Is marriage simply to be for the "survival of the species?" This reads as decidedly materialistic, perhaps even a bit Darwinistic, since after all, one does not need marriage for this; one is confusing sex with marriage. As procreation takes a number of social forms in human societies, I don't think we can read it so easily backwards (that is, we start with assumption of marriage and then end up with a proof of marriage--a bit circular).
So perhaps we should think of marriage in more theological and covenantal terms: it is the material basis for passing the covenant on from one generation to the next. Material, since obviously one needs bodies in the next generation, and also because the substance of the Covenant, its spiritual truth does not lie in the body but in the heart. Families then exist not only for the raising of children, but for their nurturing as individuals who will also make the Covenant their own. If marriage is theologically for this passing on of the covenant from generation to generation, then this also answers what at the end there is no giving or being given in marriage. In the Kingdom, the Covenant is realized; having the end, the means fall away as so much scaffolding from a completed building.
William, thank you for your comment. I have a couple of thoughts as to where we might be speaking past one another. First, I think you are confusing my argument with a natural law argument for marriage as only between a man and a woman. In contrast to a natural law argument, my argument here is based on what Jesus implies about the nature of marriage in Luke 20:34-36. It is true that there is a naturalistic element in the argument to the extent that I draw on the obvious point that you need a male and female to procreate, but the argument still a thoroughly theological argument. It takes the basic form of: Jesus says A, A implies B, B implies C, and C implies not-D, therefore, A implies not-D. There is nothing circular about that.
Second, I agree with you that, theologically, marriage has more than one purpose. Paul says to the Ephesians that marriage serves as a type of the union between Christ and His Church. And there is a long tradition of arguing that Genesis 2:18 shows that marriage serves the purpose of providing for human psychological needs (cf., the Old Testament apocryphal book of Jubilees 3:1-5 written sometime around 150 B.C.). But all of this can be true and not relevant to Luke 20:34-36. Jesus simply does not say that the reason there will be no marriage is because the reality to which marriage points will have arrived nor does he say that it is because "the Covenant is realized" (as true as these both may be). Instead, the reason Jesus says there will be no marriage is because there will be no death. So, the question is: for Jesus, what is the connection between death and marriage such that, when death is removed from the picture, marriage is necessarily removed from the picture as well. And, as I've argued, when we read Luke 20:34-36 in its broader literary and historical context, the most likely answer to this question is that, for Jesus, God gave humans marriage in order to solve a problem posed by their mortality, i.e., the threat of extinction. Once the problem is removed, however, Jesus implies that humans will no longer need the solution. What I believe this shows us is that, for Jesus, marriage as an institution is essentially ordered toward procreation (hardly a radical claim at the time as the quotes from 1 Enoch and Josephus indicate), since the abrogation of this one purpose leads to the abrogation of the institution as a whole. I believe that the rather obvious logical implication of Jesus' view is that only two people of the opposite sex can marry, because only a male and a female can enter into a relationship that is in principle procreative. And this, of course, implies that two people of the same sex cannot marry. Consequently, those promoting same-sex marriage are advocating for a view that is incompatible with what Jesus teaches about marriage in Luke 20:34-36.
Cedric -- thanks for the response, as well. And to be clear, I was not so much thinking of disputation as seeking to perhaps add to your take. For it does seem clear that if immortality characterizes the Kingdom (or Age to Come), then we might reasonably also characterize this as the realization of the Covenant, that reality when we shall know God and enjoy Him forever, this life of blessedness as Gregory of Nyssa might have it. To get into the weeds a bit, this emphasis on immortality is, as you note, a common theme with the early patristics--certainly with Nyssa, whom I have been reading, a view sometimes characterized as "greek" whereas the covenantal take, marriage as the means to fulfilling the covenant, rests with numerous citations of continuing generations in the OT. This Greek v Hebrew can go wildly off track so I don't want to extend it very far.
On a second note, I have found the emphasis on the contingency of marriage, that it is limited, to be a useful take for how it dethrones an overemphasis on marriage. A community where marriage is contingent would seem to create an open social space for singles and the general practice of celibacy.
How does anyone see hope in having a passionate base desire removed? The sadducees question assumed that all God's laws were eternal, forgetting that some were simply to regulate conditions that only exist because of sin. They thought that not fulfilling the levirate law in the resurrection would be sin as well as polygamy which would be forced to happen with the men to fulfill the levirate law, so to avoid sin there wouldn't be a resurrection. Jesus saying no one will marry or be given in marriage is simply addressing marriage customs that exist only because of what sin did. The levirate law was about continuing a specific family lineage, wich is much more specific than simply being married. Jesus's point was that no more death makes the levirate law no longer applicable, since it depends on death, but marriage was created to make creation complete, before anyone could die. That's why Lukes record specifies the contrast with angels was about not being able to die. It says people were amazed at Jesus's answer, but why would people have been amazed at the idea of no more sex forever? Isaiah 65:17-25 says people will be married and still having children and this is durring after the fist resurrection. Jesus didn't say there would be a time after the resurrection when people would still want sex but then that desire would be taken away after creation is completely restored, so that prophecy is one of many evidences contradicting the no more marriage belief.
