• 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?

CecilW

CecilW

Member
Real Person
Male
Dunno.

There are theories that He was. Dan Brown made them famous in The Da Vinci Code. Or was it Angels & Demons?

Evangelicals went nuts trying to prove Mr Brown wrong. ... not too convincingly, though with great assumed authority.

Since all we truly have to go on is our own deductions and opinions, here's mine -- just for fun.

I think and hope He was. Why? Because Paul claims that He was tempted in all points as I was, yet without sin. Further, that He can sympathize and understand what I'm going through in every area of life. Sorry, but if He wasn't married, I don't quite see how that can be! Which leaves me uncovered and vulnerable in a MASSIVE area of my life.

"Oh, but if He was married and had a kid, and an ongoing lineage, that creates problems!" Really? Why? Wasn't He fully human? Then what He passed on to His rugrats woulda been ... human. No better, no worse. *shrug* They get to call Jesus "Daddy"? I get to call Jesus' Daddy, "Daddy", and Him "Brother".. *'nother shrug*
 
Someone must have been conversing with Sir Bumbleberry. Since discovering the truth of patriarchy and plural marriage from a Biblical perspective, I have had to re-examine many of my beliefs. This is one that I thought of just last week. I haven't spent much time on it, so I am interested in the fall out on this thread. One conclusion I have thus far is that my sense of whether or not Jesus was married was based not on scripture or reason, but on the Roman Catholic idea that marriage and sex is evil and only tolerated for reproduction. Roll on Cecil!!! :idea:
 
Dunno.

There are theories that He was...
Click to expand...

I don't either, nor am I a fan of Dan Brown. And I agree, John, that much of such "traditions of men" comes from Catholic asceticism, and is in fact often opposed to many elements of Scripture.

But I do find the topic interesting, if for no other reason that some folks tend to get (much like the polygyny issue) VERY animated about the topic. This is particularly vexing because Scripture is silent on the topic. For that reason it seems like a good example to use when studying what Scripture does, and does NOT, actually say!

I do, therefore, have a couple of quips that I often note when the subject comes up -- often as an illustration of the that "knee-jerk" reaction. It's fun to ask certain questions.

First, I hear folks say, "well, of COURSE he couldn't have been married, because Scripture IS silent!" Oh, really? That says more about culture, and our occasional hubris about it, than anything else.

I remember how surprised I was to realize that it was not only common, but virtually mandatory, for a respected teacher or rabbi in those times to be married. After all, how could one judge His "fruit", and how much respect would a new unmarried teacher command? In other words, one can at least make a reasonable case that someone writing a story of His life would be more likely feel the need to explain His being SINGLE than the converse!

But this is the argument I find most interesting. Remember how Paul is so inclined to advise "celibacy"? (I Cor. 7) Speaking for only himself, and not God, he says, "For I wish that all men were even as I myself," and then goes on to say that marriage can bring "trouble...but I would spare you."

Do you think Paul knew that his Savior was celibate, and single? Why, then, would he not make the more obvious comparison? "For I wish that all men were even as our Savior was," since that is the example he certainly would have held up for all of us? ;)

Blessings,
Mark
 
Hey guys,

Okay, this is actually a question I asked on this forum about a year ago, and since then, I have had the opportunity to consider the matter more fully.

Here are some of my observations:

-The Scriptures do not say, one way or another that Jesus was married. Some would say this silence means He wasn't, but I decline to submit to that. My opinion is that it didn't matter to the Father, that was why it wasn't mentioned in the Word.
-The Scriptures identify Jesus' mother, father, brothers, sisters, lineage, etc., yet do not identify a wife. That alone gives me pause.
-Being single in Jesus' day was counter-cultural, but it was not uncommon. The Essenes in the first century practiced celibacy, and there was a definite influence in the character of John The Baptist, and some suggest with Jesus as well.
-Jesus is referred to by His disciples by the term, "Rabbi", and it has been suggested that all rabbis were married. First, Jesus wasn't technically a 'rabbi', nor did onther rabbis recognize him as one of their own.
-One Scripture that comes to mind that may be revealing is found in Matthew 19 with Jesus' discourse on divorce:

"Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can." (vv. 11-12)

-One very practical argument against the idea of Jesus being married is that being fully God, He knew about his death on the cross in advance, and would not leave a wife and family behind to care for. In fact, when Jesus was on the cross, he went out of His way to make sure that his MOTHER was cared for:

So Jesus, seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing there, said to his mother, "Woman, behold your son." Then he said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her into his family. John 19:26-27


I say all of this because I went from "No way Jesus was married", to "Maybe Jesus was married", to "Jesus had to be married", to where I am now, which is "Either way works with me". For me, it isn't a salvation issue, and since the Scripture is silent on it, then I will leave it as one of those things that I will ask Jesus about when I see Him.

