvark fellow wrinkles his nose at the same folk:
Now back to the comments about Luther. Are they baseless slander? Do they have a germ of truth behind them? Or did Martin Luther actually believe and say such things? Actually, these are not our only choices. I contend that Dan Brown, Time, Entertainment Weekly, et al. (and there are a lot of “al’s” involved) misunderstood the Reformer and distorted his words.
Here is his unequivocal proof that all the damn pablum-puking pinko commie leftie media bastards got it wrong:
Luther never said Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. At first glance, his words sound even worse — he actually said of Jesus, “Again [he was an adulterer] with Magdalene.” Sitting by themselves, these words might take the wind out of the sails of the staunchest Lutheran.
…oh. So, sure, Dan Brown’s fictional idea wasn’t expressed by Luther (though it wasn’t _not_ expressed, it seems). But Luther sure as hell seems to say Jesus and Mary Magdalene got it on. Isn’t that what EW supposedly lied about? I guess I should keep reading:
There is a bit more — Luther actually invoked several women: “Christ was an adulterer for the first time with the woman at the well, for it was said, ‘Nobody knows what he’s doing with her’ [John 4:27]. Again [he was an adulterer] with Magdalene, and still again with the adulterous woman in John 8 [:2-11], whom he let off so easily. So the good Christ had to become an adulterer before he died.”
I… you… for fuck’s sake, man. I don’t think it gets any clearer than that. Not only does Luther think Jesus own-poked MM, he was a true playa for real. Now how can the Christians reading this post, and the poster himself, consider to be false the idea that Luther believed Christ sullied his loins with female fluids? Or are they somehow conflating marriage and sex? If so, it wouldn’t be the first time.
It’s too bad that John Schlaginhaufen didn’t provide more context when he recorded this quote back in the spring of 1532. Even though he roomed in the Luther household and ate at the table, he didn’t always explain what led the reformer make some of his comments.
Oh, I’m sorry. It’s a context issue. Yes, I was so confused by the unclear meaning of the sentence “the good Christ had to become an adulterer before he died” that I can’t believe John Schlaginhaufenmorganboffensterningenton didn’t ask him to cease with all the vagueries. Mr. Schla(…)fen was probably busy choking on his mutton. “*cough cough* You think Jesus did the dirty? Right on! Up top, ML!”
However, there are a few things that we can know from understanding all of Luther’s theology and beliefs.
Oh, my bad. Let’s keep rolling.
Luther firmly believed that Jesus was the only-begotten Son of God. While he certainly didn’t consider sex, of itself, to be sinful, the notion of Jesus engaged in carnal relations outside of marriage — let alone with all the women just mentioned — would never have entered his mind. Indeed, Luther would never even entertain the idea that Jesus would have married the woman from Magdala or anyone else because he properly understood that Christ came to claim and cleanse the Church as His bride (see Ephesians 5:22-32 and Revelation 21).
Right right right. The damning evidence that EW and friends made up the idea that Luther believed JC did a little bump and grind is that this guy is *sure* Luther never would have thought that — since he was a Christian and all, and no Christian could really buy it. This is far more convincing than Luther’s own unmistakably clear words on the subject.
Finally, you must read for yourself the conclusions this anteater draws, as I am unable to make sense of them:
So what in the world was he talking about at dinner that day in 1532? The Biblical context, Christian theology, and a knowledge of Luther’s way of thinking lead us to one or two possible conclusions — and “stupid drunk” isn’t one of them. One thing that’s clear when we examine the passages and women of whom he spoke is that someone considered each to be a horrible sinner at some time in her life.
Therefore, Luther may have been examining Jesus from the perspective of His First Century witnesses, who were shocked that He ate and drank with “sinners” and that He’d sit and talk one-on-one and in public with a woman. With Luther’s frequent invective against gossips, we can easily imagine him paralleling the suspicious minds and wagging tongues of Christ’s time with those he knew in 16th Century Germany.
The other logical conclusion the total evidence allows is that Luther was speaking theologically. Talking with, granting forgiveness to, and allowing anointing by these women was emblematic of Jesus’ entire earthly ministry. He was no passive bystander of the human condition, but He lived among us. While sinless, He took our sins upon Himself that He might fully forgive us. Paul summarized this work in 2 Corinthians 5:21, saying, “For our sake [God] made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (ESV)”
Sigh. So because he met with an adulterous woman, Jesus took on her sin? But what does that have to do with the random woman at the well? And wouldn’t Jesus have been more a whore than an adulterer in regards to Magdalene? I’m no theologist, but I know a crap argument when I see one, and this guy’s swimming in shit.
