Marriage in the afterlife

[James H.]

I was reading in another forum and people were discussing the issue of Eternal Marriage.

This question is for Orthodox members here:
Have you ever heard of the idea that ideally (save unfortuante cases of divorce or when one is granted the economia to remarry after being widowed) a couple that is married in the Church in this life will continue in the sacrament of marriage in the afterlife.

I have the book "Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective" by Fr John Meyendorff, but I know he can be controversial and therefore is not considered by all to be a definitive source on Orthodoxy. Does anyone have any articles or writings of Orthdoox Church Fathers that speak to this issue (ie continuing in one's marriage in the afterlife) either for or against?

So, I am interested in personal experiences as well as Orthodox texts.

Thank you for any replies.

James

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I was reading in another forum and people were discussing the issue of Eternal Marriage.

This question is for Orthodox members here:
Have you ever heard of the idea that ideally (save unfortuante cases of divorce or when one is granted the economia to remarry after being widowed) a couple that is married in the Church in this life will continue in the sacrament of marriage in the afterlife.

I have the book "Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective" by Fr John Meyendorff, but I know he can be controversial and therefore is not considered by all to be a definitive source on Orthodoxy. Does anyone have any articles or writings of Orthdoox Church Fathers that speak to this issue (ie continuing in one's marriage in the afterlife) either for or against?

So, I am interested in personal experiences as well as Orthodox texts.

Thank you for any replies.

James


Here is Forum thread from the past that was devoted to the question of Is marriage 'til death of forever? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=43648&highlight=eternal+marriage#post43648).

In any case, over time I have come to think that the two views which are often presented as being in opposition to each other could both be correct.

Certainly marriage in the fleshly sense will not be in that future state. And our communion with others will be on a far broader plane than now.

But this still does not deny that special relationships will not have their place in that in that state, but broadened and with no sense of exclusivity as is now.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[James H.]

Father Bless!

I definitely see your point.

However, it seems from what I have read that the actual sacrament will still exist between the two people. A unique relationship (as you said "special") and in that sense I would think there would have to be some form of exclusivity for I can't imagine how a relationship could be uniquely sacramental without some form of exclusivity.

I would guess that there would be no sexual (physical) union in heaven. Although, we will have our bodies and God did create us with human bodies. Do we believe that sexual intercourse and procreation existed before the Fall? What do we believe about that in heaven? Is it unknown or do the Church Fathers (or the Scriptures?) speak to this? My guess is that they do and they say that in heave there will be no procreation... but I don't know that... it just seems like a patristic thing to say lol :)

I will check out the other thread you gave and I thank you for that.

By the way Father, I know this is old news by now but I just want to say that I am so excited that your Church and mine (MP) can once again enjoy a complete brotherhood in Christ. It may be one of the most (ecclesially) exciting news that I will ever experience in my life.

God bless Father (I'm sorry, i still don't know how I am technically supposed to end off a letter to a priest... I know I am to start off with Father Bless, but then what do I say at the end?).

James

[Alec Lowly]

But why would there be mysteries/sacraments in Heaven, where God is all in all? What possible purpose would they serve?

[James H.]

Good question, I have some thoughts but... they're just kind of thoughts without anything to back that up.

Thanks.

Going back to my OP for a sec, have you ever heard of the concept of eternal marriage through your life and reading as an Orthodox?

Do you (or anyone here) have any articles that speak to this issue (either pro or con?).

James

[Kosta]

Personally i dont believe there will be any marriage in heaven. I believe its a fairly new concept alien to Orthodoxy. Simply a reaction to protestants who use the phrase till death do you part".
Without sex and procreation there is no marriage or the need for one. The church refers to St Joseph as "the betrothed" so i dont buy into the argument that marriage can be sexless and simply platonic, theologically then its not a marriage but only a betrothal. Not to mention people are on various paths of theosis, thus a sinful spouse should not be stringed along and unequally yoked with their holy spouse in the afterlife.

Those who believe in an eternal marriage bond also claim it is the first sacramental marriage only that is eternal, no matter how horrible it may have been, irrelevant whether one has remarried etc. Makes no sense.

[Paul Cowan]

Personally i dont believe there will be any marriage in heaven. I believe its a fairly new concept alien to Orthodoxy. Simply a reaction to protestants who use the phrase till death do you part".
Without sex and procreation there is no marriage or the need for one. The church refers to St Joseph as "the betrothed" so i dont buy into the argument that marriage can be sexless and simply platonic, theologically then its not a marriage but only a betrothal. Not to mention people are on various paths of theosis, thus a sinful spouse should not be stringed along and unequally yoked with their holy spouse in the afterlife.

Those who believe in an eternal marriage bond also claim it is the first sacramental marriage only that is eternal, no matter how horrible it may have been, irrelevant whether one has remarried etc. Makes no sense.

Such are the mysteries of Heaven. Jesus spoke specifically on this topic if I am not mistaken.


Matthew 22:23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27And last of all the woman died also.

28Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

31But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

33And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

[Peter S.]

Personally i dont believe there will be any marriage in heaven. I believe its a fairly new concept alien to Orthodoxy. Simply a reaction to protestants who use the phrase till death do you part".
Without sex and procreation there is no marriage or the need for one. The church refers to St Joseph as "the betrothed" so i dont buy into the argument that marriage can be sexless and simply platonic, theologically then its not a marriage but only a betrothal. Not to mention people are on various paths of theosis, thus a sinful spouse should not be stringed along and unequally yoked with their holy spouse in the afterlife.

Those who believe in an eternal marriage bond also claim it is the first sacramental marriage only that is eternal, no matter how horrible it may have been, irrelevant whether one has remarried etc. Makes no sense.

I dont think anyone is sinful in Heaven, but I might have wrong. But I think there are different levels of theosis.

Peter

[Paul Cowan]

I dont think anyone is sinful in Heaven, but I might have wrong. But I think there are different levels of theosis.

Peter

I agree with you. As I understand it, when we die we are under the general judgement and are sent to Paradise or Hades as a precurser to our final destination. Yes, it is God's final judgement and Mercy that will send us to our Final destination, but I dare say those in Heaven were carefully chosen by Him to be there. Hence, no sin in Heaven.

Paul

[James H.]

I honestly don't see how Matthew 22 speaks to the topic.

[Paul Cowan]

I honestly don't see how Matthew 22 speaks to the topic.

Well, that must mean I am way off base. Forgive me.

[James H.]

No, it doesn't mean that. I'm no one special in the world of Orthodox theology or Biblical scholarship. I am just saying that I don't understand how it connects. We don't have to debate it at all (honestly I only have aobut 20 words I could say about why I don't think it connects... beyond that, I'm out of steam) I'm just being honest and then maybe someone can set me straight... or leave it. :)

God bless,

James

[Matthew Namee]

I think this has to do with the more general question of whether the godly relationships which we establish in this life will continue in the life to come. And from my understanding of Orthodox teaching, I believe that the answer is most emphatically, "Yes." There are many stories of people who are dying being met by their beloved friends and relatives who have preceded them in death. We pray to saints who have died: clearly those who have died are capable of interpersonal relationships. Certainly there will be no physical relations between husband and wife in the Kingdom, but insofar as their relationship in this life has been for their salvation and has included Christ, it will continue and deepen in the Kingdom. I have no doubt that my wife and I will know each other and love each other deeply in the Kingdom of God.

