Why would anyone object to the idea that Jesus was married?

[Vort]

Arguments from silence are notoriously week. The Bible does not say that Jesus was not married, so he was? Really? Because he was a rabbi?

Well, the Bible never says Jesus WAS married, so it must be that he was not--by this line of reasoning.

Actually, I hear this latter argument from silence far more often: "We know Jesus wasn't married, because the Bible never mentions that he was." Of course, if not for Peter's mother-in-law being mentioned almost as an aside, we wouldn't know that Peter was married, either.

I agree that arguments from silence are notoriously weak, to the point of uselessness. But that works in both directions.

[jerome1232]

All this seems awfully thin gruel for saying Jesus had to be married because he was a rabbi.

I am simply saying it's possible, when you add in the LDS perspective that marriage is required for exaltation it gets a little extra weight. I can see it both ways, and frankly I don't think either way truly matters.

It is fun to speculate sometimes however.

[prisonchaplain]

For traditional Trinitarian Christians it is beyond difficult to imagine that Jesus was married. As others have pointed out, our belief in creation out of nothing, our lack of belief in a human pre-mortal existence, and our understanding that the Godhead is eternally distinct from creation--these all combine to make the idea of Jesus' marriage seem strange.

It is much easier to imagine from LDS doctrine. Opinions here seem to range from possible to probable to almost necessary. Interesting indeed.

[Vort]

For traditional Trinitarian Christians it is beyond difficult to imagine that Jesus was married. As others have pointed out, our belief in creation out of nothing, our lack of belief in a human pre-mortal existence, and our understanding that the Godhead is eternally distinct from creation--these all combine to make the idea of Jesus' marriage seem strange.

It is much easier to imagine from LDS doctrine. Opinions here seem to range from possible to probable to almost necessary. Interesting indeed.

I sort of understand -- not completely, but sort of -- the antipathy that non-LDS Christians might hold toward the idea. But in this thread, I was interested to find out why Latter-day Saints would object to the idea. I understand that many (perhaps most) don't believe that Jesus was married, but I do not understand why many of them find the idea objectionable. I would think that any believing Latter-day Saint would find the idea perfectly natural, whether or not s/he believed it to be true.

[prisonchaplain]

Vort, you only got one LDS poster to respond, and the views that one expressed seemed to be out of the mainstream. Bini did say the idea was "wierd" on some level, but that she could accept it. When you do a google or yahoo search, those opposing Christ's marriage seem set mainly on opposing LDS arguments in favor...so I think you sense of it is spot on.

[Maureen]

...I find it very likely that Jesus was a rabbi with authority, this leads us to the fact that usually (almost required that) rabbi's were married, and it would have been highly unusual for Jesus to be a rabbi and single, and it would have likely been noted somewhere if he were single and an explanation given....

As volgadon mentioned in Post #70, marriage was not a requirement for being a rabbi.

Not true.

Rabbi was a honorific like mister, or sir, not a religious position, until several generations after Jesus' crucifixion. There was also no requirement to be married. Ben Azzai, one of the most beloved preachers and sages of early Judaism, chose to remain unmarried, because it would distract him from his studies. Nearer to Jesus' time, there were also the Essenes. The more one looks into it, the harder it is to support the assertion that Jesus HAD to be married. From the POV of his time and culture, that is.

M.

[Maureen]

....But in this thread, I was interested to find out why Latter-day Saints would object to the idea. I understand that many (perhaps most) don't believe that Jesus was married, but I do not understand why many of them find the idea objectionable. I would think that any believing Latter-day Saint would find the idea perfectly natural, whether or not s/he believed it to be true.

From reading this thread, it seems that most of the LDS that have posted tend to be fine with Jesus being married. Whoever these LDS are that find it objectionable don't seem to be on this forum.

M.

[volgadon]

There is anecdotal evidence that leads one to believe Jesus may have been married. Jesus was called Rabbi by more than just his disciples (him having a following in and of itself is somewhat evidential of his status as a rabbi), the Pharisees called him that, Sadducee's called him that, teachers of the law called him that, commoners called him that, he referred to himself as that.

There was no office of rabbi in Jesus' day. I challenge you to take a work like Sayings of the Fathers and find where any of the sages before the destruction of the temple were called rabbi. Ethics of the Fathers: Chapter One - Translated Text Rabbi was like saying Mr., or sir.

I find it very likely that Jesus was a rabbi with authority, this leads us to the fact that usually (almost required that) rabbi's were married, and it would have been highly unusual for Jesus to be a rabbi and single, and it would have likely been noted somewhere if he were single and an explanation given.

See above. There was also no requirement in the days of Yochanan b. Zakkai that rabbis be married.