I will let you know what He says. (wink)

Blessings,
 
Sure 'nuff, Doc. We be SAVED, either way. And that's what matters. And scripture DID remain silent. But it's fun to hear the reasoning folks bring to bear on their considered opinions.

As to Scripture's silence about it ... how about this? The all-wise God KNEW that if a line of human offspring was generally known and acknowledged, 2 things would happen:
  • Some folks would get sidetracked and start worshipping the kids, despite the fact that they themselves were merely human, to the detriment of both the kids and the worshippers, (much like they did the brass serpent in the wilderness), and
  • Other folks would hunt 'em down to kill 'em. They'd never be able to live in peace.

In consequence, God had it left out of the writings as a wise protection for all involved.

As to Mother Mary being turned over to and taken into the family of John, Jesus plan didn't include Widow Mary being turned over to and taken into the family of John. I can hear her now, "Jesus, look. John's a nice fella. I like him and all that. But I've been married to YOU!!! After that, what's left? Everything and everyone else is waaaay downhill. No interest in the moldy baloney when I'm stuffed with filet mignon!" "Um, ok Sweetheart. A little graphic, but I get and appreciate your point."

Oooo, ooooo! And besides, if Jesus and Mary didn't have a kid as yet, Jesus wouldn't have been FREE to turn her over to John. Levirite law. If anyone, she'd have to go to one of His brothers. Hmmmmm.

Jesus and Mary could have discussed plans for her separately on their own, such that she knew what to do. After all, it is to her that He appeared first after the resurrection. For whatever it's worth, when I come home, I like to say "Hi" to the kids and my friends, but it's my wife I head for first!

And I submit that the choice to protect all involved rather than spend a couple of milleniums having trouble IS like God. After all, He sent an angel to tell Joseph to take baby Jesus to Egypt, when He could have stationed a coupla legions of angels in Judea to break the swords or wrists of any soldier attempting to carry out Herod's "Kill the Kids" edict, or at least around Jesus Himself. Instead, His instruction was to get out of the way. Seems like what He would advise a preggers Mary to do. Oh, WAIT! That's just what the legends say happened!

Possible? Nothing but speculation, but fun.
 
I would have to come down on the "no" side of this issue. Jesus would have been a fantastic husband and he would not have provided for his mother at his death and not his wife. Nor would Mary have factored so heavily in the Scripture and the supposed wife not even come. So while it wouldn't shake my faith to find out he was, I just don't see it. But wouldn't it be neat if the wedding where he turned water into wine was his own? Boy you could pull analogies out of that for years and never run out.
 
I've always seen this topic as irrelevant to doctrine for the reason Cecil kindly spelled out in his first post (There really would be nothing specially divine about the bloodline as they would gain the corruptions of any other human the very first generation) and so I have always been at "Either way works with me".

But Brown is a fool, and if he was married it certainly wasn't Mary Magdalene or any woman spoken of in scripture...
 
I think it is a little more simple than what we may believe at first.The answer rests with us not stopping with our interpretining of just the gospels. The life of Christ continues after the gospels.

Christ was apparently celibate while on his 3 year earthly journey to the cross, he then married the Jerusalem church, and then as other churches were birth brought those into his union.

Sometimes people get so focused on the earthly 3 year life of Christ they do not look to see that he is still a living being who is alive and relating to his people now.

Marriage, in its most essential meaning, means to unite with another in an unconditional love covenant. Christ began to do this when he birth his church, his body (Col. 1:18).

He perfectly represents humanity whereas Adam failed to be perfect in his representation. Thus, Christ represented the celibate as well as the married life. He can identify with married people because he is married to his people now who are in his body. This does not require him being married to any person while here for his 3 year earthly journey. He can just as easily fulfill this by being married to his bride now, the church. Besides marriage issues (problems with people) is primarily relational issues. Thus this is the the artwork of Christ where he deals with people's inner character problems as the perfect head.

