Was Jesus Married?

[halconero]

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

Yup.

[Ron Beron]

-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.

The ancient world, particularly the Mesopotamian and by certain extent the Israelite, gave unique perspective to that of heiro gamus or sacred marriage.  In the Gospel of Philip, a gnostic text, it states,

As long as we were children of the female only, as of a dishonorable union, we were incomplete, childish, without understanding, weak, and without form, brought forth like abortions, in short, we were children of the woman. But having been given form by the Savior, we are the children of the man (husband) and of the bride-chamber (Excerpta ex Theodoto 68). If the woman had not separated from the man, she would not die with the man. His separation became the beginning of death. Because of this Christ came to repair the separation which was from the beginning and again unite the two, and to give life to those who died as a result of the separation and unite them. But the woman is united to her husband in the bridal chamber. Indeed those who have united in the bridal chamber will no longer be separated. Thus Eve separated from Adam because it was not in the bridal chamber that she united with him (Gospel of Philip 70,9-22).

 

The need for Jesus to be married is reflected in the above.  We are not complete as spiritual children unless Jesus, our spiritual father, was united with a spiritual woman.  To further this thought Jesus claims Mary can be made "male" or a spiritual creature through as expressed in the Gospel of St. Thomas with Jesus saying he will make Mary Magdalene “male” like the men who are his disciples.

Marriage was, therefore, essential for Jesus' completeness.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Ron Beron

[pogi]

My question is this, was marriage practiced as a "saving ordinance" in the time of Christ or thereafter in the Church?  Were sealing ordinances performed in jewish temples, or at all?  Were marriages considered to be eternal in the early church?  Even if he was married in this life, wouldn't it have been null and void in the next life without a proper sealing?  If marriage was not even a saving ordinance at the time, than why is it that he "must" have been married in this life?

Edited August 22, 2013 by pogi

[pogi]

We are not complete as spiritual children unless Jesus, our spiritual father, was united with a spiritual woman.  

I've never considered Jesus to be my literal spiritual Father, rather my spiritual brother. 

Edited August 22, 2013 by pogi

[Ron Beron]

I've never considered Jesus to be my literal spiritual Father, rather my spiritual brother. 

As Mormons, no, but as Gnostics, yes, because God never ceased to be God when he became man, i.e., Jesus.

[Stone holm]

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.

Yes we can. One of His major roles was to be an exemplar in all things. It would be completely hypocritical for Him to advocate marriage as the highest and most sacred rite in the Plan of Salvation and avoid it Himself, and the one thing Christ denounced more than anything else was hypocrisy.

[oremites]

Yes we can. One of His major roles was to be an exemplar in all things. It would be completely hypocritical for Him to advocate marriage as the highest and most sacred rite in the Plan of Salvation and avoid it Himself, and the one thing Christ denounced more than anything else was hypocrisy.

 

1. If Christ, during His earthly ministry, had advocated marriage as "the highest and most sacred rite in the Plan of Salvation" then you might have a point.  But He didn't.  So why would He be a hypocrite for not doing what He didn't preach?

 

2. If Christ needed to get married during His mortal life to provide an example, why is there absolutely no mention of that marriage anywhere?  There were plenty of opportunities in modern revelation to slip in a reference to it.  If you're going to be an example, why go out of your way to hide any evidence of it?  

 

3. According to the Plan of Salvation, we can participate in "the highest and most sacred rite" after death. Marriages entered into that way are in no way inferior to marriages performed while living.  Christ is perfectly able to be an exemplar in all things by that method.  Hypocrisy avoided.

 

Christ was not born to have a "normal" life.  Marriage may or may not have fit into what He was meant to accomplish while here on earth.  

 

Though I still think the best argument that He married is this:  Christ suffered all things to understand our pain and misery.  Ergo, married.

[volgadon]

Yes we can. One of His major roles was to be an exemplar in all things. It would be completely hypocritical for Him to advocate marriage as the highest and most sacred rite in the Plan of Salvation and avoid it Himself, and the one thing Christ denounced more than anything else was hypocrisy.

 

 

While it was different in the past, are most of our missionaries married?

[thesometimesaint]

While it was different in the past, are most of our missionaries married?

 

No, but that is changing fast. I don't expect that most missionaries will be married anytime soon. Maybe when all the Missionaries are called to serve in their own countries.

[David T]

 

Though I still think the best argument that He married is this:  Christ suffered all things to understand our pain and misery.  Ergo, married.