Obviously none of the above is bullet proof, and may even be somewhat flawed, as it is based on what I have read and gathered from discussions of the Jewish culture at the time and whether or not Jesus was a rabbi. I am in no way an expert on this stuff

More than somewhat flawed, it has little to stand on in the primary sources.

I also faintly recall reading about Jesus speaking to the pharisees and essentially condemning them for seeking his death when he had taught side by side with them. Sometime near to His crucifixion I believe.

You mean, when he said he was teaching publically and none laid a hand on him, but went about arresting him secretly.

[anan]

No, it doesn't exist. The only thing we have is latter-day revelation that states marriage is required in order to attain the highest exaltation in the celestial kingdom. Therefore, Jesus must be married.

Modern revelation is one thing, and making up doctrine is something else. My point from a different angle could be, "If Jesus was married while here on earth where can we reference it from?" If the answer is "no where" then I believe the answer is Jesus was not married. I could also say Jesus rode around the country side on a 56 panhead, because that's not mentioned in the bible either.

Could our Lord be married after his Resurrection?--Maybe. I dont' see why not. But the question of was he married while on earth leads into other compromising situations that might be even more uncomfortable such as was he a polygamists, why didn't he ever mention his wife/ wives, and did he also practice polyandry?

I personally don't think that Jesus wasn't married because that wasn't his mission here on Earth. Jesus is perfect, he is our Savior, and he is the only reason why anyone can inherit the kingdom. I also tend to believe somehow it would be yet another charge (I'm not implying I would know how) added to him during his trial.

To add the OP's question

Why would any Latter-day Saint object to the idea that Jesus was married?

I can think of another category which is,

3. It isn't validated yet by somone with the proper priesthood authority.

so let us leave it at that....

[jerome1232]

I will read your link when I have time during the week.

There was no office of rabbi in Jesus' day. Rabbi was like saying Mr., or sir.

See above. There was also no requirement in the days of Yochanan b. Zakkai that rabbis be married.

Which is it? You can't have a pre-req if there's is not a title/office. If your first point is true then your second point is either irrelevant and about another time period, or it is directly contradicting your first point. Note I did not say it was required, just common, much like it's not required for the president of the USA to be married or theist but every single one has.

Again, my understanding is "rabbi" is "one who is authorized to teach" much like a professor, or minister is authorized to teach/preach. I have a very, very difficult time believing that Jewish culture did not have appointed teachers at any point in time. A very difficult time even giving that concept a chance.

[Bensalem]

Modern revelation is one thing, and making up doctrine is something else. My point from a different angle could be, "If Jesus was married while here on earth where can we reference it from?" If the answer is "no where" then I believe the answer is Jesus was not married. I could also say Jesus rode around the country side on a 56 panhead, because that's not mentioned in the bible either.

Could our Lord be married after his Resurrection?--Maybe. I dont' see why not. But the question of was he married while on earth leads into other compromising situations that might be even more uncomfortable such as was he a polygamists, why didn't he ever mention his wife/ wives, and did he also practice polyandry?

I personally don't think that Jesus wasn't married because that wasn't his mission here on Earth. Jesus is perfect, he is our Savior, and he is the only reason why anyone can inherit the kingdom. I also tend to believe somehow it would be yet another charge (I'm not implying I would know how) added to him during his trial.

To add the OP's question I can think of another category which is,

3. It isn't validated yet by somone with the proper priesthood authority.

so let us leave it at that....

I was only providing you the LDS justification for the idea that Jesus must be married. Many of the points you made, I have made also in the course of this discussion.

Likewise, LDS thought is that marriage does not occur after the resurrection because of the parable of the childless woman and the seven brothers (Matthew 22:28-32), (Mark 12:23-27), and (Luke 20:33-39). I do not agree with this restriction, but the general authorities of the church do.

I'm just providing the information, not arguing the position.

[beefche]

I was only providing you the LDS justification for the idea that Jesus must be married. Many of the points you made, I have made also in the course of this discussion.

Likewise, LDS thought is that marriage does not occur after the resurrection because of the parable of the childless woman and the seven brothers (Matthew 22:28-32), (Mark 12:23-27), and (Luke 20:33-39). I do not agree with this restriction, but the general authorities of the church do.

I'm just providing the information, not arguing the position.

Could you provide a source for where the GAs have taught that marriage doesn't happen after resurrection?

[Maureen]

...I personally don't think that Jesus wasn't married because that wasn't his mission here on Earth....

Your statement is confusing, because your two negatives seems to say you think he was married, but the last part of your sentence makes it confusing. Are you saying you don't think Jesus was married because that wasn't his mission?

M.

[Vort]

My point from a different angle could be, "If Jesus was married while here on earth where can we reference it from?" If the answer is "no where" then I believe the answer is Jesus was not married.