The great pastor Dr. John Calvin was approached once and asked about being an elder/pastor. He replied, "no I do not want to pastor because pastors deal with people and people have people problems." Though he later went on to indeed be a pastor, and a great one at that, he understood the issue that ultimately people's temptations and problems are relational issues that go to the core of a person's character.

So when people ask: "Was Christ married" I adjust it to say: "Is Christ married?" It appears to me he represents the celibate life while on his 3 year sacrificial journey, and now he represents the married life , as he has come into us through the Holy Spirit and placed us into a union with him (Eph. 5:25).

But, as one good Doctor, I think Dr. Bock of Dallas Seminary said, even if he was married while on earth it does not alter anything doctrinally in the Bible.

Dr. Allen
 
For all those that ignore His Post gospel life, most totally ignore the 30 years he spent on earth before his ministry began. Did he work in his father's business like most young men? Did he earn to title Rabbi by studying with them. We know from Luke that at age 12, He astonished the teachers at the Temple and knew that he was doing His Father's work. But what happened between then and when He began His Ministry? We don't know. Already knowing His ministry, He could have chosen to remain celibate - or not, we just don't know. Nor does it matter. He may have been born of woman, but he lived with the knowledge of God in Him. The Alpha and Omega, the Architect of the universe, given flesh to walk among us.

We ask each other if He a woman of this world during His walk here on earth. Would this somehow make him less awesome, less amazing, easier to grasp. I doubt that He did. Why do men marry? For Love? He loves all mankind. For companionship? He is One with the Father. For sex? HE better than anyone before or since would know how fleeting that can be. No, I don't think He would have ever felt the need to marry.

Dave
 
Why did "Jesus" not have an earthly biological father? I am not talking about just being from heaven, but the concept of sin entering by one man (Rom 5:12) to all men, and the gift (Rom 5:15) saved all, and was blameless and sinless. He had to have no earthly biological father so that sin would not be imputed to him from Adam. So....

What would the ramifications regarding the be if "Jesus" had any male offspring? A sinless man siring another man would make that offspring without the seed(sin) of Adam, and produce a lineage of (initially) sinless people that would have no need of the sacrifice of the cross.

Joseph and Mary had other children after Jesus was born, so the aspect of the sinless Messiah is through the seed(biological father), not the woman. The fact that the Messiah was from His Heavenly Father, but still born of a woman is where the sin of Adam is absent from Him. "Jesus" brothers and sisters were such because of the common mother, but not sinless because of the seed of Joseph.

So, the Father knowing that Jesus would be obedient to say and do everything that was instructed, would have told him to marry?
And for the purpose of NOT being fruitful and multiplying seed?
What would the purpose be?
Why marry if you are not going to produce the fruit of children?

Good point earlier about the children and wife left behind, and how He did provide for His mother.
 
Good points, Dave.

In your line of reasoning He did not need offspring; through Him all things had already been created, including all the persons of the earth.

He loves all, knows all, died for all (that would receive Him and call on His name) and had no need for marriage or offspring. He already had both(good points also Dr. Allen
 
Paul, I am impressed. Good, logical and Biblical evidence. Well said.
 
i believe that he had at least 2 wives

i believe that he did not have offspring (YHWH could not allow his genes to be reintroduced), but did have stepchildren. that is where dale brown's train leaves the tracks, his boat beaches and his plane crashes.
 
As many have said, that Scripture is actually silent on this matter. However, I actually tend to disagree. There are three things that Scripture tells us, but if we do not understand the Hebrew culture and understanding, to us it would make no sense whatsoever.

The first point is that He was called Rabbi by Rabbi's and Scribe's of that time. It is not as it is today, where anyone can go around calling themselves a Pastor and they do not have to have credentials. If He was to be called a Rabbi by the Rabbi's, it meant that He had to have that level bestowed upon Him, and that only came by following the path set up by them. It is as if I went into a denominational church, say the Assembly of Gog, and said that I wanted to work with them, and then told them I was a Pastor. They would not consider me a Pastor with them unless I met their requirements. And with Rabbi's, it was their belief and teaching that for a person to be a Rabbi, they would have to be married.