Look here, Christies:
1) Luther said it pretty damn clearly. He thinks Jesus knew how to use a hard-on and did. Deal with it.
2) You can’t blame Gleiberman for rightly reading those passages.
3) You _can_ do a better job of arguing the point made in his review, namely that Jesus was a fan of the swingin’ single lifestyle but not necessarily the settling down type.
4) THIS IS A STUPID ARGUMENT.
Nobody on Earth then or now knows for sure if Jesus fucked a man, woman, or child except him and any of his fuckees, and they’re all dead. Luther doesn’t know a damn thing and neither do you. If I’m forced to choose between interpreters of make-believe, though, I’ll probably stick with the guy who wrote the inter-office memos on which your little evangelical revolution is based.
Actually, we should spread Luther’s ideas. That way, the next time someone asks “What Would Jesus Do?” we can just put on the Color Me Badd and sexx it up.
Well, in Christian theology, to look upon a woman with lust is as much adultery as having teh sex. Matthew 5:27-30. So Martin Luther could merely have been saying that Jesus had the hots for Marry, but never got it on with her. Indeed, it would explain why he’d had the adultery with all sorts of women…
Grumble! that link should point here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 5:27-30;&version=31;
How ’bout that. Maybe it would’ve been helpful for Mr. Schla(…)fen to get a little more context after all.
“So, ML, when you say adulterer, do you mean [thrusting hips motion] or more of the [googly eyes motion]?”
Frankly, I read Luther as being talking more about the nature of gossip and the bullshit hypocrisy of those who sit in judgement of others - “There’s no one they won’t accuse of being an adulterer, even Jesus!”
Then again, Luther did say “one cannot be unmarried without sin,” referring to Andrew Cory’s point, so maybe I’m reading it wrong too.
I realize that this comment comes a bit late (I only recently discovered this post, in a roundabout way), but I did want to say the following (in the interest of fairness):
The suggestions made and conclusions drawn by “this Aardvark fellow” with regard to Luther are not nearly as flimsy as your post would seem to suggest. In fact, his comments line up almost exactly with the “suggestions made and conclusions drawn” regarding this very same issue in contemporary Luther scholarship. The editors of Luther’s Works, for example (whom I assume to be first-rate Luther scholars; I know that at least one of them is), say of this very text — i.e., the text from Luther’s “Table Talk,” wherein he seems to suggest that Christ was an adulterer — that “what Luther meant might have been made clearer if John Schlaginhaufen had indicated the context of the Reformer’s remarks. The probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536 (WA 41, 647), in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer” (Luther’s Works, vol. 54, p. 154, emphasis added). That seems to be exactly what this Aardvark fellow is saying (albeit without providing the “probable context” of Luther’s later sermon; now that we have that probable context, the assertion that Luther was not being serious and/or literal here has a bit more support).
Of course, more should be said on the issue beyond that. There are additional reasons for thinking that this text from Luther is anything but clear or damning evidence that he believed that Christ “did a little bump and grind,” as you say. In fact, the evidence leans heavily in favor of the thesis that Luther did not think this. First, there is the fact that this quote came from Luther’s “Table Talk,” which means that it was a quote written down by a student of Luther, recording something that he heard Luther say at the table (perhaps over dinner, or over beer) in the spur of the moment, without providing the context. Scholars know that reading into these remarks is a risky business: “it must not be overlooked that the Table Talks are ephemeral — ‘children of the moment’ . . . [T]hey contain frequent exaggerations and betray a lack of moderation. The lightning-like flashes which they emit are not always true . . . Frequently humorous statements were received as serious declarations” (that’s from Hartmann Grisar’s biography on Luther, p. 481). Even so, that doesn’t allow us to dismiss this remark outright. What does allow us to go on and further question its seriousness (beyond the suggestion by the editors of Luther’s Works that it is explained by Luther’s sermon of 1536) is the fact that Luther, throughout his life and his other works, maintains two theses: first, that adultery is sinful, and second, that Christ was sinless. The latter thesis, in fact, is a central element of Luther’s entire theological system, and his entire system would collapse were he to reject it. Thus, another theologian, writing on this same issue, says, “One of his [Luther's] basic assertions is that . . . Christ’s perfect righteousness becomes ours by faith” (see here: http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=2045; emphasis added). Were we to insist that this context-less comment from Luther’s Table Talk was meant in all seriousness, we would effectively be insisting that Luther ultimately contradicted his entire body of work, which is a less than charitable interpretation (not to mention questionable in light of the above scholarship). This is why that same theologian (in the aforementioned text) goes on to offer another possible context for this remark:
“A more probable context is Luther’s account of the atonement. One of his basic assertions is that our sins become Christ’s and Christ’s perfect righteousness becomes ours by faith. This idea of ‘the happy exchange’ is found in many Luther texts. Given his central soteriological and christological concern, the theological irony in Schlagenhaufen’s remembered notation becomes clearer: The ‘godly’ Christ becomes or is made a sinner through his solidarity with sinners, even to the point of dying as a God-forsaken criminal on the cross. This is how Luther understood Paul’s statement, ‘God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us so that in him we might become the righteousness of God’ (2 Cor. 5:21).