[Kosta]

I think this has to do with the more general question of whether the godly relationships which we establish in this life will continue in the life to come. And from my understanding of Orthodox teaching, I believe that the answer is most emphatically, "Yes." There are many stories of people who are dying being met by their beloved friends and relatives who have preceded them in death. We pray to saints who have died: clearly those who have died are capable of interpersonal relationships. Certainly there will be no physical relations between husband and wife in the Kingdom, but insofar as their relationship in this life has been for their salvation and has included Christ, it will continue and deepen in the Kingdom. I have no doubt that my wife and I will know each other and love each other deeply in the Kingdom of God.
Yes there will be interaction in heaven with loved ones, but theres no reason to think that a relationship with a spouse will be a mystical yoking but your relationship with your mother will be something totally different.

What i reject is the belief in an eternal yoking between spouses simply because they have undergone the sacrament of Matrimony in the Orthodox church and this eternal yoking is for any and all instances.

For example, if an Orthodox first marriage ends in divorce, and the bishop later allows a remarriage with crowining (perhaps the divorced person is marrying one who has never been married before), then in heaven there will be an eternal union of three. Such depravity doesnt exist in the afterlife.

It also assumes that there is no escape from a horrible marriage. That a wifebeater and murderer will always be mystically yoked even if his spouse was holy yet he is burning.. The scripture says the two shall become one "flesh" not the two shall become one. Upon death the flesh dies and the oneness ceases. A better understanding using sound Orthodox theological principles is found in posts on the other link provided by Fr. Raphael. Unfortunately those that i have spoken to who believe in the eternal marriage bond believe it in the way i have presented it; A literal eternal bond between spouses of first marriages, since only the first is sacramental due to crowning and no way to escape it regardless of circumstances.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Such are the mysteries of Heaven. Jesus spoke specifically on this topic if I am not mistaken.

Exactly Paul! When I read James' first post I immediately thought of Jesus' words.

This does not mean that the love we have for people in our earthly lives will ever disappear. I often think about the wonderful surprises that are in store for us after our deaths! I trust that God, who loves me, will forgive all my faults and allow my soul to be near him. If not, that will again be His will.

We cannot know these things. We will know in time.

"Matthew 22:23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27And last of all the woman died also.

28Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

31But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

33And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.


"

[Effie Ganatsios]

Yes there will be interaction in heaven with loved ones, but theres no reason to think that a relationship with a spouse will be a mystical yoking but your relationship with your mother will be something totally different.

What i reject is the belief in an eternal yoking between spouses simply because they have undergone the sacrament of Matrimony in the Orthodox church and this eternal yoking is for any and all instances.
.

Kosta, marriage is not simply the sacrament of matrimony i.e. it is not just a ceremony we have gone through. Marriage is a life long commitment that, if you are lucky, allows you an intimate view of another person's soul. It is something sacred.

A mother's love is the purest form of love, because a mother will sacrifice her own life, without a second thought, for that of her child. But a loving relationship with another person comes a close second. After many years of marriage two souls become as one.

Have you ever seen an old couple that are so close that when one dies, the other follows shortly after? I have. I have seen it several times.

Such love is sent from God, who is the source of love.

As I said in my previous post, I believe that such things are not ours to speculate about. Christ has told us clearly that there will be no wives and husbands as there are on earth. What will remain is what is in our hearts and our souls.

[Effie Ganatsios]

I think this has to do with the more general question of whether the godly relationships which we establish in this life will continue in the life to come. And from my understanding of Orthodox teaching, I believe that the answer is most emphatically, "Yes." There are many stories of people who are dying being met by their beloved friends and relatives who have preceded them in death. We pray to saints who have died: clearly those who have died are capable of interpersonal relationships. Certainly there will be no physical relations between husband and wife in the Kingdom, but insofar as their relationship in this life has been for their salvation and has included Christ, it will continue and deepen in the Kingdom. I have no doubt that my wife and I will know each other and love each other deeply in the Kingdom of God.

Yes! Beautiful post and I agree with you, Matthew.

Concerning loved ones meeting those who are dying :

I have my mother's personal experience of this. When her grandfather was dying, there were several relatives in his bedroom. Just before he gave up his soul, he started greeting those who had departed before him, naming each one as they "came" into the room. My mother told me that it was very disturbing and everyone in the room was deeply affected by what had happened. Was it just his mind playing tricks on him or was he actually "seeing" his loved ones?

[Mary]

But have you considered, that for those in difficult marriages, the extra space would be quite welcome?

[James H.]

Can you explain to me how that verse connects to those who are already married. I fully believe that I will not marry or be given into marriage in heaven. The Scriptures make that fact plain and clear. But I don't (currently) see how that speaks to what will happen to me and my wife.


Exactly Paul! When I read James' first post I immediately thought of Jesus' words.

This does not mean that the love we have for people in our earthly lives will ever disappear. I often think about the wonderful surprises that are in store for us after our deaths! I trust that God, who loves me, will forgive all my faults and allow my soul to be near him. If not, that will again be His will.

We cannot know these things. We will know in time.

"Matthew 22:23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27And last of all the woman died also.

28Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

31But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

33And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.


"

And as for what Kosta says about those who divorce and are remarried, no one in anything I have ever read has said there would be an eternal yoking of 3 or that a woman would be eternally yoked to her wife beating husband. From what I have personally read on the subject, the yoking is meant to be eternal, but is not eternally forced on us. It only takes one of them to choose to sever that yoke. Marriage is not a magical contract like a chain. It is a voluntary promise before God and His CHurch that is either kept or broken.

So, saying that the wifebeating husband or the wife who killed her husband out of rage will still be necessarily and eternally yoked to the other spouse one day in Heaven is not something I have ever been taught and is not an inherent belief to this.

That is the danger in viewing things in contractual or black and white terms.

Again, I have no problem (nor would I have a right to have a problem) if others do not agree with eternal marriage as it seems that this is not dogmatic in the Church. However, it is important not to force certain conclusion onto the belief that do not exist.

I think the belief is useful in as much as it is applied to strengthen the resolve of the people involved and giving it a deeper meaning. It's saying (perhaps, although I could be mistaken, but I would love for anyone to post any articles available on the subject from an Orhthodox Perspective) "Look, this person is yours forever in order to grow eternally in Christ with. He is your husband, she is your wife. Work diligently to keep this person with your forever that you may continually work out your salvation in fear and trembling and eternally continue on the road of theosis. However, do realize that one of you or both of you can seriously mess this up and let go of this sacrament to your detriment. It's a blessing. Don't make it a curse. Take it seriously as you do the Eucharist."

But yes, of course there are people in abusive situations that do need to separate from that situation, and I would suggest that for many that marriage was broken and the sacramental bond violated long before anyone left the house or signed the divorce papers. And that may have just been one person's fault (the beater, the alduterer, etc...). That's between a preist and the people and especially God. I am not ever going to judge what's going on there or superstitiously suggest that they are arbitrarily bound to each other for eternity as if this were some curse from a German Fairy Tale. God is in control and is not arbitrary in anything He does.

Regardless of what we believe about marriage being eternal or not, it is important that we not bind God's hands witht he sacraments He has given us. So, regardless of what we believe on this issue, let's not assume that either side wishes to present God as a draconian Monster Who is nothing more than a list of black and white rules that are ends unto themselves.

Xpy

[Paul Cowan]

I don't mean to be short with my reply, but if your comment is true
Regardless of what we believe about marriage being eternal or not, it is important that we not bind God's hands witht he sacraments He has given us. So, regardless of what we believe on this issue, let's not assume that either side wishes to present God as a draconian Monster Who is nothing more than a list of black and white rules that are ends unto themselves.

Xpy


what does any answer matter? We don't know and will find out when we get there. As my priest says; All things will be revealed.

