Mark Horne apparently thinks he has landed a damaging jab against 2k by ridiculing Jason Stellman’s point about the discontinuity between culture here and the new heavens and new earth – a point raised in Keith Mathison’s review of David VanDrunen’s new book, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms. Stellman wrote:
If my marriage to my wife will not survive into the age to come, then why would I think her wedding ring will? Sure, it’s a nice ring and very well-made, but it’s hardly a higher example of human productivity than our marriage is.
For what it’s worth, the absence of marriage in the new heavens and new earth would certainly seem to unravel arguments that look at redemption as the restoration of creation. If marriage existed as part of the created order and then vanishes in the glorified order, something is going on that seems to escape the average neo-Calvinist’s redemptive-historical horizon.
But Horne does not consider Stellman’s point for very long and rushes instead to his own – perhaps listening to too much Focus on the Family – about the difference that Christianity makes for marriages and child rearing. He writes:
If we use this principle for a generalized defense of R2K, then we must state that there are no such things as Christian marriages or Christian families. Jesus does not want us wasting our time talking about how husbands and wives should behave or raising their children according to God’s word. This is all a compromise of the Gospel and a confusion of law and grace. We should leave family issues to secular family counselors just as we should leave the economy to Bernanke.
(By the way, humans rear children; they raise cows. And I’ll take my chances with Bernake over Gary North running the economy.)
First, marriage is a legal status determined by the state. As such, Christian marriages do not exist unless we want to turn matrimony into a sacrament. But when you refuse the categories of holy, common, and profane, how else to make marriage meaningful except to baptize it?
Second, since marriage as an institution is not Christian but a creation ordinance that is open to all human beings (except for gay ones – lest anti-2k hysteria surface), then the issue is whether a Christian’s vocation is married or single. Christianity has to do with persons, not with institutions (other than the church). Christians who are married have clear instruction from Scripture about how they should conduct themselves as spouse or parent or both. But that does not mean that the institution of marriage (or the church for that matter) will survive in the new heavens and new earth. I mean, the Bible gives some instruction about the Lord’s Supper but does that mean we’ll still be observing that meal in remembrance of the Lord whom we see with our resurrected eyes?
Horne concludes with this whopper – the antithesis doesn’t come any more antithetical:
It is one or the other. Either you affirm that Jesus is “ruler of the kings of the earth†or you deny that it is “the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.â€
Huh? Since when does denial of Jesus as ruler of the earth unseat him as King of Kings and Lord of Lords? This is where the literal mindedness of 2k’s critics is most revealing. They do not seem to have any conception for Christ ruling all things in different ways (you know, some as redeemer and others as creator and redeemer). Which means in the case of marriage that Christ rules all marriages, whether entered by believers or unbelievers. And those people who deny Christ as Lord are no less married than those who confess his name. To implicitly question the legitimacy of unbelievers’ marriages is to throw all conventions that support a measure of good social order to the wind. The implication of Horne’s antithesis is – if you don’t have Christ in your heart, be who you really are, a hell raiser. Since I’ve had hell raisers as neighbors, I much prefer those unbelievers who follow the order of creation even if they can’t identify the creator in a multiple choice test.
And speaking of hell, I wonder if it has ever occurred to 2k critics like Mark Horne that Christ is Lord of both Heaven and Hell, and that his rule in those places is markedly different. If Christ is indeed Lord of the cursed and the blessed, then it may be possible to imagine that Christ’s rule in a Christian home will be different from his sovereignty within a secular family. And if this is the case, then Christians need neither force non-believers to live like Christians nor inaugurate the eschaton by having the state start the judgments that Christ will execute when he returns. In other words, if Christians will simply follow what their Lord has told them to do – attend the means of grace, live quiet and peaceful lives, and glorify God and love neighbors in their work – Christ, who is Lord, will take care of the rest.
Uncanny how Christ does that without our ruling in his name.
Old Life 
Heh. This must be the reason why the papists consider marriage a sacrament. Maybe all roads do lead to Rome after all, according to these 1K’ers. Of course, they’d need to consult with the Speaker, uh…ex-Speaker, that is (now minority leader of the House), before hand to make sure that it’s still valid.
LikeLike
Just for good measure, Kloosterman once thought he had VanDrunen similarly cornered on marriage:
There are many more things that Kloosterman said that I might respond to, but I must address just one more before making some concluding remarks. Kloosterman says: “Illustrative of the problematic two-kingdom construction being advocated by VanDrunen is the question: To which of the two kingdoms, worldly or spiritual, must we assign marriage and the family?†He apparently thinks that he has me locked on the horns of a hopeless dilemma, but I reply unambiguously: to the “worldly†kingdom. Marriage and family are part of the original creation order, they have been sustained by common grace, and my unbelieving neighbors’ marriage is just as valid in the sight of God and society as mine. Christ’s redemptive work is not the origin of marriage. The church did not establish the bearing of children. Marriage and family are institutions common to believers and unbelievers alike. The church recognizes these institutions, commends them, and gives some general instructions about them, but it does not create them.â€
http://opc.org/os.html?article_id=77
http://opc.org/os.html?article_id=78
LikeLike
I especially appreciate your reference to Christ as Lord over both heaven and hell. I had never thought of it in quite that way, but you are right. He rules both, but in different ways.