Did Jesus urinate? It never actually makes that point explicitly in the Bible, so by your reasoning, ought we to conclude that Jesus never urinated?

Did Jesus ever visit with his aunts and uncles? Shall we assume not, since the Bible never says he did?

Did Jesus ever engage in long philosophical discussions with his mother? Well, the Bible mentions to such discussions, so can we then conclude that he probably did not?

Arguments from silence are notoriously weak, as already mentioned. Saying "Jesus must not have been married because it's never mentioned in the Bible" is an argument from silence.

To add the OP's question I can think of another category which is,

3. It isn't validated yet by somone with the proper priesthood authority.

so let us leave it at that....

You seem to misunderstand the question. I did not ask, "How come all Latter-day Saints don't believe that Jesus was married?" Rather, the question is, "Why do Latter-day Saints have a problem with the idea that Jesus was married?" I can understand the answer to the former question: As you say, lacking revelation on the specific point, there is no explicit reason to believe it. But the latter question is much different, and I don't understand why a Latter-day Saint would object to or be threatened by the idea, whether or not s/he believed it.

[volgadon]

Which is it? You can't have a pre-req if there's is not a title/office. If your first point is true then your second point is either irrelevant and about another time period, or it is directly contradicting your first point. Note I did not say it was required, just common, much like it's not required for the president of the USA to be married or theist but every single one has.

Sigh. How much have you read on early Judaism? R. Yohanan b. Zakkai was a central figure, restructuring it after the destruction of the temple. I am saying that even when a distinct class of "rabbi" began to appear, there was no marriage requirement, let alone, then, in the earlier period of Jesus's day.

Again, my understanding is "rabbi" is "one who is authorized to teach" much like a professor, or minister is authorized to teach/preach. I have a very, very difficult time believing that Jewish culture did not have appointed teachers at any point in time. A very difficult time even giving that concept a chance.

Rabbis weren't primarily those "authorised to teach." Rabbis weren't primarily public teachers or preachers. They were experts in halakha (Jewish law) and purity matters. Each community appointed people to teach it and preach to it. There was no authorization required beyond that, and even then, people could come in and teach. Some rabbis were appointed a community's teacher and preacher, but the community had no qualms about kicking them out in case their teaching didn't meet the community's outlook and needs, or even if they were intolerably boring. Popularity was a big factor.

[happy_boy777]

Whether he was or, not I cannot say however, we do know our heavenly father is married but, we know nothing about her besides reason itself allows for the thought like it says in O Holy Father. My personal feelings on this is if Christ was married on this earth in his lifetime he would not let the world know so, he could keep her name sacred by protecting it from any kind of slander.

[Bensalem]

Could you provide a source for where the GAs have taught that marriage doesn't happen after resurrection?

It actually came from 'Seminarysnoozer'. I'll try to track it down.

[mordorbund]

Could you provide a source for where the GAs have taught that marriage doesn't happen after resurrection?

It actually came from 'Seminarysnoozer'. I'll try to track it down.

I'll take credit for it (sorry SS if you posted it before me). Elder Talmage in Jesus the Christ uses the example of the Sadducees challenging the Savior to teach this principle:

In the resurrection there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time, under the authority of the Holy Priesthood, which holds the power to seal in marriage for both time and eternity.

[mordorbund]

AND

What is the difference between promising a wife and promising exaltation, knowing that a wife is required for exaltation?

One is an engagement, or marriage proposal, while the other is ratifying ordinances that have previously occurred.

Jesus must have known that marriage was required. So whether he prays for a wife or prays to confirm his exaltation, when the promise is given, it all comes to the same thing...he shall be married (he shall have a wife), his exaltation is assured.

You are clearly privvy to far more information than what I have. I don't recall Jesus praying for his wife or for exaltation (John 17 has Him praying for His pre-mortal glory, but He was single then so it doesn't support what you're saying). And once again, there's a considerable difference between being assured an ordinance will occur, versus an ordinance is approved.

The Holy Spirit of Promise (aka, the Holy Ghost) is not limited to affirmation of covenants; the promise can be manifested in any "contract, bond, obligation, oath, vow, performance, connection, association, or expectation." (Bruce R. McConkie)

So the expectation (prayer) may have been confirmed before the covenant was made. Btw, a covenant is only a promise connected to a future blessing. So there is nothing wrong in my sequence of events: Prayer leads to confirmation, covenants (promises) are made and blessings are offered, and the fulfillment comes from God in honor of his promised blessing.

I refer the curious reader to Pam's link with Elder McConkie's quote. I think it's pretty clear that he was speaking of expectations connected to ordinances. Even the non-marriage sealing example he gave was about the Holy Spirit of promise ratifying a baptism.

