If Jesus Was Married?

[inquiringmind]

If Jesus was married, and had children, why wasn't His wife ever with Him (even at the crusifixion), why did He place His Mother in John's care, and why are His children never mentioned?

Here is a quote from Eusibeus's History of the Church.

Chapter 20. The Relatives of our Saviour.

1. Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh.

2. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them.

4. And this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor.

5. Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor.

6. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.

7. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church.

8. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus.

[LeSellers]

If Jesus was married, and had children, why wasn't His wife ever with Him (even at the crusifixion), why did He place His Mother in John's care, and why are His children never mentioned?

If His wives were Mary Magdalene and Martha, they were with Him, and notably at the Cross and the Tomb.

If He had children, I'd be much less than surprised if they were not all girls so His "name" would be lost in the genealogies of Israel.

Children were rarely mentioned in ancient history, why would His be?

If He had had children, it was possible, even likely, that they were in Galilee, not Jerusalem, with families of their own. Not everyone was in the City for Passover. He may have sent them far away so they would not be suffer a fate like His. We have, twenty centuries later, people looking for His descendants, what would it have been like back then?

All speculation, of course.

Edited to add emphasis.

Lehi

Edited July 9, 2011 by LeSellers

[David T]

I find it appealing to speculate that he had a wife prior to his public ministry who died - perhaps in childbirth. It would present him as a Man who knew firsthand the Joys and responsibilities of married life and family in mortality, but also knew deep intimate loss and sorrow as a result.

I don't pretend to extrapolate this on any historical documents or prophetic pronouncement. I actually like that Jesus has a 30-year 'private' life we don't know anything about, and would find dogmatic definitive pronouncements as to what went on then somewhat disappointing.

Edited July 9, 2011 by nackhadlow

[alter idem]

If Jesus was married, and had children, why wasn't His wife ever with Him (even at the crusifixion), why did He place His Mother in John's care, and why are His children never mentioned?

Inquiring mind, did the LDS church say Jesus was married and had children? I'm not sure why you want us to explain it, since the LDS church actually does not take a position on whether or not Jesus was married.

In our church, members, as well as church leaders, are free to ponder and pray on the scriptures and many individuals have taken a position on this subject--but you'd have to ask them; individually(acknowledging they aren't speaking for the church), because the church as a whole has no need to defend a position which they do not take.

Eusibeus' writings are only a concern to churches who have taken a position against the possibility that Jesus was married--like the Catholic church. You might want to ask Catholics how they reconcile his writings.

[inquiringmind]

Inquiring mind, did the LDS church say Jesus was married and had children? I'm not sure why you want us to explain it, since the LDS church actually does not take a position on whether or not Jesus was married.

In our church, members, as well as church leaders, are free to ponder and pray on the scriptures and many individuals have taken a position on this subject--but you'd have to ask them; individually(acknowledging they aren't speaking for the church), because the church as a whole has no need to defend a position which they do not take.

Eusibeus' writings are only a concern to churches who have taken a position against the possibility that Jesus was married--like the Catholic church. You might want to ask Catholics how they reconcile his writings.

Actually, Eusibeus's writtings would indicate that Jesus wasn't married.

Any children would be decendants of David, and it appears Jude's grandchildren were the only near kin of Jesus living in the reign of Domitian.

Regarding the position of the LDS Church, I thought marriage was essential to exaltation, and that Joseph Smith was a descendant of Jesus Christ?

As for Mary and Martha being the wives of Jesus, they're never called wives, they seem to have been women of some means, and it would have been the wife's job to care for her mother-inlaw (but Jesus trusted her to John.)

Christ's mother and brothers (and sisters) are mentioned in the Gospels (and Peter's mother-inlaw is mentioned), but His wife and children are never mentioned.

The weight of evidence seems to be that Jesus wasn't married, and (at least) had no male heirs (given the way the early Church esteemed and exaulted anyone who was remotely related to Him.)

Edited July 9, 2011 by inquiringmind

[Questing Beast]

"You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never understand it. I don't blame anyone for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I could have not believed it myself."

I have had it explained to me that Joseph Smith knew that he was a direct descendant of Jesus the Christ....

