Peter Had a Wife! Mark 1:29-39

WEDNESDAY

We don’t have to be very smart to understand if Peter had a mother-in-law, there is a good chance Peter had a wife. Now, for obvious reasons, this poses problems for many people. However, many if not most of the disciples probably had wives. Remember, these were just normal rank and file working stiffs until Jesus came. I like that! I also love the fact they had some knowledge of the “real world.” The “real world” being punching the clock, turning the proverbial wrench, and taking care of their families. In any event, here are some of the possibilities for Peter’s wife:

·       Peter, by the time of our ‘mother-in-law’ story may have been a widower. This is certainly a possible solution. It is generally how our Catholic friends understand this passage. And, it may be the correct explanation! After all, why wasn’t a dutiful daughter standing by her mother’s side? Why is she not mentioned? These are all good questions! Now let me put all hearts at ease regarding Peter being married. The Catholic Church did not have any regulation in the first 300-400 years of the Church regarding celibacy for those in the Priesthood. In fact, Catholicism’s sister Church, the Orthodox Church does not require celibacy. At one time in seminary I considered becoming an Antiochian Orthodox Priest. I would have been Father Jim instead of Pastor Jim! In any event, there are several kinds of Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

·       Or, Peter might be the father or step-father of Mark. The same John-Mark who most people believe wrote the Gospel of Mark. Scholars generally agree that Mark is written through the eyes of Peter and the pen of Mark. In other words, Mark is not the first-hand account of Mark, but the firsthand account of Peter telling Mark the stories of Jesus. Mark and Peter had a very close relationship and Mark was evidently with Peter in Rome. If Mark is Peter’s son or step-son, then the name of Peter’s wife (or second wife) would be Mary according to Acts 12:12…

“When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John, also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying.”

Now before we get too excited over discovering the name of Peter’s wife we must ask some questions. In Acts 12 we have Peter imprisoned when an an angel walks Peter out of the jail. Peter then goes to the “home of Mary” and knocks at the front gate? Why wouldn’t Peter just walk on in? Since Peter was in prison, did he lose the key? Why is the house referred to as the “house of Mary” and not the “home of Peter or Peter & Mary… or Peter, Paul and Mary… sorry I just couldn’t resist a sixties folk band reference.

·       Now, the simplest answer is indeed Peter was a widower. That Peter must have taken in his deceased wife’s aging mother as a kindness. This would also imply the mother-in-law was also a widow. After all, we also don’t hear anything about the Father-in-law. However, making an argument form silence is problematic.

Now let’s complicate our Peter’s wife problem a little further. Let’s take a look at this verse from First Corinthians 9:3-6...

³ This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. ⁴ Don’t we have the right to food and drink? ⁵ Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas (Simon-Peter)? ⁶ Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?

Most scholars believe the Gospel of Mark was written between 60-69 AD. They also believe the Gospel of Mark was written before the Fall of Jerusalem (Destruction of the Temple) in 70 AD. Why? Because Mark does not mention this pivotal event. The First Jewish-Roman War, aka the Siege of Jerusalem, started in 66 AD and went through 73 AD. Seven years of tribulation… once again, another blog for another day! In any event, this would imply the Gospel of Mark was written prior to 66 AD. The Roman Emperor Nero committed suicide on June 9^th, 68 AD. This event is also not recorded in the Gospel of Mark. These types of events are too pivotal and to historic to Israel and Christianity not to mention them. Hence, this is why I believe the Gospel of Mark was easily written before 66 AD. Once again, the passage from First Corinthians 9 has the Apostle Paul complaining the other disciples are allowed to take “believing wives.” Once again, looking at the entire text:

⁵ Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? ⁶ Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?

This seems to state overtly that all the other Apostles and the Lord’s brothers had wives… including Cephas. Cephas is another name for Simon-Peter. First Corinthians was written around 53-54 AD. The story of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law took place during Jesus’ ministry in 27-33 AD. Why 20 years later does First Corinthians 9:5-6 imply Cephas (Simon-Peter) had a wife at that time? If Paul would take the time to write this verse, why would Paul not write it the following way instead:

⁵ Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers. ”Even Cephas had a wife before being widowed!” ⁶ Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?

To me, it is hard to argue against the apparent present reality of Cephas having a wife in 53-54 AD. Why would Paul even separate Cephas (Simon-Peter) out from the other Apostles? In any event, I think it is highly-probable that not only did Peter have a wife, but IF Peter was a widower, that by 53-54 AD, Peter must have remarried. Well, let’s look at the original text from First Corinthians 9:5-6 once again:

⁵ Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? ⁶ Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?

Verse 6 is VERY, VERY interesting! Paul’s complaint seems to attach some economic status to being married. Verse 6 almost sounds like Paul is saying, “Can I not have a wife to fund me and my ministry like the other Apostle’s and Lord’s brothers?” Evidently the image of the docile wife who needs a man to take care of her is not Paul’s, the other Apostles, or the Lord’s brothers belief! It sounds like they are “kept men!” Hmmmm…. I showed Miss Carol my thoughts and told her we need to get Biblical!!!!

