|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What if Jesus had been married ...
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
OK, an idea taken from the Nicky Gumbel thread.
Taking the hypothetical question, what differences in Christian theology and practice would there be if Jesus had been married? Assuming everything else was the same - ie: He got crucified, rose again on the third day and then ascended into heaven.
And, to push it a bit further. What else would need to change in addition to his hypothetical marriage for Christian belief to be radically altered? What would have happened if instead of ascending he just went off to live in obscurity with his wife? What about if he'd had kids?
Nicky Gumbel didn't answer the question. I'm sure Shipmates can do better.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
The most obvious answer which springs to mind is that there wouldn't be such an association within historical Christianity between sex and sin. Jesus has somehow been portrayed as being above what have been called 'carnal needs' and, together with Paul's writings, have made it appear that the unmarried state is the ideal to aspire to.
The risen Christ had to be got rid of somehow for the resurrection (and power over death) to make sense (at least in an overt way). Perhaps he would still have ascended in order to avoid a nagging wife?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
I'd go with Chorister on how things would be different. I'd also add that it would surely be a positive thing. (Although I expect we'd twist it to have negative connotations, so that single people were seen as 'un-Christ-like' or something.)
As to what else would radically change things...how long's a piece of string? Change anything about the gospels' accounts of his life and you get a different Jesus and a different Christianity, don't you?
If he'd had kids, he'd have had kids. We might have a better theology of fatherhood? God's supposedly a father anyway, so perhaps it would just have elucidated that metaphor a bit more.
If he went off to live in obscurity...I think we'd have a better out against our celebrity-obsessed culture, and a lot less intellectual barriers to cross vis-a-vis the crucifixion, the resurrection, the ascension, the second coming, etc. etc. etc.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
noneen
Shipmate
# 11023
|
Posted
If he went off to live in obscurity .... do you mean that in the sense of 'he rose and then went off', or that 'he never rose'. Big difference IMHO!
If he'd gone into obscurity and married, i'm not so sure it'd be hunky- dory. (i'm not a pesimist .. honest! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ). Women would still have been understood as the property of a man - father or husband. So that oppression wouldn't have just disappeared.
I think that the church would have turned the marriage into a sexless one, and continued as usual. The issue of celibacy and a fear of sex transcends marriage vows, IMO, for the church. Mary was married, but we can't accept that she had sex. And theres loads of stories of saints who were married happily, but who the church later insisted were celibate!!! (St Elizabeth of Hungary springs to mind)
Now - if Jesus had been married when he preached, and was often and publically seen to advocate marriage and his wife ... that'd be different. He would have risen from the dead, and ascended leaving an earthly family behind.
... Then it'd get messy!!! You saw Herods reaction to the threat of a king ... he slaughtered all the innocents. What would a Roman emperor have done with the wife and children of a proclaimed God. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) On the opposite side - within the early Christian church, his children would be revered as children of deities. Which brings other problems. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) (Imagine a wealthy Lord deciding to marry into Jesus family ... the power, the influence !?!)
--------------------
... 'but Father, Jesus drank wine at Cana and danced' ... 'Not in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, he didn't', Father replied
Posts: 472 | From: ireland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moriarty
Shipmate
# 8960
|
Posted
I am given to understand that one of the objections raised to Jesus by Orthodox Jews is that Jesus is portayed as celibate. The idea of a man or woman foregoing sexual relations in marriage is alien to Judaism, indeed, entering into marriage is an allegory of the Covenant between God and His people, as it is for Christians. Jews regard marrying and pro-creating the proper response to the first commandment found in the Torah to "Have many children" Gen1v 28. Given that the gospels say nothing one way or the other, about Jesus marrying, one may assume that he was. We only learn that Peter was married through a passing mention of his mother-in-law.
There is the merest hint somewhere (forgotten where) that Jesus was celibate, with some reference to being a "eunach for the sake of the gospel" (Have I got this right?!)
I understand fully the disquiet traditional christians feel with the idea of Jesus marrying, but I think the theological problems which arise are of our own making.