 

Part of why I find the idea of having a too-short-lived marriage prior to the Gospels, and having most of his ministry without a spouse emotionally compelling.  Not only would he have known the joys of marriage, but also the deep pain of loss and loneliness associated with widowers and those who are not married as well.

Edited August 22, 2013 by David T

[Stone holm]

While it was different in the past, are most of our missionaries married?

 

While it might have been different in the past, how many General Authorities or Mission Presidents can you name who have not been married?

[Stone holm]

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

 

Wow, and the mainline Christians complain about us having been polygamists....lol

[Stone holm]

1. If Christ, during His earthly ministry, had advocated marriage as "the highest and most sacred rite in the Plan of Salvation" then you might have a point.  But He didn't.  So why would He be a hypocrite for not doing what He didn't preach?

 

2. If Christ needed to get married during His mortal life to provide an example, why is there absolutely no mention of that marriage anywhere?  There were plenty of opportunities in modern revelation to slip in a reference to it.  If you're going to be an example, why go out of your way to hide any evidence of it?  

 

3. According to the Plan of Salvation, we can participate in "the highest and most sacred rite" after death. Marriages entered into that way are in no way inferior to marriages performed while living.  Christ is perfectly able to be an exemplar in all things by that method.  Hypocrisy avoided.

 

Christ was not born to have a "normal" life.  Marriage may or may not have fit into what He was meant to accomplish while here on earth.  

 

Though I still think the best argument that He married is this:  Christ suffered all things to understand our pain and misery.  Ergo, married.

Love that last argument....now go see your Bishop....

[ZelphtheGreat]

While it was different in the past, are most of our missionaries married?

As many of the young missionaries (both Elders and Sisters) are married as the Deacons are the husband of one wife.

[SamIam]

If someone were to actually read the story, that theory makes no sense.

 

It might make sense if it was read with the proper understanding. Following is from a link listed at the quote.  It is one of the best treatises on this subject by Ogden Kraut.  He refers to but neglects to list some of the quotes of Brigham Young and others who testified that indeed Jesus Christ was married and that he had children.  Naturally, they would have to have been daughters.

 

 

 

Circumstantial implications at the marriage in Cana of Galilee infer that Jesus was the bridegroom at this occasion. These implications become vividly clear when the story is carefully read. First, the story as recorded in John 2:1-12:

And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there; and both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come.

 

His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.

 

When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom.

[30]And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

 

This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.

 

After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples; and they continued there not many days.

 

Observe, that Jewish marriages were arranged by the parents. From the account of this marriage at Cana, there is little doubt that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was the person responsible for making the wedding arrangements. Many writers comment upon this unusual situation without indicating or assuming any more than" . . . the incident had a personal interest for the mother of Jesus." (Abingdon Bible Commentary, p. 1069) Dr. Talmage also mentions the relationship between this marriage event and Mary's responses.

 

She manifested concern and personal responsibility in the matter of providing for the guests. Evidently her position was different from that of one present by ordinary invitation. Whether this circumstance indicates the marriage to have been that of one of her own immediate family, or some more distant relative, we are not informed. (Jesus the Christ, p. 144)

 

Again, Talmage noted a similar circumstance which revealed this interesting affiliation with Jesus.

 

"What have I to do with thee?" He asked and added: "Mine hour is not yet come." Here we find no disclaimer of the ability to do what she apparently wanted Him to do, but the plain implication that He, not she, must decide when that [31] time had come. She understood His meaning, in part at least; and contented herself by instructing the servants to do whatsoever He directed. Here again is evidence of her position of responsibility and domestic authority at the social gathering. (Jesus the Christ, p. 145)

 

Another and more widely acclaimed writer on the life of Christ gave further, suggestions about the circumstances of this marriage:

 

. . . but the presence of Mary, who must have left Nazareth on purpose to be present at the wedding, seems to show that one of the bridal pair was some member of the Holy family. Jesus, too, was invited, and His disciples and the use of the singular implies that they were invited for His sake, not He for theirs. (The Life of Christ, by Farrar, p. 123)

 

Traditional Jewish records explain that a "call" is usually made to the Bridegroom and his groomsmen when the wedding preparations are complete. Jewish traditions explain this call was made in the evening. We note, according to John, that

 

Jesus was "called" to the wedding.

 

In the Jewish marriage the guests were provided by the host with fitting robes, wine, and other amusements. At this marriage at Cana when the wine had been consumed, Mary appealed to Jesus. Why did Mary assume a responsible concern for the wine if the wedding was not for a member of her own household? Why would she appeal to Jesus if it was someone else's wedding? If Mary was hostess and Jesus was the Bridegroom, then they were fulfilling their proper obligations at this wedding!