Paul

[Matthew Namee]

In my post, I was referring to "godly relationships," not dysfunctional marriages. Personally, my wife has been an enormous blessing to me, and I strive to be the same to her (though I often fall short). At least in our case, there is much from our relationship which is holy and good, and I believe that all which is holy and good will have a place in the Kingdom of God. I don't think such an eternal bond would exist for a couple whose marriage is abusive or otherwise a "marriage" in name only. But think of the lives of the saints. For instance, St. Eustathios and his wife -- don't you think they are together in heaven, continuing the relationship which they established on earth? I am not being legalistic. What I am saying is that a holy relationship will certainly have its place in the Kingdom.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Once again Paul says it all in his last message, all will be revealed in its proper time.

Concerning unhappy marriages and wife beating husbands, etc. I spoke of love - the deep love that develops between two people who have lived a lifetime together, the deep love between mothers and their children, and let's not forget fathers because some men put women to shame concerning love of children. It is incomprehensible to me that this deep love, that surely comes from God, will just vanish.

[Effie Ganatsios]

Can you explain to me how that verse connects to those who are already married. I fully believe that I will not marry or be given into marriage in heaven. The Scriptures make that fact plain and clear. But I don't (currently) see how that speaks to what will happen to me and my wife.



Xpy

James, wasn't Christ asked which of the 7 husbands will be married to the woman in heaven, and didn't He say that none of them would be? Doesn't this mean that marriages that are made on earth will no longer exist?

What I and others are saying is that the deep love that arises from some marriages will continue. How can we know? We can't. Matthew Namee says that "I believe that all which is holy and good will have a place in the Kingdom of God." This reflects exactly my own thoughts about God and his love for us.

Effie

[Kosta]

I just dont see what the difference is between a "godly relationship" with a spouse and one with a parent or child as it concerns with the afterlife. Obviously if theres an eternal bond formed by married couples which differs from the interaction and love you will have with others, theres a difference. I dont see it, marriage is for practicality, procreation and sexual love, another words things which only exist in this life but not in the life to come.

I like Paul Cowan's answer, that we will find out when we get there. My interest on this question actually arises from another Orthodox forum(orthodoxchristianity.net). Where some supposedly knowledgeable Orthodox posters claimed that in Orthodoxy divorce does not end a marriage. Even if one remarries, in the afterlife the divorced and now remarried person will continue to have an eternal bond with their first spouse upon death . They quoted Fr Thomas Hopko in some sermon he gave, where he said that a married couple become one and in the afterlife continue in theosis as one. I responded using the Church Fathers St John Chrysostom and Blessed Theophylact. I used their responses as found in the commentary of the Orthodox NT (2vol set) under Matt 22.32 and Lk 20.36 (if anyone is interested) which dismisses such hogwash. The posters in the other forum "shoo'd me away and took Fr Hopko's and a passing statement by Bishop Ware as the official position of the church.

[Effie Ganatsios]

I just dont see what the difference is between a "godly relationship" with a spouse and one with a parent or child as it concerns with the afterlife. Obviously if theres an eternal bond formed by married couples which differs from the interaction and love you will have with others, theres a difference. I dont see it, marriage is for practicality, procreation and sexual love, another words things which only exist in this life but not in the life to come.

.

I think you are right Kosta. I don't think that there is a difference. The only difference of course is that the love in the mother/child relationship develops naturally, whereas in a marriage between two people luck, or as I believe, providence, plays a part.

But Kosta, it is still love.

[Effie Ganatsios]

This is from St. Chrysostom's homily on the gospel of St. Matthew :

"“For what marvel then is it,” He saith, “if ye tempt me, who am as yet unknown to you, when at least ye know not so much as the power of God, of which ye have had so much experience, and neither from common sense nor from the Scriptures have become acquainted with it;” if indeed even common sense causes us to know this, that to God all things are possible. And in the first place He answers to the question asked. For since this was the cause for their not believing a resurrection, that they think the order of things is like this, He cures the cause, then the symptom also (for thence arose the disease too), and shows the manner of the resurrection. “For in the resurrection,” saith He, “they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels of God in Heaven.”26212621 Matt. xxii. 30. [The second verb is peculiar, but conveys the same sense as the received text.—R.] But Luke saith, “As Sons of God.”26222622 Luke xx. 36.

If then they marry not, the question is vain. But not because they do not marry, therefore are they angels, but because they are as angels, therefore they do not marry. By this He removed many other difficulties also, all which things Paul intimated by one word, saying, “For the fashion of this world passeth away.”26232623 1 Cor. vii. 31.

And by these words He declared how great a thing the resurrection is; and that moreover there is a resurrection, He proves. And indeed this too was demonstrated at the same time by what He had said, nevertheless over and above He adds again to His word by what He saith now. For neither at their question only did He stop, but at their 411 thought. Thus when they are not dealing with great craft, but are asking in ignorance, He teaches even over and above, but when it is of wickedness only, ..."

The full text can be found at

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LXVII.html

[Mary]

I just dont see what the difference is between a "godly relationship" with a spouse and one with a parent or child as it concerns with the afterlife. Obviously if theres an eternal bond formed by married couples which differs from the interaction and love you will have with others, theres a difference. I dont see it, marriage is for practicality, procreation and sexual love, another words things which only exist in this life but not in the life to come.

And don't forget the love between friends, not just any friends, but true friends:

Preserve, then, my sons, that friendship ye have begun with your brethren, for nothing in the world is more beautiful than that. It is indeed a comfort in this life to have one to whom thou canst open thy heart, with whom thou canst share confidences, and to whom thou canst entrust the secrets of thy heart. It is a comfort to have a trusty man by thy side, who will rejoice with thee in prosperity, sympathize in troubles, encourage in persecution. What good friends those Hebrew children were whom the flames of the fiery furnace did not separate from their love of each other!

- St Ambrose of Milan

[Michael Stickles]

I dont see it, marriage is for practicality, procreation and sexual love, another words things which only exist in this life but not in the life to come.

Actually, marriage is emphatically concerned with the life to come. It is to be a model of the relationship between Christ and His Church.


Eph. 5:22-32 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. ... Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. ... "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.

That seems to me to be a major reason why marriage - as we know it in this world - cannot continue in the ressurection. It is a shadow, a type, of the greater reality (as I believe Fr David said in the other thread). And as Paul said elsewhere:


1 Cor. 13:9-12 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. ... Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

To me, the best way to see more clearly into the nature of the next world is less a matter of engaging in speculation (as much as I love to do just that), and more a matter of "polishing the mirror" I already have - my relationship with my wife - and staying in submission to my spiritual father so he can "check the reflection" and make sure I'm not scratching or bending the mirror instead of polishing it.

Beyond that, as regards whether my relationship with my wife will continue in the resurrection as some kind of "special" relationship, I will second (third?) Paul's and Kosta's remarks that "we will find out when we get there." I'm quite sure that - no matter which way things will be - they will be wondrous beyond anything I can imagine now.

Mike

[James H.]

I don't mean to be short with my reply, but if your comment is true

what does any answer matter? We don't know and will find out when we get there. As my priest says; All things will be revealed.

Paul

My point was about what we should not assume about the concept. Someone were assuming that this concept necessarily implied that we would be married to more than one person or eteranlly chained to a a person that made their life a living hell on earth. My point was simply that even IF this veiw that I have presented is possibly Orthodox, it is wrong to assume that it would imply such situations in heaven. To beleive so is to completely miss the point of the concept (as it was introduced to me).