Secondly, in Hebrew custom, it was only the near relatives that would have gone to prepare the body for burial. Thus, when Mary Magdalene went, it would have been against the custom if she was not near relative to Him.

Thirdly, and the most simple of all the arguments, because it does away totally with customs, and focuses solely on Scripture. It is a Mitzvah (Commandment) to be fruitful and multiply. Since one can not be fruitful and multiply without being married, then one must be married. For Him to be sinless, it meant that He kept the Law 100%, thus meaning that He was fruitful and multiplied. Even if one argues that they Law was done away with, it was not done so, as you would say, until the cross, and so that would mean that He still had to obey the Law 100% or else would not be sinless.

Scott
 
First time I remember hearing that 3rd argument, Scott. Good one.

Btw, that says something rather profound about the theory that lifetime celibacy is an "equally valid marital choice", as it intentionallly violates that basic commandment. Wow!
 
great points, scott and cecil


the tradition that says he was celibate is just another unproven/unprovable tradition that people are seemingly willing to die for (or kill for?)
 
mrscottyl said:
As many have said, that Scripture is actually silent on this matter. However, I actually tend to disagree. There are three things that Scripture tells us, but if we do not understand the Hebrew culture and understanding, to us it would make no sense whatsoever.

The first point is that He was called Rabbi by Rabbi's and Scribe's of that time. It is not as it is today, where anyone can go around calling themselves a Pastor and they do not have to have credentials. If He was to be called a Rabbi by the Rabbi's, it meant that He had to have that level bestowed upon Him, and that only came by following the path set up by them. It is as if I went into a denominational church, say the Assembly of Gog, and said that I wanted to work with them, and then told them I was a Pastor. They would not consider me a Pastor with them unless I met their requirements. And with Rabbi's, it was their belief and teaching that for a person to be a Rabbi, they would have to be married.

Secondly, in Hebrew custom, it was only the near relatives that would have gone to prepare the body for burial. Thus, when Mary Magdalene went, it would have been against the custom if she was not near relative to Him.

Thirdly, and the most simple of all the arguments, because it does away totally with customs, and focuses solely on Scripture. It is a Mitzvah (Commandment) to be fruitful and multiply. Since one can not be fruitful and multiply without being married, then one must be married. For Him to be sinless, it meant that He kept the Law 100%, thus meaning that He was fruitful and multiplied. Even if one argues that they Law was done away with, it was not done so, as you would say, until the cross, and so that would mean that He still had to obey the Law 100% or else would not be sinless.

Scott
Click to expand...


1.Is it possible to call someone "Rabbi" and say it sarcastically? Did they call Him "Rabbi" even though he followed NONE of their customs or rules?

If they had bestowed on Him the title of Rabbi by Him following the "path set up by them", we would have SOMETHING in scripture to show that He had followed their TAKANOT or any of their man made doctrines. What we see in scripture is the exact opposite. He verbally abused and flogged them REPEATEDLY for their ridiculous rules. I think it is more plausible to say that some called Him "Rabbi" because He had been astounding them with His teaching and knowledge of the scriptures (from the time of His youth), interpreting prophecy and backing it up with miracles. He PROVED He had the credentials to be called "Rabbi", another blow to the pious religious leaders of the day, who gained their titles by man made rules and political positioning. They no doubt had many guidelines that had to be followed in order to become a Rabbi, and He probably did NONE of them, but through His actions proved that no man made doctrine or qualification can do more to show you are able to teach God's Word than being annointed by the Father, proven by prophecy and miracles, and fufilling every thing that the Father tells you to do. Straight from Scripture shows that He did nothing like them, or followed any of their rules, and if He were a "Rabbi", he had to have been a carpenter-Rabbi. How many Rabbi had professions or work outside the rabbinical duties? Just because they did call Him Rabbi does not mean that they thought he deserved it or was qualified to be one. Many mocked Him and called Him "King" as well, when they crucified Him, and it does not mean that they thought that He was their king.

2.There were many customs in that day that Jesus did not adhere to in the story of His life and ministry. The same situation could be used for "proof" that he had not married, that she had to go because there was nobody else, no wife etc. This might have been an exception to that custom, but nothing close to being definitive or supportive at all regarding His marital status. Was it custom to have your body taken by a wealthy non family member and placed in a tomb that did not belong to your family? This is what happened to the body of the Messiah. There are many things in scripture that show what is probably variation from the cultural tradition at the time.