That would also be manipulation of free will to take away a desire for any sensation God made us to have. It's not like with sin, which is simply a way of trying to get satisfaction for a desire but is missing something, which keeps people wanting more and not being fulfilled. It's not accurate to compare no more sex with no more sin. That would make the restoration prophecies pointless, because then there's still is no guarantee as to what we can hope to be restored besides saved people. The wife of the lamb in Revelation is a symbolic description of the restored relationship with God. It can't be a replacement for human marriage because they're relationships that fulfill different desires. God is described as a husband in Hosea 2:7, Isaiah 45:5, Jeremiah 31:32 and Ezekiel 16:8. That didn’t replace marriage either because they’re analogies. Creation is an expression of who God is, and his standard for good is unchanging because he's timeless and spaceless. If sex and marriage was needed for creation to be very good, which is so important, it's the only thing God said wasn't good to be without before creating it for humans, it will be part of the restored creation. Some parts that make us the genders we are would be wasted because they're used only for reproduction or sexual pleasure, like sperm, egg cells, the uterus, clitoris, and some of the reasons women have breasts and wider hips than men. That's all part of what makes us in Gods image. Without that, the sea and animals that live in it, or night time as some people interpret as being literal in Revelation, then there's a contradiction with who God is and with the prophecies of all creation being restored.
All the things God made to give pleasure are part of how we relate to him. It says in genesis that the reason for marriage was not to be alone, in the sense of having no marriage partner for a unique intimacy. It's not one of other reasons. Jesus repeats this in Matthew 19:4-5 and Mark 10:6-7 and Paul does in Ephesians 5:31. Reproduction and representing God’s relationship are not reasons stated anywhere in scripture. It's not a tool for reproduction or it would be strange to compare something mainly utilitarian to a relationship with God. If marriage is a representation of Jesus’s relationship with the church, then people would have had to sin for marriage to be fulfilled by our relationship to Him by His redemption. God is not going to create something that requires what He hates. Adam and Eve had the relationship with God that people will have with Him after creation is restored. There was nothing missing from that relationship before Adam and Eve sinned, so it makes no sense to think marriage is a representation of a relationship that was already had when God made it.
Is marriage simply to be for the "survival of the species?" This reads as decidedly materialistic, perhaps even a bit Darwinistic, since after all, one does not need marriage for this; one is confusing sex with marriage. As procreation takes a number of social forms in human societies, I don't think we can read it so easily backwards (that is, we start with assumption of marriage and then end up with a proof of marriage--a bit circular).
So perhaps we should think of marriage in more theological and covenantal terms: it is the material basis for passing the covenant on from one generation to the next. Material, since obviously one needs bodies in the next generation, and also because the substance of the Covenant, its spiritual truth does not lie in the body but in the heart. Families then exist not only for the raising of children, but for their nurturing as individuals who will also make the Covenant their own. If marriage is theologically for this passing on of the covenant from generation to generation, then this also answers what at the end there is no giving or being given in marriage. In the Kingdom, the Covenant is realized; having the end, the means fall away as so much scaffolding from a completed building.
William, thank you for your comment. I have a couple of thoughts as to where we might be speaking past one another. First, I think you are confusing my argument with a natural law argument for marriage as only between a man and a woman. In contrast to a natural law argument, my argument here is based on what Jesus implies about the nature of marriage in Luke 20:34-36. It is true that there is a naturalistic element in the argument to the extent that I draw on the obvious point that you need a male and female to procreate, but the argument still a thoroughly theological argument. It takes the basic form of: Jesus says A, A implies B, B implies C, and C implies not-D, therefore, A implies not-D. There is nothing circular about that.
Second, I agree with you that, theologically, marriage has more than one purpose. Paul says to the Ephesians that marriage serves as a type of the union between Christ and His Church. And there is a long tradition of arguing that Genesis 2:18 shows that marriage serves the purpose of providing for human psychological needs (cf., the Old Testament apocryphal book of Jubilees 3:1-5 written sometime around 150 B.C.). But all of this can be true and not relevant to Luke 20:34-36. Jesus simply does not say that the reason there will be no marriage is because the reality to which marriage points will have arrived nor does he say that it is because "the Covenant is realized" (as true as these both may be). Instead, the reason Jesus says there will be no marriage is because there will be no death. So, the question is: for Jesus, what is the connection between death and marriage such that, when death is removed from the picture, marriage is necessarily removed from the picture as well. And, as I've argued, when we read Luke 20:34-36 in its broader literary and historical context, the most likely answer to this question is that, for Jesus, God gave humans marriage in order to solve a problem posed by their mortality, i.e., the threat of extinction. Once the problem is removed, however, Jesus implies that humans will no longer need the solution. What I believe this shows us is that, for Jesus, marriage as an institution is essentially ordered toward procreation (hardly a radical claim at the time as the quotes from 1 Enoch and Josephus indicate), since the abrogation of this one purpose leads to the abrogation of the institution as a whole. I believe that the rather obvious logical implication of Jesus' view is that only two people of the opposite sex can marry, because only a male and a female can enter into a relationship that is in principle procreative. And this, of course, implies that two people of the same sex cannot marry. Consequently, those promoting same-sex marriage are advocating for a view that is incompatible with what Jesus teaches about marriage in Luke 20:34-36.
