[Note – Premier Christianity magazine asked me if I wanted to share my opinion on a recent article called “Could Jesus Have been Married?” So I responded, and the text is below. Happy reading.]
~~~~~
Could Jesus have been married? Lee Wilson thinks so.
In his article for Premier Christianity, Wilson points out that the gospels don’t mention whether the disciples were married except that Peter had a mother-in-law, so he believes they may have neglected to mention Jesus’ marriage too.
Secondly, he quotes the rabbinic saying that “A man may not neglect the mitzvah [commandment] to be fruitful and multiply unless he already has children” and asserts that universally Jewish men married. Otherwise, Jesus’ religious opponents would have certainly accused him of sin.
Finally, Wilson decides that Mary of Bethany must have been Jesus’ wife, because John 12:7 says she was saving oil to anoint his body for burial. Only a man’s wife would be allowed to anoint his body after burial, he asserts.
This third point is flimsiest. If Mary alone is allowed to anoint his body after burial, why isn’t she among the women who went to the tomb in any of the Gospels? The list includes Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph and perhaps Salome, but never Mary of Bethany. (The fact that several women went to the tomb also shows that anointing was not a task for the wife alone.)
Thinking more broadly about Mary, the Gospels always place her living with her siblings (Luke 10:38-42, John 11-12), never in any context that fits with being Jesus’ wife. This just isn’t reasonable.
A requirement to marry?
Looking at Wilson’s second point, was Jesus required to marry to fulfill Jewish law? It was indeed very common to marry around age 20. Yet some rabbinic teachers were known for putting off this duty for years because they were so occupied with learning. It took years of intense study for a disciple to live and learn from a rabbi 24-7 before he became a competent teacher on his own. This is not unlike graduate school students today who put off life for the sake of their studies.
One famous rabbi who did this was Rabban Gamaliel, the grandson of Paul’s teacher, Gamaliel. He was well known for not marrying until he had a group of disciples of his own, which would have been his late 30s or 40s. His focus on study was what filled his life until very late.
Another person of note was Shimon ben Azzai, who strongly emphasized the importance of the commandment to marry, so his colleagues expressed their amazement that he hadn’t done so himself. His response was, “What shall I do? I’m passionately in love with the Torah. Others can enable the world to continue to exist.” The scriptures were the love of his life, so how could a woman compete with that?
It’s true that Rabban Gamaliel did finally marry after delaying a while. Shimon ben Azzai never married, but he was martyred while young. Likely he would have married to fulfill the commandment eventually. Jesus also went to his death on the cross in his early 30s, a relatively young age. If he was another rabbi and not the Christ, his death could have occurred before he had a chance to marry. It’s simply not reasonable to assume that Jesus must have been married in his 20s by Jewish law.1
For the sake of the kingdom
There was one first-century Jewish group that was known for not marrying at all – the Essenes, the strict community that lived at Qumran. The Jewish historians Josephus and Philo both record that many Essenes swore off marriage entirely. Both Josephus and Philo saw this as evidence of great virtue, not as a sin against Jewish law:
It also deserves our admiration how much the Essenes exceed all other men that addict themselves to virtue, and this in righteousness…There are about four thousand men that live in this way, and neither marry wives, nor are desirous to keep servants…but they live by themselves and minister one to another. (Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.5)
The Essenes did this because they were preparing themselves for the imminent coming of God’s kingdom, which they envisioned as a great war between the just and the unjust. Jesus radically disagreed with their eschatology, yet he too was utterly devoted to establishing God’s kingdom on earth, which he also saw as imminent.
That’s what makes me disagree that the gospels are silent on Jesus’ marriage state. After a discussion about marriage and divorce, Jesus’ disciples worry that: “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” (Matthew 19:10) Notice Jesus’ response:
Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it. (v11-12)
I think Jesus is speaking about himself and his singleness right here. His kingdom mission had engrossed every moment of his time, effort and attention, and he had chosen to live like a eunuch for its sake. Not many could accept this difficult calling, but some like Paul would passionately commit themselves and follow after Christ in just the same way.
~~~~~
1 I am indebted to David Bivin’s excellent book New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus: Insights from his Jewish Context which has a chapter on this topic called “Why Didn’t Jesus Get Married?” See pages 67-69.
The book is available in the bookstore.
Donald Johnson says
I agree with you that Yeshua was not married. Instone-Brewer points out that this would be scandalous, but not unheard of in his scandals book.
You did not mention the wedding supper of the Lamb. So he will “marry” in the future.
Bobby J. Poe says
To expand on Yahshua not being married, He is married because the Jewish marriage is in two parts, the engagement (you are married but not have sexual relations until the second part of the wedding) and then when the Father said the house or addition was ready. Then the actually marriage where it is consummated. As in Joseph case, he was engaged to Mary and was going to give her a get but God revealed in a dream it was ok to stay with her.
Lawrence E Miles says
As RVL has pointed out, all of the disciples were under the age of 21 save Peter, who paid the temple tax for himself and Jesus with the coin obtained from the fish he caught at Jesus’s direction. Too, a rabbinic saying is not binding in most circumstances, only Torah.