3. Are you saying that anyone that does not marry or at least have children are in sin? A woman that has no children is a sinner for life? A man or woman is in sin until they reproduce? At what age does this sin begin? For a man when he can produce seed? For a woman when she begins her "womanhood?" Why did Paul say he would that some would be celibate if it meant leading a sinful life by not producing children? Why would he even come close to that as to touching the issue? Boaz lived in sin until he married? The Law of the levirate tells us that some died without heir, did they die in sin? A slave is not given a wife by his master. Is he in sin with no possible chance to be fruitful? A young man killed before he can marry and be fruitful, is he a sinner?

"Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

I have not had dominion over any fish of the sea. Is this sinful? Is it possible that this general instruction to Adam and Eve is not a binding positive Law that accounts sin on the hands of those that do not reproduce?

Mat 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Click to expand...

Why did Jesus say this if it was sin to not produce offspring?


4. I really like your blog and writings, and follow them daily. As you can tell from the first 3, I do not agree with your post here on BF.
 
lots of assumptions paul. why is it so important that he never married? how could he be tested in all points such as we are if he never had a marital relationship? :D :roll: :oops:
be careful that you do not strain at gnats and swallow camels

as far as #3;
the jews understood that that the first commandment given to mankind was "be fruitful and multiply"
they understand this to be given to the males and to be carried out in the context of marriage.
marriage was to be entered into as a man became established and could afford to support a wife.
it was pretty much assumed that the women were going to desire a married state.

why did some men cut their gonads off for the sake of the kingdom? beats me, ya gotta be hearing pretty clearly what His will for you is before going to that extreme! maybe he was being sarcastic?

i have some questions for paul also when i meet up with him, but it may all boil down to "the present distress", that particular time slot. i do not think that he was countermanding YAHWH's instruction.
Are you saying that anyone that does not marry or at least have children are in sin?
Click to expand...
some rather self centered people choose not to procreate, i let YHWH be the judge but i would not want to stand in front of him and try to justify that choice
 
Paul not the apostle said:
3. Are you saying that anyone that does not marry or at least have children are in sin? A woman that has no children is a sinner for life? A man or woman is in sin until they reproduce?
Click to expand...

In the Torah, this was a commandment. Now, one can reproduce by helping others to come to Him, but before His death, one had to be fruitful and multiply. If a woman did not have any children, it was because the Father had closed up her womb to where she could not bear any children. But if we are not to be fruitful and multiply today, then why does Scripture tell us that a woman shall be saved in childbirth?

Paul not the apostle said:
I have not had dominion over any fish of the sea.
Click to expand...

Have you ever gone fishing and caught fish to eat? That is having dominion. Have you seen how men build dams and control the movement of fish? That is having dominion. We can put fish together in a pond and cause them to mate and have fish, so that is dominion. We can go down to the store, buy a or some fish, and bring them home to live with us. That is having dominion. Unlike the animals, we can control our domain and control those things that are in our domain. By refusing to do so, this would be a sin. It would be like allowing the horse to ride you to go to the store. If you are not dominant over the animals, then you are subservient to them.

Paul not the apostle said:
Why did Jesus say this if it was sin to not produce offspring?
Click to expand...

Was everything He said binding for all of those that heard Him at that moment? Was the parable of the tares binding, or the parable of the 10 virgins, or telling them to flee to the mountains all binding? Or was somethings specifically for them at that moment - and us now, while others were for us or even possibly those that come after us?

Paul not the apostle said:
4. I really like your blog and writings, and follow them daily. As you can tell from the first 3, I do not agree with your post here on BF.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your kind words. The whole thing here is that whether or not He was married and/or had children, that none of this is a salvation matter, so while it is fun to discuss this (and I am not angry at anyone for what they believe on this matter), but I also recognize that this can become a doubtful disputation, and as such, I am not here to force anyone to believe what I believe. None of this can help us to find salvation, but it can prevent us from doing so. I did not intend to offend anyone, just offering up my simple opinion, and if I did offend anyone, please forgive me.
 
chime in, cec, i see you there :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top