St Peter

[James248]

It’s a bad translation. Please read my post #20. If we are going to interpret to translate the passage in Corinthians as wife, we must also do the same in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and say Jesus had a wife.

Clement of Alexandria thought so. He went as far as to say Peter’s wife was martyred with him.

They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, “Remember thou the Lord.” Such was the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them.

 

[Usagi]

Clement of Alexandria thought so. He went as far as to say Peter’s wife was martyred with him.

That is the reference I was talking about, thank you.

 

[Lost4words]

I see nothing that states that all the Apostles were not married. Remember, most men would marry! Peter was married.

 

[Duane1966]

I see nothing that states that all the Apostles were not married. Remember, most men would marry! Peter was married.

We know Peter was married, but when did she die, becomes the question? For a mother-in-law and not the wife to be waiting on Jesus in Matthew 8, goes against Jewish custom. Don’t forget, Peter also specifically says they left everything. This becomes a lie if they in actuality did not leave everything.

 

[James248]

We know Peter was married, but when did she die, becomes the question? For a mother-in-law and not the wife to be waiting on Jesus in Matthew 8, goes against Jewish custom. Don’t forget, Peter also specifically says they left everything. This becomes a lie if they in actuality did not leave everything.

Clement of Alexandria said she died with Peter at the hands of Nero.

 

[Duane1966]

Clement of Alexandria thought so. He went as far as to say Peter’s wife was martyred with him.

But this in no way addresses my point about Corinthians, and the translation of adelphaen gunaika. If we are to say that the translation of sister wife is valid, we should be consistent and translate it in the same way with respect to Jesus in Matthew and Luke. If we are consistent with the translation, then Jesus was married.

Interestingly enough, if you are going to quote Clement of Alexandria, you should note that in his Stromata book III chapter six, though one translation says the Apostles were married taking their wives with them, another translation says they were not wives, but pious women who went to with the Apostles to help minister to women. Interestingly enough, in both translations Clement of Alexandria says the Apostles had no marital relations with these “wives.”

But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives.

Clement of Alexandria said she died with Peter at the hands of Nero.

And I have read a church father, and I am almost positive it was Chrysostom, though I am having trouble finding the quote, where he says Peter’s wife was dead when Jesus cured his mother-in-law.

 

[James248]

But this in no way addresses my point about Corinthians, and the translation of adelphaen gunaika. If we are to say that the translation of sister wife is valid, we should be consistent and translate it in the same way with respect to Jesus in Matthew and Luke. If we are consistent with the translation, then Jesus was married.

Interestingly enough, if you are going to quote Clement of Alexandria, you should note that in his Stromata book III chapter six, though one translation says the Apostles were married taking their wives with them, another translation says they were not wives, but pious women who went to with the Apostles to help minister to women. Interestingly enough, in both translations Clement of Alexandria says the Apostles had no marital relations with these “wives.”

And I have read a church father, and I am almost positive it was Chrysostom, though I am having trouble finding the quote, where he says Peter’s wife was dead when Jesus cured his mother-in-law.

So? A person can be married to another person and the couple does not have relations.

 

[Duane1966]

So? A person can be married to another person and the couple does not have relations.

Agreed.

Two things hurt the argument by Clement:

1.) The fact that Peter’s mother-in-law waited on Jesus, and not his wife, goes against Jewish custom.

2.) Peter specifically says the Apostles have left everything to follow Jesus. If he had a living wife, did he leave her? This would make Jesus’ teaching on the sacredness of marriage, whilst an Apostle had left his wife, suspect.

I think a far more reasonable argument is that Peter was a widower.

This still does not address whether the passage in Corinthians is a good translation, or a bad translation, as I stated. If it is a good translation, then seemingly Jesus was married. Seemingly Jerome, would know, as he translated it as sister woman.

 

[James248]

Agreed.

Two things hurt the argument by Clement:

1.) The fact that Peter’s mother-in-law waited on Jesus, and not his wife, goes against Jewish custom.

2.) Peter specifically says the Apostles have left everything to follow Jesus. If he had a living wife, did he leave her? This would make Jesus’ teaching on the sacredness of marriage, whilst an Apostle had left his wife, suspect.

I think a far more reasonable argument is that Peter was a widower.

This still does not address whether the passage in Corinthians is a good translation, or a bad translation, as I stated. If it is a good translation, then seemingly Jesus was married. Seemingly Jerome, would know, as he translated it as sister woman.

1. Peter’s mother in law did this out of gratitude. I can imagine her looking her daughter in the eye and saying, “Sit down. He did this for me. Let me do this for Him.”
2. Not necessarily. Jesus said that anyone who doesn’t love his father, mother, wife, or children less than Him is not worthy of Him.

