|
Non-Mormon Support
The idea that Jesus was married is not unique
to the Latter-day saints. Some Bible scholars and historians have
also supported this view. For example, Protestant scholar William E. Phipps
wrote an entire book arguing that the Savior was married The book is entitled
WAS JESUS MARRIED? In it, he presents scriptural and historical evidence
that Christ was married. He also cites other scholars who believe or suspect
that Jesus was married.
During a radio debate on the subject in 1981,
Dr. Malachi Martin, a catholic scholar and a former member of the Vatican's
Pontifical institute, conceded that there was ultimately no real theological
objection to a married Jesus" (Baiqent, Leigh. and Lincoln, 17).
A Father's Duty
Ancient Judaism identified five principal
responsibilities of a father to his son, one of which was to arrange his
marriage (Moore 2:127; Phipps 1973:39). quote Phipps;
"The last of the five duties laid down for
a Jewish father was that of arranging a marriage for his son. . . . Around
the time when a son was physically mature his father made a betrothal agreement
with the guardian of an eligible girl. To delay this more than a decade
beyond puberty was forbidden, and there is no definite indication of violators
in any of the sects of ancient Judaism. Hill and Shamma, two famous
ancient rabbis, though differing on many
points of scriptural interpretation, were united in affirming that
no righteous man can abstain from keeping God's first command, Be fruitful
and multiply." (1973:44)
It is significant that no ancient Jewish
writer accused Jesus' earthly father, Joseph, of failing to fulfill his
five principal duties toward his son. If Joseph had tailed in meeting anyone
of those responsibilities, Jewish critics surely would have used this against
both him and his son that ancient Jewish critics were silent on this point
indicates that Joseph fulfilled each of the five obligations, including
that of arranging his Son's marriage.
Celibacy in Ancient Judaism
Some scholars contend that celibacy--the
state of being unmarried - was not viewed negatively in ancient Judaism,
In arguing for a celibate Jesus, Bible scholar Jane Schaberg writes,
"Celibacy was unusual, but not unknown or
denigrated in Judaism of the first century. witness the descriptions of
the lifestyles of the people of Qumran [Essenes] and of the Therapeutac
(a first-century B.C.E. [BC] Jewish monastic group in Egypt)." (47)
However, the evidence does not seem to sustain
this view. As noted, Phipps contends that 'there is no definite indication
of violators [of the command to marry] in any of the sects of ancient Judaism"
(1973:44). Paul Achtemeier and Lawrence Schiffman discuss the alleged celibacy
of various Jewish groups, including the Essenes at Oumran and elsewhere:
Some of sectanans of the Second Commonwealth
period, including the Essenes, practiced celibacy by separating from their
wives after fulfilling the commandment of procreation. White, according
to many scholars, members of the Dead sea sect appear to have been celibate,
they also seem to have been married, and a marriage ritual is
presented in their scrolls (in Achtemeier
1985:509)
Jewish author Trude Weiss-Rosmarin discusses
Judaism's view on celibacy and marriage in both ancient and modern times:
"To the Jew celibacy is not only unnatural
but definitely contrary to the will of God Who commanded man and woman
to be fruitful and multiply and Who created the earth "not a waste; He
formed it to be inhabited" (Isaiah 45:l8).
Marriage. therefore, is not a necessary evil
but the joyful consummation of human destiny. The Jews never doubted its
legitimacy, nor, according to the Rabbis, he who is unmarried lives "without
joy, without blessing, without goodness" (Yebamoth 62b) Apart man and woman
are incomplete for "The human being is man and his wife." (69-70)
One late first-century Jewish writer even
compared deliberate celibacy with murder, "and he does not seem to have
been alone in this attitude" (Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln 330). And, as
mentioned, one of the five primary responsibilities of the ancient Jewish
father to his son was to arrange for him to be married.