Jesus had a direct line to the Father; priesthood-to-priesthood. There was no Melchizedek priesthood on earth at that time except Jesus (and later the apostles). So the Jewish priesthood could not have officiated Jesus' celestial marriage as required by D&C today in the latter-day Temples.

You assume Jesus received the unrecorded ordinance of priesthood ordination, but not marriage? How inconsistent of you. Jesus did not need the "Jewish priesthood" to officiate over His marriage. Elijah gave the promised sealing keys to Peter, James, and John on the mount of transfiguration. Any of those 3 could have officiated at the sealing.

Isn't Jesus turning to the Father in covenant the same as us turning to the LDS priesthood in the latter-days? The goal is the same, our wish and pray is to be sealed in heaven. The blessing is only fulfilled after (and if) we die in a state of worthiness.

The blessings are fulfilled later, but there are types in the ordinances we perform preparatory for such. My baptism is a shadow of being buried in Christ and resurrecting in Christ. The temple ordinances are similar forms of future blessings.

The sealing power we maintain in the LDS Church is the same as God and Christ. Its absent from the Jewish landscape does not limit God from officiating a marriage by his own power.

Getting back to the OP, it sounds like your primary objection to the idea that Jesus married in mortality is that you have your own pet theory instead.

[Sicily510]

BRIDEGROOM

See also Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is symbolized in the scriptures as the Bridegroom. The Church is his symbolic bride.

Ten virgins went forth to meet the Bridegroom, Matt. 25:1–13

He that has the bride is the Bridegroom, John 3:27–30

Blessed are they who are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb, Rev. 19:5–10

Be ready at the coming of the Bridegroom, D&C 33:17

Make ready for the Bridegroom, D&C 65:3

Jesus Christ Crucifixion is a proposal for all to come unto him in all things so that we may endureth all things. Once we take upon that covenant we strive to become commited to the admonition of our own sins given from the ordained administers of our church. Hence, Saints are the brides seeking to be worthy to stand in Holy places and dwell with Heavenly Father and our Savior Jesus Christ.

[Bensalem]

Could you provide a source for where the GAs have taught that marriage doesn't happen after resurrection?

I'll take credit for it (sorry SS if you posted it before me). Elder Talmage in Jesus the Christ uses the example of the Sadducees challenging the Savior to teach this principle:

That's fine; I was thinking of the following post.

LINK TO POST

Please follow Seminarysnoozer's link.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Bensalem

[Traveler]

Jesus Christ is the example of good and everything that is good or that can be classified as good.

Jesus Christ was not married ==> Therefore marriage is not good!!!

Here is another thought

Marriage is good. G-d is good. by the logic (law) of transitivity - G-d is married.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

And by Traveler's logic we can thus conclude:

Jesus Christ was not female ==> Therefore being female is not good.

Jesus Christ did not program ==> Therefore programming is not good.

Jesus Christ did not live in North America ==> Therefore living in North America is not good.

Jesus Christ did not participate in message board discussions ==> Therefore participating in message board discussions is not good.

Jesus Christ did not say he was married ==> Therefore saying Jesus Christ is married is not good.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Dravin

[Leah]

There is anecdotal evidence that leads one to believe Jesus may have been married. Jesus was called Rabbi by more than just his disciples (him having a following in and of itself is somewhat evidential of his status as a rabbi), the Pharisees called him that, Sadducee's called him that, teachers of the law called him that, commoners called him that, he referred to himself as that.

I find it very likely that Jesus was a rabbi with authority, this leads us to the fact that usually (almost required that) rabbi's were married, and it would have been highly unusual for Jesus to be a rabbi and single, and it would have likely been noted somewhere if he were single and an explanation given.

Obviously none of the above is bullet proof, and may even be somewhat flawed, as it is based on what I have read and gathered from discussions of the Jewish culture at the time and whether or not Jesus was a rabbi. I am in no way an expert on this stuff

I also faintly recall reading about Jesus speaking to the pharisees and essentially condemning them for seeking his death when he had taught side by side with them. Sometime near to His crucifixion I believe.

According to the Rambam, rabbis were NOT required to be married. It was highly encouraged, but NOT required. Therefore, it does not automatically follow that Jesus was married simply because he was referred to by some as 'rabbi'. That is not proof one way or the other of His marital status.

[NightSG]

And by Traveler's logic we can thus conclude:

Jesus Christ was not female ==> Therefore being female is not good.

Jesus Christ did not program ==> Therefore programming is not good.

Jesus Christ did not live in North America ==> Therefore living in North America is not good.

Jesus Christ did not participate in message board discussions ==> Therefore participating in message board discussions is not good.

Jesus Christ did not say he was married ==> Therefore saying Jesus Christ is married is not good.

And by extension, since He didn't have an iPhone, I now have another excuse for not liking them.