What is the danger in having distinctions? 2K leaves room for that; Horne apparently does not.
LikeLike
Uncanny how Darryl hits a pitch perfect horn burst in this post.
LikeLike
“but that does not mean that the institution of marriage (or the church for that matter) will survive in the new heavens and new earth.”
I think you might find that the credenda folk mean something different from this to how you read it – i recall a doug wilson article in which he saw the marriage relationship deepening in the new heaven and new earth.
LikeLike
Chris, then Doug would appear to contradict our Lord in Luke 20.
LikeLike
DGH said:
“First, marriage is a legal status determined by the state. As such, Christian marriages do not exist unless we want to turn matrimony into a sacrament. But when you refuse the categories of holy, common, and profane, how else to make marriage meaningful except to baptize it?”
The Westminster divines found a way. See the Directory for the Public Worship of God under “The Solemnization of Marriage.”
LikeLike
Eliza, your drive by is not at all clear. The Directory you cite begins like this: “ALTHOUGH marriage be no sacrament, nor peculiar to the church of God, but common to mankind, and of publick interest in every commonwealth; yet, because such as marry are to marry in the Lord, and have special need of instruction, direction, and exhortation, from the word of God, at their entering into such a new condition, and of the blessing of God upon them therein, we judge it expedient that marriage be solemnized by a lawful minister of the word, that he may accordingly counsel them, and pray for a blessing upon them.”
Marriage is for everyone. Marriage for Christians is in the Lord. And ministers solemnize marriage. Last I checked, to make something solemn is different from making it holy.
LikeLike
My point exactly.
You said, “Christian marriages do not exist unless we want to turn matrimony into a sacrament.”
“Although” in the Directory gives the clue. Marriage is a creation ordinance for all people. However, Christians do want to “baptize” it (I assume you mean “Christianize” it), and that is precisely what the Directory’s Solemnization advice seeks to do.
Or it may be that either I or you are being obtuse, and I can guess which one you’d vote for.
Cheers.
LikeLike
But Eliza, baptism is a sacrament and does make the baptized holy. Marriage is never holy, only the married persons are.
LikeLike
Marriage between an unbeliever & a Christian makes the unbeliever holy (“otherwise their children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy”). Yet this does not prove enough, for marriage between two unbelievers does nothing for their uncleanness; though they’re still married in God’s eyes.
LikeLike
The marriage between Christ and the Church would seem to be a “holy marriage.” Or is that marriage not to be considered literal (I’m not sure)?
LikeLike
DG,
Thanks for the thoughts on marriage. How are we to understand the family?
“Christianity has to do with persons, not with institutions (other than the church).”
In Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, page 119, Van Drunen writes:
“First, what does the NT say about the family? It does not say that Christ established marriage or the family. Christ did not have to do so because God established them at creation… But though the NT does not create the family, it acknowledges its existence, confirms the authority structures within it, and speaks of how Christ and the church make special use of the family in bestowing saving blessing.”
Page 121: Though a common institution, the family is highly honored in the church.
Mathison writes: “If the promises of the redemptive covenant have always included believers and their children, then there is a much closer connection between families and the redemptive kingdom than VanDrunen seems to allow.”
Clearly the family, along with marriage, has its origins in creation, and will pass away with the new creation. But is the “special” (redemptive) use of a common institution a valid category? If I understand DVD correctly, it seems that he is making reference to the fact that as the administrative grounds of initiation into the only redemptive institution (church), the promise of God is made to a common institution (family- believing parent(s) and children).
LikeLike
“Chris, then Doug would appear to contradict our Lord in Luke 20.”
I tried digging up the article on the Credenda site, but it appears not all issues are indexed. The argument went something like “We know there won’t be marriage in heaven, but given that I’ll recognise my wife what will our relationship be like” and he came to the conclusion that since it couldn’t be made ‘wider’ (presumably the term for less exclusive) it must be ‘deeper’.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Chris, then Doug would appear to contradict our Lord in Luke 20.
There are respected exegetical scholars who don’t interpret Luke 20 that way. They argue Jesus is speaking of *Levarite* marriage there.
LikeLike
Paul,
Even in the context of Levarite marriage in Luke 20, Jesus is showing that there is marked discontinuity between our current social relationships and our eschatological ones. I only have accesses to a few commentaries in my bookshelf, but the commentators generally cite 20:34 where the resurrected sons “neither marry or are given in marriage” as evidence for this discontinuity. Out of curiosity, which scholars assert something different than DGH’s conclusions about the institution of marriage in our eschatological state? I am not saying they aren’t out there but the few sources I have immediate access to don’t seem to contradict anything in this post. It would be interesting to see arguments to the contrary.
