Where any of the Apostles married?

[minkymurph]

Can anyone here tell me if any of the Apostles where married? I know the Bible says Peter had a mother-in-law, but there some debate as to whether she was still alive when he was called to follow Christ. There is no mention in the Bible of any of the Apostles having wives or children. By my reasoning, I don’t think any of them where.

My reasons are:

At the time of Christ, the man was the soul provider. Who would have cared for the wives and children of the Apostles while they where with Jesus on his ministry?

There where women who travelled with Jesus. I would believe it would have been very inappropriate, scandalous in fact for women to travel around with a group of men if they where not their wives. There is no mention in the Bible that these women where wives of the Apostles and I would therefore conclude that they where relatives of some of the Apostles.

It was also customary in Israel to follow the profession of one’s father. There is no mention of any sons fishing with the Apostles.

What does anyone else think?

 

[Robbinson]

As you pointed out in your post, Peter had a mother-in-law, and thus was married. We have no way of knowing whether he was married during Christ’s ministry or not. As to the other apostles, I don’t think it is mentioned anywhere in scripture one way or the other.

We know that Paul was not married from his epistles.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Zenas]

Several of the apostles were married, perhaps all of them. See 1 Corinthians 9:5:

Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

 

[Robbinson]

Several of the apostles were married, perhaps all of them. See 1 Corinthians 9:5:

Good catch.

Brian

 

[minkymurph]

Several of the apostles were married, perhaps all of them. See 1 Corinthians 9:5:

Would you say then that the wives of the Apostles accompanied them when travelling with Christ and they are not specifically mentioned in the Gospels as the wives of the Apostles as in those days women where pretty insignificant? The reason I wondered about this is due to the fact that I couldn’t see Jesus turning up out of the blue and asking a married man with children to up sticks, leave his family to fend for themselves by gleaning the fields or something, and follow him as that was more important.

 

[thistle]

Several of the apostles were married, perhaps all of them. See 1 Corinthians 9:5:

D-R Bible

1 Cor 9:5 “Have we not the power to bring about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethern of the Lord, and Cephas?”

Christian Community Bible (Catholic Pastoral Edition):

1 Cor 9:5 “Have we not the right of bringing alongwith us a sister as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”

I don’t see any mention of the apostles having wives.

 

[minkymurph]

D-R Bible

1 Cor 9:5 “Have we not the power to bring about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethern of the Lord, and Cephas?”

Christian Community Bible (Catholic Pastoral Edition):

1 Cor 9:5 “Have we not the right of bringing alongwith us a sister as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”

I don’t see any mention of the apostles having wives.

Ah yes, translation. The Bible I have is a New Jerusalem Bible which my Parish Priest claims is accepted by Bible scholars as the most accurate. Although no doubt many would disagree with that.

The New Jerusalem Bible reads: ‘Have we not the right to eat and drink? And every right to be accompanied by a Christian wife, like the other apostles, like the brothers of the Lord, and like Cephas?’

The rest of the chapter however makes for interesting reading. I do not feel that Paul states what he does in order to teach that at least some of the Apostles where married. The chapter is not about marriage. Rather it appears to me to be about the right to do certain things as Paul opens this chapter with the words, ‘Am I not free? Am I not an Apostle?’ and this chapter is a continuation of the previous chapter which relates to eating and drinking certain foods, and goes on to talk about earning a living for the essentials of food while preaching the Gospel.

It could be concluded then, that this chapter does not say whether the Apostles where married or not but rather, they had a choice but chose not to do so in order to take up Apostleship.

verse 17, ‘that in my preaching I offer the Gospel free of charge to avoid using the rights which the Gospel allows me.’

As far as I understand it, Paul did not take a wife in order to further the Gospel. He may be eluding to the fact that the other Apostles chose to do the same, yet they where free to marry as opposed to becoming an Apostle.

 

[thistle]

Ah yes, translation. The Bible I have is a New Jerusalem Bible which my Parish Priest claims is accepted by Bible scholars as the most accurate. Although no doubt many would disagree with that.