M
--------------------
Searching for a better aphorism
Posts: 160 | From: Epsom | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
noneen
Shipmate
# 11023
|
Posted
/tangent/
Moriarity - theres no proof Jesus was married - just our assumptions. The Assenes (spell!?!) lived as celibates (John the Baptist was one), so it wasn't a new idea.
For me this is a bit like saying 'Mike may well be sleeping with Jane'. While thats perfectly possible, and no one elses business - at some point a friend of Mikes might get annoyed about that gossip - especially if the facts weren't true.
Sometimes the truth is as important as the 'possibilities' - especially when people are talking about someone we care about
/tangent/
The question here is - if it were true, how would we be different as a church/ faith community??
I say, not a lot! We have regularly re-made GOd in our own image and likeness, and we continue to do so !!!
--------------------
... 'but Father, Jesus drank wine at Cana and danced' ... 'Not in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, he didn't', Father replied
Posts: 472 | From: ireland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moriarty:
There is the merest hint somewhere (forgotten where) that Jesus was celibate, with some reference to being a "eunach for the sake of the gospel" (Have I got this right?!)
The reference I know is in Matthew 19:12. Which follows the disciples making a very strange leap of logic - that if a man can only divorce his wife for adultery, then it's better not to marry at all; as though marriage is only worthwhile if you can get rid of your wife whenever you want. The passage clearly says that some people will forego marriage inorder to concentrate on the work of the Kingdom. It doesn't follow that Jesus himself hadn't married.
quote:
I understand fully the disquiet traditional christians feel with the idea of Jesus marrying, but I think the theological problems which arise are of our own making.
I think I'd tend towards agreeing with this. If the only difference is that the Church had a healthier view of sex and celebrity then it's not far off saying that the Church had got things right for more of it's history.
Are there any truly fundamental Christian doctrines, something stated in the Creeds for example, that would collapse if Jesus had been married?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Primarks and Spencer
Shipmate
# 10968
|
Posted
Perhaps I don't know enough about Christian doctrine - but as far as I can tell, it would have made absolutely no difference whatsoever if Jesus was married.
Well - I'm not sure if we would still describe the church as being the "bride" of Christ, but I'm not sure where it says anything about this in the Bible. Perhaps my concordance isn't good enough.
I'm not sure I agree with Chorister's point. I think it's true that in recent history, the church as a whole has been seen as a bit prudish about sex. But that doesn't explain why Song of Songs is in the Bible. It also doesn't explain why in Anglican and other Protestant traditions, an unmarried ordained minister is officially considered acceptable, but unofficially considered positively weird and potentially dangerous.
Adam has got some good points about Matthew 19:12. But I think the biggest problems are posed by Luke 9:61-62, where Jesus does his "you're with us or you're against us" routine, and Luke 18:29-30, where Jesus tells us that it's really worth leaving it all behind for him. For anyone who's actually got a wife and/or kids, this is clearly going to cause problems.
Somehow, I find it hard to believe that people will swallow the idea of Jesus being without sin if he's portrayed as an absent father who ducks and dives from the child maintenance bill! If you make out that Jesus was single and never married, then it prevents such awkward questions that might challenge the Christian faith.
Mind you, Matthew 19:4-6 seems to show Jesus explaining that marriage is a good thing, given by God.
But I don't think that any of this is that important. The central doctrines such as his death in place of us for our wrongs, followed by his resurrection, doesn't seem to be affected by whether he was married or not. At least my own faith isn't shaken by the idea, though I can't speak for others.
--------------------
:)
Posts: 63 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
One could look at the split between Sunni and Shiite Moslems as a paradigm of the difficulties of a dynasty. Sunnis believe that the Imams (the religious leaders) should be primary. Shiites believe that the primacy is vested in the family of Mohammed.
The split, as I recall, goes back to very soon after Mohammahed (PBOH) departed this world.
So an acknowledged descendant of Jesus might have totally changed the history of the faith.
[ 23. May 2006, 21:25: Message edited by: Henry Troup ]
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
So an acknowledged descendant of Jesus might have totally changed the history of the faith.
