Jesus' Wife: Objectionable because..?

So i’m sure everyone has seen the hubub around a little small scrap of paper - with folks obviously drawing up the academic battle lines about its authenticity.

Biblical studies is…very very very far from the line of work I do so i’ll leave that in the hands of the experts to debate till their faces turn blue.

But, the whole story did provoke a question in my mind,

Very simple question: Why would it be objectionable for Jesus of Nazareth to have a wife?

Is there some sort of rule or Biblical injunction that precludes the Judeao-Christian Messiah from having a consort or even a child?

ie: is it a matter of “mechanics” or is it a matter of sensibilities that are offended by the idea?

My guess? In and of itself is not a problem, at least from a theological position.

From a tradition position, it would be a matter of credibility of traditions and a whole host of traditions at that.

only my .02

Jesus is God. It just doesn’t make sense for God to choose a mortal as a wife. For one thing, it implies that God would love at least one human more than He loves us all. For another, a marriage should be about equality, or something close to it; all powerful, all knowing God marrying a normal mortal? Not even close to equality. There’s also all the issues that God breeding with a mortal would create.

And last but not least, it would unethical for Jesus to form a marital relationship with a woman, maybe even have a child, when He knew He would ascend to Heaven and thereby leave them.

This hypothetical wife is not written about anywhere in any of the Gospels, nor is Jesus asked for marital advise. I know if I was an Apostle, following Jesus for miles and miles, documenting the travels, I would’ve written somewhere about a wife, and how to have a perfect marriage (which is what Jesus would have if He were married).

Historically, marriage wasnt about love.

What about where it says that John was the beloved disciple of Jesus? I think He could have preference and it not be an issue. He was just as much Man as He was G-d after all right?

I don’t really see it as unethical that Jesus knew He was going to die either IF He had a family because He didn’t know exactly when that was going to happen either. Or well… I guess He did. But it doesn’t seem like He does when you read accounts like the miracle of the water into wine when He said it wasn’t His time.

But I do agree that He would’ve had a perfect marriage and that that is something all of the Apostles would’ve mentioned at least briefly.

And Marie I would say historically marriage has always been love. “Husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the Church.”

It wouldn’t, if it were some very solidly evidenced fact. He was a faithful Jewish man, among so many other things, and men were expected to marry. It wouldn’t change anything.

I think, though, that so many believe it would, that so many believe what is really a small “t” tradition is almost dogmatic, that many would have their faith shaken. The Church would have to move into high gear to educate the flock. Some would never accept it. But we managed to survive the fact that the earth is not the center of the Universe, I imagine we’d weather a married Savior.

It’s my opinion Jesus was not married. Not because His wife isn’t mentioned or because it’s tradition. But because His path was set and His end was known and planning to leave a widow and children in difficult circumstances, just doesn’t seem like the most charitable way to proceed. Jesus also loved all perfectly. But attaching Himself to the world through the commitment to a wife is just not logical to me in terms of what He preached and how He lived.

If the Church validates some new historical information and accepts that Jesus was married, I’m okay with it. I just find most of this less history than histrionic.

Because there is zero evidence that he did, and all attempts to claim otherwise are dishonest efforts to discredit Christianity using confusion and lies.

The Church is the Bride of Christ.

That is not a metaphor or allegory. Marriage is a covenant relationship, and Christ is in a covenant relationship with his Church. For Christ to have a human wife aside from his bride - the Church - makes Christ an adulterer.

That is not possible.


For me, it would have no impact on my faith. I might re-explore some aspects of Jesus’ life based upon the new point of view, but I don’t think it makes that big of a difference theologically. The only discovery I could think of that would REALLY make me question my faith is if they found Jesus’ body, which would essentially prove accounts of his ascension into Heaven were false. Of course, I don’t expect that to happen any time soon… :wink:

FWIW, the only “objectionable” part is that I find it annoying when any discovery (even those of questionable authenticity) are pounced upon by main-stream society. They seem to love any reason they can find to “prove” that the Church’s teachings and traditions are false.