Janet from FL says
I am glad to see you address this question. Now when the topic comes up (and it has in several situations I have been in), I have something Scriptural to say. I can’t imagine Jesus Christ marrying! Who in the world would he marry? It was hard enough on his Mother Mary. But also note at his death on the cross, he gives Mary to Apostle John as Mother and son. Jesus did not give any wife to anyone. Nor does the Bible mention a brother of Jesus taking Jesus’ wife after Jesus died.
Lois Tverberg says
I agree – it’s hard to imagine Jesus’ wife not being at the cross and him making arrangements for her as he did his mother. That says a lot.
s says
I think Paul got the idea to stay single from Jesus. He’s not married. We are his bride and he is the bridegroom 🙂
Lisa says
I find it interesting that he thinks Jesus must have been married because of Jewish law. Paul never married. And he called himself a Hebrew of Hebrews.
sig says
Excellent point here.
Matthew says
Though oddly enough Paul (anticipating Jesus’ imminent return and the arrival of the kingdom) recommending celibacy, never invokes Jesus as an example to follow- but rather himself. It’s possible Jesus, expecting the end to happen soon (this is what he means with “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”) also chose celibacy like the Essenes, but if people took it for granted that he was or at one point had been married (perhaps he was a widower by the time of his ministry) there’s no reason to think mention of this would have made it into the gospels. I’m open to all possibilities, but I am also wary not read to about the life of a Jewish rabbi through the “perpetual virginity “-idealizing eyes of the Church that developed later and became orthodoxy.
Edward Vasicek says
Well done, valid argument against Jesus being married. Plus, Jesus knowing that He was going to die for our sins at an early age, one would wonder how responsible it would have been for Him to marry.
In addition, Jesus was conceived miraculously so that He would not inherit a sin nature. If He married and had children, that would have been a genetic mess.
Georgia says
God also told Jeremiah that he was not to marry because of the future harm that would come to wife and children when the Babylonians attacked.
Kay says
How can a person sin against Jewish law? Sin is the transgression of Torah, not Jewish law.
Lois Tverberg says
Kay, even Jesus assumed that Jewish interpretation of the Torah was effectively the law that God would hold people to. He says, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do.” (Matt 23:1) To “sit on Moses’ seat” is to give the authoritative interpretation of the Torah.
Donald Johnson says
But Jesus himself disagreed with the interpretations of the scribes and Pharisees at times, saying that they negated Torah and were to be ignored. And this happens multiple times in the gospels, so it is not reliant on just one verse.
Lois Tverberg says
Certainly he disagreed with them. But where does he say they should be ignored?
Donald Johnson says
Mar 7:11 But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)—
Mar 7:12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,
Mar 7:13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
Mat 15:4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’
Mat 15:5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,”
Mat 15:6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.
Making void the word of God (Scripture) (AKA negating Scripture) is something no one should do. If some tradition/interpretation does this, it should be ignored.
Donald Johnson says
There is a continuing theme in the gospels where the opponents of Yeshua claim he is breaking Torah/Tanakh/Oral Torah but he explains how he does not break Torah/Tanakh, but might break the Pharisees’ interpretations found in Oral Torah when it conflicts with Torah/Tanakh.
Lois Tverberg says
Donald – That’s a very good point. We read this passage about “corban” as a wholesale rejection of Jewish interpretation of the Torah. But do you know what? The debate over “corban” is recorded in the Mishnah, and both the disciples of Hillel and the disciples of Shammai actually agree with Jesus. They even cite the commandment about “Honor your father and Mother” when they say that vows of “Corban” can never be made against one’s parents. So the Mishnah encodes Jesus’ opinion as law.
I actually wrote an article about this at this link.
Obviously there must have been some teacher or small group with an obnoxious perspective about “corban” and Jesus scolded them for this. It’s too bad that we expanded this one argument into representing Judaism as a whole and hold it forever against them.
Donald Johnson says
I am not trying to hold this against Judaism, but let me clarify. In my understanding, Yeshua had many debates with various groups about how to interpret Tanakh. I think Yeshua interpreted Tanakh correctly in each and every case, contra his opponents, which in many cases were Pharisees. For example, in Matthew 19 on divorce, Yeshua corrects seven misinterpretations of Tanakh made by Pharisees and one can find details about what they believed in the Mishnah. David Instone-Brewer covers this in his masterwork. So the idea that believers should defer to Orthodox Jewish interpretation of Tanakh because of Mat 23:2-3 is simply not true as Yeshua himself corrected them many times. My point is only that yes, we should see what they say, but they can be wrong in their interpretation, per Yeshua (and Paul, etc.)
Lois Tverberg says
Yes, Donald. I totally see your point and agree. I wasn’t intending to say that Christians should assume rabbinic opinion on the Torah is authoritative, especially when Jesus disagrees. But most Christians (like the original post here) assume that Jesus rejected it as a whole instead of engaging in debating fine points with other teachers.
