What will marriage be like in the new creation?
You know what I'm asking, and why I'm asking.
For Bible believers:
Matt. 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
(Gk "angeloi all' hws en tw ouranw eisin", ie it means what it says)
14 comments:
It means that I really will be single for all eternity... moan moan moan...
I'm interested to see responses on this one. I really don't see how that says nobody will BE married in the new creation, just that nobody will GET married. Explanation please! :)
OK one quick thought before I pack the school lunches... The great wedding of the new creation is of course that of the Lamb, of Christ and the church. Rev 19, Rev 21. Ephesians 5 is heading in this same direction.
If I'm not married in heaven then I won't have a mother-in-law for eternity...
Woo hoo.....!
Just thinking out loud...
Does marriage serve a temporary purpose now (including to express God given desires, to multiply and fill the earth, and to keep showing us just how sinful we are ;) because a married person would get regular reminders from their spouse)?
It might be in the same way as expressed by 1 Corinthians 13:
"As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away."
Those things, they are good. But they are there to point people to Christ, at the resurrection they will be unnecessary. I wonder if in a similar way, the need for marriage will pass away too.
Oh by the way Gordo, this line of thinking has been helpful to think through this morning.
I find it hard to believe in something *so* good and *so* intimate not being part of God's perfect world. But here's how I've thought about it in the past:
But in this world, the goodness and intimacy of marriage is an exclusive thing shared by two people.
In heaven, all our relationships will be marked by such depth and love across the board that marriage will be simply superseded.
Good to think about, Gordo. Too easy to just assume we know the answer.
I tell you what there *will* be in the new creation, though - unicode: ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἀναστάσει οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἄγγελοι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ εἰσιν.
I think I'd have to decide what it really means that 'the two become one flesh' in this life first!!
My suspicion, (rather than a detailed exposition!) is that the depth of relationship we will all share in Christ in the new creation will make the now exclusive category of 'married' a superseded category??? maybe 1 cor 15 etc...
AB
Well, since it has no eternal significance, oughtn't we to give up on our marriages and do something more permanent? Stop wasting our time?
Well, since it has no eternal significance, oughtn't we to give up on our marriages and do something more permanent? Stop wasting our time?
Well come on mate, you're the theologian. You tell me.
I know you'll want to refer to Gen 1:26-28; 2:24-25; Matt 19:3-9. That would be sufficient to knock over the straw misrepresentation that isn't worth the paper it's not written on that you were about to perpetrate on me.
But make sure that as you build this edifice you include reference to Ec 9:9 and ...
well anyway, I'll let you figure out the rest.
But what about the guy who gets married, his wife (a Christian who will be at the resurrection) dies, and then he gets married again (to another Christian who will be at the resurrection)...
Hey, that sounds like the Saduccees were into satire. They point out an absurdity with something they don't quite get.
In the context, I have a feeling that Jesus said just being at the resurrection as the bride of Christ, trumps piddly little concerns about all the other small things like whether you will still be married afterwards.
There has also been a trend in trendy churches (haha) for death do you part or christ returns vows. I think the contract is over after that.
I wonder if this is the same as the arguments about "work" in heaven. I heard one argument recently that we would "work", though I'm still thinking the Sabbath rest should apply somewhere.
Sorry to be dense, but it is hard to understand your meaning through the smog of smug. I know omniscience must be a terrible burden sometimes, but humour us and explain what the heck you are talking about...
Oh and before someone takes it the wrong way, I don't think the sabbath rest is rest from your wife.
Sorry to be dense, but it is hard to understand your meaning through the smog of smug.
Mike, that is a terrible way to talk about poor old Pete!
I was just trying to iron out your irony. Ironing irony through smogged smug makes for cacophonic comprehension.
I assume (but correct me if I'm wrong) that when you said
Well, since it has no eternal significance, oughtn't we to give up on our marriages and do something more permanent? Stop wasting our time?
that you were not serious, but that you were implying that this was where my question about marriage, which was serious, might lead. Which I don't think it does.
But was it a serious question? And either way, I was suggesting that you might have an answer to your own question in mind.
poor old Pete!
Ummm... I think just "Pete" will do fine. We don't want any other phrases to distort how people perceive me and weigh my arguments.
(Whoops maybe that belongs on another thread on another day)
Post a Comment