So far I have pointed out that it is flat-out wrong to say that every Jewish man in the first century was married and was expected to be married. It is not only demographically impossible (there were not enough women to go around) but we know of Jewish men from the time of Jesus who were not married and were proud of it. Strikingly, they, like him, were apocalyptically minded Jews – such as the Essenes and the apostle Paul. I have also argued that whatever Mary Magdalene was to Jesus, she was not his lover and spouse, to the great disappointment of us all…..
But is there an actual argument that Jesus was not married other than the silences? I think there is. And this is what it is.
A good deal of Jesus’ teaching, of course, was ethical in nature, about how people ought to live and conduct themselves. Many people think of Jesus as one of the great moral teachers of all time, and I have no quarrel with that. But I do think it is important (of utmost importance) to place Jesus’ ethical teachings into the context of his overall proclamation, his apocalyptic message that God was soon to intervene in the course of this evil world to destroy all those powers aligned against him – along with the people who sided with them – and bring in a good kingdom on earth. Jesus’ ethics were directly related to this view of the coming kingdom. They were, in fact, a kingdom ethics.
Many ethicists today are interested in teaching people how to behave so that we can make society a better, stronger place, more beneficial to all of us for the long term. Jesus, on the other hand, was not teaching people how to behave so that we can all get along in the long haul. For Jesus there was not going to be a long haul. The end was coming soon, and …
This post is going to get really interesting in a few paragraphs. Want to read them? Join the blog. Low fee, high payoff, and every thin dime goes to important charities helping those in need. Don’t care about that? Well, join anyway!
Given the erasure of human traits as basic as sexuality (and I wonder what the implications are for the gender of the glorified body overall) is there any suggestion that the faithful’s identification as Jews was to be set aside? Certainly, Pauline doctrine advertises a departure from dependence on the signature features of Jewish cultural practice. What is suggested by Jesus’s actual words in this regard?
Not for Jesus, no. Paul’s idea of the equality of Jew and Gentile was an innovation.
What about the narrative of Peter’s vision about non-kosher foods?
Does that teach Christians about the equality of Jews and non-Jews?
That’s found only in Acts — that is, after Paul. It is usually not thought (by critical scholars) to be a historical account.
Beside the major jewish groups like the Pharisees and the SadduceesIs, there were another major group called Essenes and,,,seemingly,,, sects related to those, who lived a more communal life dedicated to voluntary poverty, daily immersion, and asceticism. I also picked up somewhere that they (some of them) also practised celibacy.
From what I have understood that there were branches of the Essenes living up north where Jesus came from, including in and around Mt. Carmel which was in Jesus’ neigbourhood. If so, I would not be surprised that Jesus as a teacher, who probably grew up in the area, were influenced by such groups, or would have had any kind of relationship with. At least they seemed to share or have doctrinal similarities (like acopolyptical tendensies, like some of his teachings, values like non violence and poverty).
Is it not so that this assumption about celebacy are confirmed by some historians at that time (Philo and Josephus)?
Kjell Tidslevold
Yes indeed, some Essenes were married. My point is that the idea of not being married is not at all alien to ancient Jewish thoguht and practice.
>Either will people in that resurrected state when the kingdom arrives.
Should be “Neither”, no?
Of course, the key point in all of this is that Jesus is a failed apocalyptic prophet–the kingdom of God did not arrive within the lifetimes of the people who heard him preach. Which is why the early theologians came up with the idea that instead of a general judgement and resurrection at the coming of the new kingdom in the indefinite future, humans are given a preliminary judgement individually at the instant of death. This apologetically rationalizes the error Jesus made in thinking that the final judgment and new kingdom will come very soon while some of his listeners were still alive.
So Jesus’ celibacy is based on his soon-to-arrive-end-of-times delusion. That sounds reasonable considering the time in which he lived–under Roman occupation for over a century and little prospect for any change in that situation. Hence, it was a time ripe for apocalypticism in a world of ignorance and superstition. But I wonder if this applies to modern day celibates. I have two celibate siblings. One is a nun and the other is a confirmed bachelor. I don’t know if Jesus’ celibacy has much to do with their reasons for not marrying. I don’t think either of them believes that the Second Coming is just around the corner.
