Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
What are your thoughts on the 'Jesus must have been married' line?
date
newest »
newest »
Many scholars on historical Jesus insist that there is a distinction between the Jesus of historians and the Jesus of Christianity, which I completely agree.
I am clergy. I do not have a problem with Jesus being married, no matter. He would have been an unusual Jewish male of the time if he were not; at the same time, certain persons - such as Nazarites and Essenes - were called to celibacy. I object strongly to those who feel the status as Christ is passed on through a "bloodline," as this badly misses the point of a "call." His marital status, however, effects me naught.
Xdyj, I would interpret the historians you cite as being patronizing - saying, in effect, "let the religious people believe whatever gratifying story they want about Jesus; the completely separate truth of the matter is our domain." Do you see it otherwise?
John, I'd be fine if Jesus had been married*, too, but usually, reports about the doings of married men are more frank about the matter. If the gospels are so devious - or, let's say, so omissive - about such a basic matter of day-to-day life, have they been severely edited to massage the truth in other ways? Or is there a logical explanation for why the matter is downplayed?
*Celibacy doctrines sometimes state that the religious celibates are spiritually married to Christ, but that couldn't apply to Christ himself! :)
John, I'd be fine if Jesus had been married*, too, but usually, reports about the doings of married men are more frank about the matter. If the gospels are so devious - or, let's say, so omissive - about such a basic matter of day-to-day life, have they been severely edited to massage the truth in other ways? Or is there a logical explanation for why the matter is downplayed?
*Celibacy doctrines sometimes state that the religious celibates are spiritually married to Christ, but that couldn't apply to Christ himself! :)
Maybe, however, I don't believe in a single concept of "truth" that can be applied identically in science, in math, in philosophy and in theology. I don't know much about theology, but I'm a bit worried that a married Jesus may undermine the biblical message that question the patriarchal family c.f. e.g. http://www.fsrinc.org/blog/no-wife-je...
Mark - "If the gospels are so devious - or, let's say, so omissive - about such a basic matter of day-to-day life, have they been severely edited to massage the truth in other ways? Or is there a logical explanation for why the matter is downplayed?"First of all, let me state the obvious - I don't know; I was not there.
Secondly, there may be no deviousness, deliberate omissiveness, or severe editing (though, for the reason above, there may). A rabbi being married - or any male Jew of the time for that matter - was so common and expected the writers may have felt it unnecessary to mention. We only know Peter was married as his mother-in-law was healed; there is nothing about his wife at all. If I were asked to introduce myself at a meeting, I would probably not include I drove a car to get there. It is just sort of expected.
XDYJ - the author of the article you included may be making a common error - judging the behavior of people long past by the standards of today. There is little doubt the society of the time was patriarchial. The Jesus I worship did a lot to undermine this, especially in the Gospel of Luke. And, this assumes the Bible is a "closed canon," that everything that ever needed to be said was said when the "Amen" was written at the end of GOd's revelation to John of Patmos. Were this so, there would be no need for the Holy Spirit, whom I believe moves over the chaos of our time as the Spirit moved over the chaos or pre-creation.
From a standpoint of pure justice it would seem that the focal point of God's New Testament would marry his "equal". As the embodiment of divinity in temporary human form, Jesus would sensibly be ethereally paired with a like female. In perusing Scripture, I can find many women who were indeed smiled upon by the Father, but none who sit anywhere near his Right Hand.
Robert - not an argument, but my thoughts - many use the phrase "Jesus Christ" as a unit, and they were never meant to be. Jesus is his name (in Latin) and Christ is the "job title" given to him by God. This is reflected, somewhat, in the Christian idea that Jesus is both God and Human. On the "God/job description," Jesus is unique. No one else, female or male, was called by God to be "soter." However, on the Human side, Jesus could have, at least in theory, found a co-equal partner.
God made us for relationships and instituted marriage, so there is nothing wrong with being married. However, I do not believe Jesus was married. There is nothing in the New Testament stating he was married. Other family relationships are mentioned. He gave John the task of caring for his mother. If there was a wife, I assume he would have seen to her care also.Paul argues that he also has the right to take a wife, just like Peter. If Jesus was married, that would have been a even stronger argument.