 

Note also that Mary gave direct instructions to the servants that "whatsoever He saith unto you, do it." It is evident that Mary was not assuming authority or unwisely directing the servants if she was hostess. And why would [32] she give strict orders to the servants of the wedding to obey the jurisdiction of Jesus over them, if He were not the bridegroom? Jesus then acting as a provisionary host directed the servants to "fill the waterpots," and then continued to meet His obligation by providing the needed wine.

 

The "governor (master of ceremonies) called to the Bridegroom and saith unto him . . . Thou hast kept the good wine until now." He was undoubtedly talking to Jesus as the Bridegroom! And when the governor said to Jesus, "Thou saved the best for last," he indicates that Jesus had also provided the first wine. Jesus then had fulfilled the obligations of a Bridegroom on both of these occasions!

 

Jesus regarded Himself as a Bridegroom. (Matt. 9:14-15) And John, the most beloved disciple of Jesus, had declared that he was the "friend of the bridegroom." (John 3:29)

 

Great scholars and scriptorians, such as Orson Hyde who had memorized the Bible in three languages, acknowledged that Jesus was the Bridegroom at Cana.

 

Did the Savior of the world consider it to be his duty to fulfil all righteousness? You answer, yes. Even the simple ordinance of baptism he would not pass by, for the Lord commanded it, and therefore it was righteousness to obey what the Lord had commanded, and he would fulfil all righteousness. Upon this hypothesis I will go back to the beginning, and notice the commandment that was given to our first parents in the Garden of Eden. The Lord said unto them, "Multiply and replenish the earth. . . ."

 

...Our first parents, then, were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth; and if the Savior found it his duty to be baptized to fulfil all righteousness, a command of far less importance than that of multiplying his race, (if indeed [33] there is any difference in the commandments of Jehovah, for they are all important, and all essential,) would he not find it his duty to join in with the rest of the faithful ones in replenishing the earth? "Mr. Hyde, do you really wish to imply that the immaculate Savior begat children? It is a blasphemous assertion against the purity of the Savior's life, to say the least of it. The holy aspirations that ever ascended from him to his Father would never allow him to have any such fleshly and carnal connexions, never, no never." This is the general idea; but the Savior never thought it beneath him to obey the mandate of his Father; he never thought this stooping beneath his dignity; he never despised what God had made; for they are bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh; kindred spirits, that once basked in rays of immortality and eternal life. When he found them clothed upon and surrounded with the weaknesses of mortal flesh, would he despise them? No. It is true, I have seen men who became poor and miserable all at once, and then those who were their friends in the days of their prosperity turn from them, and scarcely deign to bestow them a look, it being too humiliating to associate with them in their poverty. But it was not so with the Savior; he associated with them in other spheres, and when they came here, descending below all things, he did not despise to associate with these same kindred spirits. "Then you really mean to hold to the doctrine that the Savior of the world was married; do you mean to be understood so? And if so, do you mean to be understood that he had more than one wife?"

 

The Christian world by their prejudices have driven us away from the Old Bible, so we must now appeal to the New Testament, for that seems to suit the prejudice of the people; though to me it is all alike, both the Old and New Testaments; for the scribe that is well instructed, brings out [34] of his treasury things both new and old. This is my treasury, or rather, it is one of my treasuries, and what I cannot find there, I trust will come down from on high, and lodge in my heart. The gift of God is also my treasury, even the Holy Spirit.

 

Now suppose I should set out myself, and travel through the cities of the nation as a celebrated reformer, preaching revelations and sentiments as lofty as the skies, and rolling out ideas strange and new, to which the multitude were entirely unaccustomed; and wherever I went, suppose I had with me three or four women—one combing my head, another washing my feet, and another shedding tears upon them, and wiping them with the hair of her head. Suppose I should lean upon them, and they upon me, would it not appear monstrous in the eyes of the world? Would they ride me into Jerusalem upon our ***'s colt, and cast branches of the palm tree beneath my feet, shouting, "Hosannah, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; hosannah in the highest?" I guess they would give me a coat of tar and feathers, and ride me on a rail; and it is my opinion they would serve the Savior the same, did he go about now as he did eighteen hundred years ago....

When does it say the Savior was married? I believe I will read it for your accommodation, or you might not believe my words were I to say that there is indeed such a scripture. We will turn ever to the account of the marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Yes, and somebody else, too. You will find it in the 2nd Chapter of John's Gospel; remember it and read it when you go home. (John's 2nd Chapter was then quoted.)