LikeLike
Jed, Darryl’s view is the traditional interpretation, reasserting the traditional view isn’t to advance an argument. Levirate marriage is the presupposition of the Sadducees. So of course there would be “marked discontinuity between our current social relationships and our eschatological ones.” That’s simply to acknowledge my point or, rather, by Jesus’ point. The context of these passages is to question and rebut and answer the Sadducees and their denial of the resurrection, angels, and the afterlife in general—whether the intermediate state or the final state. Moreover, a “discontinuity” between ages isn’t sufficient to demonstrate that there will be no one married in the new heavens and earth. If you think it does entail this, then provide the derivation from that premise to the conclusion. For example, I will still have a parent, because it will be impossible that I not have one. Yet there will still be discontinuity. In any case, Jesus *doesn’t* say that there will be no *marriage* in heaven. The words used in the passage imply that there will be no *new* marriages. It is levirate marriage that ceases altogether in heaven, for we will be unable to die and that was the purpose Levirate marriage was invoked for.
For commentaries that disagree with Hart’s view, see Green, Kilgallen, Witherington.
LikeLike
Thanks Paul,
I can understand the gist of the argument, and I’ll have to chew a bit more on it. You are right about the context, but aren’t there further implications that necessarily flow from Jesus’ response to the Sadducces? One objection immediately comes to mind, and I am sure these exegetes have dealt with it in order to justify their positions: the example of Levirate marriage is in a way analogous to a modern marriage that ends with the death of a spouse, and then the spouse re-marries. Of course the situation and reasons behind the marriage are different, but the eschatological conundrum still persists if marriage continues post-resurrection. But the net-effect in this common occurrence is to whom is the spouse married to, the first or the second and on down the line? The further confusion might occur when both spouses are on their second lawful marriage. There could be some interesting polygamous scenarios hereafter if marriage continues past the resurrection.
In the context, Levirate marriage is to produce offspring, and if we can conclude that there will be at least no Levirate marriage, then it wouldn’t at all be unreasonable to conclude that there will be no sexual reproduction in heaven. If there is no reproduction in heaven, but we are presumably asexual as the angles are, what purpose would marriage serve? Certainly reproduction is one of the major purposes behind marriage, and if that purpose were removed, one of the major purposes behind being married is no longer operative. Of course there are other purposes in marriage, such as companionship and mutual assistance in carrying out the Creation Mandate, but the Creation Mandate pertains to this age. Maybe there will be something like it in the new creation, but the original mandate will certainly no longer be operative. I am sure that our sinless state we won’t be short on companionship. What then would necessitate marriage? Anyway why would we assume Levirate marriage was vastly different than any other valid expression of the creational institution of marriage, including remarriage after the death of the spouse? Assuming continuity, it is especially telling that Jesus sidesteps the Sadducces question and never designates any of the hypothetical marriages as continuing on after the resurrection.
Even if Luke 20 doesn’t absolutely prove that our earthly marriages don’t carry on into heaven, which I think it does, it is one more piece of canonical evidence that proves the case of the temporal marriage. If our marriages were to continue on into eternity, why would we be given permission to marry after the death of a spouse (Romans 7)? If the marriage bond isn’t broken by death, then remarriage would constitute a breach of the marital covenant. Yet Scripture constrains us in our marriages (with few exceptions) until death, not thereafter. If the marriage bond is dissolved by death, then wouldn’t we presumably have to remarry our own spouses after the resurrection? Of course, we can’t since we can neither “marry nor be given in marriage” in the resurrected state. Suffice to say, I’ll have to run those sources down, because maybe they adequately address my objections, but for now at least I am more persuaded by the traditional view.
On a side note – to your parental example, wouldn’t you have to assume that your earthly parents are the progenitors of your resurrected body? I guess we can’t say for sure, but would you have their DNA? I am not sure that we will recognize our parents as our parents in the eternal state, unless by recollection. Maybe if they were responsible for more than passing on the physical genetic material by passing on to you your immaterial self, then you could assert that it is impossible to not have parents in heaven. But if the resurrection body and the soul are God’s creation without human agency, then you could possibly not have parents. Or at least I’d think so.
LikeLike
Jed,
The traditional view may be correct. I am pointing out that there are other viable exegetical arguments from the text to a different conclusion. I also think the standard arguments have received a lot of passes on justifications for the interpretation that aren’t particularly good justifications. I think the existence of trustworthy exegetes with divergent views, the ambiguities of the text and the inconclusiveness of it, allow this to remain an open interpretation. Now, I can understand that some people (not saying you) have an a priori *need* to not have some marriages continue in the new heavens and earth in order to save some particularly strong 2K position that claims *no* institution like marriage etc will continue on.
“One objection immediately comes to mind, and I am sure these exegetes have dealt with it in order to justify their positions: the example of Levirate marriage is in a way analogous to a modern marriage that ends with the death of a spouse, and then the spouse re-marries. Of course the situation and reasons behind the marriage are different, but the eschatological conundrum still persists if marriage continues post-resurrection. But the net-effect in this common occurrence is to whom is the spouse married to, the first or the second and on down the line? The further confusion might occur when both spouses are on their second lawful marriage. There could be some interesting polygamous scenarios hereafter if marriage continues past the resurrection.”
Of course, given the nature of heaven as very mysterious to us, it shouldn’t surprise us that there will be questions. Same things can be said of our resurrected bodies. Paul said that they will be “the same,” depending on how one takes that (I myself take a body-template view that side-steps many of these questions, but the identical *physical* body is the Jewish view, and the historical view), here’s some questions: will their be dwarfs? down syndrome? my tattoos? etc., will babies who dies walk around in their baby bodies, will their be “old” people, etc. So “hard” questions are par for the course with heaven.