Sid Ramon says
He would have to marry a born-again person so as not to be unequally yoked, but too late because He resurrected and is already bethrothed to be married. He will have be more than content with His spiritual Bride, the Church.
hood almighty says
There are a few inaccuracies here in what you say. for example, you call Rabban Gamaliel a rabbi. this is not correct because Rabban is a title that is higher elevated than Rabbi as is Rabbi higher elevated than a Rav. i would also like to point out that such titles were not commonly used and any mention in the gospels is more likely retroactive honorifics that came later as Rabban Rabbi Rav didn’t gain usage until around 70CE. I would also point out that in those times it was quite common for people to be married at the age of 16 some years before they were 20 as such even with many years of study its quite possible Jesus was married sometime in his 20s per the traditional custom of being a religious teacher of that era. to who is another question perhaps mary or perhaps to somebody who is not in the direct picture or possible just intentionally left out by those in power over the centuries. after all many books that used to be accepted and used in the bible have been later removed and even the king james bible is reworked to suit him. honestly, the best policy is just to keep an open mind none of us were there, and as such nobody can know either way for sure and a pinch of salt should be used on any text of age outside living memory. your faith does not require Jesus to be married any more than it requires him not to be married and anyone trying to be the authority on such a topic really shouldn’t.
sofyanto says
A strong indication that Jesus was married is also found in the book of Revelation 19:7 “Let us rejoice and be glad, and give Him glory. For the marriage day of the Lamb has come, and His bride is ready.”
Who is meant by the lamb in this book of revelation?
It turns out that several books in the Bible reveal that the lamb in question is Jesus. You can listen to the following
1. Gospel of John 1: 29 The next day John saw Jesus coming to him and he said: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.
2. Isaiah 53:7 He was persecuted, but he allowed himself to be oppressed and did not open his mouth like a lamb led to the slaughter; like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, he did not open his mouth.
3. Gospel Luke 7:37-38 (Mary Magdalene brought an alabaster flask containing perfume) while weeping she went to stand behind Jesus at his feet, then wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair, then she kissed his feet and anointed them with oil that smells good
jesus was married
Lois Tverberg says
Yes, but this is a vision of the marriage supper that will occur in the future. If Revelation hasn’t happened, then Jesus isn’t married yet.
Craig Ertlmaier says
Rabban Gamaliel said if the Jesus movement came to nothing it was not from the Lord. They disappeared from history in the 4th century as the book Nazarene Jewish Christianity on Amazon confirms making him a false Messiah like the others mentioned in Acts chapter 5 33-39.
Lois Tverberg says
I guess if Nazarene Christians were the only followers that Jesus had this would make sense. But Paul was not a Nazarene and he was a follower of Jesus and a teacher of untold billions of later followers, including me. That would negate your conclusion, wouldn’t it?
Linda Dahlen says
I do not believe that Jesus was married to a physical person. I do believe he was married to the church, his bride was the church. So all people that believed whole heartedly in Jesus and gathered in the church to praise his name are considered descendants of Jesus. That sounds about right to me.
Any thoughts?
Lois Tverberg says
We use the text of the Gospels to understand Jesus’ life, not prophecy or poetic imagery. There is much imagery of him as being the Good Shepherd, but I wouldn’t assume that instead of learning carpentry from his father, he learned sheep herding instead.
In the same way, imagery of Christ marrying the church in Revelation isn’t how I would decide if he was married in real life. The Gospels don’t say either way. But, on the other hand, the fact that there is imagery of Christ marrying the church does suggest that Jesus in his lifetime was not married. John, the author of Revelation, would have known and found this imagery not very fitting. So you do have a point there.
JEFF SALSIEDER says
Thank you all for the interesting comments. I would like to suggest something, though. When you are speaking English and use the name Yeshua, or some version of that, instead of Jesus, to me you come across as prideful and arrogant. Most people get the fact that Jesus is a modification or Anglicized version of his actual name. But, so what? Why use it? To prove how smart you are? OooooooooH, I get it — to be accurate? authentic? English is my primary language. I am 100% of German descent. Ooops. Should I have said Deutsche, from Deutschland? If you ask me where my mother was born I would say “near Munich” instead of near Munchen. My point is this: If you are speaking German, speak German. If you are speaking English, speak English. If you wish to speak Aramaic, enjoy speaking Aramaic. just sayin…
Donald Johnson says
“The angel told Joseph to name the baby boy Jesus. But the angel was not speaking in Greek and did not use the Greek version of the name. The Hebrew/Aramaic version of the name Jesus is Yeshua, and yeshuah is a Hebrew word that means salvation. Speaking in Hebrew, the angel made a wordplay on the name of the child, “You shall call His name Yeshua, for He will save (yoshia) His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21).”
from https://ffoz.org/torahportions/commentary/jesus-jeshua-joshua-yeshua-yeh
Jesus and salvation/save in English have no obvious connection, but Yeshua and Yeshuah (salvation) or save (yoshia) do, so the wordplay is missing in English.
I think using Yeshua is another way to emphasize his Jewishness, which is too often ignored or bypassed ir even repudiated. I think realizing that Yeshua was a practicing Torah observant Jew is key to understand what he taught. My usage depends on the audience; in this forum, I think it is reasonable as Lois is also trying to return Jewish insights into the faith. I am Messianic (Gentile) and we use “Yeshua” all the time in discussions and so am used to it.