Is unmarried celibacy the preferred way of life to Jesus and Paul?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Contrary to Dan Brown-esque fanatical ideas of Jesus being married or having children, when there is absolutely no evidence that he was either in the Gospels or in Paul's writings, Jesus arguably takes a hostile view of marriage himself, directly saying there will be no marriage in the Kingdom of God to come (Mark 12:25). Marriage is proposed as a totally acceptable option, but Paul believes that celibacy is best one (1 Corinthians 7).

This would contradict the "be fruitful and multiply" attitude that's predominant in mainstream Christianity, particularly in Protestant circles where religious leaders have families (obviously because they are allowed to) and in some cases promote marriage as opposed to celibacy, directly contradicting the attitude Jesus and Paul had towards marriage. (This has been my experience on various occasions, at least.)

Why did the two largest living figures in Christianity take such a different approach to marriage than the vast majority of its followers? Was lifelong celibacy intended to be the "default" choice to Jesus and Paul, taking precedence even over marriage and parenthood?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Hate to tell you this Jesus wasn't celibate, he traveled with Mary Magdalene and they found an Ossuary Box in the tomb of James and Jesus


Pastors don't talk about this because there were no last names but Jesus might have had a kid with her as well

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Hate to tell you this Jesus wasn't celibate, he traveled with Mary Magdalene and they found an Ossuary Box in the tomb of James and Jesus


Pastors don't talk about this because there were no last names but Jesus might have had a kid with her as well

Mary Magdalene was not his wife. If Jesus was married to her or anyone else then that's a considerable oversight considering that even Jesus's brothers and sisters are mentioned directly (Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56) but his own wife and kids conveniently are not?

[afleitch]

Hate to tell you this Jesus wasn't celibate, he traveled with Mary Magdalene and they found an Ossuary Box in the tomb of James and Jesus


Pastors don't talk about this because there were no last names but Jesus might have had a kid with her as well

Mary Magdalene was not his wife. If Jesus was married to her or anyone else then that's a considerable oversight considering that even Jesus' brothers and sisters are mentioned directly (Mark 6:3, Matthew 13:55-56) but his own wife and kids conveniently are not?

While I don't believe Jesus had a wife or children, there's a difference between being mentioned in the NT and being omitted from it.

[Georg Ebner]

Contrary to Dan Brown-esque fanatical ideas of Jesus being married or having children, when there is absolutely no evidence that he was either in the Gospels or in Paul's writings, Jesus arguably takes a hostile view of marriage himself, directly saying there will be no marriage in the Kingdom of God to come (Mark 12:25). Marriage is proposed as a totally acceptable option, but Paul believes that celibacy is best one (1 Corinthians 7).

This would contradict the "be fruitful and multiply" attitude that's predominant in mainstream Christianity, particularly in Protestant circles where religious leaders have families (obviously because they are allowed to) and in some cases promote marriage as opposed to celibacy, directly contradicting the attitude Jesus and Paul had towards marriage. (This has been my experience on various occasions, at least.)

Why did the two largest living figures in Christianity take such a different approach to marriage than the vast majority of its followers? Was lifelong celibacy intended to be the "default" choice to Jesus and Paul, taking precedence even over marriage and parenthood?

Why speaking of "contradictions"? You Yourself quoted St.PAUL: Marriage is good, celibacy is better. Who is able to, should do it. By the way also found outside Christianity: The marriage of priests has been seen with some shame in the pagan world, too. Or history's great men, who have usually been married (at least de facto) with their mission as poet, painter, StatesMan.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Why did the two largest living figures in Christianity take such a different approach to marriage than the vast majority of its followers? Was lifelong celibacy intended to be the "default" choice to Jesus and Paul, taking precedence even over marriage and parenthood?

Asceticism in general seems to have been on the upswing in the 1st century: in Jewish circles there were the Thereputae, the Essenes and whatever the Qumran community was, and there was an ongoing Cynic revival in the Greek world.

The most interesting and direct passage about celibacy in the New Testament is in Luke 20:

Jesus said to them, “Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. Indeed they cannot die anymore, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection.

which seems straightforwardly to say that marriage makes one unworthy of resurrection. It's especially interesting compared to the same pericope in Mark 12 and Matthew 22, where Jesus tells the Sadducees that only after the resurrection they will be like the angels who are not married in heaven.

[RFayette]

I don't think Paul ever intended for celibacy to be the route for the majority of Christians to take.  In 1 Corinthians 7:7 he talks about singleness being a gift God gives to some but not others.  So I think already he is recognizing that even though singleness is a major gift that it is probably not meant for the majority of Christians.

I think you are reading too much into Mark 12.  I know some use that and especially Luke 20 to argue that Jesus was against marriage itself, but this is plainly inconsistent with his prohibitions on divorce where he points out that in marriage God joins two people together.  I think this is just recognizing the world to come will be different in many ways than our own. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't think Paul ever intended for celibacy to be the route for the majority of Christians to take.  In 1 Corinthians 7:7 he talks about singleness being a gift God gives to some but not others.  So I think already he is recognizing that even though singleness is a major gift that it is probably not meant for the majority of Christians.

To be fair to Scott's original point, this is still in contradiction to the common Protestant sensibility that if you don't get married and have kids there's something wrong with you--a sensibility that conveniently matches the norms of mainstream culture just fine even today.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

I think you are reading too much into Mark 12.  I know some use that and especially Luke 20 to argue that Jesus was against marriage itself, but this is plainly inconsistent with his prohibitions on divorce where he points out that in marriage God joins two people together.  I think this is just recognizing the world to come will be different in many ways than our own. 

What adds more weight to this Lucan peculiarity on marriage is that Luke skips over the pericope in Mark and Matthew that contains the prohibition of divorce.