Was Jesus Married?

[CecilW]

Weak replies, but ...

As to being a carpenter-rabbi, my understanding is that the Jews to this day are supposed to teach their children a TRADE as well as a profession, so that they have something to fall back upon if necessary. Seems wise.

I think it was the Roman soldiers who mocked Jesus by calling Him King, not the Jews. Would they have mocked Him by calling him by that title while posing difficult questions? *shrug* Dunno. My sense of the Jews I know makes it seem unlikely. But it is possible.

Jesus' mother was in the area -- she'd been at the cross. So why Mary Magdelene?

There's a difference between CAN't reproduce for whatever reason and the intentional choice NOT to. It is fairly well known that in Jewish culture if a man COULD marry, but chose to remain a bachelor, he was scorned by the community as being a selfish man who was not doing his duty to the community. And Boaz? Who said he wasn't already married, and that Ruth wasn't requesting to join his family? We dunno.

Scott's arguments clearly aren't definitive. PaulNTA raised good counters. But there are potential holes in the counters as well.

Personally, I continue to hope that He was, so that He can understand and sympathize with my trials in this area as well.

All the while agreeing that is nobut fascinating speculation.

 

[CecilW]

Steve: Tried. Twice. Someone else kept posting good stuff ahead of me! :lol:

 

[Tlaloc]

This is a very interesting thread, I'm only glad I am rarely ever called to give an opinion on this among mainstream Christians as the only confident answer I could give is that I have no certainly definitive information on the topic (though there are some very good arguments as presented here, and I also had never heard Scotts #3 used before, its been and hopefully will be a very interesting and informative thread). The only ones that ask what I think of are the ones who believe he was married, and my response that I don't know has consistently made them happy.

My pastor has given several extensive lectures on potential sarcasm in the Bible, there are cases where it is likely but sarcasm does not translate well into text and it does not translate well across languages at all. I've always wonder weather Mat 19:10 "His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. " wasn't sarcastic, as it seems like a line from a TV show almost, but I never considered the possibility that v 12 was sarcastic. I'd have to look at that. I am sure there is no clear way to tell weather the title ' Rabbi' was sarcastic or not when it came from the Pharisees or Sadducies. It was certainly earnest when Nathaniel said it and when unnamed disciples said it.

Actually, the term Rabbi\Master only comes up 17 times in the NT, and in every case it is applied to Jesus it is used by a disciple or someone who winds up being a disciple. The only Pharisee that uses the term is Nicodemus, and given he converted I don't think it was sarcastic. On the other hand the Pharisees that opposed Jesus never actually use the term on him, so there isn't much of a case that he was anything like a Rabbi in their books.

Personally, I continue to hope that He was, so that He can understand and sympathize with my trials in this area as well.

I know what you mean, but I believe being married to the churches would by itself give him more than enough understanding in this area, the churches have behaved pretty much the whole array from being the best spouse possible to the worse imaginable.


I tend to think it would be cool if he was, but most of his personal life isn't important to me until I get to Heaven and get a chance to shmooze with him and chat about the old life (if its even worth remembering then)

 

[Anonymous]

I am not being argumentive in asking this question, but it popped into my mind while reading this thread. Here it is: Should we be using the customs and intents of the Jewish people as examples for our behavior since they were pretty much walking in disobedience? I am not referring to the Law given by God or the Word through the prophets, but I do mean patterning our steps after the Jewish people's behavior. What do we think guys?

 

[mrscottyl]

I am not being argumentive in asking this question, but it popped into my mind while reading this thread. Here it is: Should we be using the customs and intents of the Jewish people as examples for our behavior since they were pretty much walking in disobedience? I am not referring to the Law given by God or the Word through the prophets, but I do mean patterning our steps after the Jewish people's behavior. What do we think guys?

Very good point here John. And let me say, should we be using the customs and intents when we call people Pastor, or when we decide to marry, or any of that sort for today? Is the teaching that is going forth from the pulpits across this world the exact same teaching as Peter, Paul, James and other 1st century Apostles taught? Or is what is being taught just a lot of traditions and customs, that are part of denominational teachings, and not exactly according to the Word?

