Was Jesus Married?

[Stone holm]

My guess is no. It's evident that Christ followed Mosaic law during his life and a polygamous marriage including sisters is forbidden.

 

And somebody forgot to tell David and Solomon about that, sheez you just can't rely on the rabbis to get the word out.

[halconero]

And somebody forgot to tell David and Solomon about that, sheez you just can't rely on the rabbis to get the word out.

If you're talking about Merab and Michal then there's a good indication that Merab, while betrothed to David, was actually married to Adriel. It's also argued by many rabbis that Michal did not marry David until after Merab had passed away, and then adopted Merab's kids as her own.

As for Solomon? Well...we know what God has to say about his polygamy.

Edited August 20, 2013 by halconero

[volgadon]

Jesus as a polygamist? I doubt that. Abraham's, David's, and Solomon's marital sins cannot be applied to a speculated marital status of Christ.

 

 

Jedidiah Grant supported his position from Celsus' anti-Christ polemic, interestingly enough.

[volgadon]

Would say more than possible, probably more like probable.  The normal candidates being one or more of the Marys and Martha.

 

 

The evidence doesn't rise to the level of probability.

[Robert F. Smith]

Peter visits his mother in law in the Gospels, and Paul tells us again independently that indeed Peter and the other apostles were married:, "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" (1 Corinthians 9:5, NRSV)  - interesting to note that Jesus is left out of the example - even though his brothers are not!. One would think he would be a prime example for a precedent if it were known that he was married. In fact, the omission of Jesus in this passage is very telling.

Thanks for calling this to my attention, David.

[Stone holm]

I've talked to widows and widowers But polygamy by law doesn't worry about the dead.

The Church does.

[Palerider]

Isaiah 53:8 states:

 

"He was taken from prison and from judgement: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people he was stricken."

 

The International standard version renders it:

 

"From detention and judgment he was taken away — and who can even think about his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living, he was stricken for the transgression of my people."

 

In other words, "who shall declare they are the children of Christ?"     No one.  Because he was cut off in mid-life.....

 

 

 

Isaiah 53:10 states:

 

"Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand."

 

When we accept Him as our Savior and strive to keep his commandments we become the offspring He never had during his own lifetime.

 

I find it highly unlikely that the Savior was married. I don't think he had to literally experience every aspect of life to understand our human predicament. Paul says he was "tempted in all points" not that he participated in all points.

 

Only a modern gnostic religion, because it forces upon itself the concept of marriage as a pre-requisite to salvation, would attempt to impose it upon their own Savior........

Edited August 21, 2013 by Palerider

[Storm Rider]

Only a modern gnostic religion, because it forces upon itself the concept of marriage as a pre-requisite to salvation, would attempt to impose it upon their own Savior........

 

That is a nice opinion, but has little to do with reality. The idea that Jesus may have been married was common long before The Church of Jesus Christ was restored to the earth. In addition, the idea that man was made for the woman and the woman for the man; the idea that our purpose was reproduce has also been around a long time and independently from the Church. Lastly, you are making allegations against the LDS people when humanity was responsible for crucifying their God....and you want to make us guilty of "imposing" marriage on Jesus Christ. You may want to rethink the value of anything you wrote because it holds so little. A modern gnostic religion.....you think that caliber of accusation has value? You are better than this bit of diatribe of the inane.

[Palerider]

That is a nice opinion, but has little to do with reality. The idea that Jesus may have been married was common long before The Church of Jesus Christ was restored to the earth. In addition, the idea that man was made for the woman and the woman for the man; the idea that our purpose was reproduce has also been around a long time and independently from the Church. Lastly, you are making allegations against the LDS people when humanity was responsible for crucifying their God....and you want to make us guilty of "imposing" marriage on Jesus Christ. You may want to rethink the value of anything you wrote because it holds so little. A modern gnostic religion.....you think that caliber of accusation has value? You are better than this bit of diatribe of the inane.

 

I'm well aware that generations of heretics have proposed the idea of Christ's matrimony. They are just as wrong today as they ever have been........ 

 

I think His mission was a little larger than that don't you?

 

I don't see what "humanity being responsible for crucifying their God" has to do with any of this and have made no such allegation regarding the LDS church. 

