Was the Lord Fertile?

[teddyaware]

At the outset, I must say I fully realize this thread’s topic could turn out to be very controversial and contentious, to say the least, although stirring up heated debate and Ill will is not at all my intention. Rather, what I’m submitting here are two very simple questions that I’m hoping can thoughtfully considered and addressed in a dispassionate, level headed manner. Here’s are the questions:

1) If the Lord was both fully divine and fully human while he sojourned in this mortal realm, do you believe it’s possible that he carried within his holy body living seed (spermatozoa), and if he did what are your thoughts about the reasonable probability that the Father of Heaven and Earth — God the Son — had a sexual nature?

2) Are there any inferences or implications that might be drawn, or interesting speculations that might be entertained, while focusing on this apparently very rarely considered possibility that God the Son had a fully functioning reproductive system, with living seed that might very well have been able to produce human offspring?

Edited November 1, 2025 by teddyaware

[MustardSeed]

He had to be in touch with sexual nature in order to feel what we feel and resist what we resist. Also, if he was married, then I should certainly hope that he did experience a sexual desire, drive, and have children.

[bluebell]

I assume He was fully mortal as well as fully God.  I don't believe He had any children if He was married.  

[longview]

Just as Jesus would be obligated to fulfill every covenant and requirements of the Gospel and Plan of Happiness for Himself, He would have to have an earthly wife to whom He would have Eternal Sealing. Same was true for His compliance with baptism and confirmation. I checked with chat GPT (at bottom is a statement by Orson Pratt):

Quote

Short answer: the LDS Church has no official doctrine that Jesus was married or had earthly children — but some 19th-century Latter-day Saint leaders and a number of modern writers have argued he was, and outside Mormonism a few non-canonical texts (and much popular speculation) are sometimes offered as evidence. Below are the most cogent primary and scholarly references (balanced: sources saying some Mormons/others have advanced the idea, and reputable scholarly critiques).

Key, concise sources

Official / LDS-apologetic context

• Church spokesman (2006): “The belief that Christ was married has never been official Church doctrine.” — summary coverage in Deseret News. Deseret News

• FAIR (LDS apologetics) — clear summary that the Church takes no official position and that individual members may hold differing views. Good overview of LDS history on the question. FAIR

• BYU Studies / academic treatment — a careful review of the question from an LDS-related scholarly outlet (useful for history of the idea inside Mormonism). byustudies.byu.edu

19th-century Latter-day Saint leaders who wrote the idea

• Orson Pratt, The Seer (1853–1854) — Pratt explicitly speculated that Jesus may have been married (even polygamously) in mid-1800s periodicals; these primary texts are available in scanned form. This is the clearest historical source showing some early LDS leaders advanced the idea. House of Truth Ministries+1

Non-canonical / popular sources often cited for a “married Jesus”

• Gospel of Philip (Nag Hammadi) — a 3rd-century Gnostic text that calls Mary Magdalene Jesus’s “companion” (koinōnos); popular works (e.g., The Da Vinci Code) cite this as evidence, but the passage is ambiguous and widely debated by scholars. The Gospel itself is available in translations; Wikipedia provides a readable summary. Wikipedia

Scholarly critiques / mainstream scholarship

• Bart Ehrman (blog and essays) — strong skeptical, scholarly critique of claims that the Gnostic or later Syriac fragments prove Jesus was married or had children; useful for separating sensational claims from what the texts actually say. (Ehrman also addresses the 2014/2015 media claims about a “Jesus wife” fragment.) The Bart Ehrman Blog+1

• Christian Science Monitor (coverage of 2014/2015 manuscript claims) — good mainstream press summary that presents the sensational claim (a late manuscript interpreted as implying Jesus had a wife and children) alongside scholarly pushback. Christian Science Monitor

Citation: Orson Pratt, “Celestial Marriage,” The Seer 1:10 (Oct 1853): 159. bhroberts.org+2contentdm.lib.byu.edu+2
Excerpt:

“Next let us enquire whether there are any intimations in Scripture concerning the wives of Jesus. … We have already … spoken of the endless increase of Christ’s government. Now, we have no reason to suppose that this increase would continue, unless through the laws of generation, whereby Jesus, like His Father, should become the Father of spirits; and, in order to become the Father of spirits, or, as Isaiah says, ‘The Everlasting Father,’ it is necessary that He should have one or more wives by whom He could multiply His seed, not for any limited period of time, but forever and ever: thus He truly would be a Father everlasting, according to the name which was to be given Him. …

“The Evangelists do not particularly speak of the marriage of Jesus; but this is not to be wondered at, for St. John says: ‘There are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.’ (John 21:25.)