“So Christ ‘becomes’ an adulterer, though he does not actually commit adultery with Mary or anyone else . . . Luther could also remark that God made Jesus ‘the worst sinner of the whole world,’ even though he acknowledged that the sinless, righteous Christ actually committed no sin himself.”
Ultimately, then, the situation is as follows. We have one comment from Luther which seems to suggest that Christ was an adulterer, but the quote is without context, was written by a student based on what he heard, and was made during Table Talk sessions which are acknowledged to be less than serious. On the other hand, we have Luther’s entire body of work, wherein he is actually writing for himself, and wherein he consistently maintains that Christ is sinless and also that adultery is a sin. Furthermore, we have at least two options for the probable context of Luther’s remark, one being his account of the atonement and the other being his sermon of 1536. Indeed, the sermon of 1536 itself is independent evidence, for it says that Christ was reproached by the world for being a “glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer” though he was not such; Luther does not there seem to think that Christ was an adulterer at all. Given all of that, it seems clear that we ought not to conclude that we have powerful evidence that Luther thought Christ was an adulterer; in fact, the charitable interpretation — the one that allows Luther to be most consistent with himself, and that allows the rest of what Luther actually said to be relevant — is that he didn’t think this at all, but rather meant it in the sense described in the sermon of 1536 or in his account of the atonement. This also leads one to question whether Gleiberman rightly read the passage from Luther; he may have read the words rightly, but he does not seem to delve into their actual meaning in any substantive way.
All of that said, there’s an extent to which I agree with you that the argument is stupid, because it wouldn’t be a matter of huge historical significance if it turned out that Luther did actually think what the Table Talk might initially seem to suggest he did. However, I thought it might be worth saying all of this in the interest of fairness to “this Aardvark fellow” and to Luther, and also in the general interest of reliable information. Take it for what it’s worth.
(Also, it can be exhausting to be a Christian, whether evangelical or not. Forgive us; we sometimes get so exhausted that we fall short of our ideals, sometimes even consistently and for quite a long while. For my part, I’m sorry for that. I suppose that what keeps us going is that we know that we have rest in Christ, who knows our exhaustion and so comes to do what we cannot do on our behalf, telling us, “Come to me, all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).
Then again, somehow I suspect you knew that I would say that.
)
Oh, by the way… In regard to some of Aardvark’s comments which hint at Luther’s account of the atonement, you ask:
“[H]e [Jesus] met with an adulterous woman . . . But what does that have to do with the random woman at the well?”
From the rest of the Gospel of John, it seems that the woman at the well was perhaps also adulterous, or was at least “unchaste” and frivolous regarding marriage; she was not just a random woman. When Jesus speaks with her, he tells her to call her husband, but she responds that she has no husband. He then says, “Thou hast said well: I have no husband. For thou hast had five husbands: and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband” (John 4:17-18). So she has at least one man now who is not her husband, whom she was presumably with outside of wedlock; the early Church (or St. Augustine, at least, in his commentary on John) believed precisely that (Augstine calls him a paramour). The connection between the three women thus seems to be that they were all involved in some sort of extra-marital or non-marital sexual affairs, which could be broadly classified as adulterous relations. That seems to be why they’re mentioned together.