Jesus’ singleness
Did he die too soon to marry?
Century after century, people have questioned whether it is more holy to remain single or get married. Many followers of Christ, clergy and otherwise, have chosen to live a life of celibacy in order to please God with their complete dedication to him.
In the rabbinic count of biblical commands, the very first command is “Be fruitful and increase in number” (Genesis 1:28). As a command, the act of marriage would be considered the desire of God for his children.
So, why didn’t Jesus obey this command?
Throughout the last two millennia, it has been believed by a majority of Christians that Jesus’ decision to remain unmarried (which is assumed, because the Gospels do not mention that he was married) should be modeled by those who desire to give themselves fully to God.
What if there is a much more practical reason for Jesus’ decision to remain single?
Jewish disciples would finish their studies at or about age thirty, when they would begin their own teaching ministries as sages. The responsibility of a first-century rabbi required many years of travel, which would require a husband to spend long periods of time far away from his wife and children. Due to such frequent absences, many of these rabbis would not marry until late in their thirties or even into their forties.
Jesus’ singleness has caused some to judge those who are married as less devoted to God than those who remain single. Is that judgment justified or affirmed by Scripture?
It is possible that Jesus never intended for any of us to remain single as a way of proving our devotion to God. It is also possible that Jesus’ decision to remain single was not a decision at all, but an outcome of his death at an early age. As Dr. David Bivin has succinctly stated, “He (Jesus) was still relatively young when he was crucified, and his death may have come before he would have had a chance to marry” (New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus, page 68).
Writer: Capt. Jonathan Gainey was born in Jacksonville, FL in June, 1969. He has been married to Staci, the daughter of retired Salvation Army officers, for twenty years and they have four children ages 18, 16, 12, and 4. Jonathan was commissioned as an officer in June of 2002, and is currently serving in his third appointment in New Bern, NC, USA. He is working on a Masters of Divinity from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary and is the creator and manager of the Flocks Diner website, where his passion for learning and teaching is expressed and shared through writing and a weekly podcast.
17 Comments to Jesus’ singleness
Leave a comment
Categories
- 1000 Post Celebration
- Areopagus
- Belief
- Blogroll
- COMING SOON
- Concise Oxford
- Creation
- Creative Arts
- Double~take
- Easter
- Ecclesia
- Education
- Ephemera
- FAD
- Featured
- From Russia with Blogs
- Gen whY?
- History
- JustThinking
- Lives lived
- Match factory
- Match Factory Events
- Ordination
- Personae
- Politics
- Power
- Ragamuffin
- Ramblings
- Redux - The Best of
- Resources
- Resurrected writers
- Reviews
- Rubicon Books
- Rubiconography
- Shades of grey
- Shades of grey
- Supper Club
- theRubi-Blog
- Think
- Thinkaloud
- Thought
- Uncategorized
- Urbanities
- Vox populi
Sound and Fury
- Does Power Corrupt? 19 Charlee, Errin Hogan, Errin Hogan
- With God on our side 19 Hank Harwell, Robert Deidrick, John Stephenson
- What The Hell? (Part One: Bell's Hell) 13 Phil, Jim, Jim
- Officers - "The shrinking pool" 41 Thimon, David Hutchinson, Rob
- Resurrected writers: Catherine Booth 1 Michelle Townsend
Thanks for your post. I had a wee chuckle to myself as I have found myself being told many times over the years that I am “so lucky being single because you have so much more time to spend with God”. This would come from married people. I think when we start trying to make one better than the other, we diminish the value of both.
One question I could probably try researching: how sure are we that Jesus was single? I thought Paul mentioned it 1 Corinthians 7, but a very quick look doesn’t find anything. Isaiah seemed to think the Suffering Servant didn’t have children.
Obviously, there is no evidence to say that he did have a wife, and anyone suggesting he did has a fairly high burden of proof to lift. Yet we don’t know much about the marital statuses of any of the apostles either, apart from Paul (who was quite proud of the fact) and Peter. Well, we know Peter had a mother-in-law, so we presume he was married.
Just a few thoughts for consideration. Whether I believe this or not is another matter. The second post has prompted these thoughts on ‘how certain are we of Jesus’ marital status?’