Cedric -- thanks for the response, as well. And to be clear, I was not so much thinking of disputation as seeking to perhaps add to your take. For it does seem clear that if immortality characterizes the Kingdom (or Age to Come), then we might reasonably also characterize this as the realization of the Covenant, that reality when we shall know God and enjoy Him forever, this life of blessedness as Gregory of Nyssa might have it. To get into the weeds a bit, this emphasis on immortality is, as you note, a common theme with the early patristics--certainly with Nyssa, whom I have been reading, a view sometimes characterized as "greek" whereas the covenantal take, marriage as the means to fulfilling the covenant, rests with numerous citations of continuing generations in the OT. This Greek v Hebrew can go wildly off track so I don't want to extend it very far.
On a second note, I have found the emphasis on the contingency of marriage, that it is limited, to be a useful take for how it dethrones an overemphasis on marriage. A community where marriage is contingent would seem to create an open social space for singles and the general practice of celibacy.
How does anyone see hope in having a passionate base desire removed? The sadducees question assumed that all God's laws were eternal, forgetting that some were simply to regulate conditions that only exist because of sin. They thought that not fulfilling the levirate law in the resurrection would be sin as well as polygamy which would be forced to happen with the men to fulfill the levirate law, so to avoid sin there wouldn't be a resurrection. Jesus saying no one will marry or be given in marriage is simply addressing marriage customs that exist only because of what sin did. The levirate law was about continuing a specific family lineage, wich is much more specific than simply being married. Jesus's point was that no more death makes the levirate law no longer applicable, since it depends on death, but marriage was created to make creation complete, before anyone could die. That's why Lukes record specifies the contrast with angels was about not being able to die. It says people were amazed at Jesus's answer, but why would people have been amazed at the idea of no more sex forever? Isaiah 65:17-25 says people will be married and still having children and this is durring after the fist resurrection. Jesus didn't say there would be a time after the resurrection when people would still want sex but then that desire would be taken away after creation is completely restored, so that prophecy is one of many evidences contradicting the no more marriage belief.
That would also be manipulation of free will to take away a desire for any sensation God made us to have. It's not like with sin, which is simply a way of trying to get satisfaction for a desire but is missing something, which keeps people wanting more and not being fulfilled. It's not accurate to compare no more sex with no more sin. That would make the restoration prophecies pointless, because then there's still is no guarantee as to what we can hope to be restored besides saved people. The wife of the lamb in Revelation is a symbolic description of the restored relationship with God. It can't be a replacement for human marriage because they're relationships that fulfill different desires. God is described as a husband in Hosea 2:7, Isaiah 45:5, Jeremiah 31:32 and Ezekiel 16:8. That didn’t replace marriage either because they’re analogies. Creation is an expression of who God is, and his standard for good is unchanging because he's timeless and spaceless. If sex and marriage was needed for creation to be very good, which is so important, it's the only thing God said wasn't good to be without before creating it for humans, it will be part of the restored creation. Some parts that make us the genders we are would be wasted because they're used only for reproduction or sexual pleasure, like sperm, egg cells, the uterus, clitoris, and some of the reasons women have breasts and wider hips than men. That's all part of what makes us in Gods image. Without that, the sea and animals that live in it, or night time as some people interpret as being literal in Revelation, then there's a contradiction with who God is and with the prophecies of all creation being restored.
All the things God made to give pleasure are part of how we relate to him. It says in genesis that the reason for marriage was not to be alone, in the sense of having no marriage partner for a unique intimacy. It's not one of other reasons. Jesus repeats this in Matthew 19:4-5 and Mark 10:6-7 and Paul does in Ephesians 5:31. Reproduction and representing God’s relationship are not reasons stated anywhere in scripture. It's not a tool for reproduction or it would be strange to compare something mainly utilitarian to a relationship with God. If marriage is a representation of Jesus’s relationship with the church, then people would have had to sin for marriage to be fulfilled by our relationship to Him by His redemption. God is not going to create something that requires what He hates. Adam and Eve had the relationship with God that people will have with Him after creation is restored. There was nothing missing from that relationship before Adam and Eve sinned, so it makes no sense to think marriage is a representation of a relationship that was already had when God made it.