All over the Internet people are discussing the possibility that Jesus was married. The conversations were sparked by a Harvard historian who claims that a faded piece of papyrus refers to Jesus’s wife.
Viagra is for the treatment of inability to get or keep an erection and similar states when hard-on is of low quality. When you buy remedies like cialis from canada you should know about cialis online canada. It may have a lot of brands, but only one ATC Code. Erectile dysfunction, defined as the persistent impossibility to maintain a satisfactory hard-on, affects an estimated 15 to 30 millions men in the America alone. Sexual health is an substantial part of a man’s life, no question his age etc.
I don’t see why it does have to change anything, other than providing more detail about what was going on in the early church. The folks that discovered it have reiterated that the passage is *very* fragmentary, and that it’s really unclear exactly who or what is being referred to (the Church vs. an actual person, etc.). Saying this is proof that Jesus had a wife would be a big stretch. The folks that actually found this thing are not the ones making that claim.
On one hand, I’d say “yes” it matters, if only because there’s no actual reference to it in the Bible, and to us, that seems like a pretty important thing to leave out.
On the other, what would it actually change if it were true?
It would make a huge difference if he had children.
Right, but it seems to me the “if he had children” thing is just another layer down the “what if” rabbit hole.
Yes, it would matter. But no, He wasn’t.
Theologically speaking: How would his being married diminish his perfect life or negate the work he did on the cross or during the resurrection.
I agree that the best sources texts do not have Jesus married. I’m just unclear how being married would make Jesus any less perfect.
I agree I do not believe He was married – but what would the theological impact be? I think it would speak to the insufficiency of the Trinity. The Trinity is the ideal model of equal, yet wholly independent, yet all in one community and for Christ, who was without sin it would have been enough to fill the emotional needs of relationship. To indicate He married would be to me to say that His relationship with and within the Trinity was not enough to fulfill Him and that would be wrong or if true, a very serious blow to one of the core beliefs of Christianity.
Jesus had plenty of very close relationships that didn’t appear to conflict with the Gospel writers’ idea of his divinity. He was so close to Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, that “Jesus wept” at Lazarus’ tomb, even though he was about to call Lazarus out of it! I don’t see how his being married diminishes the trinity at all.
Close relationships are different than the commitment of a marriage – a marriage commitment involves in most case a union of two persons at the most personal level, becoming one flesh. It is that union that would indicate a change in the Trinity, as Christ was still completely relational with the other members of the Trinity while on earth. I understand why there is a desire to picture Christ as sexual and married because we cannot understand how anyone can be fulfilled otherwise but our desire has not root in theological truth and quite frankly that is the most disconcerting thing in all this apathy or support for the possibility it just shows how little weight we put in what is professed by Christ beyond a superficial reading of the 2 commandments.
Absolutely Jenn. It absolutely matters, theologically speaking. Not only for the very good reason you identify. But also because of 1 Cor. 7:8-9 that tells the unmarried to stay unmarried, but if they cannot control themselves to marry. If Jesus was married then that meant he couldn’t control his sexual urges and needed another human to help him control them.
According to Jewish teaching, one cannot be a Rabbi unless he was married. Nobody would take him seriously as a Rabbi if he was not. You cannot use the Bride Of Christ thing because the people would not get it. Remember that pretty much everyone thought the Messiah was an earthly one. There are lots of teachings that people in the early Constantine church did not allow into the Bible…this was shortened again with Luther. Who knows what was suppressed in the name of “religion” and control. I do not think it would change a thing if he did have a wife. Would marrying make him an imperfect savior? Not according to Jewish Tradition. Just Evangelical Christiandom.
Also, this is interesting:
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/09/the-bible-refers-to-jesus-wife-too/262545/
My husband and I were just talking about this 5 minutes ago. 🙂 I don’t think it really matters. The gospel doesn’t mention it and it changes nothing about His death & resurrection. It’s not refuting the Bible. Either He was or He wasn’t, He’s still Christ and my Savior. Interesting if it was true though.
I read an article about this and the scholar in question was very clear about how the manuscript was – at its oldest – written in about 300-400. What she was excited about was the window this gave us into the different christian communities at the time and the beliefs and practices that they shared. Yet again, this is evidence that the early church was NOT homogeneous and that the place of women as disciples and leaders has been debated and practiced from the very beginning of the movement.
I honestly don’t understand why it would matter. Newsworthy and interesting, sure. But worth getting upset over? I don’t get it. Marriage is Biblical. Really curious to understand why people dislike this idea, beyond it contradicting previous assumptions. (And I’m not even buying into it, yet, because I’ve yet to hear enough details about this scrap of text.)
This has been discussed on The History Channel. I believe that it was gnostics who were giving the opinion that not only was HE married (to Mary Magdellan), but also that HE had children by her. Without question, it would be possible – God can do anything – but it would, in my opinion, detract from HIS very God-hood. Think of how that would elevate his wife. And any possible children would be 1/2 God, 1/2 man. Throws a whole different slant on things. I do not (choose to )believe. Just because “they” “found” ancient manuscripts, doesn’t give any more credence to everything ever written. They also discuss the gospel of Judas Iscariot. Where does it end? It would be foolish to believe everything anyone has ever written. I choose to stay with The Bible, and its’ 66 books.