A Revealing Silence
The New Testament does not explicitly take
a position on Jesus' marital status There is no statement therein to the
effect that He was married, and there is no statement to the effect that
He was not. This silence in itself suggests that He was married In the
Palestinian Jewish culture of Christ's day, marriage was the norm, and
celibacy was viewed as unusual, if not wrong. After discussing this fact,
non-Mormon scholar Charles Davis observes the following:
"Granted the cultural background as witnessed
is highly improbable that Jesus was not married well before the beginning
of his public ministry. If he had insisted on celibacy, it would have created
a stir, a reaction which would have left some trace, so, the lack of mention
of Jesus' marriage in the Gospels is a strong argument not against but
for the hypothesis of marriage, because any practice or advocacy of voluntary
celibacy would in the Jewish context ofthe time have been so unusual as
to have attracted much attention and comment (In Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln
331)
Phipps agrees:
"According to Semitic tradition it was as
obligatory for a father to find a wife for his son as to teach him and
circumcise him. Hence, even if there were no reference in the Gospels to
Jesus' circumcision, it would be wrong to conclude that his father neglected
or rejected that duty. Just as the Koran does not mention circumcision
and takes the obligation of marriage for granted, so the Gospels do not
mention the
circumcision or marriage of most of the
men who are discussed in it. This is due to the fat that those social institutions
were practiced in a thorough-going manner in the Semitic culture. Deviations
from normative behavior are more likely to be remembered and thus lodged
in oral and written traditions, so it makes sense to assume that Jesus
and his apostles were all circumcised and married." (1973:44-45)
Non-Mormon scholars Michael Baigent, Richard
Leigh, and Henry Lincoln likewise concur:
"If Jesus was not married, this fact would
have been glaringly conspicuous. It would have drawn attention to itself
and been used to characterize and identify him It would have set him apart,
in some significant sense, from his contemporaries. If this were the case,
surely at least one of the Gospel accounts would make some mention of so
marked a deviation from custom? If Jesus
were indeed as celibate as later tradition claims, it is extraordinary
that there is no reference to any such celibacy. The absence of any such
reference strongly suggests that Jesus, as far as the question of celibacy
was concerned, conformed to the conventions of his time and culture-suggests,
in short, that he was married. (331)
Jesus as a Rabbi or Teacher
There Is no doubt that Christ presented Himself
as an inspired religious teacher. As such, He would have been expected
to be married. According to an ancient Jewish text, the Mishnah, an unmarried
man "may not be a teacher (KIDDUSHIM 4,13; Phil (1973:45). Phipps has more
to say on this point:
"After a Jewish man became adept at Torah
instruction, skilled at a craft, and successfully married, he was, according
to the SAYINGS OF THE FATHERS! "fit at thirty for authority." If he desired
to instruct others the last qualification [i.e., marriage was stressed.
. . . In a recent study, shalom Ben-Chorin of Jerusalem argues that Jesus
married because an unmarried teacher was unimaginable in the culture in
which he participated. We know nothing about the wives of Hillel, Shammai
. and
many other notable men of that era and culture,
Ben-Chorin admits, but had they been unmarried, surely their opponents
would have pointed to their violation of sacred duty as a basis for criticism."
(1973:45)
The Wedding at Cana
Several early Mormon leaders suggested that
the wedding at Cana was Christ's own wedding A number of non-Mormon scholars
have studied the wedding account as it is recorded in John 2:1-12and have
reached the same conclusion. For example, Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln say,
"In the Fourth Gospel there is an episode related to a marriage that may,
in fact, have been Jesus' own" (331).
There are indeed elements in the wedding
account that suggest it was the saviors wedding For instance, scholars
have noted that Mary behaved as if she was the hostess. Also, the tact
that Mary asked Christ to replenish the wine indicates He was responsible
for the catering, which in turn suggests He was the bridegroom Furthermore,
after the "governor of the feast" tasted the replenished wine, he addressed
"the BRIDEGROOM" saying, "THOU has kept the good wine until now" (John
2:9-10). Since Jesus had just replenished the wine, the obvious and logical
implication
is that He was the one being spoken to and
hence the bridegroom. Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln observe, 'These
[the governor's] words clearly seem to be addressed to Jesus" (332-333).
Was Mary Magdalene Jesus' Wife?
A number of early Mormon leaders entertained
the idea that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife. Several non-Mormon scholars
have likewise suggested that Christ and Mary were married. Before discussing
this matter further, mention should be made of the erroneous tradition
that Mary was a prostitute This tradition was introduced long after the
New Testament was written, and there is not the slightest bit of evidence
in
the Gospels to support it. No credible modern
New Testament scholar believes that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, or
that she should be identified with the sinful woman in Luke 7.