To understand how things were done back then, you must understand how they thought and did things. I do not agree with everything that people did and taught back then, but to understand why a person could not be called a Rabbi until they were 30, and to understand the significance of the burial ritual that is alluded to in Scripture, you must understand the culture. Why would Paul say a Bishop and a deacon needed to have at least one wife is explained when we understand that a Rabbi had to be the husband of at least one wife.

Still yet, I did provide number 3 that does not require customs or thinking, but does require the Law of YaHuWaH.

Scott

 

[mrscottyl]

I do mean patterning our steps after the Jewish people's behavior.

Just in case I was misunderstood, I never said we should pattern our lives based on the behavior of the Israelites. We are actually told told to imitate the Messiah. One could argue that if we are to imitate the Messiah, and He never married, then we should not be married.

When I write an email or letter to someone, I do not have to explain to them all the nuances of the culture in which we live in, and the way we think based on that culture. But someone, from a totally different culture and even, if I may, a different time period, would not be able to understand all the givens and understoods that are not spoken in my letter. Without a proper understanding of my culture and they way I thought, one would be assuming what was in my mind, just like trying to decipher the voters intent on a hanging chad.

Scott

 

[Mark C]

Scott is correct, we are to follow the example of the Messiah, Who literally was the Torah (teaching and instruction of YHVH) made flesh.

For that reason, the question asked in this thread is not nearly so important for what it says about the factual situation as what it says about our willingness to "study for ourselves".

Should we be using the customs and intents of the Jewish people as examples for our behavior since they were pretty much walking in disobedience?

"Jewish people", of course, is bad terminology, both historically and Biblically -- for MANY reasons.

But as I read this question, it struck me how sad it is that the same question is not asked about a "Church" who is every bit as guilty of "walking in disobedience" to paganism and legalistic twisting of Scripture as the hypocritical Pharisees. It is no wonder that if we are not able to discern why He was so critical of those who claimed a false authority to "add to" His Word then, we would remain blind to the same continued patterns.

 

[Anonymous]

As I ponder this question, I muse as to whether it is wise for us to swing either left or right. I am thinking, no deviations from the declared Word of God should be acceptable to those who belong to Him. I posted the following as a status on Facebook recently, it sums up the way I think believers and servants of the Most High should live. "With so many voices calling out for my attention, cooperation, following and loyalty I have reaffirmed my choice to follow the Lord Jesus Christ, first and foremost and let the chips fall where they may." "Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith..." Hebrews 12. Any other view will cause confusion.

 

[mrscottyl]

"Jewish people", of course, is bad terminology, both historically and Biblically -- for MANY reasons.

But as I read this question, it struck me how sad it is that the same question is not asked about a "Church" who is every bit as guilty of "walking in disobedience" to paganism and legalistic twisting of Scripture as the hypocritical Pharisees. It is no wonder that if we are not able to discern why He was so critical of those who claimed a false authority to "add to" His Word then, we would remain blind to the same continued patterns.

"Jewish people" and "Jews" are used more of as a derogatory slur by so many, because they view anything Jewish as being bad. Well, I hate to break the news to them, but Yahushua was a Jew. John 1:1 tells us that He is the Word of YaHuWaH, but people begin to make changes, saying we do not need this, or we need to do this different, which is all deviations either to the right or to the left, and which is condemned - in the Torah.

For way too many, just being like a Jew is a horrible thing, because, whether consciously or unconsciously, it is ingrained in people that being Jewish is bad. It is bad theology, or you are being like the Christ killers, or that they just messed up so "God had to start all over", which is continually perpetrated by Christian Theology. Because a majority of Christians assume that when one says Torah, they are actually meaning the Talmud, then everything they think about that person will be wrong, and instead of speaking to that person and finding out what that person actually believes, they just cast the person away as a troublemaker, just like their Jesus would do, right?

If Yahushua fulfilled all the Commandments, then He had to have procreated, or at least attempted to procreate. If His wife never bore Him any children, it was not His fault, and He could have closed up her womb to make sure she did not conceive. But when we begin to insult and put down the Jews and their Torah, we are putting down Yahushua, which is both a Jew and the Torah.

Scott

 

[mrscottyl]

As I ponder this question, I muse as to whether it is wise for us to swing either left or right. I am thinking, no deviations from the declared Word of God should be acceptable to those who belong to Him. I posted the following as a status on Facebook recently, it sums up the way I think believers and servants of the Most High should live. "With so many voices calling out for my attention, cooperation, following and loyalty I have reaffirmed my choice to follow the Lord Jesus Christ, first and foremost and let the chips fall where they may." "Looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith..." Hebrews 12. Any other view will cause confusion.