Could have. But, apart from the descendent(s) of Jesus being seen as leaders of the Church rather than the Apostles, would there have been any significant differences? Those who hold to stronger forms of Apostolic Succession might find that their position is slightly different. But, even then there's the question of who knew the teachings of Jesus better - his disciples or his children (who would have been infants during his ministry)? So, you still have the line of authority re: the teaching of Jesus going back to the Apostles, even if church leadership follows a different line to his children.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell
There is an implication hanging over the crucifixion/resurrection/ascension sequence which goes something like this. A married Messiah, having "become one flesh" with a wife, undertakes the "suffering servant" role, rises to a life which means he dies no more, then departs some 40 days later, leaving "his other half" ... as what? Not a widow. More an abandoned partner. Expected somehow to live out the remainder of her natural life in this unique and abandoned state. I haven't worked it out in any detail, but the example it sets seems profoundly un-Jesus-like. The promise of Jesus to be "with you always, even to the close of the age" does not work as a promise to a wife. Even more so, if they have children.
Turning that argument on its head, it seems much more straightforward to infer something from the traditional argument. Jesus' unique destiny precluded marriage, because of the cruel consequences for such a marriage which that destiny would produce.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It would certainly make him look pretty screwy too if, on the cross, he took such particular care for his mother's future, but ignored that of his (putative) wife and children.
Frankly, I'd see him as a deadbeat Dad. If your whole mission in life involves dying very young, surely it's a bit remiss to take a spouse and have children? Or to make any other serious long-term commitment that you don't intend to keep.
It would be different, of course, if the death were accidental rather than intended.
From what I hear (which may very well be wrong), Jewish men tended to marry at about thirty (women much younger). If this is true, the married-Christ scenario would leave his widow with very young toddlers or even a newborn.
What bugs me about this whole theory is that it seems to assume that no normal human being could live in celibacy without being Seriously Screwed Up. Sex is not the whole of life; I wish our cultures would get over it.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068
|
Posted
Quite right, LC. Also, any number of people have given up their chances of marriage for what they perceive as the greater good – Elizabeth I for example, who put the country before her own desires. If the Messiah had any notion at all of what his actions and teachings would (sooner rather than later) lead to, then a married life would be out of the question.
Besides, didn’t he say that the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head? Doesn’t sound much like a wife and kids back home to me.
--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde
Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
noneen
Shipmate
# 11023
|
Posted
so, do we need Jesus to be married, cause we don't like the thought of him celibate ?!?!
there was a time when women who didn't belong to a family circle (through a father or husband) were considered dangerous .... has that fear extended to men !?!
Is there a world-view that a parental or a sexual relationship is the only way a person can belong in a family/community?!? (only slightly tongue-in cheek! )
Posts: 472 | From: ireland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Alan Cresswell
There is an implication hanging over the crucifixion/resurrection/ascension sequence which goes something like this. A married Messiah, having "become one flesh" with a wife, undertakes the "suffering servant" role, rises to a life which means he dies no more, then departs some 40 days later, leaving "his other half" ... as what? Not a widow. More an abandoned partner. Expected somehow to live out the remainder of her natural life in this unique and abandoned state. I haven't worked it out in any detail, but the example it sets seems profoundly un-Jesus-like. The promise of Jesus to be "with you always, even to the close of the age" does not work as a promise to a wife. Even more so, if they have children.
I can't say I follow your logic Barnabas, which is quite rare because I usually find your posts adroit. In what way would Jesus' spouse be different from any other widow/er? What would be unique about their state? If the promise of a reunion in the afterlife is true for other widows/widowers, what's the difference?
quote:
Turning that argument on its head, it seems much more straightforward to infer something from the traditional argument. Jesus' unique destiny precluded marriage, because of the cruel consequences for such a marriage which that destiny would produce.
But it is not unheard of for people to marry when they know their betrothed has a terminal disease, or a very dangerous job or calling, like a soldier or a miner. Would it be unethical for another to take upon themselves the burden of knowing they will be presently bereaved? Or is it wrong or cruel for my above examples (terminal disease sufferers or soldiers etc) to agree to marry someone who loves them and enters into the married state aware of the pain that awaits them?