 

Gentlemen, that is as plain as the translators, or different councils over this scripture, dare allow it to go to the world, but the thing is [35] there; it is told; Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee; and he told them what to do.

Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the World, then I will acknowledge I am in error. (Orson Hyde, J.D. 2:79, 80, 82)

 

Then again, two years later, Apostle Hyde continued to advocate the marriage of Jesus in spite of any public disclaim by some modern Christians.

 

It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved, must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it.

 

I will venture to say that if Jesus Christ were now to pass through the most pious countries in Christendom with a train of women such as used to follow him, fondling about him, combing his hair, annointing him with precious ointment, washing his feet with tears, and wiping them with the hair of their heads and unmarried, or even married, he would be mobbed, tarred, and feathered, and rode not on an ***, but on a rail (Orson Hyde, J.D. 4:259)

 

In certain councils of the Church, Mormon leaders have often discussed and expressed definite views pertaining to this subject. On one occasion Joseph F. Smith expressed similar views about the Cana marriage.

[36]Joseph F. Smith . . . He spoke upon the marriage in Cana of Galilee. He thought Jesus was the Bridegroom and Mary and Martha the brides. He also referred to Luke 10th Chap., 34 42 verses. Also John 11th Chap., 2 & 5 verses, John 12:13. Joseph Smith spoke upon these passages to show that Mary and Martha manifested much closer relationship than merely a believer.... (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, July 22, 1883)

 

Certainly if anyone was married to Jesus it would have been Mary Magdalene. Her life can attest to a devotion as deep and as faithful as any loving wife to a husband. Jesus was often found in the home of Mary giving her instruction and consolation, as a devoted husband would do. Even in death Mary showed a bereavement and sorrow that only a wife would manifest. Why was she so bereaved at the tomb? Is not a widow usually the last to leave and the most often to return to a tomb? If Mary was not a wife, why was her grief so great that it required an angel to comfort her? How faithful and devoted Mary was to Jesus! She stood willingly at the cross to suffer at the death of Jesus. (John 19:25) She was with the body of Jesus when it was taken down. (Matt. 27:61; Mark 15:47; Luke 23:55) She came to anoint the body with spices. (Mark 16:1) In the early morning hours before anyone else, she was at the sepulchre. (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2)

 

There at the tomb Mary wept bitter tears "because they have taken away my Lord and I know not where they have laid him." (John 20:14) This grief could only be known to a widow whose concern was for the body of her husband. It was under such grief that she saw two angels. (Matt. 28:5)

 

And later when Mary saw Jesus and recognized Him, she cried, "Rabboni," which means "my great Master" or more often "Husband". With exulting joy at seeing Him alive, she rushed to embrace Him but He said, "HOLD me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father." (John 20:17, Ins. Version)

 

[37]Here from the Inspired Translation of the Bible, Joseph Smith changed the word "touch" to "hold". And why not? Would Mary, whose profound grief at the loss of Jesus, run to "touch" Him? Indeed, her astonishment and joy at seeing Jesus would have caused her to rush and embrace Him as she had done while He lived. But now He was immortalized and she was yet but a mortal, and He had to restrain her while He went to the Father. Mary's love appears almost unbounded in her devotion and affection for Him. But more outstanding than Mary's love for Jesus is the love that was manifest by Jesus towards Mary. It was the closeness and attention that Jesus paid to Mary before considering any others. It was to Mary, before any other disciple, that Jesus first appeared after His resurrection. Mary was the first mortal to see the resurrected Christ! (John 20:14-15) Although Peter was the chief apostle, and had been so devoted to the Lord, he was to take second place in this grand manifestation of the resurrected Savior! Mary was comforted and then given instructions to relate to the apostles and disciples. It seems as though she stood foremost among any other mortals. Why? Only the bonds of marriage could have placed Mary within a mutual devotion more intimate than those of the apostles. This touching experience is a grand manifestation of the love which could only exist within the bonds of a devoted man to his wife! For, "neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord," (I Cor. 11:11) for this was the Gospel Law.  Ogden Kraut http://www.ogdenkraut.com/Jesus%20Was%20Married.htm

[Stone holm]

It might make sense if it was read with the proper understanding. Following is from a link listed at the quote.  It is one of the best treatises on this subject by Ogden Kraut.  He refers to but neglects to list some of the quotes of Brigham Young and others who testified that indeed Jesus Christ was married and that he had children.  Naturally, they would have to have been daughters.