One of the reasons Paul gives to Timothy for not allowing him to be a leader of the church is that he is not married and does not have children. Both Paul and Christ are ‘leaders of the church’. Culturally, before one could be called ‘Rabbi’ (as Jesus was) or become a Pharasee (as Paul was), they had to be married and prove they could look after their own family. Their were spiritual ascetics at the time, but these were not referred to as Rabbis. Some more liberal theologians suggest that both were married at one point. They suggest we don’t hear of Jesus’ wife as it is of little importance to the message of Salvation. Paul, we know was single at the time of his writing, but those same liberal theologians would suggest he was married at one point, and presume that he was widdowed (quite common apparently among the pharasees) and chose not to remarry. As such, he was able to talk authoratatively about marriage.
Just food for thought.
Graeme.
Jonathan, I think you’re right that Jesus never wanted any of us to be single just to prove our devotion to Him. He knows our hearts, and He’s obviously never been impressed with people making grand sacrifices in order to show off their self-control (to obey is better than to sacrifice). However, it is certainly possible that being in a state of singleness can result FROM devotion to Him, and from obeying His call to love.
After Jesus preaches that divorce is unacceptable (except in the case of marital unfaithfulness, Matthew 19), the disciples conclude: If that’s the case, it is better not to marry. Jesus doesn’t rebuke them and repeat the instruction to go and be fruitful - he kind of just shrugs it off and agrees with them: “some have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
The only laws we should adhere to from the OT are the ones we can support with Jesus’ teachings to love the Lord & love each other. And being fruitful/multiplying doesn’t always help us to love better.
So if marrying means living a life of frustration and anger towards your partner, then don’t do it. It is better to live on the corner of a roof than in a house with a contentious wife, etc. But if you can find a husband or wife who helps you to live out kingdom values, then go for it.
Thanks for starting this discussion Captain Gainey. While pulling Jesus into it is a useful way to get people thinking about being single, I don’t think that we need necessarily to pull Jesus or Paul into it.
God’s will is unique for each of our lives and each of us, through individual prayer have to discern what that is. These discussions seem to assume that being single is the result of choice. Setting out on the marriage track doesn’t ensure a) that a spousal prospect of any quality (let alone “the one”) will come along and b) that even with marriage, abandonment and death can very easily push one off the track. Around this issue in particular there is much incredulity at the circumstances we find ourselves in for much of our lives and it is really easy to fall into the trap of thinking that because our lot is not something we’d prefer that it’s not God’s will for us. And for women of a certain age the gender ratios are not promising and rapidly worsen. And this was something that was as true in Biblical times as it is now. Hence the concern for widows and orphans which is a societal, not an individual issue.
Many (though certainly not all) poor quality marriages can, I would suggest, be blamed in part that we do not esteem singles’ relationship with church and community in the same way we do married people’s. Trust me, I’ve been both and it’s rare to find a church community that is not partial in this regard. The worst of it is that singles are taken for granted in the amount of time they have to commit.
Many singles would be more content with remaining single if they could know that they would be highly esteemed in or out of marriage.
Andrea
Hey Andrea,
Thanks for your points of view.
The inspiration for this particular study has everything to do with the first and second century doctrines of heretics who taught that women and sex were filthy, and made a person less fit for the Kingdom. This early misguided teaching is what has brought many to believe that staying single is not only acceptable, but of a higher calling than marriage.
With that said, you may find it interesting that in many parts of the world and in many non-evangelical circles, a single person is considered to be the ideal Christian. The issue that is raised, which places singles on a lower step of the Christian ladder, is a protestant matter. Both are clearly wrong.
It is my hope that this study will give others a starting place to realize that whether we are single or married, we are all equal in the Kingdom of God.
Thank you again for sharing your helpful and insightful thoughts.
In His dust,
Johnny
Thanks Johnny for responding:
While I am aware that the culture surrounding Christianity can be quite different outside Anglo-American and European democracies and Protestantantism, I think that this difference is very much one of rhetoric when it comes to single women. And with the decline of vocations outside Protestantism what was formerly a role that was accorded some esteem is now lost.
If someone is truly respected they are not left poor and effectively or legally barred from leadership.