Now understand, the main thought behind First Corinthians 9 is Paul justifying himself as an Apostle. In addition, Paul must have received some criticism regarding his request for the Churches to support him financially. That is the background for chapter 9. The other Apostles were being supported and this is a transitionary time for the Church and Paul. A time in which the Church DOES eventually accept Paul as an Apostle. The following verse 7 seems to indicate this discussion:

⁷ Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk?

Paul is building the argument that his ministry deserves financial support. Now understand, Paul was bi-vocational (see Acts 18:1-4). He had learned the tent-making trade and seemed to work at this trade to support his ministry. Now let’s get back to Peter.

We know Peter was married. If Peter was married during the healing of his mother-in-law by Jesus, then it is also possible he was a widower. The big question is why the daughter (Peter’s wife), is not mentioned. Well, in a manner of speaking she just might be! Let’s return to Mark 1:29

²⁹ As soon as they left the synagogue, they went with James and John to the home of Simon and Andrew. ³⁰ Simon’s mother-in-law was in bed with a fever, and they immediately told Jesus about her. ³¹ So he went to her, took her hand and helped her up. The fever left her and she began to wait on them.

I would argue the “they” is the wife and perhaps the kids who are just waiting to tell Jesus about about sick old Grandma! Mom-in-law evidently had a high fever from the reports in the other Gospels (see Matthew 8:14; Luke 4:38). A fever high enough that kept her in bed. Therefore, it is highly probable that Peter’s wife was alive and well at this time. Later we will explore the idea of a ‘second wife’ if indeed Peter was a widower at the time of this healing.

Now what about the kid’s. Here is an interesting verse in First Peter 5:12-14…

¹² With the help of Silas, whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it. ¹³ She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark. ¹⁴ Greet one another with a kiss of love. Peace to all of you who are in Christ.

In the final greetings to the Book of First Peter we find Peter specifies a son. Look at the First Peter 5:13 below with an explanation of metaphors…

“She (the Church) who is in Babylon (Rome), chosen together with you (the Churches in the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia) sends you her (Roman Church) greetings, and so does my son Mark.”

Does this mean Mark is Peter’s son? Perhaps! I call several young men “my sons.”  However, it is in the spiritual sense or due to the closeness of our friendship. I also have my have my own son. Therefore, this could certainly be the case between Peter and Mark. It just seems strange that Peter, when let out of prison would go to the home of Mary in the middle of the night. Peter may have assumed there was a prayer vigil for him by entering Mary’s home. After all, Mary was evidently a woman of some financial means since she was one of several women in the Bible that hosted, and probably were “thee” or at least “a” leader of a house Church. They were definitely benefactors of the Church and the Apostles. DO NOT BE FOOLED. IF IT WAS NOT FOR WOMEN, CHRISTIANITY WOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED!

·                                     Priscilla and Aquila in 1 Corinthians 16:19 and Romans 16:3; 5

Priscilla evidently was the dominant personality in their marriage.She even instructed the famous preacher, Apollos, correcting his doctrine! (Acts 18:26)

·                                    Nymphas in Colossians 4:15

·                                   Lydia in Acts 16:11-40 and Phoebe in Romans 16:1 were also leaders.

·                                  Junia was perhaps an Apostle! (see Romans 16:7)

Conclusion

Here are my opinions. Peter was certainly married. Whether Peter had children we cannot say. Peter could have been widowed at the time Jesus healed Peter’s mother-in-law. Perhaps this first marriage, if indeed Peter was widowed (for which there is no evidence) was childless. If Peter was widowed, then he more than likely remarried. I would suggest this wife was Mary the sister of Barnabas. It could be implied that Mary must have been a widow as well. Mary did have a son Mark. We do not know if Peter is the father or the step-father. I lean in the step-father direction regarding First Peter 5:13. It seems clear to me this John-Mark is the Mark who wrote the Gospel of Mark. And, as indicated earlier in First Corinthians 9:5-6, it appears the necessity to have a “wife of means” was certainly something Paul thought was his “right” as well! Mary certainly would have been a “wife of means!” A woman who owned her own home implies financial stability! Mary’s first husband (if there was one) may have left her a sizable inheritance to take care of Mark! This sounds very plausible! Or, like Lydia, Mary may have been a business woman who built her own financial wealth. In any event, Mary would be a good candidate to be a “wife of means.”

Now at least one question remains. Why were the early Church fathers silent on Peters marriage? Polycarp, Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Rome, Eusebius, etc.? Only Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John would have the best, but still only second-hand knowledge. The others would have only known what Polycarp knew. I just don’t see them concerned that Peter’s marriage was a big deal. I will discuss the concept of the papacy (Pope) in a separate blog. However, for the moment, not everyone believes the Church was hierarchical in the sense many Churches have organized themselves today. Especially after the legalization of the Church in 313 AD by Emperor Constantine. When Christianity became the established religion of the realm, it then became more structured by the compromises of the political and religious leaders. The Protestant Reformers did not recognize this type of episcopal structure. The reformers would argue that the formal Church took steps to legitimize themselves to the state by re-inventing history.

I hope you will come back tomorrow! Tomorrow we will discuss Biblical healing! Can I be healed? Can you be healed? What is healing?

See you tomorrow! God Bless!