Having said that, the position is that *some* marriages will continue (or, more precisely, there’s no reason *from these texts* to assume that all marriages will cease). There will be no sinful marriages in heaven, so there won’t be polygamous marriages, but that doesn’t mean there will be none. Maybe those with two valid marriages to two Christians will not be married, will be married to the last, or will go back to the first, or maybe they can choose. These are possible options and there is no objection I can see to them. If that’s the way God sets it up, it’s not as if any of the option will be sinful. And since we’ll be glorified, it’s not like we’ll have “hurt” feelings, whatever the outcome.
You also seem to be assuming that Jesus is answering that question, but Jesus frequently doesn’t answer the questions of his objectors. The Sadducees asked about the *resurrection* and Jesus gave them an answer about the living patriarchs. However, that’s the *intermediate state* and not the future *resurrection*, so he didn’t answer their question. Jesus also links us with angels as per the latter’s immortality. But that would only address Levirate marriages, which were invoked on the presupposition of mortality. Traditional marriage is not predicated on that as Adam and Eve were not subject to death when they married and it seems safe to assume they would remain married had the completed their task, bearing children etc. Jesus challenges their assumption of Levirate marriage and then there view of the after life in general.
So, the short answer is that I don’t know how to answer those specific questions. But they are (a) not the norm but exceptions and (b) they are not an objection to marriage qua marriage in the new heavens and earth and (c) it seems like Jesus isn’t even dealing with the issue the way the traditional view has assumed.
“In the context, Levirate marriage is to produce offspring, and if we can conclude that there will be at least no Levirate marriage, then it wouldn’t at all be unreasonable to conclude that there will be no sexual reproduction in heaven.
That doesn’t logically follow at all. First, you’re leaving out information: the purpose is not just to produce offspring, it’s to produce offspring for a *deceased* husband, to give him a firstborn son. But no one will die in heaven, so there’s no need for Levirate marriage. We can only conclude that there will be no reproduction *for the purpose of giving a deceased husband a firstborn. Second, Adam and Eve were to produce offspring, and there’s nothing exegetically from the text of Scripture to show that if they had passed their test they wouldn’t have still had children.
“What then would necessitate marriage?”
Nothing *necessitates* this. Nothing *necessitates* that we will have two arms and two legs, but I assume we will.
“Assuming continuity, it is especially telling that Jesus sidesteps the Sadducees question and never designates any of the hypothetical marriages as continuing on after the resurrection.”
Right, because Jesus was being Jesus. He frequently doesn’t answer the question his detractors want him to. For example, as Stein comments: “The question of the Sadducees involves not just the specific doctrine of the resurrection but also the general doctrine of life after death. The resurrection from the dead, in the technical sense of the resurrection of the body, was seen as a future event occurring at the end of history (12:23: ‘in the resurrection, when they rise’). The fact that Jesus argues that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were alive (12:27) deals more with the doctrine of life after death. Since the Sadducees denied both, the demonstration of either would refute their denial of life after death,†(Stein, Baker Exegetical Commentary on Mark 549 n2.) Jesus never answers their specific rejection of the resurrection. That’s not “especially telling” as against the doctrine of the resurrection somehow.
“Even if Luke 20 doesn’t absolutely prove that our earthly marriages don’t carry on into heaven, which I think it does,
Boy, that’s a strong claim. The existence of trained, sophisticated, evangelical, and orthodox commenters to the contrary shows at least that the text doesn’t *absolutely* show that. Indeed, the text never even says there will be no *marriage*, it says that in heaven no men will take new brides and no women will be taken as brides.
“it is one more piece of canonical evidence that proves the case of the temporal marriage.”
No it’s not, and you’ve not demonstrated that.
“If our marriages were to continue on into eternity, why would we be given permission to marry after the death of a spouse (Romans 7)?
I can think of a lot of reasons, can’t you? Here’s one: it’s a pretty good way to avoid lust. Here’s another: it is a means to bring some elect into the world via covenant households. I would think one could think of many more possible reasons. But surely you’re not arguing that since one can’t answer a tough case then that disproves the whole thing, right? That is the tactic of pro-choicers. They frequently ask questions at the extreme ends and then conclude that that shows all abortion is permissible if one can’t answer some tough question.
“If the marriage bond isn’t broken by death, then remarriage would constitute a breach of the marital covenant.”
Death frees one from the prescriptions of *the Mosaic law*. Adam and Eve weren’t under those prescriptions. Moreover, Paul isn’t teaching that “death dissolves the marital bond” per se, he’s invoking the Mosaic strictures where death frees *the woman* to remarry. This wasn’t tru of the husband, however. So, Paul isn’t commenting on some universal legal truth about marriage. Death freed the woman to legally remarry so that should wouldn’t be *legally* considered an adulteress. But one cannot get from this text that if a believer dies and his wife doesn’t, and if the latter doesn’t remarry that she will not still be married to her husband in heaven. Furthermore, one cannot get from this text that if the wife does remarry that she won’t be married to the new husband in heaven. You’re reading way too much into the text. Paul wasn’t giving us a normative prescription but simply reporting a fact for the purposes of drawing an analogy.