Personally I favor the idea that Jesus was in the process of preparing for marriage with Magdalene but not that he was actually married to her. I intend to write a novel one day where it’s Judas’ jealousy over Magdalene that results in his betrayal of Jesus. Is there a scriptural basis for this, even apocryphal one? Admittedly the evidence is flimsy. We have the Gospel of Phillip’s intriguing “he kissed her often on the [fill in the missing word].” And there’s also the Gnostic tradition, in some cases, that Mary understood Jesus’ secret teachings better than anyone. There’s another intriguing report in the Gospel of John that Mary’s anointing of Jesus became the occasion Judas’ resentment. [OK it was Mary of Bethany, not Magdalene, but please don’t confuse me with the biblical facts.]
Now I’ll have decide whether to finish my novel soon, or “discover” a new secret gospel instead.
To add to your argumentation here (if I may), in your ‘Jesus Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium’ (p. 139), you say:
“…Jesus’ ministry began with his association with John the Baptist, an apocalyptic prophet, and ended with the establishment of the Christian church, a community of apocalyptic Jews who believed in him. The only connection between the apocalyptic John and the apocalyptic Christian church was Jesus himself. How could both the beginning and the end be apocalyptic, if the middle was not as well?”
Many things that we could trace to the historical Jesus were part of him because he was an apocalyptic prophet, such as the original Beatitudes (as I’ve shared with you) and it turns out also … (as you argue here) being unmarried. If we add the bookends you mentioned in the above-mentioned quote, [bookend 1] John the Baptist — JESUS — [bookend 2] early apocalyptic Christian church … and further add the element of ‘being unmarried’ we can see a continuity. We can argue that (bookend 1) the apocalyptic prophet John the Baptist (at least when he was proclaiming the coming Kingdom in the wilderness) was most likely unmarried. (Jesus may even have been his follower for a while and he learned from him among other things the value of being unmarried for the coming Kingdom.) Going to bookend 2, we can also present a dominant figure from early Christianity – Paul, and most definitely say that he was not only unmarried (1 Cor 7:8) but even recommended to others that they remain unmarried in light of the coming eschaton (1 Cor 7:26ff, written in the mid-50s).
So, back to your quote from ‘Jesus, apocalyptic prophet…’, even the element of being unmarried can be traced from John the Baptist, through Jesus, and on to Paul, which makes a continuity in the tradition of being unmarried for the believed soon-to-come kingdom! /jk kato
I also find it interesting that whereas Mark has Jesus saying:
“when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage”
and similar in Matthew:
“in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage”
Luke instead has:
“the sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage”
Is Luke suggesting that followers of Jesus (now, before they die, before the resurrection … indeed they ‘cannot even die anymore’!) are to follow his example and not be married if they want to be considered worthy?
Seems to be!
Dr Ehrman –
Why the redundant doublet “marry and given in marriage”? Is it a well-worn idiom?
It’s all over the the synoptics, and I fall over it every time I read it. The Jesus of the synoptics isn’t exactly excessively loquacious, and I ask myself each time wouldn’t “marriage” suffice?
Thanks!
Don’t know. But the idea is that men give their daughters to be married and other men marry them, so there are two groups in mind.
A great post, and a very strong argument. And I can think of at least one thing that supports it. Jesus’ atypical behavior towards women. Atypical for men of basically all cultures and beliefs.
What’s the single biggest obstacle to equality of the sexes? Sex. Reproduction. Do I need to elaborate? It should go without saying that if men and women didn’t have sex, didn’t make babies, the only gender-based inequality would be size and strength, and that wouldn’t matter in the Kingdom either. I’m not advocating for this, I don’t aspire to a sexless world, I’m just saying–it’s a fact. It is perhaps the single most universal and overriding fact in human society. The source of our greatest joys and our most terrible flaws. The thing that stops us from being brothers and sisters.
So Jesus, believing that the Kingdom would be Heaven on Earth, trained himself NOT to see women as potential sex partners, spouses, or mothers of his children. He looked past all that to the soul. Some women were far more spiritually gifted than most men–and he wanted to talk to them–and listen to them. And never hit on them.
And some women responded to this, gave him their loyalty, their devotion, wanting to believe in the Kingdom he was promising, where they would no longer be second class citizens. Many had perhaps never met a man like this before in their lives. You have, of course, suggested that it was women who promulgated the idea Jesus had been resurrected. Because they could not bear to believe he was gone. And because they still believed in the Kingdom he’d promised.
He wasn’t born an Apocalyptic Jew, his early life is closed to us, so we can only speculate how he was in adolescence and early adulthood. He might have had relationships. We don’t know that Jesus, and we never will.