Andrea
I know the following is ever so slightly off topic but it is a comment on one of the of the suppositions of this thread:
Despite Rob Bell’s growing influence on popular Christian circles suggesting that Jesus was an official, credentialled ‘Rabbi’, this is simply not the case. He was seen as a Prophet, as many references in the Gospels will show, (of course he was seen as a false one by the authorities, which was one of the main charges against him at his ‘trial’) and of course a Messianic contender by his followers. Why else would his listeners be surprised at the one they called the ‘carpenter’s’ son speaking and acting in the ways he did? No one would have called him that if he was an official Rabbi.
Jesus’ vocation largely fits the the grid of prophets in the Old Testament.
Why do I say all this? Because it shows that talk of Jewish disciples/sages/and Rabbis as like trying to place a picture in a frame that is far too big for it - it will slip and slide and no doubt fall out if shaken. It would require me to refresh my memory on the life of prophets, to give it a good whack to potentially make a link with Jesus, but maybe this is a key to Jesus singleness.
As for Paul, he didn’t despise marriage or think it was ‘bad’, but gave instructions to certain churches that maybe marriage may not be the best option considering they were (or were about to be going) under a great time of trouble and persecution (By the way this is not a guess but comes from a brief study of some of Paul’s letters).
Back to the 21st Century, I’m horrified that there are still some people who are still looked down upon for being single. I’ve seen it many times: a well-meaning Christian will try to suggest all the potential partners for a single Christian, going as far as signing them up to date sites, intense prayer sessions and even deliverance ministry. Some of this is helpful, but if it is coming from an implication that to be single is to be a 2nd class Christian or even human than this position needs to be rinsed out thoroughly.
Singleness is for some and not for all. Marriage is for some and not for all. A single person is an image bearing creature of God and should be seen as being valuable for who they are, not for who they may marry. A married couple are image bearing creatures of God and should be seen as valuable for who they are not for who they have married. Basic really.
“It is possible that Jesus never intended for any of us to remain single as a way of proving our devotion to God.”
I think it is really important to justify this article by letting everyone know that the point of Dr. David Bivin in stating a possible reason for Jesus’ singleness has nothing to do with whether or not being married is of a higher value to God. The point that is being made is to say that the ancient thought that remaining single is more valuable to God is not validated by Scripture. In other words, remaining single, or claiming the gift of celebacy is more of a man-made doctrine of the Gnostics and Catholics than that of a Scriptural calling.
Secondly, at the risk of sounding argumentative, which I don’t intend but need to clarify for other readers, it is not Rob Bell’s teaching that is pushing the idea that Jesus was an educated Torah teacher, but a plethura of scholars, Jewish and Christian who are teaching of Jesus’ educated status.
Here is a small list of the scholars and their writings that give a better understanding of this teaching:
The Bible - It is not Jesus’ education but “authority” that is questioned by Torah teachers. Jesus’ authority, Hebrew “Shmikah”, is the ability to make new interpretations. A rabbi would have to be blessed by two other shmikahed rabbis to be able to do this. It’s an interesting study that not only Christian scholars, but Jewish scholars also agree on.
Jewish New Testament Commentary: A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament by David H. Stern
Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith by Marvin R. Wilson
Jesus the Jewish Theologian by Brad Young
Paul the Jewish Theologian by Brad Young
They Loved the Torah: What Yeshua’s First Followers Really Thought About the Law by David Friedman
New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus: Insights from His Jewish Context by David Bivin
Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus by David Bivin
Everyman’s Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages by Abraham Cohen
Yeshua: A Guide to the Real Jesus and the Original Church by Ron Moseley
The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation by Brad H. Young
Echoes of His Presence (Hardcover)
by Ray Vander Laan (Author), Judith Markham (Author)
Websites
http://www.followtherabbi.com
http://www.jerusalemperspective.com
DVD Teachings - Faith Lessons by Ray Vander Laan
In the Footsteps of the Disciples:
Bibliography
Note: The point of view of the author varies. Some are ‘Jesus’ followers and others are not. Some value the text; others treat it as any other history and not the inspired word of God. All contribute to understanding the context of the Biblical story. Read carefully to gain the insights of the authors but being aware of their perspective on the text and on Jesus the Messiah. The asterisk indicates unusually helpful resources. Most have extensive and helpful bibliographies in them which are invaluable for research.