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
It seems to me that a married Jesus goes against much of what we understand as the love of God and Christ for humanity. I'm no expert in marriage, but my understanding is that it's a choice of one person--to say, out of all the options before me in terms of a life partner, I choose you, and only you. To the lover, the beloved is above all others--chosen to receive an intensity of commitment not given to anyone else in his life.
But the love we think of as God's love does not play favorites. We don't think of God as choosing one kind of "intimacy" for some of His people and another kind for the rest. To knock it down to junior high: "I like you, but I don't LIKE you like you. " For Jesus to choose one partner would be to reject other possible partners, and it hurts my brain to think about the criteria he'd use and what implications that would have.
Am I making sense here?
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
It sounds to me, infinite_monkey, as if you are confusing symbols of marriage with the actual possibility of marriage in the story of Jesus. Marriage and celibacy are used symbolically throughout the Bible to describe the relationship between God and the chosen people, be that the people of Israel or the church. These symbols convey the themes of salvation and communion. At this symbolic level to choose one may mean to reject all others, as if only one could be loved properly and the rest cannot. I'm not saying that's how it works, but that's a theory.
But an actual marriage between Jesus and another human being does not function that way at all. It does not preclude the salvation of others, nor the possibility of their union with God through the incarnation, which are the ideas the above symbols work to convey.
That's not to say there is no theological significance to the idea that Jesus may have been married. I'm just expressing disagreement with you. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight
In what way would Jesus' spouse be different from any other widow/er? What would be unique about their state? If the promise of a reunion in the afterlife is true for other widows/widowers, what's the difference?
The difference is that when last seen Jesus was alive on earth. He had already died and come back to life.
When a husband or wife dies, one of the few consolatory thoughts the survivor has is that the separation was not chosen by either of them. It just happened. In this case Jesus would have chosen the separation.
If Jesus had had a wife, I think she would have felt the Ascension as deliberate abandonment.
Moo
[ 25. May 2006, 12:17: Message edited by: Moo ]
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Drak Knight
Moo's answer is probably better than mine! This week my wife and I celebrate our 38th wedding anniversary and we know that only death will part us now. And neither of us wants to leave the other widowed - but we know it will happen.
It is inconceivable to me that Jesus would have knowingly subjected a wife to the pain of that separation after the resurrection. We get into the difficult territory of the extent to which he knew his special calling and destiny while growing up, but even a low Christology suggests that he had an "inkling".
The fact that scripture speaks loudly about the provision for his mother also speaks into this.
Dark Knight, thank you for your kind remarks. I did not feel it was a very adroit post either, probably because I was trying to sort out in my mind whether my concerns were doctrinal or not. I think they are that something is said about the nature of Jesus as fully man - a key doctrine - if his manhood is expressed by leaving a wife (and family?) behind in these unique circumstances. I'm reduced to the somewhat lame "it just doesn't feel like him to do that".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cattyish
Wuss in Boots
# 7829
|
Posted
Someone I was talking to yesterday (they started it!) asked me how Jesus could be divine if he were so human as to have been married. It struck me that if he were not human then how could he have been born, died and eaten? I reckon he's divine and human, but I don't claim to understand what it all means. God help us get the important stuff right and trust Him for the rest!
--------------------
...to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived, this is to have succeeded.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Posts: 1794 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
If Jesus had risen from the dead but not ascended ... well, for starters, if the traditional doctrines of Christianity about His risen nature are true, He'd still be hanging about here on Earth because now that He has risen, He will not die again; He'd not be "preparing a place for us" in whatever way is intrinsically tied to His ascension; and if I recall correctly, He would not have sent the Holy Spirit as this seems tied to His Ascension.
As far as marriage by itself goes... well, in theory the Church, that is, us, is the Bride of Christ already. How we'd all work that out with His earthly wife, I don't know. I don't think any biological children He would have would be demigods or anything like that, though there might be temptation to view them that way by many, or see them as living relics or something...
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Abject apologies Dark Knight - I turned you into Drak Night! And after you had been so kind as well. Drek .......