“On a side note – to your parental example, wouldn’t you have to assume that your earthly parents are the progenitors of your resurrected body? I guess we can’t say for sure, but would you have their DNA?
I am not a physicalist about man, I believe we have a soul. Now, no *person* (save Adam and Eve) had no parent(s). If you see a mere human being, then that human being, who is a human person, had parents. The *person* could not have come into existence. Now, since I will be the same person in heaven as I am now, then I am numerically identical with my heavenly self. Since this is so, then we can apply the indescernability of identicals to this. That is, x=y → ∀P(Fx ↔ Fy), which states that if x is identical to y, then necessarily if P is a property of x then P is a property of y. I (x) am identical to my future heavenly self (y), and I have the property of having parents, therefore my heavenly self will have that property. That God gives you a new *body* doesn’t mean that God creates a brand new *soul* or *person*. Rather, the *same person* gets a new body. God doesn’t bring a new *person* into existence, and so if the earthly Jed has parents then it will be true that the glorified Jed will have parents. This is a very strong argument for thinking otherwise.
LikeLike
Paul,
A couple thoughts in response, and then I’ll let you have the last take on this conversation. First:
Jed:“Even if Luke 20 doesn’t absolutely prove that our earthly marriages don’t carry on into heaven, which I think it does…”
Paul:Boy, that’s a strong claim…
Yeah, in retrospect, probably a bit too strong. I am aware that these are trained, sophisticated scholars who propose this interpretation, however, to that point there are equally qualified scholars who hold the traditional view. As laymen, we don’t have the privilege of being scholars but we still make a choice on which interpretations best account for the textual data. So while I am not absolutely certain that the traditional view is the correct interpretation, I am reasonably convinced that it is given the alternative you have summarized.
Having said that, the position is that *some* marriages will continue (or, more precisely, there’s no reason *from these texts* to assume that all marriages will cease). There will be no sinful marriages in heaven, so there won’t be polygamous marriages, but that doesn’t mean there will be none….[Re: no sexual reproduction] you’re leaving out information: the purpose is not just to produce offspring, it’s to produce offspring for a *deceased* husband, to give him a firstborn son. But no one will die in heaven, so there’s no need for Levirate marriage. We can only conclude that there will be no reproduction *for the purpose of giving a deceased husband a firstborn…
This interpretation might be logically possible given the syntactic structure of the verses, however it ignores some important contextual issues, namely 20:35b-36 where the resurrected are deemed comparable to the angles. While we do not derive the asexuality and absence of marriage among the angles directly from the biblical text, the Babylonian Talmud and apocryphal literature distinctly affirms this (cf. 1 En. 15:6; 51:4; 104:4-6; Wis. 5:5, 15-16; 2 Bar. 51:10; b.Ber 17a)* Jesus picks up on these sources and confirms their veracity. The continuity of the social order between the present age and the age to come is in question, not just Levirate marriage, when we are likened to and equated with angelic beings. This is evidenced by the fact that Jesus sidesteps the Levirate issue entirely and gives a glimpse into the resurrected age and its incongruity with the current social order. If we are indeed are to be like the angles who neither reproduce or are married (realities affirmed by Jesus), why would we assume that any marriages will translate into the coming age? So, if our resurrection bodies are more analogous to that of the angles, the burden of proof is on those who propose that marriage in some capacity will continue in heaven. They must demonstrate that while we will be like the angles who are not married, at least some resurrected humans will be married. If Jesus is affirming these intertestemental sources, that burden of proof would be difficult indeed. The conundrum posed by Levirate marriage continuing post-resurrection is no more difficult than scenarios of any other remarriage scenario after the death of a spouse sanctioned by the NT. If Jesus had intended to affirm that some marriages would persist in the afterlife, why would he affirm our resurrected likeness with angles? He certainly could have affirmed that the woman would belong to one of the husbands, and that this scenario and its analogues would pose no threat to the viability of the resurrection, but he seemingly obliterates the notion of marriage when he compares resurrected humans to angles. If the issue at hand was merely the cessation of Levirate marriage, why not stipulate that and help the Sadducees understand that the institution of marriage posed no threat to the viability of the resurrection? Why make comparisons that would have certainly been understood by the Sadducees as affirming the total absence of marriage in heaven, if he was leaving the possibility of marriage hereafter still open? I am not sure how well the interpretation that some marriage may continue after the resurrection accounts for the historical context of the passage or Jesus’ reply. For this interpretation to succeed, it would seem to have to explain away the historical connections of Jesus’ response to the Saducees.
Death frees one from the prescriptions of *the Mosaic law*. Adam and Eve weren’t under those prescriptions. Moreover, Paul isn’t teaching that “death dissolves the marital bond†per se, he’s invoking the Mosaic strictures where death frees *the woman* to remarry. This wasn’t tru of the husband, however.