Heschel, Abraham: The Earth is the Lord’s.
God in Search of Man.*
The Insecurity of Freedom.*
The Sabbath.
Israel: An Echo of Eternity.
Sandgren, The Shadow of God, Hendriksen.*
Jesus in Culture:
Bailey, Eerdmans, The Poet and the Peasant.
Ben-Chorin, Brother Jesus, Georgia Press.
Edersheim: Bible History.
Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
The Temple.
Safrai, Stern, Flusser, van Unnik, The Jewish People in the First Century (9 vols.), Van Gorcum.
Pixner, The Fifth Gospel: With Jesus Through Galilee, Corazin Publishing.
Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, Doubleday.
Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament, Ktav.
David Flusser: Jesus, Magness Press.*
Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, Magnes Press.
Gabriele Boccaccini, Roots of Rabbinic Judaism, Eerdmans Publishing.
Ed. Hershel Shanks, Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, BAS Publications.
Horsley, Archaeology, History, and Society in Galilee: Jesus and the Rabbis,
Trinity Press.
Donald Hagner, The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus, Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Urbach, The Sages, Harvard Press.
David Flusser, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, MOD Books.
Chaim Pearl, Theology in Rabbinic Stories, Hendrikson Publishers.
Jacob Neusner, Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period, Hendrikson.
Moore, Judaism, Hendriksen (3Vols).
Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Westminster Press.
Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity, Magness Press.
Lindsay, Jesus: Rabbi and Lord, Cornerstone.
Vermes, Jesus the Jew, Collins.
The Religion of Jesus the Jew, Fortress Press.*
Jesus and the World of Judaism, Fortress Press.
The Changing Face of Jesus, Compass.*
Petr Pokorny, Jesus in the Eyes of His Followers, Bibal Press.
Anthony Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society,
Eerdmans.
N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is
Intervarsity Press. *
Paul in Culture:
Brad Young: Paul,the Jewish Theologian, Hendriksen.
Krister Stendahl, Paul Among the Jews and Gentiles, Fortress Press.*
Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective, Fortress Press.*
Wright, Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology,
Fortress Press.
Paul : Fresh Perspectives, SPCK Publishing.
What Saint Paul Really Said, Eerdmans.*
Hegg, The Letter Writer: Pauls Background and Torah Perspective, First Fruits of Zion.
Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, SPCK Press.
Crossan and Reed, In Search of Paul, Harper. *
Shulam, A Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Romans, Lederer.
The Early Church:
Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians, Yale University Press.
Ben Witherington, New Testament History: A Narrative Account, Baker. Academic
The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. Six Volume set. Eerdmans.*
Vol.1 The Book of Acts in its Ancient Literary Setting
Vol.2 The Book of Acts in its Graeco-Roman Setting
Vol.3 The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody
Vol.4 The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting
Vol.5 The Book of Acts in its Diaspora Setting
Vol.6 The Book of Acts in its Theological Setting
L.Michael White, Building God’s House in the Roman World, Johns Hopkins.
The Social Origins of Christian Architecture, Trinity Press.
W.M.Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven Churches, Hendrikson Publishers.
Colin Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia: Eerdmans.*
Roland Worth, The Seven Churches of the Apocalypse & Roman Culture, Paulist Press.
The Seven Churches of the Apocalypse & Greco-Asian Culture,
Paulist Press.*
James Carroll, Constantine’s Sword, Houghton Mifflin.
Longnecker, The Lost Letters of Pergamum, Baker.
Akurgal, Ancient Civilizations and Ruins of Turkey, Net.
Harris, Sport in Greece and Rome, Thames.
Kraybill, Imperial Cult and Commerce in John’s Apocalypse, Sheffield Press.
Chilton, Days of Wrath, Dominion Press (Book of Revelation).
Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, Intervarsity
Press.
Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars, Westminster Press.*
The Christians: Their First Two Thousand Years, (A Church History Series), Friesens Publishing.