The New Jerusalem Bible reads: **‘Have we not the right to eat and drink? And every right to be accompanied by a Christian wife, like the other apostles, like the brothers of the Lord, and like Cephas?’ **

The rest of the chapter however makes for interesting reading. I do not feel that Paul states what he does in order to teach that at least some of the Apostles where married. The chapter is not about marriage. Rather it appears to me to be about the right to do certain things as Paul opens this chapter with the words, ‘Am I not free? Am I not an Apostle?’ and this chapter is a continuation of the previous chapter which relates to eating and drinking certain foods, and goes on to talk about earning a living for the essentials of food while preaching the Gospel.

It could be concluded then, that this chapter does not say whether the Apostles where married or not but rather, they had a choice but chose not to do so in order to take up Apostleship.

verse 17, ‘that in my preaching I offer the Gospel free of charge to avoid using the rights which the Gospel allows me.’

As far as I understand it, Paul did not take a wife in order to further the Gospel. He may be eluding to the fact that the other Apostles chose to do the same, yet they where free to marry as opposed to becoming an Apostle.

Even if we accept that transalation it does not say the other apostles had wives. It just says they have the right to have wives.

 

[Zenas]

Even if we accept that transalation it does not say the other apostles had wives. It just says they have the right to have wives.

Yes, I see what you are saying but it is a very awkward usage of the language to draw this conclusion. If Paul had said something like, “Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the other apostles do,” I would agree with you. But when he added the brothers of the Lord and Cephas, it seems obvious that he was comparing himself to specific persons who were married. I’m afraid your take on this verse has been influenced by your notions concerning the celibacy or the priesthood.

If a protestant on this board took John 20:23 and twisted it like this, you would be disdainful and justifiably so.

Now, having said this, and only because that seems to be the only realistic interpretation without butchering the language, I do have to wonder about your questions. As for the apostles leaving family behind, there is some support for this in Matthew 19:29.

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life.

Another question I have is a little more far fetched. If all the apostles were married, they must have had a lot of children. Yet we never hear of any of them in the early patristic writings–Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin. It seems that at least one or two of these offspring would have risen to prominence in the early church.

 

[minkymurph]

I’m afraid your take on this verse has been influenced by your notions concerning the celibacy or the priesthood.

As for the apostles leaving family behind, there is some support for this in Matthew 19:29. Another question I have is a little more far fetched. If all the apostles were married, they must have had a lot of children. Yet we never hear of any of them in the early patristic writings–Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin. It seems that at least one or two of these offspring would have risen to prominence in the early church.

This is what I was thinking. Jesus did say as you quote, about leaving brothers, sisters and so on. However, I don’t believe Jesus expected his Apostles to abandon their wives and children to a live of poverty, which would have happened then with no man to provide for them, and children growing up without a Father in order to follow him. That would be unchristian and contradictory to other passages of scripture. Another slant on the passage you quote may be simply putting following Christ first if prevented from doing so by your family, say by opposition. Jesus did use some strange language sometimes. For instance, some translations read that he said you must hate your relatives. I don’t think he meant that literally!

As you say, and I agree, there is no mention of any of the Apostles children which I find strange as you would imagine there would be somewhere. You mentioned celebacy. My interest in this topic does relate to that in a round-a-bout way. I have a friend who insists that the Bible says bishops must be married; and that single men couldn’t become bishops in the early Christian Church. My friends whole argument however hinges around the wording of 2nd Timothy 3:2, husband of one wife. and my attempts to explain that men who had more than one wife where then converting to Christianity, and Paul was attempting to restore the proper order of marriage and therefore, those who held the office of bishop could not have polygamous relationships where in vain. She would say that that is a command. If none of the Apostles where married, it would be a bit contradictory to state that those reaching out for the office of bishop must be married and therefore lends weight to the argument that in the early Christian Church, single men could become bishops.