I am sure that we share the assumption that when Paul makes an analogy, unless he otherwise stipulates (e.g. the allegory in Gal 4:21ff), he must speak truly about each reality he is speaking to for the sake of comparison. The fact that Paul reiterates the same principle found in Rom. 7 in 1 Cor 7:39 to regulate marriage and remarriage in the church demonstrates that I wasn’t reading a principle regarding marriage into the text that simply wasn’t there. Sure, you can restrict both passages to women only, but historically the church has extended the general equity of Rom. 7 and 1 Cor. 7 as applying to both men and women. Paul cites the death of the spouse as the point of release from the bond of marriage. Given his analogy in Rom. 7:4-6 regarding our death to the law, it would be odd indeed if one would be released from the bond of marriage and free to marry another, if later the initial marriage could possibly be reinstated after the resurrection. The finality of death to the marriage bond is precisely lent strength to Paul’s argument that we are dead to the Law. From a biblical theological standpoint, if death did not render the marriage covenant obsolete, why would Paul use this analogy with with our relationship to the Law? I used this passage only to illustrate the finality that death brings to the marital bond. Of course it says nothing of our resurrected state. But if death does dissolve the covenant of marriage, which I am not sure how you could reasonably construe it otherwise, how can it be reinstated after the resurrection and still not violate Lk. 20?
God doesn’t bring a new *person* into existence, and so if the earthly Jed has parents then it will be true that the glorified Jed will have parents. This is a very strong argument for thinking otherwise.
This assumes a great deal of continuity between the physiology of our earthly bodies to our heavenly ones doesn’t it? I think it is absolutely reasonable to say that we will resemble our resurrected bodies enough so as to be recognizable (Lk. 24:39ff), but that our physiology in our heavenly bodies will be attributable to our parents as it is in our earthly one isn’t clear at all. As is the case for a good deal of deceased saints, their bodies may not even be intact enough to be re-furbished in the resurrection. Say their bodies have decayed or been burned to the degree that there is no extant genetic material; would they still have the same DNA (if there is such a thing in resurrected bodies). I am not saying you haven’t asserted a plausible argument to the contrary, but it could be the case that our heavenly bodies resemble our earthly ones, but have a physiology that is completely different. In this case, we might be able to recognize our earthly parents in heaven, but they might have no physiological contribution whatsoever to our heavenly bodies. In this case we wouldn’t have parents in heaven per se, even if we recognized them as our earthly ones.
I realize that this doesn’t answer each of your objections, but I tried to address the ones I felt were strongest. I will try to track down the sources you have indicated. But from where I see it now, I am not sure how they can overcome the traditional interpretation unless they restrict the relevant data to the text itself. Once the discussion broadens historically and canonically, it seems less likely that their argument would convince me.
*See Commentary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament Comm. Lk. 20:35-36 p. 366-68. – David A. Pao and Eckhard Schnabel
LikeLike
My spellchecker somehow corrected angels to angles, sorry. I do believe we were speaking about supernatural beings, not the degree of separation between two lines.
LikeLike
Jed,
Thanks for giving me the last word as I’m busy and it takes one more thing off the plate for me! I’ll try to briefly respond to some of your points:
1. I am sure you are “reasonably convinced” of the traditional view, and that’s fine. However, this is no mere stacking of authorities in that the large majority (if not all) of the traditional arguments do not anticipate or rebut several obvious and not-so-obvious objections to that view. It’s not a “exegetical standoff” yet.
2. I did not offer a position that was simply “logically possible,” which it is, I think I at least showed that it is exegetically possible.
2.b. As a friend recently emailed me, “How could Jesus pick up on the Babylonian Talmud when that was compiled around 600 AD (according to Jacob Neusner)?”
2.b.1. It’s nice to point to the Talmud and apocryphal literature, some good, some completely wild. For example, the Jews historically thought that a bit of bone at the base of the skull was what was identical in the resurrected bodies to the perishable body, and so gave it its continuity. It was also thought that if possible all the bones should be saved, because the bones lasted and were then resurrected and reincarnated (given flesh again). But this is implausible on several levels, and I’ll assume you agree or know why and so won’t belabor the point.
3. What is the connection with the angels? Is it what you say, or is it immortality? The latter seems more plausible since the angels are *immaterial* and so it makes little sense to me when you write, “So, if our resurrection bodies are more analogous to that of the angles . . .”
3.b. If it is immortality, this is important since marriage and sex wasn’t predicated upon mortality. Furthermore, the immortality point would serve to rebut the Sadducees at a more fundamental level, their denial of the afterlife, the resurrection, and angels.
3.c. Moreover, your reference to the NTUOT proves too much for you, for it also points out that angels don’t food either (which you didn’t quote). Your view of the afterlife is very non-physical, indeed, one wonders why we need physical bodies at all.
3.d. The lntertestamental literature also doesn’t claim angels never married as the interpretation of Gen. 6 was about angels taking wives.
4. I understand that continuity is at issue, but a bare appeal to discontinuity isn’t enough, since we know there will be plenty of continuity. However, when answering people about continuity of social orders, we usually speak in terms of their cultural conceptual schemes, which would bring Levirate marriage back to center stage.