God bless,

It would make every difference theologically.

Christ’s bride is the Church. There is no other. Christ is not an adulterer. It cannot happen.


I agree with this - because it’s not true. And also because, as Timothy noted, Christ was wedded to the Church at the Crucifixion :wink: and that reality is subdued if the bridegroom were married to a temporal woman.

This was a really interesting article if someone hasn’t read about the case yet.

That is theological view, not an anthropological view.

It approaches blasphamy to suggest that God, the creator of the human race would have a wife. Christ remember, in Christian Theology, is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity who assumed a human body to attone for the sins of men and make salvation possible for them. He did not create us because he needed us in any way. He created us for his own Glory by sharing his Goodness with creatures and to give them a share in his life. He loves us all equally. For the Son to take a wife would suggest he had a need, which is self contrdictory because it implies he lacks perfect happiness or perfect goodness. But God is perfect in every imaginable way. Therefore it would be self-contadictory to suggest he had a need outside himself. There is no imperfection in God, no shade of change, no lack of perfection.

So you see, he was not just a Son of Man, he was also the Son of God , indeed God Himself. You have to be familiar with the Theology to understand the insult offered by those who suggest he had a wife. :thumbsup:

I think it would contradict what we know or glean from Tradition and Scripture.

Paul alluded to Christ’s bride “The Church” in Ephesians:

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

John also in Revelation 19:7-9

7 Let us rejoice and be glad
and give him glory!
For the wedding of the Lamb has come,
and his bride has made herself ready.
8 Fine linen, bright and clean,
was given her to wear.”

He called himself the bridegroom in the Gospels.

I think it would screw up some mechanics for the fundamentalists that hide behind strict interpretation of the Bible (young-earth believers). They’ll demonize science even more.

It might throw into question the discipline of celibacy in the RCC, but since that’s just a discipline, it would likely blow over quickly.

I wouldn’t let it affect me though. I don’t believe because of what’s in the Bible. The Bible reinforces my beliefs. I believe because of what has been revealed to me personally. People tend to forget that God reveals himself to each person. Otherwise I could no more believe that God is real than I could believe Gandalf fought a Balrog with a magic staff and effectively saved Frodo and the companions so they could go save Middle Earth. :thumbsup:

I don’t think it’s objectionable at all. Actually, the historical/cultural assumption would be that he was married at some point in his life.

Regardless of whether Jesus was or wasn’t married historically, to say that’s it’s impossible for Jesus to have been married would be heretical in my opinion (more specifically, Docetism)–a denial that Jesus was fully human.

It is bad because it is heretic.

Christ came to be the Bridegroom of Israel. The running theme of scripture is that the church, established by Christ is the Bride of Christ.

For Jesus to have been married brings down the entire house of cards. Christ is the unblemished Lamb of God, pure in every way. Christ is the Bridegroom and we are His Bride. He did not come to get married. He did not come to procreate. He came to redeem mankind.

Hello everyone,

When I first heard news of this after coming home, I immediately posed this: “Oh, I see. Was it written in Greek or Coptic?” To which, my landlady replied, “Yes. I think they mentioned Coptic.” Next question I asked: “Fourth Century, right?” She said, “Yes, how did you know?” To which, I could only reply “D*$n Gnostics…” lol…

That was my first, albeit, erroneous conclusion because as of two hours ago the Vatican has stated that the scrap of paper is a fake:

Regardless, the notion that Christ had a wife apart from The Church is heretical at best. Is it objectionable? In and of itself, no…but because it flies in the face of what the Church teaches, yes. The subject, in the context of the Church, is not up for debate unless there would be substantial evidence suggesting otherwise. And, as we have seen, the Vatican has put forth a great effort into ascertaining the authenticity of the document. The Church does and must always seek the truth…

Pax Christi,


The OP isn’t after the anthropological view, he’s after the theological view.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit