Just Wondering...
I haven't thought about this for a while, but I was recently reminded of it. I wonder if it is the case that there is marriage in the consummation. I refrain from referring to 'marriage in heaven' because there seem to be certain assumptions about heaven that make it difficult to think about there being marriage there. It seems that there is a general understanding among evangelicals that heaven is an ethereal place where we wear white tunics and walk around in a sort of fuzz. It's a non-physical place where we sit around the throne in a 'praise and worship' service singing Shine, Jesus, Shine for all eternity.
For this reason, I speak of marriage in the consummation because I believe that in the consummation we shall be on earth. To be sure, an earth that is remade and perfected but earth nontheless. And while on earth, we shall be able to do what we were called to do in the garden, to wit, subdue the earth, take dominion, etc. This endeavour, however, will be one that won't be frustrated by sin. Our reasoning, emotions, and other abilities will have been completely redeemed and remade. No sin will hinder our understandings of the world and we shall be in a position to fulfill our mandage without hinderance (of course, we shan't be omniscience).
Given this, I find it odd that God, who saw fit to give Adam a wife in pre-fall Paradise to help fulfull the mandate, will change things all together and there won't be any familial relationships in the consummation. If marriage is a pre-lapsarian institution, why would it be any different in the consummation. This question is analagous to my finding it odd that my Baptist brothers maintain that there is no longer an initation rite for infants in the New Covenant. We find in the Old Covenant that circumcision is the initiation rite and it includes infants but when we come to the New, God makes a radical change and infants are no longer initiated into the Covenant. Odd! In short, all of that is to say, if God works through families in pre-fall and post-fall earth, why does He change so radically in the consummation.
Now, I hear many of you already saying something like, "This is not even an issue. It is a slam dunk case and the Bible speaks decisively on the question". And I hear you turning feaverishly to Matthew 23.30
Now a question I'm not sure how to answer is one brought up by a friend who never blogs. What if one is married more than once before the consummation, whice one will be the husband/wife in the consummation? I have no idea how to answer this question, but I'm equally unclear as to whether this is as problematic enough question to outweigh the aforementioned reasoning about marriage in the consummation.
What say ye?
For this reason, I speak of marriage in the consummation because I believe that in the consummation we shall be on earth. To be sure, an earth that is remade and perfected but earth nontheless. And while on earth, we shall be able to do what we were called to do in the garden, to wit, subdue the earth, take dominion, etc. This endeavour, however, will be one that won't be frustrated by sin. Our reasoning, emotions, and other abilities will have been completely redeemed and remade. No sin will hinder our understandings of the world and we shall be in a position to fulfill our mandage without hinderance (of course, we shan't be omniscience).
Given this, I find it odd that God, who saw fit to give Adam a wife in pre-fall Paradise to help fulfull the mandate, will change things all together and there won't be any familial relationships in the consummation. If marriage is a pre-lapsarian institution, why would it be any different in the consummation. This question is analagous to my finding it odd that my Baptist brothers maintain that there is no longer an initation rite for infants in the New Covenant. We find in the Old Covenant that circumcision is the initiation rite and it includes infants but when we come to the New, God makes a radical change and infants are no longer initiated into the Covenant. Odd! In short, all of that is to say, if God works through families in pre-fall and post-fall earth, why does He change so radically in the consummation.
Now, I hear many of you already saying something like, "This is not even an issue. It is a slam dunk case and the Bible speaks decisively on the question". And I hear you turning feaverishly to Matthew 23.30
However, before you slam the door, and call the local heresy police, allow me a hearing. Notice what Jesus does not say. He doesn't say they aren't married nor that they can't be married, just that they don't. He simply claims that they don't marry, which I take to mean that there won't be any singles bars in the consummation, that is, single men don't ask single women to marry them and single women aren't given away in marriage by their fathers.For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
Now a question I'm not sure how to answer is one brought up by a friend who never blogs. What if one is married more than once before the consummation, whice one will be the husband/wife in the consummation? I have no idea how to answer this question, but I'm equally unclear as to whether this is as problematic enough question to outweigh the aforementioned reasoning about marriage in the consummation.
What say ye?
posted by Josh at 8:10 PM
7 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
It would make sense, wouldn't it, that God's world works the same way from creation to consummation (and after). The more I've learned about the covenants, the more I see how ordered the world is. I've heard/read others that say that the family is not the primary institution any more (Jesus abolished it), and that the church is taking the family's place, but that just doesn't make sense.
If you find the answer to your question, let me know. I would like to understand it more thoroughly myself.
I'm going to aforemention your ass!
Tereo-Kensai,
So are you saying that it is preposterous to think that anyone would want to do this, but that in the perfect world to come Jesus will make you?
In other words, do your comments imply that it is laughable to think that you would want to do what you are so certain Jesus is going to have you do?
Just wondering.
Justin
Tereo-Kensai
Sorry. I really wasn't trying to imply anything. I just thought that it is odd that in heaven, which is perfect, and painless, we would have to do something that we show such angst about now. I mean the doctrine of hell is a little different. I think it is just hard because this is heaven, and we know everything will be perfect, but this text seems to be saying that something that sounds very sad to us will be the reality there. And also we think of marriage as a pre-fall ordinance, and that which God pronounced good, so we think of it being redeemed. And further God said that man, even when he walked with God, in some sense was alone which was not good, and in need of a female companion. I understand that the seemingly most natural reading of the text is very straightforwardly against this view, but in light of marriage being a creation ordinance, and what not, I think it is valid to see if perhaps the most straightforward reading isn't the best. Especially given Jesus' aversion (sometimes) to speaking straightforwardly. Maybe he meant that unions in heaven will be eternal and decreed by God and thus people won't be married or given in marriage. I really don't know, but I think it is helpful to talk about it as long as we are all comitted to certain principles like innerancy, etc. (which all of us clearly are).
Finally, I think it might be slightly imprudent for you to call covenantalism not scriptural. I mean, are you prepared to say that pretty much all of the Reformation was unscriptural. All most all of the Reformers, from Luther to the Anabaptists were covenantal to one degree or another. For that matter it is hard to understand the Bible in a way that rejects any notion of covenantalism. There is obviously an old and new covenant, God seems to deal with his people through covenants, etc. So, while I'm sure that many covenantalists come to different conclusions about what the Bible teaches and how it teaches it than you and others from your tradition, or theological persuasion, do I don't think it is very charitable to say that covenantalism on the whole is not Scriptural. Maybe it's not what you meant but it sounds like you mean that some of the great heroes of the Faith showed a real disregard for Scripture, or were so ignorant as to build there whole theology on a complete misunderstanding. If covenantalism is completely (I know you didn't specify this, I am trying to show the danger of not speaking a little more specifically or guardedly) unscriptural, or just unscriptural, as you said, then there are a lot of great saints throughout history who were awfully deluded and assumingly culpable.
I meant assumably, not assumingly.
The silence is deafening...
Post a Comment
<< Home