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
It sounds to me, infinite_monkey, as if you are confusing symbols of marriage with the actual possibility of marriage in the story of Jesus... an actual marriage between Jesus and another human being does not function that way at all. It does not preclude the salvation of others, nor the possibility of their union with God through the incarnation, which are the ideas the above symbols work to convey.
That's not to say there is no theological significance to the idea that Jesus may have been married. I'm just expressing disagreement with you.
Fair enough--I think I did a piss-poor job explaining my thoughts, and I thank you for explaining your own much more clearly. I agree that marriage, as a social construct, doesn't do anything for or against marriage as a metaphor, and that the rest of us wouldn't be any less the figurative Bride of Christ if there had been a flesh-and-blood one.
I still think it would be exceptionally weird for Jesus to have one human bride, but I'm beginning to realize that my inital quibble was coming from a modern understanding of romantic love in which we reject this suitor for not being x enough and that suitor for being too damn y before hitching our wagons to the one we think is the prettiest z in the room. I don't imagine Jesus engaging in this, but I also need to remind myself that it's quite possible NO-ONE in first century Israel engaged in this.
So, I'm still in the Jesus-probably-didn't-marry camp, but I've abandoned my reasoning in favor of the much more thoughtfully presented argument against widowhood-by-crucifixion-and-Ascension in the posts above my own misguided stab.
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
As far as marriage by itself goes... well, in theory the Church, that is, us, is the Bride of Christ already.
I think there's a real danger of reading what is, after all, a metaphor, in an overly literal fashion here. (The bride of Christ image is also a late one in the NT, so we can't assume it was used by people who were aware of the 'historical Jesus'' marital status.)
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pearl B4 Swine
Ship's Oyster-Shucker
# 11451
|
Posted
If I trespass, its because I'm new.Or, maybe I'm not very bright. Your posts have sparked a lot of ideas: Jesus and His band of Merry Men --oops, that's Robin Hood! Maid Marion, and Magdalan Mary, hmmm. Would an itinerant preacher, with "no where to lay his head" take a wife? I just don't think a seriously obedient Jew would have. Did he live with Mother 'til age 30? With no visible means of support? Maybe he spent a lot more time back home with Mom than the scriptures let on.
Posts: 3622 | From: The Keystone State | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
As far as marriage by itself goes... well, in theory the Church, that is, us, is the Bride of Christ already.
I think there's a real danger of reading what is, after all, a metaphor, in an overly literal fashion here. (The bride of Christ image is also a late one in the NT, so we can't assume it was used by people who were aware of the 'historical Jesus'' marital status.)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
As far as marriage by itself goes... well, in theory the Church, that is, us, is the Bride of Christ already.
I think there's a real danger of reading what is, after all, a metaphor, in an overly literal fashion here. (The bride of Christ image is also a late one in the NT, so we can't assume it was used by people who were aware of the 'historical Jesus'' marital status.)
We may have to disagree here -- I am not sure "metaphor" is the right term -- "mystical archetype of which earthly marriage is a sign or symbol or ectype," perhaps. And the lateness of the bride image doesn't affect the issue at all for me (it's in the Revelation to St. John as coming direct from God -- I don't see it as a merely human concept at all), though we also have the Song of Songs from well before the NT.
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pearl B4 Swine
Ship's Oyster-Shucker
# 11451
|
Posted
If I trespass, its because I'm new.Or, maybe I'm not very bright. Your posts have sparked a lot of ideas: Jesus and His band of Merry Men --oops, that's Robin Hood! Maid Marion, and Magdalan Mary, hmmm. Would an itinerant preacher, with "no where to lay his head" take a wife? I just don't think a seriously obedient Jew would have. Did he live with Mother 'til age 30? With no visible means of support? Maybe he spent a lot more time back home with Mom than the scriptures let on, in between lecture tours. As to a virginal marriage, I believe this is antithetical to basic Judaism; one of the recommended activities for the Sabbath is sexual relations between husband & wife. So if Jesus had a wife, I firmly believe they were "doing it". God put his stamp of approval on sexual activity, from day 1. Well, from Adam & Eve. Its the Church which has trouble with the "fully human" problem. If we accepted Jesus having a sexual nature, would it make too many people nervous to sing all those "love" hymns? Jesus loves me, this I know......What of the implications of physical union with the Body and Blood of the Savior? Some female mystics have approached very iffy territory in their allusions to being loved by Jesus, & vice versa. OK, I'll quit. No answers here, just a bunch of nagging questions.