We can say Francis of Assisi led a fairly dissolute life before experiencing his religious vocation, forsaking the world–and forming a deep friendship with Clare of Assisi, encouraging her to follow the same path (and avoid a marriage she didn’t want). For some people, worldly pleasures become a prison, and they find liberty in service to others. Takes all kinds.
Is it thought that Jesus learned to be apocalyptic from John the Baptizer since Jesus’ parents were married and having children? It appears that Jesus’ parents did not have an apocalyptic view of not marrying.
There were plenty of married with children apocalypticists. We don’t actually know where Jesus acquired his views, but it’s usually thoguht that he was attracted to John becasue John was enunciating viwes Jesus already had (though possibly not as clearly or forcefully asserted)
You’re going to be unpopular with the Jims – Bakker and Swaggart. They were hoping for 74 virgins in their heaven. I think that was them . . ?
According to the Book of Enoch (or, 1st Enoch), angels can have sex with women! (The Letter of Jude seems to reiterate that idea.) Some suggest that the reason Paul wanted women to pray with their heads covered was so that they wouldn’t attract the attention of lusty angels. However, I agree with the reasoning that if Jesus thought the kingdom of Heaven was at hand, that would guide his teachings and behavior, and I don’t see how a wife would fit into that, much like Paul said in 1 Cor. 7.
One of the attractions of the Mormon faith is the belief that all Mormons will be reunited as families in heaven; many evangelicals believe this also. While Jesus says that in the New Kingdom there will be no marriages, that does not specifically deny that already existing relationships will continue, or that believers will not recognize their relatives. Of course, Mormons also believe that they can pray for ancestors who were not Mormons and bring them into a heavenly relationship with the Mormon community. This latter explains why the genealogical data bases in Salt Lake City are so voluminous. Does it seem that Jesus really is saying that that is not true?
Well, I think he’s technically saying that no one will *get* married in heaven; but yes, he’s responding to a question of whether people will *remain* married there. Apparenlty not, or the Sadducees question would still carry weight.
You say Bart, ” Angels don’t marry or have sex “. Isn’t one of the strong thesis of Genesis 6:2, that these sons of god were in fact angels and took human wives? Or is this different in your view? I do concur with your argument about Jesus being single and instructing his followers to live their lives like the kingdom was already here and now. You make a strong case and interestingly, many people today do not consider that this kingdom Jesus spoke of was free of marriage and sex. I think, many believers today, suppose that they will reunited with their present spouse and all will be better( perfect) in the kingdom.. Good post.
Right, I’m not saying that’s my view! Jesus says it; and yes, it is at odds iwth Genesis 6:2 IF you interpret the Sons of God as angels. But they were widely interpreted at the time as being demons rather than angels.
Why would they be called “sons of god” if they were thought to be demons?
Ah, the term “son of God” means “angelic beings” in some passages of the Hebrew Bible. In expanded myths told about Genesis 6 in Jewish circles (1 Enoch), these were angelic beings who were wicked who had sex with women and were punished with torment as a result.
Why in fact was the idea of a woman married to multiple men in the future kingdom so absurd to the Sadducees? Is it due to sexist views in the ancient world whereby it was legitimate for men to marry and have sex with multiple spouses, but it was immoral for women to do likewise?
Do we know much about the marriage customs of 1st century Palestine – the regularity of parentally-arranged marriages versus free choice marriages?
Was premarital sex taboo among Jews, but acceptable among Greco-Romans?
I think it was just common sense in a strictly monogamous society that monogamy was God’s plan, so he couldn’t have a differetn plan after death than before.
I don’t believe anything otherwise would have have occurred to 1st century Jews – whether the Sadducees or Jesus himself.
Dr. Ehrman,
I agree that the ethics of Jesus are the reason that he did not marry but from a completely different perspective: It would be unethical for Jesus to have a wife knowing he will be ascending into heaven at the age of 33. But here is a question: Do you always avoid using anything of the supernatural of Jesus’ life for arguing a point and therefore do you believe that the supernatural in the Bible is not a true account of the events?
But to continue … if Jesus came from heaven to be born to Mary and then went back to heaven, then another reason Jesus didn’t marry is because his female companion in heaven (who was waiting on his return) caused thunder to rumble in the distance every time Jesus’ eyes lingered too long on one of his female followers.