[LordUther]

If you're talking about Merab and Michal then there's a good indication that Merab, while betrothed to David, was actually married to Adriel. It's also argued by many rabbis that Michal did not marry David until after Merab had passed away, and then adopted Merab's kids as her own.

As for Solomon? Well...we know what God has to say about his polygamy.

 

Yes we do, it's in D&C 132:38

 

 

 

 38 David also received ^amany wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

Edited August 21, 2013 by LordUther

[LordUther]

Peter visits his mother in law in the Gospels, and Paul tells us again independently that indeed Peter and the other apostles were married:, "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" (1 Corinthians 9:5, NRSV)  - interesting to note that Jesus is left out of the example - even though his brothers are not!. One would think he would be a prime example for a precedent if it were known that he was married. In fact, the omission of Jesus in this passage is very telling.

 

Except that he's talking about his calling as an apostle, and wether or not others see him as an apostle. Wether or not Christ was married would have little to no impact on his argument as he was comparing himself to the other apostles.

 

 

1 Am I not an ^aapostle? am I not free? have I not ^bseen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my ^cwork in the Lord?

 2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the ^aseal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

 3 Mine ^aanswer to them that do ^bexamine me is this,

 4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?

 5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a ^awife, as well as other apostles, and as the ^bbrethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

 6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

[LordUther]

Was Jesus Christ married? The answer is in D&C 131:1-3

 

 

1 In the ^acelestial glory there are three ^bheavens or degrees;

 2 And in order to obtain the ^ahighest, a man must enter into this^border of the ^cpriesthood [meaning the ^dnew and everlasting covenant of ^emarriage];

 3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

 

 

 

Christ was obedient in all things, no-one can enter the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom without being married. If Christ didn't marry he could only be a ministering angel, this is celestial law, ergo Christ was married.

[oremites]

Christ was obedient in all things, no-one can enter the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom without being married. If Christ didn't marry he could only be a ministering angel, this is celestial law, ergo Christ was married.

 

Don't we believe that someone not married in this life can be sealed to a spouse after death and still obtain the highest degree?   

[David T]

Don't we believe that someone not married in this life can be sealed to a spouse after death and still obtain the highest degree?   

I believe the logic goes that such a thing would have to happen a) prior to their resurrection, and that b) work for the dead only became possible following Christ's visit to the Spirit World.

 

Ergo, the logic in the framework follows that the work for Jesus couldn't have been done following his death, ergo, if he was to be eternally sealed to someone, the theory goes, it must have occurred during his lifetime, with someone who was living.

 

I think there are some substantial problems with assumptions made with this model, but this is the one I've seen as the most popular Mormon dogmatic defense of the position.

Edited August 21, 2013 by David T

[Ron Beron]

Harking back to my Catholic days I remember it taught that nuns were considered "brides of Christ".

[LordUther]

Don't we believe that someone not married in this life can be sealed to a spouse after death and still obtain the highest degree?   

We do but only if they didn't have the opportunity in this life to marry. If they had that opportunity & don't then they are angels. As in Biblical Israel they were usually arranged marriages & they were married off in their teens then we can assume that by the time Jesus was 30 he had been married off. 

[David T]

We do but only if they didn't have the opportunity in this life to marry. If they had that opportunity & don't then they are angels. As in Biblical Israel they were usually arranged marriages & they were married off in their teens then we can assume that by the time Jesus was 30 he had been married off. 

 

Would there be a theological problem to suggest that as part of an essential part of his ministry, Jesus willingly chose to be an eternal Ministering Angel? 

[boulder257]

Harking back to my Catholic days I remember it taught that nuns were considered "brides of Christ".

 

Actually, the Catholic Church teaches that the Church herself is the bride of Christ.

[LordUther]

Would there be a theological problem to suggest that as part of an essential part of his ministry, Jesus willingly chose to be an eternal Ministering Angel? 

And remain a God, yes i think so. Part of his ministry was to be the perfect example in all things, I don't think he could've achieved this if not married.

[David T]

Actually, the Catholic Church teaches that the Church herself is the bride of Christ.