Personally I am not trying to get into the particulars of what this means in heaven. I am only saying that we shouldn't assume that God works by some list of arbitrary rules that He follows as if this were all some game.

What I do want to know is what the Orthodox Church teaches on this matter or if both are acceptable. So far, I have seen nothing to refute what I have said nor have I seen anything to support what I have said aside from one book that I cited which is obviously not enough.

[James H.]

James, wasn't Christ asked which of the 7 husbands will be married to the woman in heaven, and didn't He say that none of them would be? Doesn't this mean that marriages that are made on earth will no longer exist?

What I and others are saying is that the deep love that arises from some marriages will continue. How can we know? We can't. Matthew Namee says that "I believe that all which is holy and good will have a place in the Kingdom of God." This reflects exactly my own thoughts about God and his love for us.

Effie

Christ never really answered the question, so it seems to ME. Fr John Meyendorff suggests that Christ was saying that the question was so ridiculous to ask taht they were missing the entire point of the resurrection. That's why, Fr John suggests, He never says anything about them continuing to be married and that the text actually does not comment one way or the other on the matter of eternal or temproral marraige. And as far as "they neither marry... nor are given into marriage", I don't see how that has to do with continuing to be married. I won't be marrying in the ressurrection nor will I be given into marriage.

[James H.]

I just dont see what the difference is between a "godly relationship" with a spouse and one with a parent or child as it concerns with the afterlife. Obviously if theres an eternal bond formed by married couples which differs from the interaction and love you will have with others, theres a difference. I dont see it, marriage is for practicality, procreation and sexual love, another words things which only exist in this life but not in the life to come.

I like Paul Cowan's answer, that we will find out when we get there. My interest on this question actually arises from another Orthodox forum(orthodoxchristianity.net). Where some supposedly knowledgeable Orthodox posters claimed that in Orthodoxy divorce does not end a marriage. Even if one remarries, in the afterlife the divorced and now remarried person will continue to have an eternal bond with their first spouse upon death . They quoted Fr Thomas Hopko in some sermon he gave, where he said that a married couple become one and in the afterlife continue in theosis as one. I responded using the Church Fathers St John Chrysostom and Blessed Theophylact. I used their responses as found in the commentary of the Orthodox NT (2vol set) under Matt 22.32 and Lk 20.36 (if anyone is interested) which dismisses such hogwash. The posters in the other forum "shoo'd me away and took Fr Hopko's and a passing statement by Bishop Ware as the official position of the church.

I would suggest that that post misunderstood what Fr Hopko said, and misunderstands the spirit of the idea (suggesting that once you're married you're married... worse than misrepresenting the idea of eternal marriage, it misunderstand the very sacrament of marriage regardless of if marriage is eternal or not).

However, can you quote the stuff you quoted at the other forum (perhaps you do later... I'm working my way through this page). THAT I would be really interested in reading.

[James H.]

I think you are right Kosta. I don't think that there is a difference. The only difference of course is that the love in the mother/child relationship develops naturally, whereas in a marriage between two people luck, or as I believe, providence, plays a part.

But Kosta, it is still love.



See, I don't know. The way I love my wife and the way I love my parents is very different. I would say that even if tomorrow we were for some reason not able to have sexual relations. The love I share with my wife is a mutual and is in a context of a partnership. She's my trusty sidekick and I am hers.

Imean, if you take that away, you have taken away the entire relationship I share with her. She is my partner.

Someone said that we are made one in the flesh, not in the spirit. Well, of course not. We do not lose our personalities. However, for whatever it's worth, let's remember that one day we will have our bodies back. Now, what that means, I don't knwo and I am certainly not suggesting that we will have kids in Heaven.

I just can't imagine going to heaven and having my wife be on the same level with me as anyone esle. That would definitely be wiping out a piece of my personality to change the way in which I relate to someone.

I could be wrong. Perhaps we just share a generic but deep love with everyone in a very equal way in heaven. But I don't understand how or why that would be.

[James H.]

If then they marry not, the question is vain. But not because they do not marry, therefore are they angels, but because they are as angels, therefore they do not marry. By this He removed many other difficulties also, all which things Paul intimated by one word, saying, “For the fashion of this world passeth away.”26232623 1 Cor. vii. 31.



http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LXVII.html

i found this point the most interesting. I will have to think about that.

[Matthew Namee]

See, I don't know. The way I love my wife and the way I love my parents is very different. I would say that even if tomorrow we were for some reason not able to have sexual relations. The love I share with my wife is a mutual and is in a context of a partnership.
I think this is right, at least for a healthy marriage. I can't imagine someone who is in a healthy marriage honestly saying that the entire purpose of marriage is sex, and the entire purpose of sex is procreation and prevention of fornication. Sex is usually (though not always) a part of marriage, but it is (or at least should not be) the central aspect of marriage. I can certainly imagine a perfectly healthy, holy, happy marriage in which the couple had ceased having physical relations. And there would still be something "special" about it, distinct from parent-child or friend-friend relationships. But then, all relationships have their unique qualities. My relationship with my son is totally distinct from any other relationship I have; likewise my relationship with my parents, or my in-laws, or various friends. Insofar as those relationships are good, insofar as they are for our salvation, they will without doubt all have their place in the Kingdom of God. Therefore I will not say, "I do not know," except to say that I do not know precisely the nature of relationships in the Kingdom. Most certainly, they will be even more holy and even more Christocentric than they are in this life.

Consider this as well: The Lord says, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder [or separate]" (Matthew 19:6). And St. Paul says, "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin" (Romans 5:12). And then there is this: "God did not create death" (Wisdom 1:13). God joins together the husband and the wife. Human sin is the cause of death. Will the works of man (i.e. sin and death) put asunder that which God has joined together? Also, the Orthodox Church teaches that Adam and Eve did not have sexual relations before the fall. Yet they were not mortal, and they were wed.

[Nina]

The blessedness of the heavenly and most desirable life of Paradise will increase even more, because there we shall meet and shall recognize our relatives and friends, who have fallen asleep in repentance. The questions which often deprives us of our joy here and increases our sorrow is this: "I wonder is if I shall again see my beloved ones? Shall I meet again those with whom I lived and shared joys and sorrows, struggles and griefs?" This question will receive its answer, where the happy encounter, desired by the soul, will take place. There, the faithful spouses will meet; there the sweet smile will once again bloom; there, the loving embrace of the pious mother with her children will take place mutually. For, as St. Gregory of Nyssa observes, "the life of heavenly nature is one of love." [On the Soul and Resurrection]

[...]

The love, of course, which shall unite us in Paradise will be a holy love, crystalline, free from any unhealthy sentimentalism. This love will not depend on bonds of the kinship, such as the binds between the spouses or between parents and children. It will be a higher love, purely spiritual, a love in the Lord. For this reason the joy experienced from that holy love will not in any way be diminished by the fact that certain of those known to us here and beloved persons, will perhaps not be found in the most beautiful Paradise. For in that all-holy life the flesh and blood, carnal kinship, worldly associates and other similar relationships will have no place at all. New bonds, indestructible and eternal will unite everyone with each other and with Christ the Savior and the other two Persons of the All-holy Trinity. pp. 562-563 The Mystery of Death by Nikolaos P. Vassiliadis

[Father David Moser]

In the interest of not having to retype anything - my comments are here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=43503&postcount=10)

Fr David Moser

[James H.]

Wow, these last few posts have been insightful for me.

And thank y ou very much Nina for that excerpt. Exactly what I was looking for (I don't mean whether the content agreed with me or not, but rather writings of respected teachers of the Church regardless of how it supports what I'm saying or refutes it or corrects it...)

