I must start this post with a preface that I don't believe the following topic whatsoever. In view of the popularity of the "Da Vinci Code", I'm just curious. My question is what would the theological reason be for Jesus not to be married? I know there are no scriptures to support that He married while on earth. In Jeremiah 31:32, Christ says He was a husband to Israel. This sounds like spiritual marriage, but I'm speaking of an earthly marriage. Is there any reason He could not have married besides the fact He was busy preaching the gospel and paying for our sins. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />
No answers; just more questions. This is where I think ReformedBev is driving, but I would be interested in everyone's thoughts on what is at stake (theologically, in terms of ecclesiology, etc.) in the issue of Jesus' marriage. People tend to hold pretty strong views on the issue, but I've never understood the "so what" behind the views. For Protestants who feel strongly that He was single, does the strength of feeling carry some historic Roman Catholic residue? Thanks!
The Da Vinci Code is indeed a sad book. It portrays many historical errors and heresies among which are: (1) Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and (2) has a literal physical royal blood line. The Da Vinci Code is a brilliantly crafted deception. It is heresy!
First, Jesus was not married: (1) it is not in Scripture. Something so monumental would have been included by at least one of the Gospel writers, (2) marriage and family would have been a complete distraction from Jesus’ purpose for being here. Everything He did was with a view to His mission—KOG (Matt 20:28; John 4:34, 6:38-39). To seek and save the lost—not marry them. (3) Jesus made a point while hanging on the Cross to make provisions for His mother (John 19:25-27). If He were married and had children, doesn't it stand to reason that He would do the same for His own family? Note, in those verses that Mary Magdalene was standing there! (4) Jesus would be a polygamist as the church is the bride of Christ. (5) Many of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord are said to have had wives (1 Cor 9:5). This passage shows that the church was not embarrassed to reveal that its leaders were married — or to suggest that they had the right to be. The same would have been true of Jesus, if he had been married. In fact, had Jesus been married, then there was no better place for Paul to say it than here. It would have clinched Paul's case that he also had the right to be married. Paul did not mention it, because Jesus had not been married. (6) Jesus came to be our High Priest. The Law forbids a priest from marrying a woman who isn't a virgin unless she's the widow of another priest. The High Priest couldn't even marry a widow and was specifically forbidden from marrying a prostitute (Lev 21:13-14). Jesus said He didn't come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, and, (7) Brown’s original teachings are found in the Gnostic writings, etc.
Hopefully, no one here sees ANY convincing arguments that Jesus was ever married—if you do please state them?
Second, Why does it matter? The book purports that Jesus was not only married, but had children as well. If Jesus had a child that child would have the very seed of Jesus flowing through him. Do you see some problems here? Additionally, the point of the book was not so much that Jesus was married and had children, but that Christianity (the author’s view of it) as a whole has been based on a lie!
