-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Was Jesus Married? Maybe so
- Thread starter CecilW
- Start date
- Status
(WARNING! I am a seeker on this site, neither polygamous nor christian, so do not hold me to those standards. However, I do support this lifestyle and enjoy the conversations.)
If Jesus was indeed a historical figure, he would've been held to the Jewish law of "go forth and multiply". The failure to do so would surely have been mentioned at his "trial", as proof that he was not living the law of God. The fact that he's never mentioned to have a wife - or wives - seems like an intentional omission on the part of the Church to demonize sexuality. In the early days, the Church was young and weak, and needed selfish missionaries and martyrs; not faithful followers too busy at home to spread the gosspel. Also, I think there was an intentional push to ensure Jesus' virginity, as proof of his diety. Sexuality is for animals (that's heavy, heavy sarcasm). If you read the article, someone pointed out that perhaps he was referencing a "sister-wife": a woman he was very intimate with but never had sexual relations with. I don't understand this great need for Jesus to be sexually pure.
Honestly, I'm surprised the topic isn't discussed more often, but I suspect we'll never know the truth.
If Jesus was indeed a historical figure, he would've been held to the Jewish law of "go forth and multiply". The failure to do so would surely have been mentioned at his "trial", as proof that he was not living the law of God. The fact that he's never mentioned to have a wife - or wives - seems like an intentional omission on the part of the Church to demonize sexuality. In the early days, the Church was young and weak, and needed selfish missionaries and martyrs; not faithful followers too busy at home to spread the gosspel. Also, I think there was an intentional push to ensure Jesus' virginity, as proof of his diety. Sexuality is for animals (that's heavy, heavy sarcasm). If you read the article, someone pointed out that perhaps he was referencing a "sister-wife": a woman he was very intimate with but never had sexual relations with. I don't understand this great need for Jesus to be sexually pure.
Honestly, I'm surprised the topic isn't discussed more often, but I suspect we'll never know the truth.
There have been other threads about this topic. There are certain problems associated with him having children, specifically producing seed that had not been born into sin. Jesus having no sin would produce children that had no sin nature, the rest of the world being in the line of Adam, who brought sin and death into the world. Jesus also being the only man that was sent INTO the world and for a specific purpose, not one to produce offspring but to save the world from eternal damnation.
Not being married and not having children was not considered a sin, and was most likely not mentioned in any trial of any sort. A marriage has to have another person's consent....and you can't force a woman to marry you so if you can't find one you are not committing a sin.
Not being married and not having children was not considered a sin, and was most likely not mentioned in any trial of any sort. A marriage has to have another person's consent....and you can't force a woman to marry you so if you can't find one you are not committing a sin.
you go kathryn! 
i am with you except for it being a sin. true, the jews consider the first commandment to mankind to be the command to be fruitful and multiply. a man who could find no father who would accept him as a son-in-law was therefore not held in high esteem and did not qualify as a rabbi. yeshua was called "rabbi". (paul's teaching about a bishop must be married to a (mia) wife i see as a continuation of that idea)
there is a thread buried somewhere that discusses this whole subject. i have long held that he was married and more than once. i believe that his Father did not allow his genes to be passed on for the reason stated by paulnta. that he had stepchildren (one of his wives being a widow) is very possible.
the catholic church needed a celibate savior and gave us one, the protestants have not yet given up that particular piece of theology. his mother was the only virgin in the family.
i am with you except for it being a sin. true, the jews consider the first commandment to mankind to be the command to be fruitful and multiply. a man who could find no father who would accept him as a son-in-law was therefore not held in high esteem and did not qualify as a rabbi. yeshua was called "rabbi". (paul's teaching about a bishop must be married to a (mia) wife i see as a continuation of that idea)
there is a thread buried somewhere that discusses this whole subject. i have long held that he was married and more than once. i believe that his Father did not allow his genes to be passed on for the reason stated by paulnta. that he had stepchildren (one of his wives being a widow) is very possible.
the catholic church needed a celibate savior and gave us one, the protestants have not yet given up that particular piece of theology. his mother was the only virgin in the family.
If somebody can find that old thread and post a link to it that would be great, I can't track it down at the moment.
Steve, remember that on the cross Jesus instructed John to take care of his mother (John 19:17). If he were married, would it not have been an even higher priority for him to hand on his wives to the care of another man? Wouldn't he have asked disciples to take them on just like his mother? This suggests very strongly to me that he was not married.
It doesn't really matter theologically of course, but if he had children that would cause theological issues as pointed out by Paul.
Children were a vital part of the culture of the day, as they would provide for their mother in her old age. Our modern culture has embraced the idea of sex being primarily for pleasure and marriage not being about children, but this is a modern perversion in my view. God created marriage to fulfil His command to "go forth and multiply". A Godly marriage would therefore be aimed at least partly at fulfilling this command (notwithstanding that sometimes that is not physically possible). Christ's marriage would be perfect, and therefore would fulfil all aspects of marriage, including this one. Which would mean children, and therefore a theological mess.