Hopefully this will help us all to see that it’s not a Rob Bell teaching or agenda, but a worldwide teaching that is opening new windows into the text of the Holy Bible and the life of Jesus.
Many blessings,
Johnny
Dear Johnny,
You’ve raised quite a question and the responses are interesting.
I have not ventured out too much beyond the Greek texts, except to find
verification of the personhood of Jesus, i.e., that He is truly and properly
God and truly and properly man. He is the “Theanthropos” whose sole purpose
in the Incarnation was to reconcile God to man, man to God. Within that realm
of thought lay beautifully the identity or the identifying of His wife - the Church.
That was His pure motive for living incarnately; that was the pure drive of His
will - the will of the Father for Him to become “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin
of the world.” His has that unique position of Mediator, inclusive of Service as the Great High Priest of our profession and of Sacrifice as the only atonement for mankind.
The “determinate councils” before the foundation of the world were as settled in eternity
as the historical actuation. The mystery is greater than our human speculations, and too holy to do with other than to approach with total humility and that strange combination
of love and fear that rises out of His willingness to reveal Himself to us.
Married? Yes! And the Bridegroom comes - soon. May our wisdom awaken us as virgins with Oil-lit lamps, ready for that Parousia of our Beloved. I’ll see you at the Feast.
In great appreciation for you, my brother,
David
Sorry I stick with my case. Sadly alot of these sources are fairly outdated and I don’t understand how you are drawing in N.T. Wright into your defense as after having read pretty much all his works (What St. Paul Really Said a few weeks ago even), there is not one clear statement that he gives as Jesus being an ordained Rabbi!! I take it you have read Jesus and the Victory of God? (His definitive work on Jesus?) The whole 2nd Part is about Jesus as PROPHET. Secondly read his New Testament commentary series. He has not one thing to say in agreement regarding the crucial passages that certain scholars may assume to refer to Jesus being ordained (including the infamous ‘authority’ passage). Tom Wright is not your man for this job I’m afraid.
Below is a quote from Jesus Scholar Ben Witherington, whom you also draw into your defense:
‘Jesus was certainly not a rabbi in the later Mishnaic sense, much less like modern ordained rabbis. It is telling that the only time Jesus is ever really called rabbi by any of his followers is when Judas does so when he is betraying Jesus with a kiss. Jesus’ approach to the Torah is not like later rabbis in various ways, not the least of which is that he does not cite (indeed he often contrasts his teaching with) the oral traditions of the elders, such as Hillel or Shammai and the like. Jesus spoke on his own independent authority. At times Rob seems too uncritical in his reading of sources like the truly dated works of Alfred Edersheim, and apparently he spends too much time listening to folks like Ray Vanderlaan, a local teacher in the Grand Rapids area who doesn’t really much understand the differences between medieval Jewish rabbis and the context and ethos of teachers in early Judaism of Jesus’ day. Rob needs to read some viable sources on early Judaism, for example some of the work of Craig Evans or George Nickelsburg or Jacob Neusner if he wants to paint the picture of the Jewish Jesus using the right hews, tones, and features’ (You can find that on his personal blog).
I’m not going to get into a bibliography war, but there’s plenty of other stuff out there in opposition to your own sources. I must also comment that this is fairly out of character for me to produce such a tirade of words, but I am being pretty blunt in this post because the view presented is largely infecting Bible teaching at a rapid pace, and I do not believe it to be a good thing.
Let me put this simply. Jesus was not an ordained Rabbi. I repeat, the charge at his trial was one of leading the people astray (a false prophet). He was largely seen as a prophet, and messianic contender. The gospels are quite clear on this. People call Jesus a prophet, we have stories of Jesus telling people ‘everything they have ever done’, his parables of Israel been sown back into the land, and exoduses and his symbolic acts (fig trees, table-turning, are all reminiscent of Old Testament Prophets. I’m all for a quest for the Historical Jesus, but not one that is going to retroject modern day assumptions onto his life told through the gospels and the wider New Testament.
Best wishes and no hostility is intended and I understand I’m taking the original intent of the conversation far off track. May be I should start a ‘historical Jesus’ thread…
Craig
We must agree to disagree, Craig.
Thank you for the book suggestions.