The hypothetical story of the 7 husbands: I have come to different conclusions on different subjects because of this story:
– I believe Jesus says women are not “given” in marriage in the Kingdom of God to show that women are not treated as the property of men in the Kingdom of God but are equals to the men as the Angels are not the property of another Angel but equal.
– I believe that not marrying in the Kingdom of God doesn’t necessarily mean people will not have sex in the Kingdom of God. It could simply mean that there are no taxes in the Kingdom of God and therefore people don’t marry because there is no tax break in it. Or it could mean that there is no lust in the Kingdom of God and therefore there is no reason to have an official proclamation when two people decide to devote themselves to each other because people there will not be tempted to stray from their relationship nor be tempted to try to have relations with someone in a relationship. And also since people will live forever in the Kingdom of God it may also mean that people will not form a never ending commitment to a single person.
Continued …
No, I don’t claim taht anything supernatural is not true. I claim that if it *is* true it is not accessible to anyone using a *historical* method, since historians can have access only to what happens in the natural world, not to what happens it the supernatural. Discussion of what happens int he supernatural world is the work of theology, not history.
Continued from the previous comment
– I don’t believe one can claim that Angels don’t have sex. For if men and women are to be like the Angels, then it implies that there are male and female Angels also. But Genesis 6:4 says that the sons of God mated with human women so apparently sex is a part of what goes on in Heaven. Therefore I do not agree with a sanitized vision of Heaven of all that religious people call evil but rather a sinless vision of Heaven where those who are there love and care about all who are there in a sinless way but not necessarily in a sexual-less way.
– If the priests got bent out of shape because Jesus’ disciples did not wash their hands, then I am absolutely convinced that men were required to raise up children to their dead brothers even if monogamy was the rule (although didn’t King Herod have a harem?). So I believe that Jesus did have brothers and sisters: their father was Joseph and their mother was not Mary. The reason I believe Mary only had one child (Jesus) is not because she and Joseph didn’t have sex but because Mary was barren. Barren women giving birth to great prophets is a cornerstone of the Bible. If Mary was barren and only had Jesus as a child, then she could devote herself to him the way she did and also the idea that it was a virgin birth and that she didn’t have sex with Joseph is easier to perpetuate. But perhaps the reason Joseph is not mentioned anymore in the life of Jesus is because he was at home providing for his other wives, children and grandchildren during Jesus’ ministry.
Dennis Keister
I don’t claim that about angels. I was taling about what Jesus claimed.
Has anyone, any scholar, tried to make a serious case for Jesus being gay? In at least one of the non-canonical gospels there are some hints in that direction– references to a naked young man and Jesus taking him aside to show him certain “mysteries”. That might have been gnostic material. I’ll have to go back and consult some reference material (your books) to try to nail that down. But Spong tried to make a case that Paul was gay, based on available “evidence”. I think there is better reason to suspect that Jesus was gay, or at least sexually ambivalent. But I’m not aware of any serious scholar who has “gone there”.
Oh yes. You might take a look at Dale martin’s “Sex and the Single Savior.”
Ordered the book. I have to say, thanks to you and this blog I am building quite a library! Of course, I already had a lot of books to lug around, but not very many in this area, That is definitely changing, and I’m happy for the additions!
I think you’re referring to the Secret Gospel of Mark, which appears to be a brilliant forgery by Morton Smith.
Bart makes a convincing case for this in, I believe, Lost Christianities.
The fact that Smith made such a supposedly fantastic discovery, but the left the book where it was and only took black and white photos of what he found is extremely sketchy.
http://gnosis.org/library/secm_commentary.htm
Apocalyptic Ethics is a good way to look at it – and most of those teachings transfer to a non apocalyptic world.
But not all of them – abandoning your job, possessions, responsibilities (Jesus and the disciples became dependent on others financially) even abandoning family if they did not believe…these are not good things.
And it’s all a bit tribal as well – primarily focused on Israelites and fellow Jews. 12 were to rule with Jesus in this new Kingdom for each of the 12 tribes.
Why have so few people thru history even acknowledged that though most are beautiful sometimes Jesus apocalyptic ethics and teachings are not good?
Could this be behind a group like the Jesus Seminar simply denying Jesus even was apocalyptic? It seems to me that creates its own problems…
Thanks for your time !
Maybe to some extent. But mainly the seminar was tired of people pointing out that Jesus was wrong about the time of the coming apocalypse; easiest solution: claim he never predicted it was coming soon.