I think you mean on the “History” Channel.
I’m not sure where I land on the “does it matter?” question. Personally, I don’t see how having a wife diminishes Christ’s deity any more than any other “fully man” attributes: eating, crying, sleeping, feeling hurt or betrayed, being angry, peeing, etc.
One the other hand, if Jesus had a wife and she isn’t mentioned in the canon, either by him or by any of his disciples, it seems that no one considered her or the relationship very important either to the person of Jesus or to his ministry. That seems to completely contradict the nature of the “one-flesh” concept of marriage that exists in scripture. But, then again, Peter had to have had a wife in order to have a “mother in law” and there’s no mention of his wife in scripture either. Still, with the bulk of the New Testament centering on Jesus, the fact that his wife-if she existed- is never mentioned is either a deliberate omission or a testimony to how little that marriage mattered to his ministry, something I find very disheartening.
But, to be honest, it is not overly troubling to me at this point. It’s an early discovery and we’re still trying to make sense of it. I generally find, it’s not a good idea to be in a hurry to get twisted up theologically when things like this happen.
It matters more than you think. Many Christians believe that it is “biblical” to get married. Meaning, everyone should find their soul mate and experience sexual pleasure and procreate. If it was left up to the Church, they would have it that Jesus was married. It would make them feel all the better that they were living like Jesus, very family-oriented. Because people don’t understand Jesus being a celibate, they choose to gloss over it and pick up passages that says “God wants you to enjoy ‘biblical marriage’.” Truth is, Jesus challenged people to be single and to identify with those who were unfit or unable (GLBT?) to marry, in hopes that they would focus on kingdom work. Paul, too, reiterated the call of Jesus. Paul asked people, if they could, become a celibate. If it was left to him, he’d require all Christians to divorce, become a celibate, and focus in the kingdom. For these two, Jesus and Paul, marriage was, and is, for the weak.
For obvious reasons, I believe Jesus wasn’t married.
And no, if he was married, it wouldn’t change anything. If any change were to occur, it would only appease the “biblical marriage” folks.
I think this is also an important consideration and it is one that makes me wonder if all these continual hunts for His potential wife and children are just a reflection of our determination to make Christ like us rather than acknowledging that our humanity is the reflection of who Christ is and not what He did physically such as cough etc, so that we are reflective of His image fully regardless of our marriage or progency status.
I don’t understand why people aren’t relating this reference to a “wife” automatically to the church. The church has been referred to in the Bible as “His bride” so why not “His wife.” As soon as I heard about this, that was the first thing I thought about. Just not getting why no one else has even mentioned it.
Thoughts on that?
Kelly
PS – Matthew, I take time everyday to check out what you are saying. I love finding people who are soooooo in sync with what me and my husband believe. We go to a church that if you lived in Dallas, I believe you would be going to: http://springcreekchurch.org. Thanks for the thought-provoking conversations. 🙂
I’ve actually seen that same argument as well, here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/09/the-bible-refers-to-jesus-wife-too/262545/
[…] which has Jesus mentioning “my wife” is, unsurprisingly, continuing to get much attention and generate much discussion. Rather than keep updating yesterday’s post on the topic, I […]
Don Burrows provides some much-needed perspective: http://www.donmburrows.com/2012/09/cycle-of-absurdity-media-hype.html
It’s a fascinating find, but not for the reasons everyone thinks it is. To summarize: no one is claiming this proves that Jesus had a wife, just that there was not universal agreement over issues of sex, marriage, and virginity in the early Christian movement.
Also, let’s face it: nobody’s getting worked up about whether Jesus “was married.” This is about sex. Did Jesus have sex? Is that okay? And frankly, I think the answers say more about us than they do about Jesus. People who assume that sex is somehow base and dirty think that of course he didn’t. People who assume that all sane, healthy people have sex think that he must have. People like me who think the truth is somewhere in between (having sex is fine, not having sex is also fine) choose to sit this one out.
I know that it doesn’t matter to me. My thoughts on the Bible have always been that it is a great guide, but not completely historically accurate or fact. I think that it will matter to those who base their relationship with God on the book and on the religions that profess to have it’s complete translation… because if what they have been told about it isn’t completely true, then what else might not be? For me, personally, it doesn’t matter. To the majority of Christians… it will…. sadly.
yeah! and he had a (paralyzed) son: “”Son, your sins are forgiven.” (Mk 2,5)
For Jesus to have been married meant that he had no self control over his sexual passions.
???
That’s usually a reason that you don’t get married. Or at least that you don’t stay married.
Remember that movie Dogma? When it came out, my Christian school teachers were in an uproar…lecturing us about the the graphic nature of the movie and the evils of questioning the lineage of Jesus .
Anyways, from a historical perspective, I think discoveries like this are fascinating. From a faith perspective, for me, the whole debate has no bearings on my relationship to Jesus Christ; Married or not, He’s still my Savior.
Aww your whole religion crumbles when history reveals itself. 🙁
As for progressive Christianity, historical discovery adds to the beauty of the story as it continues to unfold to us today. For us, the story did not end 2000 years ago.