After all that, I accept your argument about what I would call ‘word play’ in relation to scripture. As in, focusing on one or two words in a verse in the Bible and formulating a teaching from it.

 

[Cadellin]

the Bible says Peter had a mother-in-law

I’ve often wondered if Peter’s so-called mother-in-law might not have been his step-mother, i.e a woman who was, in law, his mother.

Just a thought.

 

[minkymurph]

I’ve often wondered if Peter’s so-called mother-in-law might not have been his step-mother, i.e a woman who was, in law, his mother.

Just a thought.

Well, as far as I know terms used for relatives where kind of inter-changable in those days. For instance, the term ‘brother’ could mean half brother, step brother, cousin or any kind of ‘kin’. I think Abraham referred to Lot as his brother, although he was apparently not a brother but a relative. Joseph was never referred to in scripture as a half-brother, yet he was the half-brother of all Jacob’s son’s with the exception of Benjamin. Children of slaves eg, Ismael, (apologies for spelling, I don’t think that’s right) where also considered brothers.

 

[thistle]

Yes, I see what you are saying but it is a very awkward usage of the language to draw this conclusion. If Paul had said something like, “Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the other apostles do,” I would agree with you. **But when he added the brothers of the Lord and Cephas, it seems obvious that he was comparing himself to specific persons who were married. I’m afraid your take on this verse has been influenced by your notions concerning the celibacy or the priesthood. **

If a protestant on this board took John 20:23 and twisted it like this, you would be disdainful and justifiably so.

Now, having said this, and only because that seems to be the only realistic interpretation without butchering the language, I do have to wonder about your questions. As for the apostles leaving family behind, there is some support for this in Matthew 19:29. Another question I have is a little more far fetched. If all the apostles were married, they must have had a lot of children. Yet we never hear of any of them in the early patristic writings–Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin. It seems that at least one or two of these offspring would have risen to prominence in the early church.

I don’t agree. I contend that the NAB is a bad translation and the Douey-Rheims is a good translation and that does not mention wives.

 

[bbentrup]

The biblical commentary I’ve read claims that the Greek word could be translated either way, a wife or a woman-secretary. The context would easily allow for both possibilities (given that for Paul the text is within a hypothetical situation) so it is rather presumptious to say that one or the other translation is ‘bad’.

Regardless, it is inequivocable that Paul saw the celibate life as something to be modelled by the clergy. Two chapters earlier he writes concerning marriage: “(7:7) I wish that all were as myself am.” and even more clearly later with “(7:32) I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided.”

From the Catholic Encyclopedia under ‘Peter’:

Simon settled in Capharnaum, where he was living with his mother-in-law in his own house (Matthew 8:14; Luke 4:38) at the beginning of Christ’s public ministry (about A.D. 26-28). Simon was thus married, and, according to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), had children. The same writer relates the tradition that Peter’s wife suffered martyrdom (ibid., VII, xi ed. cit., III, 306). Concerning these facts, adopted by Eusebius (Church History III.31) from Clement, the ancient Christian literature which has come down to us is silent. Simon pursued in Capharnaum the profitable occupation of fisherman in Lake Genesareth, possessing his own boat (Luke 5:3).

As far as we know we are free to believe whether or not the other apostles were married, but what is the point? Scripture, the Church’s Magisterium led by the Spirit, Holy Tradition, and right reason all show us that celibacy is the higher calling for our priests, if possible (note that some married protestant clergy are allowed to be ordained into the priesthood when they convert despite marriage in order to help regulate their transition with their previous livelihood).

 

[peary]

Several of the apostles were married, perhaps all of them. See 1 Corinthians 9:5:

I find it rather odd that in the gospels, Peter’s mother-in-law is mentioned as living in his house, but not his wife, which infers that perhaps Peter was a widower. However, as it written in 1 Cor. 9:5, Paul records that Peter’s wife was with him. I don’t think John, the beloved disciple, was married. The scriptures are starkly silent on the matter, for the most part.