James

[James H.]

In the interest of not having to retype anything - my comments are here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=43503&postcount=10)

Fr David Moser

That response helped me. thanks

[Effie Ganatsios]

That response helped me. thanks

It helped me too. It is what I meant to say - that two people grow as one in a marriage and I cannot imagine that love like this will just cease on our deaths. Speaking from a woman's point of view, husbands are not just husbands. They become friends, they become our children, they become whatever we love most in this world, which as Father David says so rightly in his post, is just a foretaste of the divine love we will experience in heaven. Instead of being focused on one, two or perhaps ten people, the love we feel will be for all. Imagine if this happened here on earth - no more war, no poverty, no crime, communities would flourish based on love, justice, learning, meaningful work and honesty.

[Kosta]

I would like to thank Nina and Fr David. Now what they wrote makes sense. It is also the opposite of the modern perspectibe given by Fr Meyendorff and Fr. Hopko. In an interview on Ancient Faith Radio Fr Hopko said:

"So for those who truly love, the Savior and accomplisher of their love is Christ. He gives every virtue and every fruit of the Spirit. He allows them to grow ever more perfectly one. He allows them to live and to love for eternity in the kingdom of God. A marriage in Christ does not end in sin, it does not part in death. It is fulfilled and perfected in the kingdom of heaven."

His comments while sounding wonderful and lovey dovey lack in theological scholarship. That they grow "ever more perfectly one" sounds as if they merge into a single hypostasis. Marriage between spouses cannot be fulfilled and perfected in the kingdom of heaven since there will be no "wedlock" to perfect, procreation & sexual love will not exist. There will be no need for a 'helper', which was one of the original reasons for the creation of woman.
The Fathers of the Church did not view Adam and Eve as married spouses in the garden. According to the Fathers marriage came into existence after the fall, for practicality, and the propagation of the human race since death entered into the world..

St John Chrysostom says "After Adam was created there was no reason for marriage... It had not yet appeared.... As long as they were unconquered by the devil and respected their own Master, virginity also continued. But when they became captives, and took off this garment, and sustained the dissolution deriving from death, the curse, pain, and toilsome existence, then together with these, enters marriage...Do you see when marriage had its beginning?...From the disobedeince, from the curse, from death. For where there is death, there also is marriage. Whereas, when the first does not exist, then neither does the second follow. (Concerning virginity)

Blessed Thephylact commenting on Lk 20.36, "Marriage is for the help of the mortal and for the replenishing of what is lacking. But where nothing is lacking, what need is there for replenishing?" (Patrologia Graeca)

I will take the teachings of the Fathers over the speculations of modern theologians anyday.

[Michael Stickles]

Maybe I'm just being dense, but I don't see any contradiction between Fr Hopko's comments on the one hand, and the posts by Nina and Fr David on the other. All of the objections you raise, Kosta, are things which I don't see as being necessarily implied by Fr Hopko's remarks (however, I will admit that I am not familiar with anything else Fr Hopko might have said on this topic which might further clarify his position).

How could a husband and wife, reunited in the kingdom, not grow "more perfectly one" if we are there seeing the fulfillment of Christ's prayer that "all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you"? It will not be an exclusive oneness, but oneness nonetheless.

Remember that the Fathers did not treat marriage solely as a matter of practicality and procreation. As St. Paul noted in Ephesians 5, it is a model of the relationship between Christ and the Church - obviously, a model which was not needed before the fall. So, to say that marriage will be "fulfilled and perfected" does not mean that it will remain marriage. Instead, it will be transformed as it is absorbed into that which it modeled - the relationship between Christ and His Church. To make an (admittedly poor) analogy, it is a little like how the acorn does not fulfill its purpose by remaining an acorn, but by being transformed into a tree and becoming part of the forest.

In Christ,
Mike

[Nina]

What is important for creating a full picture - I did not have a lot of time to post it yesterday, sorry!- is the quote by the same author in the same book which explains things based on the Patristic thought (which very much tends to express what Paul Cowan (and others) said the other day: in God's time we will learn more).

However for the moment here is the other explanation:


The blessedness of Paradise will also comprise the unity of all of the faithful under one head, Christ the Savior. The endless and inexpressible joy, experienced by our souls through their union with Christ and in "the vision of the holy and royal Trinity", will also be constantly increasing by the unity existing between the infinite number of the co-inheritors of Christ (Rom. 8,17). The righteous, becoming similar to Christ, will find each one in the face of the other "the charming characteristics of the beautiful Bridegroom". Because of these attractive characteristics, each righteous person will attract the others as a desirable and likable person; a person delivered from weaknesses and short-comings; a person who will exhale "the aroma and the grace of incomparable moral beauty and holiness". [Π. Ν. ΤΡΕΜΠΕΛΑ, Δογματικη (Dogmatics), ed. "O Sotir", Athens, Vol.3, p.500]

[...]

In that most desirable and all-joyous life, the order of the Prophets, the glorious chorus of the Apostles, the invincible army of the laurel-crowned Martyrs, the pious assembly of the Saints and Confessors and of all the faithful in general, will be united and will reflect the mystical and natural unity of the super-essential Trinity. This obviously does not mean that they will become equal to the Holy Trinity, for this is "impossible"; we will be united to the extent that this is possible to finite human nature. We shall live the blessed life of the indivisible Trinity, as far as this is possible to finite creatures. [Cf. ATHANASIOS THE GREAT, Against the Arians, Homily 3,20 ΒΕΠΕΣ 30, 267 (6-9; 14-23).

Of course, in God's Kingdom star will differ from another one "in glory" (I Cor. 15,41). The righteous will enjoy ineffable blessedness according to the receptivity of the vessel, which they had prepared with their God-pleasing struggles here on earth. In spite of the difference in glory that will exist among them, as St. Gregory of Nyssa observes, each one will be overjoyed when he sees the beauty of the other, providing in return the same enjoyment for his neighbor. There everyone will be giving and receiving enjoyment. [GREGORY OF NYSSA, To Those Who Mourn... PG 46, 536BC] pp. 558-559 The Mystery of Death by Nikolaos P. Vassiliadis

[James H.]

Maybe I'm just being dense, but I don't see any contradiction between Fr Hopko's comments on the one hand, and the posts by Nina and Fr David on the other. All of the objections you raise, Kosta, are things which I don't see as being necessarily implied by Fr Hopko's remarks (however, I will admit that I am not familiar with anything else Fr Hopko might have said on this topic which might further clarify his position).

How could a husband and wife, reunited in the kingdom, not grow "more perfectly one" if we are there seeing the fulfillment of Christ's prayer that "all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you"? It will not be an exclusive oneness, but oneness nonetheless.

Remember that the Fathers did not treat marriage solely as a matter of practicality and procreation. As St. Paul noted in Ephesians 5, it is a model of the relationship between Christ and the Church - obviously, a model which was not needed before the fall. So, to say that marriage will be "fulfilled and perfected" does not mean that it will remain marriage. Instead, it will be transformed as it is absorbed into that which it modeled - the relationship between Christ and His Church. To make an (admittedly poor) analogy, it is a little like how the acorn does not fulfill its purpose by remaining an acorn, but by being transformed into a tree and becoming part of the forest.

In Christ,
Mike

Thanks for posting this reply. I was thinking the same things but you saved me a lot of time and you said it so much more elequently and clearly than I could have.

