MARRIAGE IN THE NEW AGE?

By Darren Middleton

www.pressiechurch.org

BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Marriage Now And Then

It is often said that in the age to come there will be no marriage and that Christ will be our husband and that our relationships will all be platonic. This belief though almost universal, rests primarily on just one story recorded in the gospels [Matt 22:22ff; Mark 12:18ff and Luke 20:21ff] where some Sadducees approach Jesus asking him about marriage in the age to come. This view is also sustained by a theology that suggests that marriage in this age is a shadow that reaches fulfilment in the new age when the bride (Church) and the groom (Christ) consummate their union in glory. Implied in all of this is that marriage has three purposes in this age, to provide a help meet for man (Gen 2:18ff), to provide for procreation so that the command to multiply could be fulfilled (Gen 1:28) and to provide a type to prepare us for our marriage to the bridegroom (Eph 5:32). 

Will Marriage Be Redundant In The New Age?

First it must be said that the three purposes need not be contested but one should ask if they must exclude marriage in the age to come. If it is conceded that children will not be procreated in the new age (and I'm not entirely convinced) and marriage union does point us to a spiritual union of Christ and his Church, does that necessarily exclude marriage in the new age? After all, in the garden before the fall Adam and Eve had perfect fellowship or union with the Lord even though they were married. Consequently, union with God (at least in Genesis) does not make redundant the union between Adam and Eve in Eden.

One could also ponder what would have happened if Adam had obeyed the Lord during his probation in the garden? Would Adam's confirmation in righteousness resulting in eternal life mean marriage would then have been redundant? Does it require us to think that once confirmed in righteousness that Adam and Eve would no longer procreate? That the new age would have only included the Lord, the elect angels and Adam and Eve?

Moreover, since the new creation is the restoration of creation in a new heavens and earth, would it not be feasible to think that the changes and differences will primarily be evidenced in the removal of the effects of sin from marriage and not marriage itself? This seems to be the expectation of Scripture when the matter is alluded to. For example in Isa 65 Isaiah paints a picture of life that is not essentially different from this life apart from the removal of the frustration that sin brings upon the created order. This is illustrated in Isa 65:20 where we read, "No more shall there be an infant who lives a few days or an old man who dos not fill out his days..."  evidently the difference that the people of God should look forward to is that the effects of sin will be removed (sickness and death), but he also assumes both a continuity of relationships and roles.  He also writs in 65:21,23 "They shall build houses and inhabit them and plant vineyards and eat their fruit... They shall not labour in vain or bear children for calamity..." Vs 23

Note again Isaiah assumes a continuity of relationships and purpose in the new age. He assumes we will continue to have dominion over creation but anticipates this will no longer be difficult or frustrated by sin. We will still build homes and live in them, we will still plant food and eat. yet these activities of life in the new age will be free from the frustration of a fallen world.  In the new age our work and activities will not be frustrated  by enemies or pests, for they will pass away with the new age. Moreover, Isaiah suggests that we will continue to have children but without the difficulty or calamity that come will family life in a fallen world. There is this clear assumption that relationships, roles and responsibilities of this age carry over to the next, the point of difference then is that the new age will allow us to prosper in a Edenic environment free from the frustration of a fallen world.

An Argument From The Moral Law.

In Reformed circles it is common to argue by good and necessary deduction that the moral law of God is eternal since it is a reflection of God's moral standards. For example Calvin in his commentary on Matt 5:17 (Vol 1, p277) "We must not imagine that the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law: for it is the eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable, as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform.

Note Calvin calls the law an eternal law of devout and holy living. This is also implied in the Westminster Confession of Faith in Chap 21:5,6 where we read "...The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel in any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation."

If we grant the moral law is eternal then how can the seventh command have any eternal significance if there is no marriage in the new age? It would be better to say there will be no adultery in the new age, not because there is no marriage or commandment, but because there is no sin! So the moral law instead of having a negative context it will have a positive context, for we shall love and worship God enjoy and keep his Sabbath, we will also be honourable in all relationships (parents, spouses and our neighbours) etc. Thus the fifth commandment would imply either children in the new age or at the very least a hierarchy of submission and respect which is consistent with the ontology and economy relationships of the Trinity in the new age as well.

