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.
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.