I think translations shouldn’t be judged in good or bad: they should be judged in what agenda they support.

 

[Darryl_B]

It’s a bad translation. Please read my post #20. If we are going to interpret to translate the passage in Corinthians as wife, we must also do the same in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, and say Jesus had a wife.

Thanks for this info, and other posts which you have submitted. I find your argument very valid, especially because of a Council Canon which I read recently, but thought nothing about and did not understand until now, a Council Canon which you have just made sense of.

 

[Duane1966]

Thanks for this info, and other posts which you have submitted. I find your argument very valid, especially because of a Council Canon which I read recently, but thought nothing about and did not understand until now, a Council Canon which you have just made sense of.

Ty. I enjoy your posts also.

 

[James248]

1. Peter’s mother in law did this out of gratitude. I can imagine her looking her daughter in the eye and saying, “Sit down. He did this for me. Let me do this for Him.”
2. Not necessarily. Jesus said that anyone who doesn’t love his father, mother, wife, or children less than Him is not worthy of Him.

I think translations shouldn’t be judged in good or bad: they should be judged in what agenda they support.

Duane?

 

[JohnR77]

1. Peter’s mother in law did this out of gratitude. I can imagine her looking her daughter in the eye and saying, “Sit down. He did this for me. Let me do this for Him.”
2. …

I think translations shouldn’t be judged in good or bad: they should be judged in what agenda they support.

Forgive me for taking so long to respond to your posts, but
You seem to have more time to come up with these crazy ideas than I do to respond.

You have turned Peter’s mother-in-law from a generous holy lady into egocentric person who thinks it is all about her. When a person really loves another he wants to give all the help that can be given to the other (Jesus.) Two servants are better than one.

When a celebrity comes to town everybody wants to “help” that person. If Peter’s wife had been there it would have taken a special effort (as you describe above) to suppress her help. Since no suppression is mentioned, and she is not mentioned at all, it is doubtful that she was there. It would have been much more natural to say Peter’s wife and mother-in-law waited on Jesus. Since the wife is conspicuously not in the picture, it is probable that Peter is a widower at this point.

If it is helpful I can send a quote from St. Jerome saying how St. Peter did not have sex with his wife after Christ called him.

God bless,
John .

.

 

[James248]

Forgive me for taking so long to respond to your posts, but
You seem to have more time to come up with these crazy ideas than I do to respond.

You have turned Peter’s mother-in-law from a generous holy lady into egocentric person who thinks it is all about her. When a person really loves another he wants to give all the help that can be given to the other (Jesus.) Two servants are better than one.

When a celebrity comes to town everybody wants to “help” that person. If Peter’s wife had been there it would have taken a special effort (as you describe above) to suppress her help. Since no suppression is mentioned, and she is not mentioned at all, it is doubtful that she was there. It would have been much more natural to say Peter’s wife and mother-in-law waited on Jesus. Since the wife is conspicuously not in the picture, it is probable that Peter is a widower at this point.

If it is helpful I can send a quote from St. Jerome saying how St. Peter did not have sex with his wife after Christ called him.

God bless,
John .

.

Charity, man. Be charitable.

Well if someone does something for you, wouldn’t you want to do all you can to show gratitude? Ultimately the emphasis of the story is that Jesus healed Peter’s mother in law, not whether he was a widower or not. Have you provided a refutation for my other point?

And your citation from Jerome proves my point. Peter’s wife was still living.

 

[JohnR77]

Charity, man. Be charitable.

.

I apologize if I have offended you. It was not intentional.

Although, I see nothing offensive about my post.

If you wish to accuse me of being non-charitable please move that to another thread.
My reference to comments being “crazy” was an euphemistic way of saying you are wrong. You also claim others are wrong.

Well if someone does something for you, wouldn’t you want to do all you can to show gratitude

.

That is exactly my point. The mother would not have suppressed her daughter’s help as you suggested.

Ultimately the emphasis of the story is that Jesus healed Peter’s mother in law, not whether he was a widower or not.

.

You have your agenda. I have mine.
To me this thread is about the nature of the Apostle’s marriage after being called by Christ and the celibacy that was required.

And your citation from Jerome proves my point. Peter’s wife was still living.

No it does not.