“One thing is certain, that there were several holy women that greatly loved Jesus — such as Mary, and Martha her sister, and Mary Magdalene; and Jesus greatly loved them, and associated with them much; and when He arose from the dead, instead of first showing Himself to His chosen witnesses, the Apostles, He appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them — namely, Mary Magdalene.

“Now, it would be very natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were his wives.” bhroberts.org+1

I have read somewhere that Jesus also had earthly children!

Edited November 1, 2025 by longview

[ZealouslyStriving]

I believe Jesus fulfilled every obligation as a husband.

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

At the outset, I must say I fully realize this thread’s topic could turn out to be very controversial and contentious, to say the least, although stirring up heated debate and Ill will is not at all my intention. Rather, what I’m submitting here are two very simple questions that I’m hoping can thoughtfully considered and addressed in a dispassionate, level headed manner. Here’s are the questions:

1) If the Lord was both fully divine and fully human while he sojourned in this mortal realm, do you believe it’s possible that he carried within his holy body living seed (spermatozoa), and if he did what are your thoughts about the reasonable probability that the Father of Heaven and Earth — God the Son — had a sexual nature?

2) Are there any inferences or implications that might be drawn, or interesting speculations that might be entertained, while focusing on this apparently very rarely considered possibility that God the Son had a fully functioning reproductive system, with living seed that might very well have been able to produce human offspring?

Being "fully human" means He possessed a complete human nature, would typically include fully functioning systems, including a reproductive system. Therefore, some Christians argue that to be truly human in all aspects (except sin), Jesus would have been fertile (i.e., not sterile). Because sterility would be considered an "imperfection" or "bodily dysfunction."

If Jesus had whole sex organs and experienced the full reality of being human would logically mean he was capable of experiencing a nocturnal emission. Most major Christian traditions (including Catholic, Orthodox, and many Protestant viewpoints) hold that a nocturnal emission (or "wet dream") is not a sin. It is generally viewed as a normal, natural, and involuntary bodily function, a way for the male body to relieve a build-up of seminal fluid in the absence of sexual activity.

[rpn]

He was mortal, on earth.   (And it is a safe bet that Mary Magdalene was his wife, as that is the only reasonable explanation for why He visited her first after His resurrection.)   We don't read of children, but that just could be because the marriage wasn't very public either, and let's face it: He travelled a lot.   

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, rpn said:

He was mortal, on earth.   (And it is a safe bet that Mary Magdalene was his wife, as that is the only reasonable explanation for why He visited her first after His resurrection.)   We don't read of children, but that just could be because the marriage wasn't very public either, and let's face it: He travelled a lot.   

From my perspective, the biggest problem with Him having children is two-fold.

First, I think it was Isaiah who taught He would have no children and second, if He did they would also inherit His divine DNA. I just don’t think that being physically partly divine is in the plan for any other of God’s children. 

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Being "fully human" means He possessed a complete human nature, would typically include fully functioning systems, including a reproductive system. Therefore, some Christians argue that to be truly human in all aspects (except sin), Jesus would have been fertile (i.e., not sterile). Because sterility would be considered an "imperfection" or "bodily dysfunction."

If Jesus had whole sex organs and experienced the full reality of being human would logically mean he was capable of experiencing a nocturnal emission. Most major Christian traditions (including Catholic, Orthodox, and many Protestant viewpoints) hold that a nocturnal emission (or "wet dream") is not a sin. It is generally viewed as a normal, natural, and involuntary bodily function, a way for the male body to relieve a build-up of seminal fluid in the absence of sexual activity.

One aspect of this subject that I find particularly intriguing is if the Lord was indeed fertile while living on earth, this means that unlike every other member of the human family he experienced fertility while inhabiting a body that was able to live forever. To my mind, this increases the likelihood that the resurrected celestial bodies of both men and women may continue to be fertile and able to produce offspring while in the eternal world, and this due to the fact that the Lord’s earthly experience with being a fertile sexual being suggests the ability to produce reproductive male seed isn’t a biological function that’s strictly limited to mortal bodies. 

Edited November 1, 2025 by teddyaware

[ZealouslyStriving]

56 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, the biggest problem with Him having children is two-fold.

First, I think it was Isaiah who taught He would have no children and second, if He did they would also inherit His divine DNA. I just don’t think that being physically partly divine is in the plan for any other of God’s children. 

How do you figure? Seems to be a lot of assuming going on.

If he was already partly divine and his wife (or wives) were mortal wouldn't that make his offspring 1/4 divine? 😉

I think his offspring would inherit his mortal qualities. The reason I believe they were hidden (not talked about) is so they wouldn't be harassed and worshipped as God's on Earth by undiscerning people.

[manol]

19 hours ago, rpn said:

He was mortal, on earth.   (And it is a safe bet that Mary Magdalene was his wife, as that is the only reasonable explanation for why He visited her first after His resurrection.)   We don't read of children, but that just could be because the marriage wasn't very public either, and let's face it: He travelled a lot.   

I was friends with a fascinating man who was a history professor at the University of Tours (in Tours, France). 

He had researched the topic and believed that not only was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene, but that they had (iirc) two children, and that the royal lineages of Europe traced their geneology back to Jesus and Mary Magdalene, and through Jesus back to King David.  He said this is the basis for the concept of "the divine right of kings", since God had appointed David as king.  

Regarding the account of Jesus and Mary's conversation right after the resurrection, he told me that under Jewish law at the time, family members were responsible for the bodies of the deceased.  The two people who claimed Jesus' body were Joseph of Arimathea (after the crucifixion), and Mary Magdalene (when she thought Jesus was the gardener and asked him where Jesus' body was so that she could get it).  He said that was an indication they were both family members.  

He told me the Templars believed Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that they built Notre Dame ("Our Lady") cathedral not to honor Mary the Mother of Christ, but to honor Mary the Wife of Christ.  He said that was later changed by the Catholic Church to Mary the Mother.

There was more, but my memory has grown foggy. 

I don't know.  Maybe not, maybe so.  Personally, I find more utility in contemplating the teachings of Jesus than in contemplating whether he was married and had children. 

Edited November 2, 2025 by manol

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How do you figure? Seems to be a lot of assuming going on.

If he was already partly divine and his wife (or wives) were mortal wouldn't that make his offspring 1/4 divine? 😉

I think his offspring would inherit his mortal qualities. The reason I believe they were hidden (not talked about) is so they wouldn't be harassed and worshipped as God's on Earth by undiscerning people.

As long as we are into pure speculation….

There might be something biologically incompatible between divine and mortal DNA that might require God’s intervention to combine where they wouldn’t under normal circumstances, so if Jesus had children, only mortal DNA would work…which might lead to incomplete and therefore nonviable combinations, so no children under that condition…or require intervention such that the DNA used was only from his mortal side…so that would be his maternal side…meaning one X chromosome from his wife and one from him (since mortal DNA is from his mother, the sex chromosome she gave to him and he passes on is X), so he would only have daughters…another reason they quickly disappeared from view.

Edited November 2, 2025 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

As long as we are into pure speculation….

There might be something biologically incompatible between divine and mortal DNA that might require God’s intervention to combine where they wouldn’t under normal circumstances, so if Jesus had children, only mortal DNA would work…which might lead to incomplete and therefore nonviable combinations, so no children under that condition…or require intervention such that the DNA used was only from his mortal side…so that would be his maternal side…meaning one X chromosome from his wife and one from him (since mortal DNA is from his mother, the sex chromosome she gave to him and he passes on is X), so he would only have daughters…another reason they quickly disappeared from view.

Well, the traditional story is that Mary gave birth to a daughter.

Edited November 2, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[The Nehor]

Well, he spent a lot of time with 12 guys and one of them talked about how much Jesus loved him so…….

*duck, cover, and run*

[3DOP]

I cannot think of any Christian community that teaches that the Lord had such a human defect. 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

Just now, 3DOP said:

I cannot think of any Christian community that teaches that the Lord had such a human defect. 

 

To which "defect" are you referring?

[3DOP]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

To which "defect" are you referring?

Infertility. 

 

 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

9 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Infertility. 

 

 

 

Is there any Christian community that teaches the possibility of His fertility?

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Is there any Christian community that teaches the possibility of His fertility?

Did you mean to ask about the possibility of His infertility? 

The presumption is that He was fully healthy, with all of His human parts working. As I said above, I have never heard of anyone denying the Lord's reproductive capacity, but maybe some Christians do. Catholic and Orthodox Christians adhere to the First Seven Ecumenical councils. The Council of Chalcedon spoke definitively about Christ's human nature in 451 A.D. in response to a movement to try to diminish the humanity of Christ. 