[Kosta]

Fr. Hopko's response speaks of an exclusive oneness based on the assumption that "the two become one flesh". His remarks speak of an infinite merging of hypostasis. They are comments on how the sacrament of Holy Matrimony will be experienced by spouses apart from the rest of the Body of Christ. As a previous post quoting from the book "Mystery of Death" , in Heaven each one will differ in glory. Thus only a small number of couples will be able to claim equal perfecting. It also assumes that theosis in the afterlife pauses for the one spouse until the other spouse dies.

The Fathers did indeed interpret marriage as primarily for procreation, marriage as a means of lawful procreation is found in virtually all the Fathers. St Paul and St John Chrysostom adds sexual love to the mix (most Fathers did not). And still some Fathers added companionship as a component of marriage.

Its one thing to see marriage as a 'type' of what is to come, which is the unity of the Body of Christ, and another to claim that the earthly human marriage of a couple somehow exists in eternity. With the explanation that no procreation will take place, no sexual love will exist, spouses will no longer be each others helpers. That we simply cant explain what the one and same matrimonial sacrament will be like, except that it will be reserved for those who partook in an Orthodox sacramental marriage on earth and whose relationship succeeded and it will still be marriage.

Thats like saying in heaven there will be basketball but the hoop will be done way with, the basketball will be substituted for a golf ball, the court will be made of ice and instead of airjordan hi tops we will wear skates, but its still basketball since two teams will be competing.

[Victor Mihailoff]

I was reading in another forum and people were discussing the issue of Eternal Marriage.

This question is for Orthodox members here:
Have you ever heard of the idea that ideally (save unfortuante cases of divorce or when one is granted the economia to remarry after being widowed) a couple that is married in the Church in this life will continue in the sacrament of marriage in the afterlife.

No. The passage from Matt:22 is most appropriate. It shows that in heaven people will be like angels, without sexual identity. Marriage was given to us because of our weekness for physical relationships. Paul explains it in one of his epistles. He said words to the effect: "I would that ye were all like me, but if you can not hold yourselves back than it is better to marry than to commit fornication." We can have physical relationship with one person that we marry in God's Church. Marriages with people are void in heaven and uneccessary. If you loved your life marriage partner in spiritual ways then you will remain friends in heaven but you will love everyone else as yourself except God, who you will love with all of your being. The only marriage in heaven is with the Holy Church and Jesus Christ. The Holy Church that weds the Lord is all of her members in the Church Triumphant.

[James H.]

I can see how marriage is tied to sexuality in that a marriage is consummated in this way. However, it is not uncommon, from what I've been told, for teh sexual aspect to continually take a back seat in a marriage as the couples age together and this due not merely to physical aging conditions but, in good marriages, a deepening of the relationship which no longer requires that type of intimacy. I stress the word "requires". I am not suggesting that I know or care what goes on in the bedroom of my grandparents. But, from what I understand, "sex" takes an increasingly less important role in many good Christian marriages as a marriage matures over many years.

I don't doubt that in heaven, sexual intimacy will NOT be part of that existence. But I really don't see how that relates to marriage if one takes it as given that a marriage is not contingient on eternal sexual relations (but rather, initial sexual relations).

I also have no doubt that in heaven relationships and the love expressed in them will be something that none of us can comprehend.

It seems to me that what Fr Thomas and Fr John Meyendorff are saying is simply that the uniqueness of that relationship is eternal (not by some arbitrary law, but assuming that the two people worked to honor t hat sacrament while on earth). How that uniqueness will be played out in heaven isn't really for us to speculate on apart from what many of you have already said and demonstrated through quotes of some ECFs: that sexual intimacy will not be a part of that factor and that it will be beyond all comprehension. The priests mentioned don't seem to ever speculate on what that relationship will be like in heaven.

Again, I say this not to convince, but rather to know exactly what one is criticising if they criticize it.

If someone gives me a stapler and says that it works wonderfully, it's quite fair to criticize it saying that it doesn't do a good job at stapling papers or that it jams a lot. But it's unfair to criticize it because it does a poor job at flipping hamburgers. The person who gave it to me never suggested that it could or should flip hamburgers. Not a perfect analogy, although an odd one, but perhaps you get my point.

No one is claiming marriage would or should continue to be the same in heaven. Only that it will preserve some kind of a unique bond in heaven. That doesn't mean stronger, necessarily, but PERHAPS it will simply have a different personality to it when compared to other relationships we might continue in the afterlife.

I do take issue with the interpretation of being "like the angels" implies that we will have no sexual identity, mostly becuase I am not sure what that means exactly. We have to be careful with what Christ means and does not mean by that phrase. Obviously we won't be like the angels in all important ways, primarily in that we will, after the resurrection (which is what Christ is talking about) we will all have physical bodies. What this means, I don't know. But we will be very much UNlike the angels in this way. We will be spirit and body as that is how we are intended. This also means that we will be man and woman (right?) as God created Adam and Eve as Man and Woman. I wasn't sure if you meant by "sexual identity" what the term really means "our 'gender'" or if you meant to imply something more akin to t he idea that we will be only spirits. Out of context, one could certainly understand the latter from Jesus' words. So, i apologize if I have misinterpreted those words of yours, and I think I may have. But it is important to realize that that phrase "like the angels" is not an absolute statement suggesting that we will be like them in all substantial ways. To suggest such (unless I am TOTALLY off) would be a grave misunderstanding of the Resurrection.

XP

James

[James H.]

Fr. Hopko's response speaks of an exclusive oneness based on the assumption that "the two become one flesh". His remarks speak of an infinite merging of hypostasis. They are comments on how the sacrament of Holy Matrimony will be experienced by spouses apart from the rest of the Body of Christ. As a previous post quoting from the book "Mystery of Death" , in Heaven each one will differ in glory. Thus only a small number of couples will be able to claim equal perfecting. It also assumes that theosis in the afterlife pauses for the one spouse until the other spouse dies.




I don't think it would suggest that theosis pauses. First of all, I think you are speculating too much. There is a lot that we don't understand about the Afterlife... in fact, most of it. If there is an idea of a unique bond between two beings that continues eternally, one can accept it at that and not have to speculate on what that means for Theosis or anything else. Do you really understand theosis? I mean really comprehend it. I don't. I don't think any of us will (except for the few living Saints walking abmong us) until we die and, God willing, go to Heaven.

Second of all, I can pretty much say that my wife is holier than I am. She may not see it. But I do. Her theosis doesn't pause for me (at least not as a rule). If anything her continuing Theosis pulls me up as the Scriptures seems to suggest. IN heaven, I am sure things will be a lot different. But I am not going to pretend to know how my wife's salvation is affected by my salvation. I don't even think I could understand the answer if God Himself told me right now.

[Kosta]

Being that I have never been married and quite fond of single life, i find the posts about the love that spouses share quite cynical. Being that im cynical, it reminded me of the kind of propaganda my married friends would try to convince me of, as too join them in "club wed". The first thing that came to my mind when i first heard of eternal marriage is that " eternity is way too long and heaven way too fun to be dragging around a ball and chain" , my second thought was- why in the world would anyone want to get married if its forever. But I accept the last two posts by James. I have no problem with saying that married couples will preserve some kind of unique bond in heaven and even continue viewing each other as husband and wife.

[Olga]

Kosta, perhaps this might help dispel your cynicism:

It may help to look at the loving relationship of older couples, such as parents or grandparents. I can certainly vouch for the strength of love between my own parents, and of my paternal grandparents. My mother was widowed just shy of her 40th wedding anniversary, and to this day declares her undying love for my father. My grandparents were married for 66 years, until my grandfather's death at the age of 91. Within less than two years, my grandmother was gone as well, at the age of 85. Despite her age, she was comparatively hale and hearty until her husband died. Then her health took a dramatic turn for the worse, and the rest is history.

