Ship of Fools: What if Jesus had been married ...

Thread: What if Jesus had been married ... Board: The Da Vinci Code / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=66;t=000034

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

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?

Posted by Ophthalmos (# 3256) on :

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.

Posted by noneen (# 11023) on :

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]

). 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!]

On the opposite side - within the early Christian church, his children would be revered as children of deities. Which brings other problems. [Overused]

(Imagine a wealthy Lord deciding to marry into Jesus family ... the power, the influence !?!)

Posted by Moriarty (# 8960) on :

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

Posted by noneen (# 11023) on :

/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 !!!

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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?

Posted by Primarks and Spencer (# 10968) on :

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.

Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :

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 ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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.

Posted by Amethyst (# 11068) on :

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.

Posted by noneen (# 11023) on :

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! [Biased]

)

Posted by DarkKnight (# 9415) on :

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?

Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :

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?

Posted by DarkKnight (# 9415) on :

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]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

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 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

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".

Posted by cattyish (# 7829) on :

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! [Smile]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

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

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Abject apologies Dark Knight - I turned you into Drak Night! And after you had been so kind as well. Drek .......

Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :

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.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

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.)

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

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.)

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

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

Posted by Pearl B-4 Swine (# 11451) on :

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.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

(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

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

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 ]

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

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?

Posted by croshtique (# 4721) on :

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.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

I agree that we don't know.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

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.

Posted by madteawoman (# 11174) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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]

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 ]

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

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.

Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on :

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.

Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :

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?" [Biased]

[ 29. May 2006, 20:26: Message edited by: infinite_monkey ]

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

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?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Like we read all silences? As not saying anything? You can infer of course .. but that way leads inexorably to conspiracy theories et al.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

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.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

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?

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

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.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

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.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

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

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

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.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

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.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

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.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

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.)

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
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.

Surely not his humanity (which doesn't seem to have been in doubt then) but his Davidic lineage - something to which his marital status would be irrelevant.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
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.

But this was very clearly disputed early on; both Origen and Tertullian argued for an authorship other than Paul's. I'm not aware of such a debate on the marital status of Jesus. I would think someone early on in the church would have said something, anything, about such a monumentally important relationship if it were in doubt at all. This was a time when they were sorting out all manner of permutations of orthodoxy and heresy, and -- if Jesus had an earthly wife and/or biological offspring -- to leave that out altogether, when they were dealing with all those other matters regarding His humanity and Divinity, seems to me to be implausible to the point of nigh-impossibility.

David

[ 30. May 2006, 18:45: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

Dare I suggest that we think Jesus' marital status is more important than ancients would have done. As I've said above we take someone's 'personal' life to be far more significant now than was common at the time of the composition of the NT books. It took the church centuries to discern the sacramental status of marriage. The marital status of the gospels' principal protagonists (with the exception of Mary, for obvious reasons) just doesn't seem to have been an issue - we only know Peter was married accidently, for example, through the mention of his mother-in-law.

As for the issue of patristics, I think it is question-begging. The patristic debates were by-and-large conducted in conversation with the gospels. And the gospels do not mention Jesus marital status. So the fathers were in no better position than us in that regard. Why do you think, say, Athanasius some three hundred years after the crucifixion, with the gospels as his reference point regarding Jesus' life would have special knowledge about those apsects of that life not mentioned in the gospels?

[ 30. May 2006, 18:58: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Dare I suggest that we think Jesus' marital status is more important than ancients would have done.

You can suggest it but I don't see that this would be the case. The nature of Jesus, and His humanity and Divinity, were precisely the focus in the debates of the early Church, and even earlier than Athanasius himself. The fact that -- and if there are documents dealing with this matter, please tell me what they are -- there was no reference at all to what would be the spouse and/or offspring of God incarnate leads me to think it was a total non-issue. It's not a matter of people asking about whether or not His children would in some way be specially Divine, and being refuted or agreed with, but no reference at all. And if He had been married and had no biological children, that would be another issue -- "barrenness" and such. I do think that, regardless of the worldviews of modern people and ancient people, anything like this would have been significant enough to rate some mention, as we're not talking about some mere saint but God Himself made flesh, and the nature of that flesh.

David

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

PS: I don't think that the notion of Jesus being married in an earthly sense would be a matter of heresy, just history. If He had married and had children/descendants then the whole issue of how one would regard them (living relics, perhaps?) would certainly be something to deal with. What sort of reverence would be due them? And so on.

David

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

I think we agree that there is no issue of orthodoxy involved. We also agree about the silence of early texts. My question is about how we read that silence. My position is that we can't have confidence in any definite confusion. There is a danger of anachronistically reading back modern views on the importance of marriage into ancient minds, or of trying to second guess debates which may or may not have happened which we have no existing evidence about. There is also a danger of reading back subsequent theology into NT period authors. A fifth century Alexandrian would have explicitly described Jesus' alleged wife as the 'wife of God' and would have realised the significance of such a statement. I doubt Paul would have done.