You are very right John, that all we need to do is to look to Yahushua, because in Him is everything we need for eternal life. And since He is the Word of YaHuWaH made flesh, then to deny any part of Him would be, as the English translation of the Greek word for deny is - to reject Him. If we reject Him, He will reject us. So when we make assumptions based on the teachings and traditions of the Christian church instead of the Word of YaHuWaH, then we are deviating.

Scott

 

[lutherangirl]

If the term Rabbi reflects a person that was married, maybe people thought He was, because; He allowed women to travel with Him and help support His ministry. The rabbis of the day would not have had direct assocation with women or honor given to them they way Jesus did. Also, Jesus let women touch Him in (washing his feet, kissing his feet) in ways the rabbis wouldn't have allowed women to do unless it was their own wives, so maybe that is why they thought Mary Magdalene was His wife?

 

[mrscottyl]

If the term Rabbi reflects a person that was married, maybe people thought He was, because; He allowed women to travel with Him and help support His ministry. The rabbis of the day would not have had direct assocation with women or honor given to them they way Jesus did. Also, Jesus let women touch Him in (washing his feet, kissing his feet) in ways the rabbis wouldn't have allowed women to do unless it was their own wives, so maybe that is why they thought Mary Magdalene was His wife?

This is entirely possible. Remember, since Scripture does not go into detail on this issue, then it is something of a curiosity, but nothing that we should strive over. I am enjoying seeing all the different ideas that are coming from this. A Rabbi was also a teacher. He would teach others, either in a Synagogue or a group of Disciples or both. A scribe was just one who copied the Scriptures and other legal documents. In Luke chapter 18 and verse 18, the Rich Young Ruler called Him Good Teacher. Just something else to think upon.

Scott

 

[Scarecrow]

I have not found this argument elsewhere and it may be my own personal heresy, but it seems quite simple to me to come to the conclusion that Jesus did not have a wife based on my understanding of these scriptures:

Genesis 3:15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

It is the seed of man that carries sin, not the seed of woman. It was not necessary (or true) for Mary to be sinless as the Catholic church asserts. Jesus did not carry the seed of man.

 

[CecilW]

I have not found this argument elsewhere and it may be my own personal heresy, but it seems quite simple to me to come to the conclusion that Jesus did not have a wife based on my understanding of these scriptures: ... Jesus did not carry the seed of man.

Huh? Sorry to be dense, Mark, but I don't get it. Are you suggesting that He was a sperm-free zone? In that case, how could He have been tempted in all ways as I have been? Once again, sorry. Not trying to be argumentative. I just don't quite understand what the theory is.

 

[Scarecrow]

1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

While the circumstances in which we face temptation will vary, we all face the same temptations, those common to man. Jesus was no exception. It is not required to be in the circumstance of marriage to be faced with temptations that a married individual may face.

 

[welltan]

I do not know if Jesus was married, but it would be fine if he was. The most interesting thing I always find about the topic is the hidden reason people object to it. Basically the objection is that Christ could not have been married because he needed to be pure and sinless for the cross to be effective. This obviously implies that sex is sinful by default and there really is no such thing as righteous and pure relations even in marriage. To make it simple, people think sex and sin are the same words and feel they must keep Jesus pure in their minds. This is such a subtle deception and one Satan did not even need to work hard to invent.
How does this relate to plural? It relates easily as men who want plural are quickly judged as not wanting more of something that is pure but rather if sex and sin are in the same definition bucket then these men must want more sin. Sorry, but this all part of the foundation for the deception that plural is not a pure objective. Most have been brain washed to keep washing their brains compulsively of sexual thoughts without any permission to let sexual pure thoughts remain. This vacuum is tailor made by our modern religious leaders to fit the shoes of porn and schizzy perversion.
Our quest for truth is a pure one and one that is looked favorably on by God. It is sad that motives are judged as impure by so much of the general church. That is why going to retreats and being on the forum is so refreshing. We approach God with our "out of the box" ideas almost expecting to be punished by God. Our amazement in finding a hug instead of a punishment makes us love our God and give glory to Him.