Posts: 3622 | From: The Keystone State | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
(Of course, the fact that I see all this the way I do -- for me, any speculations about Jesus need to take the traditional doctrines as primary, and, on the whole, revealed through the Holy Spirit rather than merely man-made -- means I have a lot less to contribute to this whole subject, which is part of the reason I haven't posted much on the Da Vinci Code board.)
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
We may have to disagree here -- I am not sure "metaphor" is the right term -- "mystical archetype of which earthly marriage is a sign or symbol or ectype," perhaps.
I think we will have to disagree!
But; even if you think the image functions in that way, the relevant question here is surely did the biblical authors understand the image in such a strong fashion? I fully accept that the Church can read a bible passage in a way that goes beyond authorial intention. But unless the author read the image in a 'high' way, which would preclude Jesus being married, then its presence in the text has no evidential value in relation to the current debate, assuming the author was in a position to know about Jesus' marital status in the first place. I'm thinking about the author of Ephesians (who may well not have been Paul) as well as of Revelation.
We human beings never get anything 'direct from God'. Even the author of Revelation wrote what he saw, his seeing and his communication of it being mediated by language. The biblical books have human authors, in the strongest sense of the word 'author'. This does not, of course, preclude them being the word of God.
[ 27. May 2006, 09:10: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
PS. Chast, I too take dogma to be primary. However, I'm not aware that the Church teaches as a matter of faith that Jesus was not married. There may be a strong pious tradition or assumption to that effect, but that is a different order of 'tradition'. But what I'm asking here, in any case, is subtlely different - can we know, on the basis of strictly biblical evidence, if Jesus was married or not?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
croshtique
Shipmate
# 4721
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Can we know, on the basis of strictly biblical evidence, if Jesus was married or not?
Short answer - we don't know.
Long answer - well where to start? The question has to be examined with regard to extra-biblical evidence: some assume that 1st century Judaism was very positive with regard to sex and marriage ("Go forth and multiply"), seeing sex and marriage as a positive blessing from God. Thus, they argue, given that the gospels are silent concerning Jesus' marital status it must be interpreted against a backdrop in which marriage was the norm; therefore Jesus was a Jew like any other, who must have taken a wife, and it would have been unthinkable for a teacher or rabbi not to marry. The idea of Jesus as celibate was a Christian concept read back into the Gospels.
On the other hand, most of what we (think we) know regarding Jewish marriage practices in the 1st century comes from later, rabbinic period, writings. These writings tend to advocate early marriage (around 20 seems to have been the norm) and also recommend how often one should 'fulfil the marital obligation' (twice a week for labourers, every six months for sailors!).
So, post-70 at least there is no question that early marriage was the norm, and to be celibate was very, very odd. Pre-70 or so we have evidence of Jews choosing to remain celibate: the Therapeute and the Essene community (even if the internal evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls ambiguous on the topic); so an unmarried and/or celibate Jew in the 1st century wouldn't be totally against the norm - a rare but not totally offensive choice of lifestyle.
--------------------
"When man has finished he is just beginning, and when he stops he is still perplexed" - Sirach 18:7
Posts: 165 | From: Sarf Lahndon | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I agree that we don't know.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Our society has a need for Jesus to be married, because otherwise - in our highly sexualised society - he'd have to be gay. The thought that he might be 33 years old and celibate is just not an option.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
madteawoman
Shipmate
# 11174
|
Posted
Perhaps he was married but then she died, just around the time he began his mission.
I would have significant difficulties with a deity who provided us with a template of marriage which included abandonment of spouse and kids. I don't think that is what Jesus taught at all, notwithstanding texts such as those about leaving your mother and father, or having no family (I think they are about someting else entirely). Surely Paul would have had something to say about marriage in this context, if that was what Jesus had done.
--------------------
Listen carefully to my words, and let this be your consolation.