N. Lee smith of the University of Utah succinctly
discusses some of the New Testament indications that Mary was Jesus' wife:
"When Mary Magdalene recognized Jesus after
his resurrection, she said "Rabboni," an Aramaic term sometimes reserved
for one's husband (John 20:4-18)
The constant traveling of Mary with him,
her vigil at the cross and presence when he was taken down, her coming
to anoint his body with spices, his tender appearance first to her after
the resurrection . . and her central role in thefollowing events, all suggest
that Mary was his wife."
Conclusion
While the Bible does not explicitly teach
that Christ was married, it does provide a great deal of circumstantial
evidence to this effect. It is not credible to reject the prophetic calling
of Brigham Young and other many LDS lenders simply because they believed
Jesus was married.
Enoch Mea-Arbaim-Arbaa ben Eloheim
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Phipps, William E. THE SEXUALITY OF JESUS.
San Francisco:
Hammer & Row Publishers, 1973
WAS JESUS MARRIED? San Francisco: Harper
& Row,
Publishers, 1970.
Smith, N. Lee Letter to the editor on the
Issue of Jesus'
marital status- BIBLE REVIEW, February 1993.
46A7
Weiss-Rosmarin, Tmd. JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY:
New York:
Jonathan David Publishers, 1987.
Ogden Kraut. Jesus Was Married. [Sandy, Utah:
Pioneer Press.
1969.80 pps]
William E. Phipps. Was Jesus Married?; The
Distortion of
Sexuality in the Christian Tradition.
New York: Harper & Row. 1970.239
|
|
FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES
Teachings on Jesus being married as taught by some of the early
LDS leaders But aster as I know they have not been accepted as
correct doctrine by the Church. All of these men were either Prophets
or Apostles. This is just a selection. There are hundreds more.
Well, maybe not hundreds.
These references have been taken from the 1967 version of
The Journal of Discourses. This is the earliest version I
Could get my hands on. I noticed in another reference from
Earlier versions of the JD that the dates to some of these
References were changed in later versions, so if dates were
Changed perhaps other things were changed also.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, Orson Hyne, October 6, 1854
How was it with Mary and Martha, and other women that followed him?
In
old times, and it is common in this day, the women, even as Sarah,
called their husbands Lord; the word Lord is tantamount to husband
in
some languages, master, lord, husband, are about synonymous.
In England
we frequently hear the wife say, "Where is my master?" She does
not
mean a tyrant, but as Sarah called her husband Lord, she designates
hers
by the word master. When Mary of old came to the sepulchre on
the first
day of the week, instead of finding Jesus she saw two angels in white,
"And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She said unto
them,
Because they have taken away my Lord," or husband, "and I know not
where
they have laid him. And when she had thus said, she turned herself
back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
Jesus
saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She,
supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have
borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take
him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself,
and saith
unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master." Is there not here
manifested the affections of a wife. These words speak the kindred
ties
and sympathies that are common to that relation of husband and wife.
Where will you find a family so nearly allied by the ties of common
religion? "Well," you say, "that appears rather plausible, but
I want a
little more evidence, I want you to find where it says the Savior was
actually married."
Have you ever read your Bibles? I must confess I have not read
it for
some time, but looked more to Him who rules on high, and to those who
hold the words of life in the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; I look
to
them more frequently than to it. I have once memorized the Bible,
and
when any one quoted one verse, I could quote the next. I have
memorized
it in English, German, and Hebrew, still I do not profess to be very
familiar with it now, yet the sentiments and spirit of it are in my
heart, and will be as long as I live, and still remain when I am gone
to
another sphere. 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 over 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 gohome. "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 water pots of stone, after the manner
of
the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.
Jesus saith unto them, Fill the water pots 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, and saith unto him"--that is, the
ruler
of the feast saith unto the bridegroom, "Every man at the beginning
doth
set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which
is
worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now."