Jerome –

1. … the question at issue between myself and Jovinian is that he puts marriage on a level with virginity, while I make it inferior; he declares that there is little or no difference between the two states, I assert that there is a great deal. …— he has been condemned because he has dared to set matrimony on an equality with perpetual chastity. Or, if a virgin and a wife are to be looked on as the same, how comes it that Rome has refused to listen to this impious doctrine? …
2. Christ Himself is a virgin; and His mother is also a virgin; yea, though she is His mother, she is a virgin still. For Jesus has entered in through the closed doors, John 20:19 and in His sepulchre— a new one hewn out of the hardest rock— no man is laid either before Him or after Him. John 19:41 Mary is “a garden enclosed…a fountain sealed,” Song of Songs 4:12 and from that fountain flows, according to Joel, the river which waters the torrent … She is the east gate, spoken of by the prophet Ezekiel, always shut and always shining, and either concealing or revealing the Holy of Holies; and through her “the Sun of Righteousness,” Malachi 4:2 our “high priest after the order of Melchizedek,” Hebrews 5:10 goes in and out. Let my critics explain to me how Jesus can have entered in through closed doors when He allowed His hands and His side to be handled, and showed that He had bones and flesh, thus proving that His was a true body and no mere phantom of one, and I will explain how the holy Mary can be at once a mother and a virgin. A mother before she was wedded, she remained a virgin after bearing her son. Therefore, as I was going to say, the virgin Christ and the virgin Mary have dedicated in themselves the first fruits of virginity for both sexes. **The apostles have either been virgins or, though married, have lived celibate lives. **Those persons who are chosen to be bishops, priests, and deacons are either virgins or widowers; or at least when once they have received the priesthood, are vowed to perpetual chastity.
   ** **Jerome – Letters 48 - To Pammachius

And I can send another quote from St. Jerome were he suggests St. Peter no longer had a wife although obviously he still had a mother-in-law.

Peace,
john

.

 

[James248]

I apologize if I have offended you. It was not intentional.

Although, I see nothing offensive about my post.

If you wish to accuse me of being non-charitable please move that to another thread.
My reference to comments being “crazy” was an euphemistic way of saying you are wrong. You also claim others are wrong.

That is exactly my point. The mother would not have suppressed her daughter’s help as you suggested.

You have your agenda. I have mine.
To me this thread is about the nature of the Apostle’s marriage after being called by Christ and the celibacy that was required.

No it does not.

Jerome –

1. … the question at issue between myself and Jovinian is that he puts marriage on a level with virginity, while I make it inferior; he declares that there is little or no difference between the two states, I assert that there is a great deal. …— he has been condemned because he has dared to set matrimony on an equality with perpetual chastity. Or, if a virgin and a wife are to be looked on as the same, how comes it that Rome has refused to listen to this impious doctrine? …
2. Christ Himself is a virgin; and His mother is also a virgin; yea, though she is His mother, she is a virgin still. For Jesus has entered in through the closed doors, John 20:19 and in His sepulchre— a new one hewn out of the hardest rock— no man is laid either before Him or after Him. John 19:41 Mary is “a garden enclosed…a fountain sealed,” Song of Songs 4:12 and from that fountain flows, according to Joel, the river which waters the torrent … She is the east gate, spoken of by the prophet Ezekiel, always shut and always shining, and either concealing or revealing the Holy of Holies; and through her “the Sun of Righteousness,” Malachi 4:2 our “high priest after the order of Melchizedek,” Hebrews 5:10 goes in and out. Let my critics explain to me how Jesus can have entered in through closed doors when He allowed His hands and His side to be handled, and showed that He had bones and flesh, thus proving that His was a true body and no mere phantom of one, and I will explain how the holy Mary can be at once a mother and a virgin. A mother before she was wedded, she remained a virgin after bearing her son. Therefore, as I was going to say, the virgin Christ and the virgin Mary have dedicated in themselves the first fruits of virginity for both sexes. **The apostles have either been virgins or, though married, have lived celibate lives. **Those persons who are chosen to be bishops, priests, and deacons are either virgins or widowers; or at least when once they have received the priesthood, are vowed to perpetual chastity.
   ** **Jerome – Letters 48 - To Pammachius

And I can send another quote from St. Jerome were he suggests St. Peter no longer had a wife although obviously he still had a mother-in-law.

Peace,
john

.

Which is what I said this whole time: after his calling, Peter refrained from relations with his wife even though he was still married. Isn’t this what Mary and Joseph did?

 

[Darryl_B]

From all the information I have pieced together, Peter’s wife had died, but it was customary for the Apostles to travel with female companions and that was for

A. An help-meet (though I don’t like that term thanks KJV), and it is unfortunate that in today’s world I have to emphasize and again that it was in a purely celibate sense. Early Church Canons from Councils permitted this as norm, but with the absolute requirement that the relationship was celibate, and free from romance.
B. Providing a role of deaconess. Early Church Fathers (and possibly Councils) permitted this role, as to avoid possible indiscretion.