But that assumes he perfectly maintained the ethics of the coming future kingdom his entire life (or at least from marrying age onward) until his death. Hebrews 5 says he “learned” obedience suggesting he wasn’t obedient (“perfect”) from the start but instead it was a gradual process. Isaiah 7 explains the person who is the sign will have to learn to know right and reject wrong. I know you don’t agree Isaiah 7 is speaking of Jesus as the Messiah but I do believe it explains the broader concept of a gradual process of coming to know God (an awakening) as reflected in other examples such as Job and Jonah. Add to this Luke 14:25-27 where Jesus teaches you must “leave” your wife. Frankly, I could care less if he was married or not I just don’t think he was perfect from the start. I don’t think he maintained kingdom ethics his whole life. Instead I think it’s something that he “learned.” And I think his teachings and parables reflect that experience. That being the case, I don’t believe it’s entirely out of the question for him to have been married previously.
Hebrews holds little value to me since it’s commonly accepted that it’s a forgery in Paul’s name. It does gives evidence of how Jesus was thought of in the last 1st century, but I don’t trust it as a historical source due to the forgery.
The problem is that it’s not written in Paul’s name! But I do think the author wanted his readers to *think* he was Paul…..
So there will be no sex in Heaven. Is this what”s said in Matthew 19:12? (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.)
I don’t think that verse says there won’t be sex in heaven, no.
What do you think the verse is about, then?
Are you talking about “marriage and giving in marriage”? It’s talking about marriage, not sex. Not the same thing. As I’m sure some blog members can testify….
Do you think Matthew 19:12 says there will be no sex in Heaven and therefore we shouldn’t have sex down here either?
I think I’ve said this three times now! The verse isn’t talking about sex. It’s talking about marriage.
Ok, sorry. The reason for my confusion is that I associate being a eunuch with inability to have sex rather than the inability to marry (although I suppose a eunuch couldn’t consummate the marriage).
Eunuchs were not unable to marry. But I thought we were talking about the passage in the NT where the Sadducees talk to Jesus about marraige in the resurrection. There is no discussion of eunuchs there. Maybe we aer talking about different passages, or maybe I’ve just lost the thread. Whcih happens!
Regardless of the reasoning, the absence of a royal bloodline has allowed Christianity to thrive separately from governments, including monarchies, theocratic monarchies, democracies, theocratic democracies, and many other government types. In fact, there are few societal settings where Christianity cannot adapt and survive. Even in Communist countries that prohibit religions, Christianity can survive without an earthly leader to execute or imprison.
This basically also echoes Paul’s teaching on marriage – do it if the alternative for you is fornication, but otherwise, avoid it if possible as the end is coming.
I find the strong desire to have Jesus married itself an interesting phenomenon. Its like being the 30 year old bachelor at the wedding and everyone is keeps asking, so when you are gonna find someone? Or a friend gets married and now everyone ought to get married. So much pressure. I suppose there are a lot of guys who would have loved to be able to say “Hey the End is coming like NEXT WEEK, so enjoy you’re “wedding”, I’m good.”
As a child of post-modernity, growing up below the bible belt, I was bombarded and bullied by the provocative, ecumenical smut Jesus taught. Preaching it, not teaching it, the religious forced and coerced their spurious, maniacal religious beliefs upon me, unceasingly. After ten years of Christian fundamentalism in America, I’ve left and returned to the state of nature in which today I observe and operate in accordance with today, relinquishing subservience to the church was my first step towards freedom and only the educated are free.
Bart,
Longtime fan here. I have read most of your trade books. But I don’t think I run into any of your writing about biblical prophecies. May be you consider a post or even better a debate topic on biblical prophecies. Many Fundamental Christian who believe the Bible inerrancy claim that it fulfills all of the Old Testament prophecies (Isaiah, Micah, Zechariah, Psalm, Isaiah) with 100% accuracy to a degree of 10 to the 18th power!
In some of your debates, you have touch a few such as a story of Jesus enters into the Temple on a donkey and a colt that Matthew misunderstood Zechariah. Would love to hear an argument from you.
thank you
Yeah, it’s a pretty silly argument. But it can be shown to be silly in different ways, depending on whether you mean prophecies about jesus or prophecies about what is happening in our day.
I meant the prophecies about Jesus in the books in Old Testament (Isaiah, Micah, Zechariah, Psalm, Isaiah).