Therefore, it would be fair to conclude that the weight of biblical and theological reflection would lead to us to assume continuity in the roles, relationships and responsibilities in the age to come even if we are unsure on the details. No doubt one could ask what about all the single people and divorced what will happen to them? I would say the Scripture does not speak to that matter specifically, however, given that in new age there is no disaffection (although there is certainly differences and hierarchy) then one could expect that they may continue in the same position as beforehand only in the new age they will be glorified and content.

The only substantial question may relate to the idea of procreation and this article is content to leave that as a matter of uncertainty whilst still maintaining the validity and indeed desirability of marriage regardless of the matter of procreation.

EXEGETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Interpreting Luke 20:27ff

Given the biblical and theological bias seem overwhelmingly in favour of continuity of roles, relationships and responsibilities one might ask then why is it almost universally assumed that marriage ceases in the new age and the answer seems to be based primarily (though perhaps not exclusively) on an interpretation of the passage in the gospel of Luke 20:27-35 [also Matt 22:22ff; Mark 12:18ff] where some Sadducees approach Jesus asking him about marriage in the age to come.

"There came to him some Sadducees, those who deny that there is a resurrection..." Luke 20:27. The first thing to note is that Luke points out that Sadducees deny the resurrection life, so whatever follows, we known that their intention is not so much a genuine inquiry about resurrection relationships but an attempt to ridicule the idea of the resurrection through a question concerning marital status in that age.

They then ask a question concerning a woman who has had seven husbands in this age and ask Jesus if he can tell them which of the woman's husbands will be her husband in the age to come. Note Jesus' response, "The sons of this age (now) marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection of the dead (in the new heaven and earth) neither marry nor are given in marriage..." Luke 20:35

Now it is often said that here is the proof that marriage only relates to this life since in the resurrection life people will neither marry or be given in marriage. But note the reason Jesus gives in 20:36 for this, "..for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels..."

Notice the reason given for no marriage is not that we will be asexual - like the angels, but that we cannot die - like the angels. In other words, the point of likeness to which Jesus makes comparison is immortality not asexuality or even an absence of sexual desires. Thus the reasoning for no marriage is not that we will be asexual like the angels, but immortal like the angels.

Now, that raises an obvious question, what is the connection between the immortality that marks out the resurrection age and Jesus' comment that there will be no marriage in that age. My tentative and not complete answer is that our spouses from this age (for those who are married) remain our spouses in the resurrection age and given our immortality there will be no need for marriage. That is, I will enter that new age a married and immortal man, I cannot not die nor sin, consequently my marriage will continue because neither sin nor death will dissolve it. This interpretation (though not without some problems) seems to best explain vs 36 "for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels..."

One may ask then what of the Sadducees question, regardless of their motivation for asking, what happens to those who have been married several times? Again my cautious answer would be if they enter the new age (thus are righteous believers) then their last binding covenant of marriage would be the binding one in that age. Having said that, I have no doubt there are many more complicated scenarios but I'm not convinced Scripture provides us with all the answers, so my response at best would be tentative.

Interpreting 1Cor 7:29-31

Some however have suggested that when Paul wrote to the Corinthians in 1Cor 7:31 saying "...the present form [schema] of this world is passing away..." that he intended us to understand this was inclusive of the relationships of this age. So when he writs in 1Cor 7:29 that "...those who have wives live as though they had none..." he was saying that marriage is tied to this "...present form of the world that is passing away..." and his point was that the Corinthians should live as if they were in the new age, thus living as if they had no wives. The trouble with this interpretation is that it claims too much since verse (30) states that "...those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing...".  Now if this text is saying that the activities named will pass away with the "...present form [schema] of the world..." does that mean there will be no rejoicing in heaven? Clearly, to argue that position will require some special pleadings to allow for inconsistency of application.

A better interpretation would be to understand Paul's words against a background and environment of Corinthian troubles and persecutions. If that is granted, then Paul would be understood to be encouraging them (in light of their current circumstances) to be very conscious of living for the Lord,  thus if you are married to be so consumed with marriage but live for the Lord in your marriage. If you circumstances bring sadness, do not be overwhelmed by it, but live for the Lord. If your circumstances are bring great joy, then do not be so engrossed in them, that you neglect the Lord and the same idea is applied to material goods.