5. When you say things like this: “If Jesus had intended to affirm that some marriages would persist in the afterlife, why would he affirm our resurrected likeness with angles?,” you have (a) misunderstood the argument since he’s not intending to affirm that some marriages persist but that Levirate ones will not, which says nothing, either way, about non-Levarite ones, and thus it is improper for *you*, the reader, to infer that they will not, and (b) Jesus affirms our likeness since we will be immortal, like the angels, which rather pointedly puts the need for Levirate marriages as, shall I say, sparse.
6. Jesus “could have” affirmed many things, but I have suggested that he was pulling a “Jesus” and, as usual, not answering the critics’ question but using it as a springboard to object at a more fundamental and important level. I’m not sure you want to go down the “why didn’t Jesus just say ______” road, do you?
6.b. Why think Jesus was out to “help” his opponents, who were only out to trap him, when Jesus affirms that he speaks in parables precisely to confuse or remain ambiguous to some people. I’m not sure the “Jesus should have came down and given us a handbook and blueprint to all our questions” approach is the wisest. Similar answers can be given to questions like, “Why would he say x, when the Sadducees would have understood it this way?” The Sadducees rather had bigger problems than their insincere and “hard-case” question intended to trap Jesus. I’d say getting them to question their denial of the resurrection and the afterlife was slightly more important to Jesus. Jesus was never really keen on answering the traps and tricks laid out for him.
7. I have stated, I think twice now, that the issue at hand was not “merely the end of Levirate marriage” but, rather, the refutation and correction of several fundamental Sadduccean presuppositions about the afterlife, issues more fundamental than marriage, and necessarily presupposed for their to even be a marriage or not (i.e., no resurrection, no afterlife, no marriages).
8. On Romans 7, it may be that death makes the marriage dissoluble but not dissolved, that hinges on other contingent conditions. In any event, I highly doubt, and can’t find an exegete to support this, that Paul is intending to enter into a discourse on whether we will be married in the new heavens and earth or not. In any event, being freed from human law to marry another without being an adulteress isn’t sufficient to show that no people will be married in heaven, and if you think it is I invite you to do the derivation from that premise to the conclusion. The woman is simply *freed to* married another. But what if she doesn’t? What if she remains married in her heart and so does her departed husband. Being *freed to* marry another doesn’t prove that no couples will remain married in the new heavens and earth.
Moreover, even if true that the marriage is annihilated, it may be that some lover re-marry in heaven. You cannot argue that this won’t be other than to re-invoke the disputed passage and so beg the question.
Finally, the view can’t get you to the conclusion that there will be no marriages since there will be some alive when Christ returns, and it’s not certain that DVD’s exegesis of I Pet. is the best interpretation of that text.
9. As for my argument that we will still have parents in heaven, all I can say is that you totally misunderstand the nature of the argument I’ve given you, which was shown to follow logically and didn’t depend on whether we had the same “physiology” or “DNA.” Our parents were still responsible for bringing our *person* into existence. Since you just admitted that you would be the same *person* even though you don’t have the same *body,* and since Jed *the person* has parents, Jed *the person* will always have the same parents. It will be true of Jed *the person* that he, say, skinned his knee in the third grade *even if* Jed the person has a totally different body in heaven. In any event, your view is very odd, for it says that we cannot say our mother or father or grandmother etc is in heaven. If a child dies, we cannot say that our child is in heaven. Lastly, the Bible even speaks of the new heavens and earth and says that **they and their children** will live in the new jerusalem. David also seemed to suggest/hope that his child would be in heaven, and there’s no indication that the child would not be David’s.
LikeLike
Jed, don’t worry, I didn’t even send the above through a spell checker, it’s just a stream of consciousness post. So forgive my spelling errors 🙂
LikeLike
Paul,
Sorry man, couldn’t resist, if you don’t have time for a response I completely understand. I’ll leave the substance of our debate as is, I could probably pick more nits, but it has been an interesting discussion as is. However there are a few key clarifications that I would like to make in my defense.
I am well aware of the food issue and I figured you would bring it up. To that point, at least certain angels could eat (see Gen. 18 – 19). Jesus likely alludes to the intertestamental lit inasmuch as it is useful, some like Wis. 16:20 refer to mana “angel’s food”. Since angels ate in the OT, it is likely that he didn’t affirm those sources that assert otherwise since this isn’t entirely true. To be fair, some intertestamental works only assert that they don’t need food, not that they are unable to, or do not eat. I also am aware of the dating of the talmudic lit, the late date might initially seem like a defeater as you frame it, but the written records of the BT are indicative of at least a few centuries of analysis and theological reflection. Given the fact that the intertestamental works cited reiterated the same point confirms that these views pre-dated Jesus. This is why I distinguished the Talmud from apocrypha (I collapsed the pseudepigraphal works into apocrypha because of the intertestamental dating).