Blessings,
Johnny
David,
I enjoyed your words. Thank you for sharing and for entering the dialogue with thoughtful comments and personal passion.
Blessings,
Johnny
To respond to Craig, actually the New Testament is quite unambiguous on whether Jesus was called “rabbi.” In fifteen places in the Gospels, Greek letters are used to transliterate the Hebrew word “rabbi” as a form of address used for Jesus. (Matt. 23:7,8; 26:25, 49; Mark 9:5; 11:21; 14:45; John 1:38, 49; 3:2, 26; 4:31; 6:25, 9:2, 11:8)
However, formal ordination began in 70 AD, so Jesus was not an “ordained rabbi” by this standard. Scholars usually call him a “sage” because he lived slightly before the rabbinic period, which scholars define as beginning in 70 AD.
The word “rabbi” did not originally mean “religious teacher” - it literally means, “my master” and was a term of respect used by a disciple for his teacher. This is the sense of the word “rabbi” that we find in the Gospels in reference to Jesus.
But the fact that Jesus lived before “rabbi” was given at ordination doesn’t mean that he was very much a part of the Jewish scholarly world of his day. Some of the most influential sages of all time, whose debates are still discussed today lived right before Jesus’ birth - Hillel and Shammai. The discussions of their disciples are preserved in the Mishnah, and Jesus even comments on their debates. Jesus’ pattern of raising up disciples and teaching them along with the masses fits very well with what we know was going among sages of his time.
The comment that Jewish leaders were required to be married is also mistaken. Rabban Gamliel, the grandson of Paul’s teacher, who was the leader of the Sanhedrin, did not marry until after he acquired disciples. This was not likely to have happened until he was in his 40s or later. This is one of the instances that Bivin cites of rabbis delaying marriage for sake of the intensive learning they did as a disciple.
By the way, I was editor of Bivin’s book and have recently written an article on this topic on my blog called, “Can we call Jesus ‘rabbi’?” I discuss the first century usage of the term “rabbi”, and how it was applied to Jesus. See this link:
http://www.ourrabbijesus.com/index.php/articles/can_we_call_jesus_rabbi/
This month I also have a book coming out by Zondervan called “Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus.” It takes a detailed look at Jesus’ first century Jewish reality and the implications for Christians today. You can read a more about it at OurRabbiJesus.com.
Lois,
Thank you very much for commenting. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that you would read and add to this discussion. Wow!!!!!
I am truly humbled.
Many blessings,
Johnny
Thanks Lois,
In a sense you have backed up what I was suggesting to a point.
Craig
Dear Craig -
Yes and no. I completely agree with you that Jesus spoke prophetically. He spoke God’s will with the authority of God himself, and he did prophesy the future too, both functions of a prophet. So I’m in complete agreement on that.
And yes, he lived a few decades before “rabbi” became a formal title. But that is hardly a reason to divorce him from the first century Jewish context in which he lived.
I get the sense that the reason you’re making this point is to defend Jesus’ authority to speak the very word of God, as prophets did. To see him as a rabbi, in your mind, is to make him less than the Son of God.
But look at one place where Jesus is addressed as “rabbi” (spelled out in Greek letters). In John 1:49, Nathaniel says, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.”
For Nathaniel, “rabbi” was an apt and fitting word for Christ, the son of God. Of course, this contradicts Witherington’s statement that the only person who calls Jesus “rabbi” is Judas. Check the Bible yourself: in the verses where “rabbi” is spelled out, it comes out of the mouths of Peter, Nathaniel, Nicodemus (a closet disciple) and often from the disciples as a group. Witherington is just plain wrong on that one.
The only reason you don’t see “rabbi” more often is that the Greek word that is used to translate the Hebrew word is usually didaskalos, “teacher” and sometimes epistates, “master.” Look at John 1:38: John uses the word “rabbi” and then says, “which translated means teacher (didaskalos).” So when you see Jesus being addressed as “teacher” in the gospels, you can assume the word “rabbi” was what was actually used.
To sum up, I agree with you that Jesus lived a few decades before “rabbi” became a term formally given on ordination. But the gospels themselves show numerous people calling Jesus that. And calling Jesus rabbi didn’t stop them from believing he was the Son of God either.