Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

We know that Peter was married because Christ healed his mother-in-law. Do we know if he had children? Do we know whether any of the other apostles were married and if they had children?

share|improve this question
add comment

5 Answers 5

up vote 12 down vote accepted

Eusebius of Caesarea's Church History talks a bit about this.

He says St. Philip, at least, had 4 daughters and Sts. Peter and Paul had wives.

Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. "Or will they," says he, "reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry."

Church History Book III

Regarding St. Paul (although not one of the 12):

Paul was obviously unmarried when he wrote this verse. Some interpreters believe that he had previously been married and widowed; there is no clear evidence either for or against this view, which was expressed already at the end of the second century by Clement of Alexandria.

NABRE - Commentary on 1 Cor 7:8

share|improve this answer
    
Paul says he is single in his writings to the church in Corinth –  warren Nov 7 '11 at 18:41
1  
@warren yeah, I thought he was too, but I guess it's ambiguous - especially owing to the lack of punctuation in the ancient Greek. –  Peter Turner Nov 7 '11 at 19:02
1  
+1 for info from church history –  Narnian Nov 7 '11 at 20:11
add comment

There’s nothing that I know of in the Scriptures that indicate whether or not they did, aside from the mention of Peter’s mother-in-law. So, it seems we can’t know for sure.

However, the norm was that men would have wives and children. When things conform to the norm, it isn’t necessary to mention that. It is only notable if something goes against the norm. So, one reason to conclude that the apostles did have families was that this would have been the norm, and we have no mention of them being different from this norm.

I do understand that this is an argument from silence, but either side would need to be that way.

Another consideration is that if the marital status of the apostles had been in any way significant or important for us to know, then there would have been ample mention of it. We do know that Peter had a wife. The normal occurrence would be that they were all married and that they all had children.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Based upon Paul's comment in 1 Corinthians 9:5, it would certainly seem logical to conclude that each of the Disciples had wives that traveled with them in ministry. Certainly we cannot conclude that each one did have a wife as a traveling companion but the statement certainly would cause us to conclude that many if not most did. If that be the case, I believe we could also conclude that ministry was a family mission as a whole not just a "Dad" thing.

Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:5

share|improve this answer
    
Welcome to the forum! It is customary to include the biblical text inline when referencing it. We want people to be able to read and understand the entire answer right here without having to go to Bible Gateway or some other site. That being said, this is an excellent reference and answer. –  Narnian Jan 23 at 22:06
add comment

Comparing Acts 1:15-20, particularly vs. 20, with Psalm 109:6-20 demonstrates that Judas was married and that he had several children. The passage in Psalm 109 is not hyperbole; it is meant to be literal. Judas had a wife and several children. If Judas had children and was away from home for 3 1/2 years being trained for future ministry just like the other apostles, it seems reasonable to assume that the other apostles had children also since they were definitely married.

share|improve this answer
    
Welcome to the site! This next has nothing to do with the quality of your answer, it's just standard to help new visitors avoid misunderstanding the site (as I did at first.) As a new visitor, I'd recommend checking out the following two posts, which are meant to help newcomers "learn the ropes": the help page and How we are different than other sites? –  David Stratton Feb 3 at 18:25
add comment

Matthew 17:24-27 probably takes place at the house of Peter in Capernaum (Peter, being the master of the house, would have been the one to go outside to meet the tax collector). Therefore, as the narrative in this location continues into Chapter 18, when Jesus calls a child over in v2 to serve as an illustration for His teaching, it is reasonable to infer this child (likely male though the gender of the word is neutral), is Peter's as any children the other disciples had would likely not have traveled with them.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.