[alter idem]

Actually, Eusibeus's writtings would indicate that Jesus wasn't married.

Any children would be decendants of David, and it appears Jude's grandchildren were the only near kin of Jesus living in the reign of Domitian.

As I stated, the LDS church doesn't take a position on this, so it doesn't really matter.

Regarding the position of the LDS Church, I thought marriage was essential to exaltation,

Marriage is essential to exaltation, but you forget that in the LDS church, one doesn't have to be married in earthlife to enjoy the blessings of marriage--we have temple work so we do not HAVE to insist that Jesus was married at the time he lived on earth. As I said, the LDS church does not take a position either way. Jesus could have been married or not.

and that Joseph Smith was a descendent of Jesus Christ?

Where did you read this? This is not a position of the LDS church either. Inquiring mind, I think you should go to the source for questions on just what we believe and stop going to Anti-Mormon websites to learn what we believe--they are steering you wrong.

I know there are speculative statements from early church leaders, but that doesn't make for doctrine--something Anti-Mormon websites are very misleading in.

As for Mary and Martha being the wives of Jesus, they're never called wives, they seem to have been women of some means, and it would have been the wife's job to care for her mother-inlaw (but Jesus trusted her to John.)

I didn't say this; Lehi mentioned it and he apparently is a member who believes it, but it's not LDS doctrine. And actually in Jewish culture, I don't believe it would have been the wife's job to care for her mother-in-law, the responsibility fell to the oldest son--Jesus was the oldest son and at his death, his next youngest brother would have been the one to care for his mother. LDS believe the scriptures when they mention his brothers and sisters, so we believe he had them. Why Jesus asked John to care for his mother--there could be a number of reasons--but they'd be pure speculation, on my part.

Christ's mother and brothers (and sisters) are mentioned in the Gospels (and Peter's mother-inlaw is mentioned), but His wife and children are never mentioned.

I agree, his wife and children (if he had any) are not mentioned. As I explained, this is not a problem for LDS--we have no position on this subject. It's only a problem for individual members who choose to believe that he was married.

The weight of evidence seems to be that Jesus wasn't married, and (at least) had no male heirs (given the way the early Church esteemed and exaulted anyone who was remotely related to Him.)

No evidence is not actually evidence against, IMO. I will give you my personal opinion:

I think that it would have been highly unusual for a young jewish man NOT to be married, since to the Jews, marriage was considered an obligation. I know there are legends of his having a daughter, Sarah--but those are legends with little to support them. As a descendant of the Smith's it's a nice thought to think I am a descendant of Jesus, but really, it's all speculative and there's nothing else but legends to go on, so I don't put much stock in it and since the Church doesn't take a position for or against, I don't either. I'll reserve taking a formal position for or against if/when there's more evidence to support a position.

[alter idem]

"You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never understand it. I don't blame anyone for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I could have not believed it myself."

I have had it explained to me that Joseph Smith knew that he was a direct descendant of Jesus the Christ....

Speculation and it seems awfully odd that he would be talking in such a way about being a direct descendant of Jesus christ--there are many people who believe they are descendants Jesus Christ-- anyone descended from the Merovignian Kings of France falls in this category. As I said, there's nothing to back it up--it's all legend and speculation. No revelation or scripture to support it. Not LDS doctrine.

[LeSellers]

I didn't say [Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and Martha]; Lehi mentioned it and he apparently is a member who believes it, but it's not LDS doctrine.

Please note that every line of my message started "If", except the last paragraph that said, "All speculation, of course."

I do not "believe it"—I'm agnostic on this subject, as on many others. I'm perfectly prepared to believe it, if it turns out to be true. I'm equally prepared to reject it if it turns out to be false.

Lehi

[inquiringmind]

I think that it would have been highly unusual for a young jewish man NOT to be married, since to the Jews, marriage was considered an obligation

Jesus, His early followers, and the Essenes were all Jews, and none of them considered it an obligation.

Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. (Matt. 19:12.)

[inquiringmind]

I think that it would have been highly unusual for a young jewish man NOT to be married, since to the Jews, marriage was considered an obligation

Jesus, His early followers, and the Essenes were all Jews, and none of them considered it an obligation.

Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. (Matt. 19:12.)

[inquiringmind]

I think that it would have been highly unusual for a young jewish man NOT to be married, since to the Jews, marriage was considered an obligation

Jesus, His early followers, and the Essenes were all Jews, and none of them considered it an obligation.

Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. (Matt. 19:12.)

And actually in Jewish culture, I don't believe it would have been the wife's job to care for her mother-in-law, the responsibility fell to the oldest son--Jesus was the oldest son and at his death, his next youngest brother would have been the one to care for his mother.

At least until after the resurrection, Christ's brothers (or cousins) seem to have been unbelievers.

Assuming His wife was a believer (and this was important to Jesus), the responsibility would have fallen to her (but she doesn't seem to be with the disciples, the women who followed Christ, or His family members--either at the cross, or anywhere else in the Gospels.)

Edited July 9, 2011 by inquiringmind

[alter idem]

Please note that every line of my message started "If", except the last paragraph that said, "All speculation, of course."

I do not "believe it"—I'm agnostic on this subject, as on many others. I'm perfectly prepared to believe it, if it turns out to be true. I'm equally prepared to reject it if it turns out to be false.

Lehi

Sorry, I assumed you believed it because you brought it up in response to his question.

I don't have a problem with people believing it; Joseph F. Smith believed this theory. I just like it made clear that it is not LDS doctrine, which is something Anti-Mormon's won't tell their readers.

As far as I'm concerned, if it's a stretch for someone to think Jesus was married, it's an even bigger stretch to think he was a polygamist!

[alter idem]

Jesus, His early followers, and the Essenes were all Jews, and none of them considered it an obligation.

Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made eunuchs by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. (Matt. 19:12.)

I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that 'none of them considered it an obligation'.

I am on sure ground saying that to the Jewish people in Jesus' day, marriage was important and to be unmarried was unusual. The commandment of God to mankind that they should marry and replensish the earth given in Genesis was the basis for Jewish belief that marriage was sacred, ordained of God that without a spouse a person was incomplete.

There may have been exceptions, but they were rare.

As I've said, LDS position is that we have no position, yet, you seem to want to push us here on the board into taking a position and defending it, when we have no reason to.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you read too many Anti-Mormon websites and they've misled you on our beliefs.

[rpn]

I don't believe Christ had children --- He couldn't have done that without passing to them his immortal side, which would mean that the spirits who inhabited those bodies would not be able to fully experience their second estate (and which would mean that there would have to have been other Gods besides Heavenly Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost).

The reason care of his mother went to John is because women didn't have legal standing (and we read in the Ruth story about how the Jews assigned taking care of widows and family.

If He was married, it was to Mary Magdelene, who was there, and was the first one at the tomb.

Edited July 9, 2011 by rpn

[David T]

I don't believe Christ had children --- He couldn't have done that without passing to them his immortal side, which would mean that the spirits who inhabited those bodies would not be able to fully experience their second estate (and which would mean that there would have to have been other Gods besides Heavenly Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost).

The reason care of his mother went to John is because women didn't have legal standing (and we read in the Ruth story about how the Jews assigned taking care of widows and family.

If He was married, it was to Mary Magdelene, who was there, and was the first one at the tomb.

I don't buy the "Half Human/Half Immortal" aspect of Jesus, any more or beyond than that any of us have immortal spirits, and mortal bodies, and that makes us half human, half immortal. I believe that Jesus was fully human, and had no genetic 'advantages' over any of us.

[alter idem]

I don't believe Christ had children --- He couldn't have done that without passing to them his immortal side, which would mean that the spirits who inhabited those bodies would not be able to fully experience their second estate (and which would mean that there would have to have been other Gods besides Heavenly Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost).

What information are you basing this claim on?

[LeSellers]

As far as I'm concerned, if it's a stretch for someone to think Jesus was married, it's an even bigger stretch to think he was a polygamist!