 

Because the New Testament also teaches that, an expansion of the Old Testament notion that Covenant Israel is the bride of Jehovah.

 

cf Ephesians 5:

 

 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

 

We repeat that symbolism as a Church, becoming 'one flesh' with Christ in covenant marriage as we partake of the symbols of the Sacrament.

 

I actually believe this is a key symbol that can be seen as present in the presentation of the Endowment, and in the Sealing Ordinance, especially if the Man is seen as Christ, and Eve is seen as The Church.

Edited August 21, 2013 by David T

[oremites]

We do but only if they didn't have the opportunity in this life to marry. If they had that opportunity & don't then they are angels. As in Biblical Israel they were usually arranged marriages & they were married off in their teens then we can assume that by the time Jesus was 30 he had been married off. 

 

I guess it depends on your definition of "opportunity".  Christ had a unique life and calling and perhaps marriage in this life wasn't part of it. I really don't think we can assume anything when it comes to what Jesus was supposed to do during his mortal life.

 

And for what it's worth, my opinion is that he was married.

[David T]

I think one can sum up with these key points:

 

- Historically, there is no evidence Jesus was married during the period covered by the Gospels. Circumstantial evidence to the negative end of the spectrum might, however, be present. But it would be admittedly circumstantial.

 

- In New Testament theology, when using Christ as the example of the ideal covenant husband, the author of the Epistle to the Ephesians does not use a human wife as his example of the ideal spouse, but rather Jesus' relationship with the Church entire.

 

- Mormon assertions that Jesus must have been married from a doctrinal perspective arise from begging the question from an interpretation of D&C 131 and D&C 132, which, while they do not of themselves specifically state that Jesus was married, are connected to an interpretive assumption that Jesus must be the pinnacle of perfection and the example in all things, therefore, he must have done everything we need to do. (the same logic early Utah saints gave for the proposition that Jesus must have been a polygamist).

 

-Based on what we know from a lot of other ways Gnostic writers appropriated the gospels accounts and stories, Gnostic application of an idea that Jesus was married likely would have stemmed from imposing a philosophical or theological construct (whatever it may have been) onto the figure of Jesus to illustrate it, rather than coming from any connection to a surviving historical record.

 

I myself personally like to believe that, historically, Jesus experienced a marriage relationship in the "lost years", but somehow it had a tragic end prior to his ministry as recording in the gospels. I acknowledge that this is based purely on what I like to think, and not on any evidence.

Edited August 21, 2013 by David T

[thesometimesaint]

The Church does.

 

Not really. LDS widows and widowers are are allowed to be remarried.

[volgadon]

As in Biblical Israel they were usually arranged marriages & they were married off in their teens then we can assume that by the time Jesus was 30 he had been married off. 

 

 

By Jesus' day the norm was for men to marry in their late 30s, actually.

[volgadon]

I think one can sum up with these key points:

 

- Historically, there is no evidence Jesus was married during the period covered by the Gospels. Circumstantial evidence to the negative end of the spectrum might, however, be present. But it would be admittedly circumstantial.

 

- In New Testament theology, when using Christ as the example of the ideal covenant husband, the author of the Epistle to the Ephesians does not use a human wife as his example of the ideal spouse, but rather Jesus' relationship with the Church entire.

 

- Mormon assertions that Jesus must have been married from a doctrinal perspective arise from begging the question from an interpretation of D&C 131 and D&C 132, which, while they do not of themselves specifically state that Jesus was married, are connected to an interpretive assumption that Jesus must be the pinnacle of perfection and the example in all things, therefore, he must have done everything we need to do. (the same logic early Utah saints gave for the proposition that Jesus must have been a polygamist).

 

-Based on what we know from a lot of other ways Gnostic writers appropriated the gospels accounts and stories, Gnostic application of an idea that Jesus was married likely would have stemmed from imposing a philosophical or theological construct (whatever it may have been) onto the figure of Jesus to illustrate it, rather than coming from any connection to a surviving historical record.

 

I myself personally like to believe that, historically, Jesus experienced a marriage relationship in the "lost years", but somehow it had a tragic end prior to his ministry as recording in the gospels. I acknowledge that this is based purely on what I like to think, and not on any evidence.

 

Very good summary.