"...we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin;"

If there was a question about Christ being sterile, Catholics and Orthodox, would need to modify the definitive statement above to read "...like us in all respects except for sin and a faulty reproductive system." The whole point is that Christ is 100% human, except he is sinless. But for those who agree with Chalcedon, it says "perfect in humanity". The Lord Jesus had everything humans ordinarily have. He had all the parts and they were healthy parts. Perfectly human.

The next century would see further attacks on Christ's human perfection, saying that He lacked a human will. That idea needed a council to settle the matter too. Admittedly, we do not have a Council to say specifically that Christ's sexual organs worked. But it seems to be inferred from what I have quoted. in the 6th Century, I could have seen the reasonableness of suggesting that Jesus could only have one will, and that it would be according to His divinity. But how easy it would be to obey the Father with only the same will as the Father. No. How could we imitate Him if He lacked a human will?

No. He came to teach us how to live as fully human to conform our wills with God's will, as He did. To live a life of chastity, as He did, with all of the same natural urges, temptations, illnesses, hunger, weariness, and any other difficulty that can cause us to stumble. He prayed like us too. He shows us how to to offer up our bodies, a living sacrifice, our reasonable service. (Rom 12:1 and 2) He is our perfect Captain and Brother who has experienced everything that we have experienced, except for sin. We should already love Him for all of that. And then comes Gethsemane and beyond! What a glorious and beneficent Saviour. Praise Him.

Rory

Edited November 2, 2025 by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

The idea that Jesus was somehow fully human and had no physical defects is to say He wasn’t actually human in a way we would understand.

I am not saying he had to be infertile but if every physical attribute was “perfect” then he didn’t suffer infirmity the way humans in general do and missed out.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

The presumption is that He was fully healthy, with all of His human parts working.

Could he have been injured and then healed according to your doctrine?  (Curiosity, not criticism)

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that Jesus was somehow fully human and had no physical defects is to say He wasn’t actually human in a way we would understand.

I am not saying he had to be infertile but if every physical attribute was “perfect” then he didn’t suffer infirmity the way humans in general do and missed out.

In my mind, without physical defects just means 'normal'.  As in a normally healthy and developing human, like most how most babies are born.  Still lots of room for infirmities in that though, as we've all experienced.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that Jesus was somehow fully human and had no physical defects is to say He wasn’t actually human in a way we would understand.

While a good point, I see the same thing as applying to his experience being able to relate to women. If he wasn’t experiencing hormonal changes, etc, physical weakness in strength to relation to men (knowledge of being able to be physically dominated by the majority of half of the human species), being physically vulnerable during pregnancy, etc…all those things unique to females even if not experienced by all females, does this mean he didn’t suffer in a meaningful way for half of the human species? 

Since the inability to be a male and experience many things that a female experiences in such a intrusive way that it affects general social roles is a fact, then he didn’t suffer ‘femaleness’ in the way females do…but since we (speaking for those who do) believe he did in some relevant and significant fashion, we assume that it was managed somehow.

So why couldn’t he be physically perfect and still suffer in a relevant and significant way the infirmities of humankind and thus was human in all the necessary, meaningful ways rather than miss out on the experiences that make us socially human as well as biologically?

Edited November 3, 2025 by Calm

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Could he have been injured and then healed according to your doctrine?  (Curiosity, not criticism)

Yes. Perfectly human. With all the infirmities that afflict all humans.

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

In my mind, without physical defects just means 'normal'.  As in a normally healthy and developing human, like most how most babies are born.  Still lots of room for infirmities in that though, as we've all experienced.

Yes. It doesn't mean a superhuman. A normal, healthy human with afflictions that all humans of either sex can experience. It does not mean that during life he never suffered defects. We all have the potential to lose an eye or a limb. To be able to suffer that loss is part of what it means to be perfectly human. 

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that Jesus was somehow fully human and had no physical defects is to say He wasn’t actually human in a way we would understand.

I am not saying he had to be infertile but if every physical attribute was “perfect” then he didn’t suffer infirmity the way humans in general do and missed out.

When he scraped his knee, his blood clotted like ours would. He needed antibodies, like us, to heal and ward off common illnesses.

Being perfectly like us means susceptibility to the physical, mental, and spiritual challenges that all of humans have in general. 

Nobody suffers every kind of affliction possible. That would not be perfectly human either. But He was susceptible. Humans do not have attributes that we admire in animals. Being two-legged we are given to losing our balance much more easily than the four legged animals. If Jesus had the balance of a cat while only having two legs, he would not have been perfectly human.

I hope that is helpful in trying to explain what I think Chalcedon was trying to teach when it uses the expression "perfect in humanity."