Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
There is no evidence that Jesus had children. But is there anything in the Bible indicating that he certainly did not?
The reason for asking about the evidence of the negative: If someone says "Jesus might have children, I might have his blood in my veins" I may answer "I don't believe that Jesus had children because..." - is there anything in Bible supporting this attitude?
I think the clearest is prophecy in Isaiah 53:7-9:
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
If Jesus had children then who took care of them as he wandered from one city to another? He wouldn't be there for his wife and children.
It was mentioned in the Bible about his father, mother, and brothers but his wife nor children were not mentioned. The people around said "Your mother is here" and he gave the another definition of who his mothers or brethren should be.
Matthew 12:49-50
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Jesus said my meat is to do the will of who sent me, and not to eat every food I see around. Jesus knew what was before him and he couldn't mix pleasure of having a wife, children, family, life activities with the task at hand.
Matthew 19:10-12
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the *kingdom of heaven*. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Jesus fits the third category of eunuchs he described and as a leading and perfect example, I believe he went in that direction so others could follow. The disciples did not ask him "But you are married?"
Proving a negative is philosophically a very difficult argument to make, and in many cases is impossible. The onus would be on an historian to make a case that he did have children.
No one disputes that Moses had children. There is a record in Exodus, and a tradition. That Charlemagne had children is "proven" in that there are records of his children.
Proving that George Washington, for example, had no children is difficult. Saying that he had no legitimate heirs is simply a matter of saying, there is no evidence that he did. (Though with all the Claims, "George Washington slept here," doubtless some future historian is bound to say he bedded someone!). Proving that he had no children is only as valid as saying that no record of any progeny exists.
In the case of Jesus, there is zero evidence of any children, and zero evidence he was even married.
Because the record is so ancient, some might not consider that sufficient, however. That said, there being no evidence for, the only rational answer is to fallback on "you can't prove a negative." whilest completely true, it will nevertheless be unsatisfactory for those with an axe to grind. As such, I propose a more modern example of the same.
There is no evidence for George Washington having any children either, though I'm sure some mischievous person might choose to start a rumor. (don't believe me? Google 'Grover Cleveland' and ' Ma, Ma, Where's my Pa? Gone to the White House, Ha Ha Ha. )
In short, absent any kind of historical tradition or contemporary account (of which there is none) there is simply no way of sustaining such a claim.
I would find it very hard to believe that Jesus had children. Jesus, during the time of His ministry, took special care to talk to children, and to encourage His followers and disciples to do the same. His ministry, however, would have prevented Him from caring for and being there for His own children during their late pre-teen to early teenage years. While this wouldn't be too terrible if He had no male progeny, as daughters married away quite frequently prior to or around their early teens (although she would have been extremely poor, having no dowry, and would have been extremely devalued in that culture), a male child would have suffered much stigma for having no inheritance, no land, and no home. Additionally, the Bible very clearly labels a man who doesn't provide for his family as being worse than an infidel, yet according to Jesus, He didn't even have a stone to call a pillow.
Lastly, if He did have children, then He must surely have also had a wife, as having children out of wedlock was extremely taboo in those days in the Jewish culture. Jesus lived by the Levitical law, and would have been required to marry any woman He had intercourse with, unless she refused Him. There's never any mention of a woman traveling with Jesus, so for Him to have been married he would have had to have left his wife homeless somewhere... I think that the implications there are strong that Jesus had no children. There is, however, no conclusive proof that I am aware of in either regard.
I would dare to say that if Jesus did have children of His own it would invalidate nearly His entire ministry, as it would seem quite hypocritical the disparities between His teaching and His life if He did have children and a family for which He obviously did not provide.