I'm sure many others on this forum have similar tales to tell from their own lives. Do not be cynical about the immense strength of the bond between couples who truly love each other. As to what their relationship will be like in heaven, I cannot say, other than "we'll find out if/when we get there".

[Mary]

Being that I have never been married and quite fond of single life, i find the posts about the love that spouses share quite cynical. Being that im cynical, it reminded me of the kind of propaganda my married friends would try to convince me of, as too join them in "club wed". The first thing that came to my mind when i first heard of eternal marriage is that " eternity is way too long and heaven way too fun to be dragging around a ball and chain" , my second thought was- why in the world would anyone want to get married if its forever. But I accept the last two posts by James. I have no problem with saying that married couples will preserve some kind of unique bond in heaven and even continue viewing each other as husband and wife.

Well... it's ok to be cynical about it. But, such love between spouses does exist. I've seen it in my parents, and I see it in between my sister and her husband, and all my other friends who are married. To be honest, I wouldn't have believed that such love wasn't possible if I myself hadn't been blessed with the lack of it.

Everyone I knew, growing up, had good marriages. So, it was easy to believe that all marriages are good, and easy to accept the 'propaganda' of married people. Wish I'd met the ones with bad marriages while growing up. Or at least, that people had been a bit more honest about the difficulties and not whitewashed the whole thing and pretended it was a fairy tale. Silly girls are quite gullible, you know. Especially those who have an affinity for fantasies.

Also, in the Indian culture, the goal of a person is marriage. If you don't get married, you're considered a failure. And the Asian culture is such that they'd rather die than live as failures. It's not just the unmarried person who has to live in shame, but his/her whole family! Very little chances of anybody being single or monastic in such a culture! And of course, there's no help for those who are, either by choice or by chance. But there sure was plenty of encouragement to get married, and to do it before I got too old, so I could have plenty of kids. (They also don't tell you that raising kids is hard work, and that babies stop being cute when they grow older.)

If I had my life to live over, and if I could go back some 10 years taking with me the knowledge I now have, I wouldn't have been in such a great hurry to get married. You can be sure, there's a lot of encouragement in this house, for the kids to become monastic or remain single. Sadly, I fear I may give them a lopsided negative view of marriage. I do not know how to balance it off for them. I just hope that they see enough good marriages to know that good ones are real too. My poor kids. Lord have mercy on them.

in Christ,
Mary

[Effie Ganatsios]

Being that I have never been married and quite fond of single life, i find the posts about the love that spouses share quite cynical. Being that im cynical, it reminded me of the kind of propaganda my married friends would try to convince me of, as too join them in "club wed".

Why cynical, Kosta? No relationship is perfect - it might even be dull if it were. When I spoke of love I meant it and personally was not being cynical at all. Marriage is hard work and we are continuously faced with challenges - humility, pride, putting the interests of another person before your own, overlooking irritating faults, etc. All are found in a marriage and need to be confronted and overcome. It is indeed hard work. It is somewhat like an intense course on how to apply Christianity in our everyday lives. It is the same with all relationships. A mother might deeply love her child but that doesn't mean that there won't be conflicts in the relationship. The same applies to marriage. Those who choose to remain single are blessed as are those who choose marriage. We are instructed by our Church that both states are holy and that those in one should not criticize those in the other. We are not supposed to employ "propaganda" for either state. God has His plan for each of us.

Don't be cynical. Trust in God and in life. Being single can be wonderful, so can being married to another person.

Effie

[James H.]

Being that I have never been married and quite fond of single life, i find the posts about the love that spouses share quite cynical. Being that im cynical, it reminded me of the kind of propaganda my married friends would try to convince me of, as too join them in "club wed". The first thing that came to my mind when i first heard of eternal marriage is that " eternity is way too long and heaven way too fun to be dragging around a ball and chain" , my second thought was- why in the world would anyone want to get married if its forever. But I accept the last two posts by James. I have no problem with saying that married couples will preserve some kind of unique bond in heaven and even continue viewing each other as husband and wife.


LOL

I just wanted to laugh at the humor in y our post. I really don't have anything to comment on but the thing said my "lOL" was "too short" so it wouldn't let me post... so here I am rambling so that I can post it :)

[James H.]

Well, anyway, I don't think we are going to come to any major headway. Again, as the OP, my intent was not to convince anyone of the idea of Eternal Marriage. Any time I've debated here, it was only to clarify what that concept (as far as I had ever read or learned) actually entailed and, perhaps more importantly, what it did not entail.

Perhaps the most important thing that we can and have all agreed on is that words and concepts won't truly be able to encapsulate what the afterlife will be like and that only then will we truly understand what "love" is. I did like the post of how marriage on earth is a "foreshadowing" of whta real love will be like (if that was posted here????). There were a lot of things I appreciated about this thread even from people who, so it seemed at least at the beginning, disagreed with the idea (and perhaps still do).

I really just wanted to 1) get a feel of how unversal this teaching was (it seems it is not universal but not unheard of in the Orthodox Church) and 2) writings from other Orthodox/ECFs on this concept, pro or con (those will still be appreciated and have been appreciated).

This is actually bringing up another big question in my mind... but I will let it perculate (spelling?) a while and start a new thread as I flesh the question out a bit more. :)

Thanks everyone!

James

[Nina]

LOL

I just wanted to laugh at the humor in y our post. I really don't have anything to comment on but the thing said my "lOL" was "too short" so it wouldn't let me post... so here I am rambling so that I can post it :)

:D I have to say that I laughed also when I read Kosta's comment because it reminded me something from Larry David's sitcom 'Curb your enthusiasm'. Larry David was not a fan of 'marriage for eternity' and expressed his opinion to his wife, victimizing thus himself. It was funny.

[Father David Moser]

LOL

I just wanted to laugh at the humor in y our post. I really don't have anything to comment on but the thing said my "lOL" was "too short" so it wouldn't let me post... so here I am rambling so that I can post it :)

Here is a good example of the use of the "feedback" function of this group. You could use the feedback function to "laugh at the humor" in another post. That's what its for - a personal response that is important enough to be shared with the poster, but which is too short or too personal to add to the discussion.

Fr David Moser (wearing my moderator hat...)

[James H.]

Here is a good example of the use of the "feedback" function of this group. You could use the feedback function to "laugh at the humor" in another post. That's what its for - a personal response that is important enough to be shared with the poster, but which is too short or too personal to add to the discussion.

Fr David Moser (wearing my moderator hat...)


I didn't know about the feedback button, thank you, Father. However, knowing that, I still probably would have shared it publicly. While he was trying to make it a point, I think people may have been taking his post a bit more seriously than it was intended. (I could be wrong though) Part of my intention was to lighten the mood a bit as I got the feeling that his post was meant to be a bit more humorous that it was being taken.

[Nina]

While he was trying to make it a point, I think people may have been taking his post a bit more seriously than it was intended. (I could be wrong though) Part of my intention was to lighten the mood a bit as I got the feeling that his post was meant to be a bit more humorous that it was being taken.