And then he would have left at least one young widow, either barren or possibly with very young children, with the Romans chasing after her... I can't imagine this being something He would do.
So it is plausible that he could have married. But when you think of the wide range of issues around it, I believe it is highly unlikely.
Steve, remember that on the cross Jesus instructed John to take care of his mother (John 19:17). If he were married, would it not have been an even higher priority for him to hand on his wives to the care of another man? Wouldn't he have asked disciples to take them on just like his mother? This suggests very strongly to me that he was not married.
It doesn't really matter theologically of course, but if he had children that would cause theological issues as pointed out by Paul.
Children were a vital part of the culture of the day, as they would provide for their mother in her old age. Our modern culture has embraced the idea of sex being primarily for pleasure and marriage not being about children, but this is a modern perversion in my view. God created marriage to fulfil His command to "go forth and multiply". A Godly marriage would therefore be aimed at least partly at fulfilling this command (notwithstanding that sometimes that is not physically possible). Christ's marriage would be perfect, and therefore would fulfil all aspects of marriage, including this one. Which would mean children, and therefore a theological mess.
And then he would have left at least one young widow, either barren or possibly with very young children, with the Romans chasing after her... I can't imagine this being something He would do.
So it is plausible that he could have married. But when you think of the wide range of issues around it, I believe it is highly unlikely.
Hmmm.
I thought the 1st commands were ...
** It isn't good to be alone. (So try not to be.)
** Man has dominion over everything in heavens, on earth, and in the sea, except other men (species). (Exercise it.) and
** Call everything names. (Something angry spouses still do today.)
Followed soon thereeafter by ...
** Yeah! Cute, hunh? Dude! Figure it out! (Shortly after the great rib event.)
Now, that is the MALE perspective.
I am of the opinion that about this time, Eve spoke up and asked, "God, You DID make diamonds, right?" "Of course." (Lo-o-o-ong female stare)
** Oh, yeah! Sometimes it's ok to throw rocks at pretty girls.
I thought the 1st commands were ...
** It isn't good to be alone. (So try not to be.)
** Man has dominion over everything in heavens, on earth, and in the sea, except other men (species). (Exercise it.) and
** Call everything names. (Something angry spouses still do today.)
Followed soon thereeafter by ...
** Yeah! Cute, hunh? Dude! Figure it out! (Shortly after the great rib event.)
Now, that is the MALE perspective.
I am of the opinion that about this time, Eve spoke up and asked, "God, You DID make diamonds, right?" "Of course." (Lo-o-o-ong female stare)
** Oh, yeah! Sometimes it's ok to throw rocks at pretty girls.
For those interested in the old discussion, look at Was Jesus Married
Samuel, you're not weird enough. A search using "Dan Brown married" woulda taken you right there. :lol:
You'll note who WAS weird enough to start the previous thread, too.
:roll: :lol:
Samuel, you're not weird enough. A search using "Dan Brown married" woulda taken you right there. :lol:
You'll note who WAS weird enough to start the previous thread, too.
:roll: :lol:
Hypothetically speaking if He was married....and so then his marriage was perfect....
The Apostle then says to love your wives as Christ loved his wife or wives.
Except that he didn't say that, he said as Christ loved the Church....so apparently the apostle Paul either didn't know about His wife, or didn't think that the marriage of Christ was important enough to talk about in all his letters to all the new believers in all the churches when he was writing about how to deal with relationships and......marriage.
Interesting man there, that Apostle Paul.
The Apostle then says to love your wives as Christ loved his wife or wives.
Except that he didn't say that, he said as Christ loved the Church....so apparently the apostle Paul either didn't know about His wife, or didn't think that the marriage of Christ was important enough to talk about in all his letters to all the new believers in all the churches when he was writing about how to deal with relationships and......marriage.
Interesting man there, that Apostle Paul.
Paul not the apostle said:
Much like yourself! (Interesting, that is. :lol: )
Good argument. But his marriage could have been fairly unremarkable. Wife understood something of Him and his mission, didn't give him grief over it, he left her in good financial shape when he quit the carpentry trade and took up fishing fer folks, didn't have to give His life for her other than in the sense of how He did for all of us, etc.
What's more, I wouldn't find the idea surprising that He talked things over with the disciples, and they one and all agreed to leave her out of the narrative as a protective measure.
A marriage of the Christ being unremarkable is totally irrelevant. It would furnish the perfect example for the apostles, especially the apostle Paul to use in teaching about love and marriage. And especially if she was left financially provided for, then THAT is another example that could have been used by Paul. The NT says that a man that doesn't provide is worse than an infidel, so what better example to plug right in there than the Messiah who even provided for his wife knowing that he would be gone?
This thought that He was single and had no children is not based on tradition or some religious need for Him to be so. It simply comes down to the issues of human sin and His prophesied purpose. There are too many ripple effects that don't match up with Scripture or NT writings to have it be otherwise.
This thought that He was single and had no children is not based on tradition or some religious need for Him to be so. It simply comes down to the issues of human sin and His prophesied purpose. There are too many ripple effects that don't match up with Scripture or NT writings to have it be otherwise.