Ah, yeah, I’m afraid the argument is bogus. Maybe I’ll post on it. The reality is that the passages that were written describing the future ruler of Israel were not descriptive of Jesus, and most of the the passages later Chrsitaisn claimed were “fulfilled” were not written about the future messiah.
Professor, so as far as I know, Jesus had no problem with sexuality? I saw that on a documentary, or I heard it somewhere? Not sure. The apostles had the problem with it, but they were probably married but we don’t know about it? What are your thoughts about it?
Thanks
We have no way of providing a psychological evaluation of either Jesus or the apostles, unfortunately; so there’s no way to know what they had a problem with, when it came to sexuality. those who say we can know aer hoping to get a lot of viewers for their documentary! Sensationalism sells!
I am always trying to figure out why you say
In the kingdom there will be no war, and so Jesus’ followers should be peace makers now. In the kingdom there will be no oppression, and so Jesus’ followers should fight injustice now. In the kingdom there will be no hatred, and so Jesus’ followers should love everyone – even their enemies – now. In the kingdom there will be no sickness, so Jesus’ followers should heal the sick now. In the kingdom there will be no more demons, so Jesus’ followers should cast out demons now. In the kingdom there will be no suffering, so Jesus’ followers should work to alleviate suffering now. And on and on.
rather than
Jesus’ followers should be peace makers now, so In the kingdom there will be no war. Jesus’ followers should fight injustice now, so In the kingdom there will be no oppression. Jesus’ followers should love everyone – even their enemies – now, so In the kingdom there will be no hatred, Jesus’ followers should heal the sick now, so In the kingdom there will be no sickness. Jesus’ followers should cast out demons now, so In the kingdom there will be no more demons. Jesus’ followers should work to alleviate suffering now, so In the kingdom there will be no suffering. And on and on.
they are kind of equivalent but little difference in emphasis
and wonder which of the above would be the more likely for Jesus to ascribe too. I think the latter
[I dont believe that there is evidence Jesus taught there will be no sickness or suffering in the Kingdom, but that is a different issue]
Because Jewish apocalypticist did not believe we could bring in the kingdom of God by our good behavior, but that God would bring it in with a cataclysmic show of power, leading to a remaking of the world and society to become a perfect place.
Does
“God bringing it in with a cataclysmic show of power, leading to a remaking of the world and society to become a perfect place” mean that “the Kingdom is not brought by good behavior”?
really? would Jewish apocalypticis have seen a logical contradiction?
I don’t think so
Not only would they not, but I don’t.
agree, Jesus likely saw no no contradiction between
1) Kingdom is brought about by good behavior, and
2) Kingdom is brought about by God with a cataclysmic show of power
resulting in a world and society becoming a ‘perfect’ place
Jesus said divorce is NOT allowed. John Meier thinks this is one of the more undoubtedly authentic of the historical Jesus’ sayings.
This does not cohere with your analogous comments regarding
a) healing now / no sickness in Kingdom
b) loving enemies now / no hatred in Kingdom
for in that case we would then expect
c) divorce now / no marriage in Kingdom
Nor does it really make sense that Jesus absolutely denied divorce.
Otherwise he would have explicitly said “No divorce now, however the moment the Kingdom arrives you will be required to divorce”
additionally see the reason Jesus taught no divorce
Because “God made them male and female and for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and they become one flesh” – Note this is a discussion of how God created humans even before the story of the Fall of Man, ie before the introduction of evil into the world
How does that reconcile with Luke 14:26, which appears to support leaving one’s wife?
“Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.
Chad,
if you are asking me, please post the question to the members forum page
create topic like “any contradiction between Mark 10:2-9 and Luke 14:26”
or however you want to put it, explain why you may think it is contradiction if that is your position, or however you see fit to ask . . .
I will be happy to weigh in on it there, plus we may learn form other interested blog members, plus we won’t need to wait on Bart approving and reviiewing what we think/write
Interesting tie-in to yesterday’s post in reference to the Enochian mythology where the Watchers had sex with human women who gave birth to giants and demons. The literature that sprang up form this mythology appears to have affected apocalypticism and been known by at least some of the NT writers.
But here we have Jesus saying that the angels don’t have sex and that it will disappear in the kingdom, a view Paul seems to have shared. This would seem to be a discrepancy in views. Was this a subject of speculation in any of the post-NT writings? Origen perhaps?