All this said, Jesus reply does seemingly sidestep the question of Levirate marriage to speak to the issue at hand – the validity of the resurrection. We both agree here. But you seem to be asserting that Jesus is only putting an end to Levirate marriage. You are also asserting that, in this view at least, Jesus is not making any definitive statements about any other form of marriage. I propose that the context of the Sadducee question is obviously Levirate marriage, but the context of Jesus’ answer subsumes the specificity of the initial question and deals with marriage in universal terms as a launching pad of sorts to elucidate certain realities of the resurrection, attacking the heart of the Sadducces anti-resurrection beliefs. Of all the sources I cited, 1 Enoch 15 seems to be most closely connected with Jesus’ response. Here Levirate marriage isn’t in question with respect to “flesh and blood”, the creational institution, as God’s design for men exists in order to produce offspring. Jesus broadens the scope marriage from Levirate, to creational by noting that “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. This corresponds to the “flesh and blood” in 1 En. 15:3-5. Unless you want to insist that “the sons of this age” are comprised entirely of Jews to whom the Levirate Law applies, it should be taken as a broader term referring to humanity and the institution of marriage in the broadest terms. The resurrected are now co-equals with the (righteous) angels, who as 1 En. 15 shows, do not marry at any point in time, nor are they permitted to marry. As sons of the resurrection we will not marry. And, to the point of some marriages persisting there is nothing to indicate, if we are like angels with respect to marriage, that some exceptional marriages will translate past the resurrection. Those whose marriages persist, would not be like the angles in this respect. But since marriage is the only point of comparison between men and angels here, it doesn’t seem likely that such exceptions exist at all given the universality of Jesus’ response, otherwise the comparison would seem quite inconsistent . While the text does not explicitly rule this out, and this is why I (now) can see the plausibility of your argument. However if we grant the historical context of Jesus’ words I don’t see this as a high probability at all.
Re: 3.d – Angles taking wives in Gen. 6. This view is not as widely held as it once was. Recent conservative OT scholarship has interpreted this passage as earthly kings taking wives, not angels, I am more inclined to this view (John Walton; Bruce Waltke; and Meredith Kline). Luther and Calvin held that this was the men of Seth marrying daughters of Cain. So, I wouldn’t hang my hat on that point.
I think we could chase this down forever. I think we are in a whole heap of disagreement over some of the other assertions you make (which is certainly mutual I am sure). But, I guess we can let sleeping dogs lie for now. If you want to pursue this further, later on down the road, by all means. But for now I am fine with the substance of my argument. I am sure we will dig up other things to disagree on later. But this one has been a fun one, which is nice once in a while.
LikeLike
I forgot to add this – for an synonymous term to “sons of this age” see Lk. 16:8 “sons of this world”, both designations appear to be universal or referring to humanity in general.
LikeLike
Jed, thanks for giving me the last response!
LikeLike
Rather then respond, because then you’ll respond, and then I’ll respond, . . . , I’ll just point out that *I* never endorsed the view that Gen 6. referred to angels, I said that *Enoch* did, which undercuts some of your argument, viz.,
“It happened after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that daughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful. And when the angels, the sons of heaven, beheld them, they became enamored of them, saying to each other, Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of men, and let us beget children” (7:1-2).” Enoch
LikeLike
Yeah, that is where the allusions seem to be selective. As an aside this is one of the things I generally appreciate about NTUOT, it doesn’t sidestep the hermenutical difficulties like these. Anyway, what really makes things messy is that Jude and 2 Peter seem to pick up on Enoch’s account indiscriminately. I think that is why Waltke clarifies that these kings were “demon possessed”, in deference to the canonical witness. However, as is typical, where Waltke is probably theologically more astute, Walton’s ANE analysis is usually quite compelling, which can and does make a mess of more than one traditional interpretation. IMO – He offers the best take on the Tower of Bable narrative, if you ever get the chance, check it out in his NIV commentary. If you ever come up with an airtight case for this issue or know someone who has, it would certainly be the first!
LikeLike
I’d also note that Enoch 10:17 says there will be childbirth in heaven. We can’t just say that Jesus was assuming Enoch where it works for your interpretation, but I grant that’s convenient.
I don’t have an airtight case for this, and the other side doesn’t. As a qualification, I am not arguing for “my view,” I think one should remain agnostic on the question since the text itself doesn’t warrant claiming either way—the text itself only says husbands will not take new wives and fathers will not give their daughters away.
I’ll end with a joke that is apropos:
A couple were driving to a church to get married. On the way, they got into a car accident and died. When they arrive in heaven, they see St. Peter at the gate. They ask him if he could arrange it so they could marry in heaven.
St. Peter tells them that he’ll do his best to work on it for them.
Three months pass by and the couple hear nothing. They bump into St. Peter and ask him about the marriage.
He says, “I’m still working on it.â€
Two years pass by and no marriage.
St. Peter again assures them that he’s working on it.
Finally after twenty long years, St. Peter comes running with a priest and tells the couple it’s time for their wedding.
The couple marry and live happily for a while. But after a few months the couple go and find St. Peter and tell him things are not working out, and that they want to get a divorce.
“Can you arrange it for us?†they ask.
St. Peter replies, “Are you kidding?!! It took me twenty years to find a priest up here. Do you have any idea how long it will be to find you a lawyer!?”
LikeLike
Yep, that about sums it up. I am sure some of the lawyer readers got a good laugh out of that one too.
LikeLike
‘For what it’s worth, the absence of marriage in the new heavens and new earth would certainly seem to unravel arguments that look at redemption as the restoration of creation. If marriage existed as part of the created order and then vanishes in the glorified order, something is going on that seems to escape the average neo-Calvinist’s redemptive-historical horizon. ‘
Exactly.
LikeLike