Now imagine the married life of Jesus...
Wifey argues, "You're right Jesus. You are ALWAYS right! **throwing the dough back down on the table** "Doesn't our marriage mean anything to you? You want to be married to the whole wide world? You sometimes act like the weight of the world is on your shoulders... Chin up dude, I have a feeling it will all work out. Ever thought about changing careers? I hear there are a few fishing boats for sale. I met this guy named Rocky and he's looking to do something different..."
m
Wifey argues, "You're right Jesus. You are ALWAYS right! **throwing the dough back down on the table** "Doesn't our marriage mean anything to you? You want to be married to the whole wide world? You sometimes act like the weight of the world is on your shoulders... Chin up dude, I have a feeling it will all work out. Ever thought about changing careers? I hear there are a few fishing boats for sale. I met this guy named Rocky and he's looking to do something different..."
m
From a woman's perspective you are all thinking about this too much like men!
So He in theory would have left her financially stable, from his carpentry work I guess. Well, we kind of need more than that! So my husband dies and leaves me enough money to be ok, that doesn't make it ok! There are a whole heap of emotions involved with this. How utterly awful and devestating to lose your husband. We don't need money, we need our men!
I refuse to think that Christ would have married a woman, had her fall in love with Him and perhaps have His children, knowing He was going to die. It's cruel!
Besides, what reason would He have for getting married? He knew He was going to die and in a pretty awful way. He knew He was going to be rather busy towards the end. He certainly wouldn't have needed love, companionship, or someone looking after Him (darning His socks etc) as there were plenty of people around Him to offer Him that. So what then, sex? This perfect being who managed to not commit any other sin in 33 years suddenly couldn't control lust? Not my Jesus.
I also don't believe that He would've fathered children as the children would then have become idols to people. I can just imagine "well, He has gone back up into the clouds but it's ok cause we've still got these kids here and I reckon since they're half perfect like Him they'll be pretty good gods." That is if they survived the Romans hunting them down...
So He in theory would have left her financially stable, from his carpentry work I guess. Well, we kind of need more than that! So my husband dies and leaves me enough money to be ok, that doesn't make it ok! There are a whole heap of emotions involved with this. How utterly awful and devestating to lose your husband. We don't need money, we need our men!
I refuse to think that Christ would have married a woman, had her fall in love with Him and perhaps have His children, knowing He was going to die. It's cruel!
Besides, what reason would He have for getting married? He knew He was going to die and in a pretty awful way. He knew He was going to be rather busy towards the end. He certainly wouldn't have needed love, companionship, or someone looking after Him (darning His socks etc) as there were plenty of people around Him to offer Him that. So what then, sex? This perfect being who managed to not commit any other sin in 33 years suddenly couldn't control lust? Not my Jesus.
I also don't believe that He would've fathered children as the children would then have become idols to people. I can just imagine "well, He has gone back up into the clouds but it's ok cause we've still got these kids here and I reckon since they're half perfect like Him they'll be pretty good gods." That is if they survived the Romans hunting them down...
FollowingHim said:
Let me add to this that by even discussing the issue with any sort of man made thinking like "It must be true, because they called Jesus 'Rabbi' maybe they did this in mockery, but surely Scripture is devoid of any reference to Christ being married to anyone but the Church. Paul (both the apostle, and our non-apostle) are correct in speaking about Jesus Christ as if He had no wife, no children, no widow to leave, etc. etc.
I don't know about others, but adding to the Bible and Christology for the only purpose of supposition is quite offensive to me. Maybe I am the mean moderator around here, but I believe this is borderline blasphemy and will leave very little room in this discussion to continue. There are a thousand things IN God's Word to talk about, let's not add to it our foolish human understanding and suppose things like this that only make seekers think we are all a bunch of nuts.
CecilW said:
This is all speculation, supposition and foolishness in my book. I see a lot of this lately from a few folks, "It could be...." or "There's no proof (fill in the blank) didn't do or say so and so..." I suggest getting back to what the Bible does say as this forum is named Biblical Familes, not religious suppositional families. :lol:
GotQuestions.org's question of the week this week addresses this issue very clearly:
http://www.gotquestions.org/was-Jesus-married.html
Mark, it is not blasphemous to suggest that Jesus may have done something that would not be a sin just because most people believe he did not do it. That's like saying the idea that the parable of the ten virgins refers to polygyny is blasphemous because everyone knows Jesus has only one wife, the Church... I completely agree however that it is probably an unprofitable and entirely speculative discussion, just think the word "blasphemy" is too strong.
http://www.gotquestions.org/was-Jesus-married.html
Mark, it is not blasphemous to suggest that Jesus may have done something that would not be a sin just because most people believe he did not do it. That's like saying the idea that the parable of the ten virgins refers to polygyny is blasphemous because everyone knows Jesus has only one wife, the Church... I completely agree however that it is probably an unprofitable and entirely speculative discussion, just think the word "blasphemy" is too strong.
- Status