 

Why daughters?

[SamIam]

Why daughters?

 

Just deductive reasoning.  As Christ inherited eternal life from His Father and mortality from his mother Mary, then of necessity his male chromosomal makeup as XY meant he could only pass his mothers X chromosome to the offspring thus ensuring their mortality. Thus Mary Magdalene's X and Christ's mothers X combine for a daughter.   

[ZelphtheGreat]

Yes, and to more than one wife. Marion G. Romney stated this plainly in Priesthood meetings in the mission field. Just as he stated God came down and had sexual relations with Mary to father Jesus.

 

All very simple - to fulfill all righteousness - how could he do so without the full life experience?

[Stone holm]

Just deductive reasoning.  As Christ inherited eternal life from His Father and mortality from his mother Mary, then of necessity his male chromosomal makeup as XY meant he could only pass his mothers X chromosome to the offspring thus ensuring their mortality. Thus Mary Magdalene's X and Christ's mothers X combine for a daughter.

Yeah, that assumes that the Y chromosome had an immortal charge to it, and also that his offspring were mortal. The Brethren just said they were hid up, didn't say anything about whether they were mortal or immortal. It appears that an immortal pair can create unmortal offspring as well as we know from Adam and Eve.

[SamIam]

Yeah, that assumes that the Y chromosome had an immortal charge to it, and also that his offspring were mortal. The Brethren just said they were hid up, didn't say anything about whether they were mortal or immortal. It appears that an immortal pair can create unmortal offspring as well as we know from Adam and Eve.

 

While it is fruitless to debate this issue, you make it so fun I can hardly resist.  If it did not have "an immortal charge" to it how do you suppose that might of affected Christ's immortality?  As well if we wanted we can find plenty of references that indicate that Christ was the only being born into this world with the ability to keep his life or willingly sacrifice it.  Thus the only immortal born on this earth.  I have the quotes if you wish them but I suspect that shouldn't be necessary.

 

Further more if you wanted some other quotes concerning Adam and Eve's immortal state in the Garden of Eden I can provide those as well.  The consensus tends to be that an immortal body that is corrupted by eating gross matter will decay to at state of mortality. 

 

However, once again, if you think about it, there is a conundrum with that thought, which means that before one can become mortal one must also do something else that enables the eating of grosser forms of matter to actually have that effect.  Elsewise one would have to come up with sound reasoning that would explain why Christ could retain his immortality if he chose, though he consumed grosser forms of matter most of his earthly existence.

 

Of course this just begs more questions right?  Such fun...

Edited August 27, 2013 by SamIam

[Stone holm]

While it is fruitless to debate this issue, you make it so fun I can hardly resist.  If it did not have "an immortal charge" to it how do you suppose that might of affected Christ's immortality?  As well if we wanted we can find plenty of references that indicate that Christ was the only being born into this world with the ability to keep his life or willingly sacrifice it.  Thus the only immortal born on this earth.  I have the quotes if you wish them but I suspect that shouldn't be necessary.

 

Further more if you wanted some other quotes concerning Adam and Eve's immortal state in the Garden of Eden I can provide those as well.  The consensus tends to be that an immortal body that is corrupted by eating gross matter will decay to at state of mortality. 

 

However, once again, if you think about it, there is a conundrum with that thought, which means that before one can become mortal one must also do something else that enables the eating of grosser forms of matter to actually have that effect.  Elsewise one would have to come up with sound reasoning that would explain why Christ could retain his immortality if he chose, though he consumed grosser forms of matter most of his earthly existence.

 

Of course this just begs more questions right?  Such fun...

 

Is immortality a genotype or a phenotype?

[SamIam]

Is immortality a genotype or a phenotype?

 

Having absolutely no clue....but seeing it as a distinct physiological state of being that would not be subject to various manners of expression I am approaching it as a genotype.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, and to more than one wife. Marion G. Romney stated this plainly in Priesthood meetings in the mission field. Just as he stated God came down and had sexual relations with Mary to father Jesus.

 

All very simple - to fulfill all righteousness - how could he do so without the full life experience?

 

CFR

[DarkScythe]

CFR

He is a Troll. It is alright to feed him for our enjoyment.

[ERayR]

2. If Christ needed to get married during His mortal life to provide an example, why is there absolutely no mention of that marriage anywhere?  There were plenty of opportunities in modern revelation to slip in a reference to it.  If you're going to be an example, why go out of your way to hide any evidence of it?  

 

The Marriage feast at Cana, Maybe?