If He was married, it should be neither stretch nor shock at all to accept that He could have been a polygynist. That was the norm among Jews of the I, and He was a Jew of the I. Actually, it was the norm among Jews of the xi~II.

s I said, I am agnostic on the matter, but I believe the evidence tilts fairly heavily toward His being the Husband of more than one woman (for which, in Hebrew, as there is no word for "wife", was the equivalent of "wife"—it's the same in many languages even today; nor is there a word for "husband, it being understood that a "man" would be a "husband").

Lehi

[alter idem]

If He was married, it should be neither stretch nor shock at all to accept that He could have been a polygynist. That was the norm among Jews of the I, and He was a Jew of the I. Actually, it was the norm among Jews of the xi~II.

s I said, I am agnostic on the matter, but I believe the evidence tilts fairly heavily toward His being the Husband of more than one woman (for which, in Hebrew, as there is no word for "wife", was the equivalent of "wife"—it's the same in many languages even today; nor is there a word for "husband, it being understood that a "man" would be a "husband").

Lehi

Actually, my understanding is that though polygamy was allowed among Jews, it was not the norm, mostly confined to the aristocracy, such as Herod during Jesus' time.

[alter idem]

If He was married, it should be neither stretch nor shock at all to accept that He could have been a polygynist. That was the norm among Jews of the I, and He was a Jew of the I. Actually, it was the norm among Jews of the xi~II.

s I said, I am agnostic on the matter, but I believe the evidence tilts fairly heavily toward His being the Husband of more than one woman (for which, in Hebrew, as there is no word for "wife", was the equivalent of "wife"—it's the same in many languages even today; nor is there a word for "husband, it being understood that a "man" would be a "husband").

Lehi

I also have to disagree with you because of two scriptures.

1 Timothy 3:2 A Bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,...

Titus 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife...

IF Jesus had been a polygamist, then why would there be this concern over allowing only monogamists to be called as church leaders?

[stYro]

If Jesus was married, and had children, why wasn't His wife ever with Him (even at the crusifixion), why did He place His Mother in John's care, and why are His children never mentioned?

In my opinion the most likely candidate for "wife of Jesus" was Mary Magdalene. She also may have been "the disciple Jesus loved" and author of the 4th Gospel (commonly called the "Gospel of John"), as suggested in this paper (written by a Catholic scholar, oddly enough):

http://ramon_k_jusin.../magdalene.html ; see in particular the part about how the gender attributed to "the disciple Jesus loved" may have been altered in the account of who was present at the Crucifixion, and again when Peter and "the disciple Jesus loved" ran to the tomb.

I spent some time in France some years ago, and a professor of history there told me about a group called the Cathars who were exterminated by the Catholic church for their heretical beliefs, which included the belief that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had children. Mary Madgalene was supposed to have crossed the Mediterranean to France by boat with their daughter.

Edited July 10, 2011 by stYro

[volgadon]

Actually, my understanding is that though polygamy was allowed among Jews, it was not the norm, mostly confined to the aristocracy, such as Herod during Jesus' time.

Among lower classes as well. It seems that R. Akiva already had a wife at the time he married Rachel the daughter of his employer Calba Savua.

[volgadon]

I think that it would have been highly unusual for a young jewish man NOT to be married

Actually, Jewish men in the Second Temple era tended to get married at 28 and later, nor was it unusual for a man in his 40 to still be childless. Josephus was 36 when his eldest child was born.

[Storm Rider]

It is interesting to have all these questions brought to the fore. How many times do we have to state that the Church teaches “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” ???

That is what the LDS Church teaches; everything else is a far and distant second. Without Jesus nothing else that the Church teaches means anything; he is the corner stone of our religion, our beliefs, and our doctrine.

To ask an honest question is wondeful, to ask with an agenda in mind like the Pharisees will earn its own form of damnation; just as it did in ancient days. It would be much better to just fly your true colors and ask from beligerance rather than pose as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Storm Rider

[alter idem]

Actually, Jewish men in the Second Temple era tended to get married at 28 and later, nor was it unusual for a man in his 40 to still be childless. Josephus was 36 when his eldest child was born.

This seems extremely old when life expectancy was so short. Do you have a reference for this (excluding the trivia about Josephus)?