We just don't know. And I think that's OK. What we do know is what the NT authors did write, in order that we might be saved.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

And I suppose we can indeed disagree about those matters (Paul, Alexandria etc.) without rancor. [Smile]

David

Posted by Pasco (# 388) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
..Taking the hypothetical question...
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?

If he'd had kids, there would be a huge rift between them and the spiritual descendants of Peter the chief Apostle.

Alternate scenario: No celibate priesthood, no Rennaisance and therefore Da Vinci's talents would never have materialised in the way it did; a Special interest discussion board such as The Da Vinci Code would be under a different genre. Dan Brown may still capitalise though on his "Own Brand" {anagram} of History.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pasco:
If he'd had kids, there would be a huge rift between them and the spiritual descendants of Peter the chief Apostle.

Why do you think there would be a rift between the descendants of Jesus and the spiritual descendants of the Apostles? Do you think they would have different theologies? Or, just that it would be an issue of power and authority? (which is, as I understand it, one of the main differences between Shia and Sunni Muslims - whether the spiritual authority of the Prophet passed to his children or those of his companions capable of the job).

Posted by Pasco (# 388) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Pasco:
If he'd had kids, there would be a huge rift between them and the spiritual descendants of Peter the chief Apostle.
Why do you think there would be a rift between the descendants of Jesus and the spiritual descendants of the Apostles? Do you think they would have different theologies? Or, just that it would be an issue of power and authority? (which is, as I understand it, one of the main differences between Shia and Sunni Muslims - whether the spiritual authority of the Prophet passed to his children or those of his companions capable of the job).

I was thinking from the point of power and authority. The Shia-Sunni scenario would then vie with Christendom's equivalent to see whose rift was greater.

'British-Israelites-in-direct-line-of-the-Saviour' breast-beating Shia-style to show their sorrow for the crucifixion? Shia missionaries could perhaps provide some lessons in how they do it re their own context, in Muharram.

Posted by mark deckard (# 11595) on :

For me the definitive evidence that Jesus NEVER fathered a child in Isaiah 53:8
"In His humiliation He was deprived of justice. Who can speak of His descendants? For His life was taken from the earth."

God settled the debate by prohetic testimony some 750 years before Christs death.

The passage is also cited in Acts 8:33

Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pasco:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
..Taking the hypothetical question...
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?
If he'd had kids, there would be a huge rift between them and the spiritual descendants of Peter the chief Apostle.

Alternate scenario: No celibate priesthood, no Rennaisance and therefore Da Vinci's talents would never have materialised in the way it did; a Special interest discussion board such as The Da Vinci Code would be under a different genre. Dan Brown may still capitalise though on his "Own Brand" {anagram} of History.

Just curious here - why would that have meant no celebate priesthood? It seems pretty certain that the early priests were married, following the Rabainic tradition,and certainly Irish priests were able to marry at least until the Council at Whitby (I think) when celebacy got a big push. The bit about celebacy seems to have come from Paul, and that wouldn't have changed, regardless, as far as I can see.

Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark deckard:
For me the definitive evidence that Jesus NEVER fathered a child in Isaiah 53:8
"In His humiliation He was deprived of justice. Who can speak of His descendants? For His life was taken from the earth."

God settled the debate by prohetic testimony some 750 years before Christs death.

That's hardly going to convince an historian, Mark. I think, in fact, it betrays a misunderstanding of what a prophecy is.

T.

Posted by Bob Harvey (# 3969) on :

Case 1: Jesus was married before he began his mission.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
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.

A number of people have already said that he would have been a poor sort of father to have abandoned his family and go off on a religious progress. I accept that, and think that the nature of the gospels shows that he wasn't and didn't. But that is just circumstance. It would be quite possible, had he been so married, for him still to have taught, performed miracles, witnessed. Some of the details given would have been different, but I don't think the message up to that point would have been substantially different. But it would have been difficult for him to accept being crucified, even though he was going to rise again, with family responsabilities behind him. Nevertheless, it might still have been possible, and we would have been told a slightly different story, and the outcome - the taking away of everyone's sin by an act of redemption - could have been unaltered.

Then, of course, there is the business of timing: I have always believed him to be around 30 during his ministry, and that would have been time to have a young family and see them grow to self-sufficient adulthood, or at least secure apprenticship, and no longer be dependant on him.

Or, indeed, time for his wife and children to die tragically young, but still time enough for him to have known romantic and familial love.

I can see nothing in those possibilities that would have prevented his ministry and sacrifice. OK, the background story from the Gospels would be slightly different, so we believe he had not been a family man. But nothing about being a husband and father would have disqualified him from teaching and from the ressurection had he had that experience. Anyway, he was the son of God, and God could easily have made any tiny nigling difficulties overcomable.