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
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. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be
brought
into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was
crucified. "Has he indeed passed by the nature of angels, and
taken
upon himself the seed of Abraham, to die without leaving a seed to
bear
his name on the earth?" No. But when the secret is fully
out, the seed
of the blessed shall be gathered in, in the last days; and he who has
not the blood of Abraham flowing in his veins, who has not one particle
of the Savior's in him, I am afraid is a stereotyped Gentile, who will
be left out and not be gathered in the last days; for I tell you it
is
the chosen of God, the seed of the blessed, that shall be gathered.
I
do not despise to be called a son of Abraham, if he had a dozen wives;
or to be called a brother, a son, a child of the Savior, if he had
Mary,
and Martha, and several others, as wives; and though he did cast seven
devils out of one of them, it is all the same to me.
Well, then, he shall see his seed, and who shall declare his generation,
for he was cut off from the earth? I shall say here, that before
the
Savior died, he looked upon his own natural children, as we look upon
ours; he saw his seed, and immediately afterwards he was cut off from
the earth; but who shall declare his generation? They had no
father to
hold them in honorable remembrance; they passed into the shades of
obscurity, never to be exposed to mortal eye as the seed of the blessed
one. For no doubt had they been exposed to the eye of the world,
those
infants might have shared the same fate as the children of Jerusalem
in
the days of Herod, when all the children were ordered to be slain under
such an age, with the hopes of slaying the infant Savior. They
might
have suffered by the hand of the assassin, as the sons of many kings
have done who were heirs apparent to the thrones of their fathers.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, Pg.210, Orson Hyde, March 18, 1855
I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great
blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last
Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that
Mary,
Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.
All that I have to say in reply to that charge is this--they worship
a
Savior that is too pure and holy to fulfil the commands of his Father.
I worship one that is just pure and holy enough "to fulfil all
righteousness;" not only the righteous law of baptism, but the still
more righteous and important law "to multiply and replenish the earth."
Startle not at this! For even the Father himself honored that law by
coming down to Mary, without a natural body, and begetting a son; and
if
Jesus begat children, he only "did that which he had seen his Father
do."
Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, Pg.259, Orson Hyde
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, anointing 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 ass, but on a rail.
What did
the old Prophet mean when he said (speaking of Christ), "He shall see
his seed, prolong his days, &c." Did Jesus consider it necessary
to
fulfil every righteous command or requirement of his Father?
He most
certainly did. This he witnessed by submitting to baptism under
the
hands of John. "Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness,"
said
he. Was it God's commandment to man, in the beginning, to multiply
and
replenish the earth? None can deny this, neither that it was
a
righteous command; for upon an obedience to this, depended the
perpetuity of our race. Did Christ come to destroy the law or
the
Prophets, or to fulfil them? He came to fulfil. Did he
multiply, and
did he see his seed? Did he honor his Father's law by complying
with
it, or did he not? Others may do as they like, but I will not charge
our
Savior with neglect or transgression in this or any other duty.
At this doctrine the long-faced hypocrite and the sanctimonious bigot
will probably cry, blasphemy! Horrid perversion of God's word!
Wicked
wretch! He is not fit to live! &c., &c. But the
wise and reflecting
will consider, read, and pray. If God be not our Father, grandfather,
or great grandfather, or some kind of a father in reality, in deed
and
in truth, why are we taught to say, "Our Father who art in heaven?"
How
much so ever [sic] of holy horror of this doctrine may excite in persons
not impregnated with the blood of Christ, and whose minds are
consequently dark and benighted, it may excite still more when they
are
told that if none of the natural blood of Christ flows in their veins,
they are not the chosen or elect of God. Object not, therefore,
too
strongly against the marriage of Christ, but remember that in the last
days, secret and hidden things must come to light, and that your life
also (which is the blood) is hid with Christ in God.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, Pg.18O, Parly P. Pratt, January 30, 1853
Hence the gathering of the Saints; the organization of the kingdom of
God, religiously and politically, if you will; the revelation of the
law
of God, and the new and everlasting covenant made to Abraham of old
and
his seed, which has never been altered by the Lord, only lost to the
people. Paul said that the law given upon Mount Sinai, four hundred
and
thirty years after that covenant was made, might not disannul it.