These are my reasons for thinking Jesus never married. If he had, the question becomes what would that change of doctrines, Christian faith, etc. I don't see a marriage would alter anything.
John - in theory, for his human side, I suppose God could have provided a companion because Man "was not meant to be alone." However, it is somewhat inconceivable to me to explain your day of performing miracles and raising the dead to the little woman!
Robert, I have a feeling any woman spiritually enlightened to be united with Jesus as a lifelong partner would be quite understanding of his days of performing miracles and saving the souls of the lost. ;-) No "little woman" in that scenario!
Brit, that point about Paul is genius. It tips the scales for me. Why haven't I heard that argument before?
Brit - again, not an argument, as I have no reason to believe Jesus was married (my statement above was it would make no difference to me). Statements such as "There is nothing in the New Testament stating he was married." are not helpful to me, as there are a lot of things a pious Jew of the time would have done (such as the use of a mikvah before temple worship) which are not mentioned in the Bible, probably because they were taken for granted. In addition, these is John the Gospeler's statement in John 21:25, (New International Version) "... Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written ..." We can neither suppose he did this or that or did not do them; we just do not know.
Jana - for the record, I never referred to my ex-wife as the "little woman", nor would it even cross my mind. She was large of heart, intellect, and personality. She was every bit my equal and then some. However, when describing a hypothetical marriage in jest, I defend the use of the term for literary effect.
Lee - it's great to see you back! The board was much the worse for your absence. Unlike Stuart, an avowed atheist whose contributions won't be missed, you represent the far liberal cusp of Christianity where it supposedly intersects with culture. Much as I hate to admit it and as much as I shudder at the long-term implications, the wave of future Christian involvement seems to be breaking in that direction.
Robert - I hope this does not sound patronizing; it may be, but it is not meant that way. In my Denomination, The Episcopal Church, change (for good or ill) is happening fast. Many of out "traditionalists have bolted. This pains me. We need a "Loyal Opposition" to remind us we might be wrong, and to keep us from "throwing out the baby with the bathwater."I was around when Stuart gave his screeds. It was not a swell time.
John - I don't find your message patronizing, but I don't understand what you're trying to tell me either! Maybe if you forget about appearing condescending and explain it in "Scripture for Dummies" terms I'll get the point.
Robert - I did not express myself well. I was responding to "... you represent the far liberal cusp of Christianity where it supposedly intersects with culture. Much as I hate to admit it and as much as I shudder at the long-term implications ..." I was saying, in my Denomination, the Traditionalist have, to a large degree, "bolted," and formed other congregations and alternative Dioceses, aligned with more "conservative" (how I hate applying political terms to religion) Bishops. This seems to me to become a "self-fulfilling prophecy." They are (perhaps rightly, hence your shuddering) chagrined by the direction our Denomination is going, but, by leaving, almost certainly assures that directional change will occur.
Brit wrote: "God made us for relationships and instituted marriage, so there is nothing wrong with being married. However, I do not believe Jesus was married. There is nothing in the New Testament stating he wa..."I'm with Lee. I had not thought of these. Great points!
Thanks, Robert...I'm not really back. I just poke my head in every so often to see what y'all are fighting about now. :)
Ok John, I see half your point. Traditionalists are abandoning Episcopalian Churches because of a liberal doctrine shift which more closely mirrors the exigencies of current culture. Got It. What I'm not clear on is where they're going. I attend a Southern Baptist church right outside the gates of FT. Bliss so we have many former and current army members. As such, our Biblical interpretation (highly conservative) hasn't changed in the last 20 years. However, our numbers haven't increased. Where are your departed members landing - Latter Day Saints, Pentecostal, some Fundamentalist snake handling cult? I'm wondering if they're really any better served now?
They are creating "mirrors" of the Episcopal Church, with their beliefs. For example, the disillusioned group from All Saint's Episcopal Church here in Anchorage broke away and formed St. Andrew's Anglican Church, and aligned themselves with some of the more conservative (I really hate using political terms in relation to the Church) Bishops. Since I am not there, I do not know if they are better served; I pray this is so. The net result, however, is we not have two struggling Parishes, instead of one very stable one.