I don't think that Jesus was married, nor yet a father, at the time of the crucifixion, but I don't think that if he had been he would have disqualified himself.

Case 2: surviving the cross

quote:
What would have happened if instead of ascending he just went off to live in obscurity with his wife?

I do think that this is entirely different. Surviving execution in the body, and going on to live quietly abroad would change, perhaps invalidate, the whole subsequent story we have been told. Again I see two possibilities:

There was no death, and therefore no ressurection

This changes everything. It would all have been a lie. The teachings would be those of a good man, driven by the circumstances of the time. Not the living, eternal, word of God for all time.

There was a death, and a ressurection, but no ascension

This is an interesting idea, one in which the miracle of redemptive power is still given us, but Jesus is given a few short years to complete the human experience, quietly and mitigating the pain and shock to his wife. I wonder if, had he been married at the time of his execution, this would have been the better outcome for him and for her than ascension.

But it only works if it is private, and if we do not lurk at his gate like redtop journalists.

For me, this need not alter the central truths as they might have been. But, just as the gospels tell us of no wife, they tell us he was taken up into heaven. It's part of the creed.

So, to summarise, I am sure that God could have worked round the problem had Jesus been married, and I don't think anything about his having been married would have prevented him giving us all this act of redemptive love. I don't think it matters, one way or the other whether he was, but I am sure that, as a simple and unimportant fact, he was not. If we knew his sandall size, we would not claim that the size of his feet was essential to his task. Likewise, if he was left handed. Being married or not is like that.

Posted by Pasco (# 388) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Athrawes:

quote:
Originally posted by Pasco:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
..Taking the hypothetical question...
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?
If he'd had kids, there would be a huge rift between them and the spiritual descendants of Peter the chief Apostle.

Alternate scenario: No celibate priesthood, no Rennaisance and therefore Da Vinci's talents would never have materialised in the way it did; a Special interest discussion board such as The Da Vinci Code would be under a different genre. Dan Brown may still capitalise though on his "Own Brand" {anagram} of History.
Just curious here - why would that have meant no celebate priesthood? It seems pretty certain that the early priests were married, following the Rabainic tradition,and certainly Irish priests were able to marry at least until the Council at Whitby (I think) when celebacy got a big push. The bit about celebacy seems to have come from Paul, and that wouldn't have changed, regardless, as far as I can see.

With the historical emphasis on the (hypothetical) "Jesus line", the St Peter's Church-on-the-seven-hills fraternity would never have materialised in the way it subsequently did. There would have been a different set of politics in the middle ages, whatever form it may have emerged as, with the celibate priesthood a rarity perhaps. If the blood-line was in the spirit of its founder there would have been a massive following centred around these personas, who would be married in keeping with the traditions of the OT, as you've suggested. But as with most human enterprises (moving away from the source) somewhere along the line there would eventually emerge a split. The Sunni-Shia scenario is set here as a classic example that can easily happen to dynasties, as has done so in many spheres of life through the ages.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bob Harvey:

quote:
What would have happened if instead of ascending he just went off to live in obscurity with his wife?
I do think that this is entirely different. Surviving execution in the body, and going on to live quietly abroad would change, perhaps invalidate, the whole subsequent story we have been told.

Actually that wasn't quite the scenario I'd put forward. Still accepting that Christ was crucified, died and buried, and on the third day rose again. And, accepting that he hung around a while, appearing to his disciples, teaching them and finally breathing on them saying "receive the Holy Spirit". What if, after all that, instead of ascending into heaven he disappeared with his wife (and kids) to live in obscurity?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Still accepting that Christ was crucified, died and buried, and on the third day rose again. And, accepting that he hung around a while, appearing to his disciples, teaching them and finally breathing on them saying "receive the Holy Spirit". What if, after all that, instead of ascending into heaven he disappeared with his wife (and kids) to live in obscurity?

For one thing, it would appear to make him a liar in John 14:1-3.

quote:

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house there are many dwelling-places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also.

Moo

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Though, he could have lived in obscurity for another 30 years into venerable old age, watched his kids grow up and his grandkids born. And, then gone onto His Fathers house to prepare places for those who followed him. The timing doesn't seem critical to me if we're talking about something in eternity.

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I think, in fact, it betrays a misunderstanding of what a prophecy is.

Just a bit!

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark deckard:
For me the definitive evidence that Jesus NEVER fathered a child in Isaiah 53:8
"In His humiliation He was deprived of justice. Who can speak of His descendants? For His life was taken from the earth."

God settled the debate by prohetic testimony some 750 years before Christs death.

The passage is also cited in Acts 8:33

Welcome to our little madhouse of sanity, Mark!

It is interesting that the quote in Acts concerns the Ethiopian eunuch, who (if literally a eunuch) would have no descendents himself. Perhaps he was drawn to the childless, wifeless Messiah as one like himself?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0