Bear with me, and I will speak; then after I have spoken, mock on.
Posts: 1446 | From: by the fireside | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Another thing that bugs me a bit is the idea of what kind of relationship the poor girl would have had with someone who was not only her human husband, but God the creator incarnate as well. Normal marriages are between equals (more or less). This kind of thing (marrying a person who has a divine nature) smacks vaguely of...well, incest. Just a feeling, but.... Or maybe I should say Pygmalion and Galatea. I often wonder what kind of relationship THEY would have had.
ETA: it's not the sex itself that is bothering me, but the screwing up of relationships that are not usually joined in one couple. It might work if the marriage were nothing but bed and board--no conversation, etc. But how would you talk to such a person as a husband? How complain about your neighbors, your hard day, your mother-in-law? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) And what about marital tiffs when every damn time, the husband is 100% in the right? Annoying enough in an elder brother. Not to be borne in a husband.
[ 28. May 2006, 01:22: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Our society has a need for Jesus to be married, because otherwise - in our highly sexualised society - he'd have to be gay. The thought that he might be 33 years old and celibate is just not an option.
To play devil's advocate; ancient societies are far more likely to have found an unmarried 33 year old strange than is contemporary society. Although I note what has been said about the Essenes.
I think the really pertinent thing about modern society is how we view biography. When we read someone's life story we expect a no holds barred account of their relationships and sex life. The gospels, frustratingly for us, tell us absolutely nothing about this in relation to Jesus. This, combined with contemporary curiousness, creates a void which the DVC etc. fill.
Of course, what the gospels do tell us is that Jesus is God's annointed one through whom we are offered eternal life. One might have thought this was more interesting than his marital status, but there we are.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
...
And what about marital tiffs when every damn time, the husband is 100% in the right? Annoying enough in an elder brother. Not to be borne in a husband.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
To play devil's advocate; ancient societies are far more likely to have found an unmarried 33 year old strange than is contemporary society.
For what it's worth, I think Jesus' marital status (whatever it was) may well have been considered less strange than his penchant for tossing demons into pigs, hanging out with harlots, and calling himself the Bread of Life; there are a few instances in which those around him try to shuffle him off as a bit cracked.
I also can't really see how, if we accept the premise that Jesus was divine, he would have needed to shove himself into that particular human-culture box just for the sake of appearances. There are many instances in the Gospel where Jesus intentionally deviates from expectations for how one should behave in society in order to acheive a greater good or do more right by one's fellow man (e.g. healing on the Sabbath).
You make a really interesting point about how our contemporary expectations of biography color our interpretations of the gaps in the Gospel re: the life of Jesus. Isn't there a place in John where the author says "If we wrote everything down, there wouldn't be room in the world for all the paper?" Funny how, in contemporary times, these juicy details are, in fact, the things we want covered more than other sermons or other miracles.
ETA: Yup, I admit it, I'm primarily posting because I get a kick out of showing up in the Circus as "what if Jesus really had been infinite monkey?"
[ 29. May 2006, 20:26: Message edited by: infinite_monkey ]
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
There are many instances in the Gospel where Jesus intentionally deviates from expectations for how one should behave in society in order to acheive a greater good or do more right by one's fellow man (e.g. healing on the Sabbath).
That's absolutely right. But of course those instances of counter-culturalism are alluded to in the canonical gospels. These same books are silent on Jesus' marital status. The question is, how are we to read this silence?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Like we read all silences? As not saying anything? You can infer of course .. but that way leads inexorably to conspiracy theories et al.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
it's not the sex itself that is bothering me, but the screwing up of relationships that are not usually joined in one couple. It might work if the marriage were nothing but bed and board--no conversation, etc. But how would you talk to such a person as a husband? How complain about your neighbors, your hard day, your mother-in-law? And what about marital tiffs when every damn time, the husband is 100% in the right?