OK John, if you hate political terms how about Obedience to Biblical dictates (conservative) versus God's abundant love with hippie, Scottish poet, and erotic novel "love" thrown in (liberal).
"Are you still beating your wife?" Are those the only two choices we have? I answered your questions honestly, as I saw them. I was not trying to start a flame war. Perhaps it is best if we go back to the topic at hand. God bless.
John - no "flame war" was intended and I'm not sure how you took my message that way. It just appears to me that churches make the choice to stress repentance (obedience) or avoidance (love trumps all). If you have a different take on the schism, I'd welcome your opinion. As for the married Jesus bit - well, I suppose it's topical and I suppose the gays will soon claim he was homosexual, and if he had one wife, he might as well have had five for the Mormons and Islamists. Every special interest needs a role model.
You're right; I probably misunderstood. I am sorry. I now see the dichotomy you are making, and I agree, mostly. The Episcopal Church has a strange history. Most see it as a result of Henry VIII's desperately trying to have a male heir to the throne, as he was convinced a female on the throne would be disastrous (he was wrong as Elizabeth I, Victoria, and Elizabeth II have shown, but that's a different thread). Most Anglican/Episcopalians try (stupidly) to ignore this. However, as the events all over Europe (except France) in the Protestant Reformations show, that is only part of the story. Elizabeth I was largely successful in keeping England from a religious civil war (this happened in other countries), though in a dictatorial way. She made everyone join the Church of England. However, having done that, she instituted what is termed "the middle way." Her point was, pretty much congregational/individual, as is your Denomination. If a person wanted to be more "catholic," fine. If a person wanted to be more "protestant," fine. Most people fell in the middle, in what came to be called, in the 19th Century, "Broad Church." She was only concerned with those who would oppose the Empire. The Puritans left for Europe and then America; the RCs went underground. I agree with your dichotomy, above. What I have problems with is that "both sides" of the present Church, the "liberal" and the "conservative," have abandoned the broad church idea for "my way or the highway." By leaving the Episcopal Church, the "conservatives" have enacted a "self-fulling prophecy." Our Denomination will become what they fear (lest this be taken as a criticism, the same would have happened if the liberals got fed up and left). I really wish they had stayed, and that both "sides" would have worked at actually talking to each other. Our Denomination has lost a needed voice.
Jesus was always going to be married. Those who consider Him just a historical figure cannot comprehend what kind of bride the Son of God would be looking for.
Where we have no scripture, we can only speculate. Some have speculated, fairly enough, that the fact we don't have any real sign that Jesus got married is consistent with him having a sexuality that was inadmissible. Of course, he could have just been too dedicated to his primary task to get involved in a marital relationship, but the argument is that he could hardly have borne all the pains of humanity if he'd had the relatively uncommon, posh comfort of being completely sexually normative. One thinks of the statements in Isaiah that predicted the Messiah would be ugly and nothing to look at - perhaps some of his other biology was less than ideally perfected in the common concepts favoured by the world. I don't put any particular stock in that snippet of gnostic gospel that has him spending the night with an acolyte. On the other hand, if you put yourself in the perspective of a gay person who happens to be Christian, and read those passages of John that call John (apparently) 'the disciple whom Jesus loved,' that has to make you wonder. This isn't some sort of identification-lusting avarice -- the verbiage of the scripture is decidedly curious. But as we cannot know the ultimate truth of the matter, we're probably better off ignoring the whole issue and focusing on the things Jesus definitely wanted us to know.
Also, sexuality implies a sense of incompleteness that can only be assuaged by having someone to provide the missing 'half,' and it's a plangent question as to whether the Son could have fully experienced this incompleteness. The argument about him experiencing the pains of existence as part of being fully human suggests that he did, but then again, how can we know for sure when he was already ineffably completed as a hypostasis of God the All in All?
Somehow, the unanswered questions have a spiritual depth that makes them attractive. I wouldn't be devastated if, let's say, a new authentic gospel was discovered that resolved them, but until that day, they are a deep well into the mysteries of human life and divine presence.
Also, sexuality implies a sense of incompleteness that can only be assuaged by having someone to provide the missing 'half,' and it's a plangent question as to whether the Son could have fully experienced this incompleteness. The argument about him experiencing the pains of existence as part of being fully human suggests that he did, but then again, how can we know for sure when he was already ineffably completed as a hypostasis of God the All in All?