Jesus
Christ was that man spoken of when God said, "In thee and in thy seed
shall all nations of the earth be blessed." Thus, Paul and Jesus,
in so
many words, confirmed the covenant made with Abraham, that neither
the
law of Moses nor Jesus Christ ever disannulled.
What was it? A great many things, but the principal thing was,
"I will
greatly multiply thy seed;" in short, a law was given him by which
he
and his posterity should be regulated and governed, with regard to
matrimony and posterity.
Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, Pg. 301, Brigham Young, June 3,1855
If we will improve, be faithful and diligent in all the blessings
bestowed upon us, we then have the principle of increase, and this
is
the great blessing given to man, and was the promise which Abraham
received at the hands of the Lord. Abraham was fearful he would
not
increase and multiply his posterity on the earth, though he might
increase in power, wisdom, and knowledge himself; and reflected, "I
have
no children, or even prospect of them, to rise up and bless me, or
to
honor and revere my name in coming generations." The Lord, however,
gave him this promise, "You have been faithful, and gained wisdom and
knowledge in every blessing I have bestowed upon you; and now I will
give you a promise that you shall yet have a posterity, and it shall
multiply upon the face of the earth, and finally, the end of the number
thereof no man can tell, for your seed shall be as numerous as the
sands
upon the sea shore, or the stars in the firmament, and to their increase
there shall be no end." The same blessing was promised to the
Lord
Jesus Christ. It was the privilege of Abraham to receive knowledge,
wisdom, and understanding, but this did not satisfy him, he wanted
to
see his children multiply. When Abraham has passed a certain
ordeal and
proved himself faithful, he will receive honor, power, glory, and
exaltation, which he is made as capable of attaining in the future
as
those were who acted previous to his day. Were not this the case,
the
intelligence, the power of the mind, the spirit that is placed in the
body, and all that pertain to life in this stage of action, or prior
to
our coming into the world, are not made honorable; and if they are
not
honored by the creature, by the principle that is placed in him, that
organization is liable to decompose. Can you understand this?
For
instance, let a man or woman who has received much of the power of
God,
visions and revelations, turn away from the holy commandments of the
Lord, and it seems that their senses are taken from them, their
understanding and judgment in righteousness are taken away, they go
into darkness, and become like a blind person who gropes by the wall.
Many of you witness this almost daily. Such will continue to
go on the
retrograde path until they are decomposed; while those who are faithful
will continue to increase, and this is the great blessing the Lord
has
given to, or placed within the reach of, the children of man, even
to be
capable of receiving eternal lives.
Rudger Clawson. A Ministry of Meetings:
The Apostolic Diaries of Rudger Clawson
Edited by Stan Larson.
Salt lake City: Signature Books. 1993. Sunday July 2, 1899. p.70.
At about 5 o'clock meeting was resumed in the Celestial and
Terrestrial Rooms. Instructive remarks were made by the following
brethren upon the law of tithing: Leroi Snow, Apostle George Teasdale
and Pres. Jos. F. Smith. The latter, in speaking of tithing, said,
the
books should record not only what we do, but what we ought to have
done
and did not do. A man is in a poor business as president or bishop
of a
ward who says to the people, do as you ought to do, not as I do. The
poor of a ward-widows and orphans-all should pay their tithing. Pres.
Smith was followed by Apostles Smith and Lyman, who also dwelt upon
the
law of tithing.
Pres. George Q. Cannon also spoke upon the law of tithing. Among other
things he said, "There are those in this audience who are descendants
of
the old 12 Apostles and, shall I say it, yes, descendants of the Savior
himself. His seed is represented in this body of men."
Pres. Snow made closing remarks. Said he hoped the brethren would take
the spirit of these meetings home with them and impart the same to
the
people. A resolution to the effect that the brethren present would
accept the law of tithing, obey it themselves, and teach it to the
people was adopted by a rising vote with uplifted hands. Pres. Snow
then
led in the Sacred Shout, and the meeting came to a close. After the
meeting Bp. Carl Jensen, Chas. Kelly, and myself went down to one of
the
restaurants on Main St. and took supper, after which the brethren took
train for their homes.
NOTES: Why at this meeting were they asking for uplift of hands
to vote
Upon the law of tithing, was this made into law after the death of
Joseph Smith? |