Thanks
I’m not sure what you’re seeing as the discrepancy? Jesus probably didn’t know the legends/myths about teh Watchers, or if he did, he didn’t think that it reflected what happens now in heaven. The Watchers are not there. They’re being tormented down in hell.
Sorry I wasn’t really referring to textual discrepancies. I just meant that in in one tradition divine figures/angels etc can have sex with humans and in another they are sexless. I just wondered if this engendered any speculation among post-NT writers.
thanks
Being able to have sex doesn’t mean that a person does have sex. And being married doesn’t mean that a person has sex. Jesus is saying that angels in heaven don’t marry. The tradition of the watchers says that divine beings came down from heaven to earth and had sex. Those are not incommensurate views.
God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?
27 “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken.”
Is it just me or is this not a satisfactory answer by Jesus?
Well, it’s persuaded millions of people over the years! Satisfcation is imaybe in the eye of the beholder!
Why does it matter if Jesus was married? That’s the question I’ve always asked.
I suppose it would matter to centuries of celibate priests!
This is my last night at home before the Christmas break, and since I might not read the blog while staying with family I thought I’d raise a topic I’ve been meaning to ask about. I’ll split this over two comments, and perhaps it could even be inspiration for a future blog post. Up to you, obviously.
A paradox that bothered me somewhat when I was a Christian is that we are taught to think of sex and marriage as sacred, and yet Jesus says there isn’t any in Heaven, so how can something be sacred if it doesn’t exist in Heaven? A puzzler.
Meanwhile, Christians more conservative than I ever was often emphasise the Ephesian idea that marriage reflects the union of Christ and the church. So far as I know (correct me if I’m wrong) there’s nothing in the text to suggest that Fake Paul intended this as anything more than an analogy, yet conservatives often interpret it as a revelation about the very purpose and essence of marriage itself. I have wondered if this is because their historical predecessors were bothered by the very same paradox I alluded to, and this is their solution.
What are your thoughts?
Part two of my two-part comment.
I would be interested in your analysis of how the various criteria for assessing whether a saying goes back to the historical Jesus applies to this passage. We know that the second half of Jesus’ reply to the Sadducees cannot be historical, because it assumes a view in which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive in the present, in contrast with the historical view that these patriarchs were once alive, would some day be raised to life again, but meanwhile, are unambiguously dead.
(If true, the portrayal of Jesus as a logic-chopping intellectual would have significant implications I feel.)
As an aside, I’d also like to note that this passage can be seen as a rare example of someone else telling Jesus a parable…
My view is that Jesus thought there would be no marriage in the future kingdom, and so the ideal situation before then is to avoid marriage/sex (like him, and other ascetics).
That much is clear. But my question was about why we have good reason to think this particular saying goes back to the historical Jesus. Is it simply that it fits the profile of the first century apocalyptic preacher we understand Jesus to have been, or is there a stronger argument than that?
I think it’s *mainly* because it fits in perfectly well with Jesus’ other teachings of the kingdom, but also that there was not a *widespread* condemnation of marriage per se in early Christianity that the saying supports (so it’s harder to think of others coming up with it in the years after his death) — though Paul of course thinks it is the preferred mode of life, and I suppose probably agreed it wouldn’t be an institution int he coming kingdom. So it’s not a slam-dunk case. As with most things Jesus “probably” said, you can’t be certain about it…
I think the idea from Jesus is that propagation won’t matter in heaven, so marriage is sacred now but will be done away with, like other sacred things(e.g. the Temple, sacrifices, etc.) On Ephesians:I”m not sure what conclusions your evangelical friends are suggesting. I don’t suppose they are saying that since you don’t have sex with your church you shouldn’t have sex with your spouse?
Dear Dr. Ehrman
Do you think Jesus was gay?
I know there’s technically no evidence one way or the other (like if Jesus was married); but given your line of thinking about Jesus not being married because of His ethical theology of the Kingdom of Heaven being near, I tend to see it through the same lens of Jesus being an First Century / Second Temple Jew and an apocalyptic prophet & rabbi: if Jesus was gay or married, we don’t know; but social constraints on the former and sexual ethics of the latter lead me to present the probability that he wasn’t.
Thank you for you time! 😀
– Rob
P.S. I tried to see if you answered this elsewhere on the blog, but couldn’t find it. Sorry if you have!
I’d say it’s impossible to know. You might want to look at the book by Dale Martin, Sex and the Single Savior.