Actually, the same problem would occur with any really close friendship. If this is a problem for a marriage, it's also a problem for Jesus holding any really close friendships - yet the Gospels appear to suggest that at the end of his ministry Jesus and his closest disciples were good friends. If we deny Jesus the sort of quality relationships (whether with a spouse or close friends) that allows people to talk to him and complain about everything, then you're effectively saying that he wasn't fully human as the bit about him being divine supercedes his humanity.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Hello dear, I had a run in with those blasted Pharisees again today. They're driving me potty.wife gives Jesus a kiss and rubs his backMmmm, that feels better. What's for dinner?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by croshtique:
... The question has to be examined with regard to extra-biblical evidence: some assume that 1st century Judaism was very positive with regard to sex and marriage ("Go forth and multiply"), seeing sex and marriage as a positive blessing from God. Thus, they argue, given that the gospels are silent concerning Jesus' marital status it must be interpreted against a backdrop in which marriage was the norm; therefore Jesus was a Jew like any other, who must have taken a wife, and it would have been unthinkable for a teacher or rabbi not to marry. The idea of Jesus as celibate was a Christian concept read back into the Gospels.
....
I disagree. If Jesus had been married, I doubt if the four gospels would all have been silent on the issue. Perhaps one or two, but not all four. Matthew, for example, was clear to point out the geneology of Jesus thus emphasizing His humanity, so, why would it not give some indication of that line continuing? It does not make sense.
Why would Jesus, on the cross, address John and His mother but not His wife? Again, it makes no sense. He would not ignore His wife, nor leave her on her own - where would his consideration for "orphans and widows" be then?
Given that there is absolutely no evidence in Scripture, or eslewhere, and that the history and the facts suggest there was no wife, the only logical conclusion is that there was none.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Given that there is absolutely no evidence in Scripture, or eslewhere, and that the history and the facts suggest there was no wife, the only logical conclusion is that there was none.
I'm not sure it's quite fair or logical to say that's the only conclusion. It's the most likely, the most persuasive, and the traditional one. But it can't be taken as a fact in the way that many of the elements you quote in support of it can.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
But what I'm asking here, in any case, is subtlely different - can we know, on the basis of strictly biblical evidence, if Jesus was married or not?
But isn't how we interpret or understand the Bible itself a matter of tradition?
Apart from the whole aspect of the Church being Christ's Bride (which I agree need not be, in itself, mutually exclusive to His being married, on an earthly level, to an individual woman), my understanding of the basic tradition of orthodoxy in the Church (in both East and West), from the beginning all the way down till now, is that Jesus was never married in the ordinary sense during His time on Earth. For me, that pretty much clinches the matter, which again is why I don't feel like I have a lot to contribute to the whole debate -- it's been settled by (very old) tradition, at least for me.
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I'm not sure it's quite fair or logical to say that's the only conclusion.
I didn't say it was the only conclusion. I said it was the only logical conclusion.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I'm not sure it's quite fair or logical to say that's the only conclusion.
I didn't say it was the only conclusion. I said it was the only logical conclusion.
My statement stands with the addition of 'logical' in the appropriate place.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I'm not sure it's quite fair or logical to say that's the only conclusion.
I didn't say it was the only conclusion. I said it was the only logical conclusion.
My statement stands with the addition of 'logical' in the appropriate place.
T.
I don't think so.
There are many facts (and/or situations, comments, quotes) that point to an unmarried Jesus. There are none facts that point to a married Jesus.
The only way to get to a "married Jesus" position is to argue/assume that "He must have been, in spite of the evidence." That is not logical.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Chast, presumably scripture (which, according to the Second Vatican Council) is the 'source of theology' can challenge the Church.
On tradition, I am not aware of any council or Pope having taught it to be a necessary part of orthodox belief that Jesus was not married. It may, as I said, be a long-standing pious tradition. And we can make of that what we will. It was, however, for many centuries a long-standing pious tradition (for example) that Paul wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. A view which is simply wrong.
As someone who is very concerned at preserving orthodox tradition I see it as integral to this task to sift out what is only accidentally attached to 'traditional' belief. My position on Jesus' marriage is that scripture is inconclusive and that the structure of Christian belief would be unaffected had Jesus been married. (And surely, we could still value the charism of celibacy even if Jesus had not been celibate - just as those who hold the majority opinion that Jesus was celibate can still value the married vocation.)
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