Somehow, the unanswered questions have a spiritual depth that makes them attractive. I wouldn't be devastated if, let's say, a new authentic gospel was discovered that resolved them, but until that day, they are a deep well into the mysteries of human life and divine presence.
Mark comment:"and also, to my chagrin, no Rod"
Thanks Mark, it's nice to be Chagrinned!
I'm glad you're here. I left because too many of my posts were being deleted by liberal mods. Some folks are VERY easily offended. (God HAS given me a gift it seems). If somebody calls themselves a Christian they should be lovingly prepared to be challenged. (I even have some nasty questions for Mother Teresa and whichever Pope claims to be ruling the nest. Good thing those Catholics don't have a military or secret agent type HIT SQUAD...what?)... and those Jesus Seminar butts don't seem to hold grudges often. I'm safe to speak my mind.
But this is a great topic. I'll have a look.
My favorite quote of the week. (and the year so far!)Mark:
". I don't put any particular stock in that snippet of gnostic gospel that has him spending the night with an acolyte."
I live for stuff like that. :cD
My coffee got cold reading all this. (That shalt NOT be Easily forgiven.)I'll just state the obvious Biblical layout:
Jesus is STILL waiting for His bride. So NO He is not yet married. Theologically it's as simple as that.
Revelation 19 (the marriage supper of the Lamb.)
“Hallelujah!
For the Lord our God
the Almighty reigns.
7Let us rejoice and exult
and give him the glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and his Bride has made herself ready;
8it was granted her to clothe herself
with fine linen, bright and pure”—
for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.
and...
Matthew 22:2
"The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.
Revelation 21:2
I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
Revelation 21:9
One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb."
I assumed somebody else would obviously post all that Glorious scripture. Now is when the fun begins... (fresh Coffee too!)
So why didn't Jesus experience earthly human marriage? For the same reason he didn't go to the Movies or race Nascar (or Formula 1 - if you must.) Or play Pokemon:Because better was coming. (He did create Universes after-all.)
Jesus certainly wasn't lacking in relationships, or love, or emotional moments. Sex is really just THAT with a rather pleasant sensation. Kids, I'll explain it when you are older and just about to be married.
Did Jesus need to smoke some Weed or get drunk on historic Coors Light to be fully human and experienced? No. For the same reason I don't need to try Cocaine or think about sex with a monkey (sorry Liberals - some things are just WRONG) and simply NOT necessary or helpful.
Like all things Jesus WILL do - It'll be bigger and better than we could ever imagine. He knew He was gonna die for our sins and have an eternal Kingdom. Only an idiot would get married and accountably held down before hand... that would be small potatoes.
Theologically it's the opposite:
Jesus must NOT have gotten married while on Earth as 100% man. NO woman was perfect enough -------- YET!
I am amazed these days by the profusion of sources putting forth as fact or overwhelming likelihood that Jesus must have been married. A much-read Salon article at http://www.salon.com/2015/02/27/9_thi... said, with embedded references,
"When an ancient papyrus scrap was found in 2014 referring to the wife of Jesus, some Catholics and Evangelicals were scandalized. But unlike the Catholic Church, Jews have no tradition of celibacy among religious leaders. Jesus and his disciples would have been practicing Jews, and all great rabbis we know of were married. A rabbi being celibate would have been so unusual that some modern writers have argued Jesus must have been gay. But a number of ancient texts, including the canonical New Testament, point to a special relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus. The Gospel of Phillip says, '[Jesus] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth.'"
To me, apart from anything I might attribute to the Holy Spirit, I feel I get a sense of Jesus as a man when I read his writings and gospel story, and I don't see an opening for a concealed marriage in there. Bearing in mind that there are non-canonical gospels that have him doing all manner of unlikely things, I don't take the whole marriage thing very seriously. But clearly some people do so, and some are even, in effect, being paid to do so by academic institutions.
I'm interested in how many different variations on the marriage theme you have seen and what sort of responses you have made - or would like to make.
Are there some valid philosophical points about epistemic procedure we could make here to help people who are trying to find reality in relation to academic study of the gospels?