Yes I also had similar feeling and it was fun to read Kosta's response, especially this was so funny:


eternity is way too long and heaven way too fun to be dragging around a ball and chain" , my second thought was- why in the world would anyone want to get married if its forever

[Victor Mihailoff]

I do take issue with the interpretation of being "like the angels" implies that we will have no sexual identity, mostly becuase I am not sure what that means exactly. We have to be careful with what Christ means and does not mean by that phrase. Obviously we won't be like the angels in all important ways, primarily in that we will, after the resurrection (which is what Christ is talking about) we will all have physical bodies. What this means, I don't know. But we will be very much UNlike the angels in this way. We will be spirit and body as that is how we are intended. This also means that we will be man and woman (right?) as God created Adam and Eve as Man and Woman. I wasn't sure if you meant by "sexual identity" what the term really means "our 'gender'" or if you meant to imply something more akin to t he idea that we will be only spirits. Out of context, one could certainly understand the latter from Jesus' words. So, i apologize if I have misinterpreted those words of yours, and I think I may have. But it is important to realize that that phrase "like the angels" is not an absolute statement suggesting that we will be like them in all substantial ways. To suggest such (unless I am TOTALLY off) would be a grave misunderstanding of the Resurrection.

XP

James

Dear brother in Christ James:

I will elaborate what I meant by "no sexual identity" so as not to misrepresent what I tried to convey. Men will have beards; older men will have grey ones and grey hair and the oldest men will have white hair with white beards. Women will not have beards but will have the same hair colours/colors as described above relative to their age. The age referred to is the age they were at death or at living resurrection on the last day of time. The faces of adults who were 30 years old and more at that time will be eternally 30 years old in appearance as was the face of Christ when he commenced his gospel.

In this world of today that for many is obsessed with sexuality and its expression through the media, a popular practice of sexual identity has explosively emerged. Heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, trassexual, metrosexual, transgender as a sexual identity, transexual, transvestite and whatever.

In heaven, everyone will appear exceedingly beautiful to one another in a platonic way. People will be like beautiful icons to each other. Only repentant people of those more diverse sexual identities will be there and repentant heterosexuals too. That is those who ceased to practice any form of sexual activity outside the bonds of a good wholesome heterosexual marriage.

Celibacy and virginity in the last times will have their abundant rewards if practiced for the acquisition of the Holy Spirit. Faithful marriage partners who faithfully observe the Church fasts in regard to their union will also have their reward, for God wants to reward us abundantly but He knows that we only appreciate reward if we can participate someway in its acquisition.

Heterosexual men and women will greet each other with "an Holy kiss", feeling no difference between the kiss of a male or the kiss of a female nor will men burn with lust in their hearts at the touch of a woman. Those who identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual in the world but conquered the practice of fulfilling their desires and fought off temptations to do so with tenacity and loyalty to Christ and with desire to retain the Holy Spirit received at baptism and replenished at Holy communion or other means of Christian works and thus attained citizenship in heaven, will no longer need to fight off temptations, nor will anyone else in heaven because the demons, worldly people and all there tools of seduction will not be present. The uncreated light of God will clean out the last remnants (or more aptly, burn in purifying flames) of sinful desire and sinful memories.

Thus, homosexuals will also feel no different kissing men than they do women. They will in fact no longer be homosexuals nor will they have a memory of that passion defeated by them with the help of our Lord. The same applies to all sexual identities. Men also will not demonstrate macho man tendencsies to impress and attract women and women will not behave in any stricly feminine way as in acting helpless to attract a man's attention.

People in heaven will behave as one enormous loving family. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither MALE nor FEMALE; for you all are one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28) They will all be married as one bride to Christ. How macho can a man call himself when he is also known as someone's bride? But that is not to say men will be sissies or pansies. It's just that the expression of sexual identity will no longer be relevant.

All that people will remember of their former lives is that they were sinful but with God's help overcame much evil within themselves and again, with God's help, prepared a temple (their own resurrected, transfigured body) in which the Holy Spirit of God would dwell while they, the people, would also dwell in the bosom of God and be able to see Jesus Christ the Lord face to face. They will remember and recognise people they knew on earth but not people that did not make it to heaven. For heaven will hold no regrets and no grief. No one will remember who was what type of sexual identity, not even the persons themselves. All will be Christ's servants, friends or adopted children, depending on the degree of love they have for Him.

That's what I meant by no sexual identity. I did not intend to mislead people into thinking resurrected humans will be exactly like angels, bodiless spirits, and neither did the speaker of those words in the Bible, Lord Jesus Christ Himself mean or say that. He said. "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven." Words of Christ in (Matt. 22:30) And note from a study bible concerning these words of Christ in the above passage: "The resurrection is not merely life resuming where it left off, but a complete change of life." Now if men and women (the heterosexual variety in today's world of diversity) still sexually identify themselves as men and women or more appropriately as male and female; would not they still need marriage? Monks and nuns more appropriately identify themselves as servants of the Lord and become betrothed to Him. Try being celibate without devotion to God when you are under 45 years old. Well you can't try that because you are devoted to God and I don't know if you are under or over 45 years old.

The ultimate reason for people to ask and discuss such topics is to acquire more perfect knowledge of what awaits God's devoted servants in heaven and this aids them in defeating all opposition from the enemy. This, I believe is the greatest legacy of this forum. It helps people get to heaven! For both the giver and the receiver of knowledge assisting in this endeavour/endevor come closer to heaven in the execution of their part.

People with complex intellects ask more complex questions and require more involved and detailed answers but in the end they seek the same reward as the rest. Once they have their answers and have more perfect understanding, they cannot deny passing on their knowledge to others. This is what I trust you will do when you tie up all the loose ends in the near future. Because you are a fast learner.

May Christ be the guiding light for all of us! Victor

[Fabio Lins]

Were Adam and Eve married before the fall? Did not they have a particular relationship, and were *one flesh* even before there was sin?

I understand the words of Jesus on that, thus: the example given by the Pharisees clearly referred to "social" marriages, that were made according to mundane interests, much like many marriages today are made according to passions. That is what is not going to exist in the future world.

On the other hand, some people were chosen for celibacy and many other to have a wife or husband. It is really hard to believe that a couple that has true love for each other will see this love dillute in a universal love for everybody. Certainly, if this particular loves contradicts the other that will be a stumbling rock for the salvation. But isn't God's love for each of us "particular" and "universal" at the same time? I cannot avoid to notice also that when God saw that man was alone, He did not create for a him a number of friends with whom Adam might have an agape relation. God saw that man was alone and created for him a *wife* (a helper, etc).

My take is that *there is* a particular kind of love which will remain, the same kind of relation that existed between Adam and Eve before the fall in harmony with universal Agape. I have never managed to see Love as just one kind of energy. It seems to me that Love exists as "modes" of energy. There are two that is the basis for all the others: Love for God above all else and for our neighbors as for ourselves. Besides those there are lesser loves, because they are for individuals: love for my father, my mother, my brother, my friend X which may be greater than for my friend Y in what regards this particularity. But along with all these, and for these people as for our enemies, there is Agape. The same goes for the love of a husband or a wife.

In Christ,
Fabio Lins

[Ryan]

But why would there be mysteries/sacraments in Heaven, where God is all in all? What possible purpose would they serve?

I'm not speaking to the question of marriage particularly, but I think the eucharist at least is celebrated in heaven in some way. God is all in all, but that does not eliminate the distinction between him and his creatures, nor their complete dependence on his mercy and grace. The saints continue to grow in love and understanding of God, and I think the mysteries could continue to nourish them to this end. In the church I attend, above the Royal Doors there is an icon of Christ giving communion to the Saints. It is not a Last Supper icon- rather, Christ is vested like a priest in front of an altar, with bread and wine. (A similar icon is here (http://www.comeandseeicons.com/icxc/htp07.htm)). Maybe this icon is not to be taken literally, but I think it still indicates some continuing sacramental relationship with Christ, the tree of life.

[Ryan Close]

After the general resurrection, is the number of the human race set? St Maximus taught that there was no sex before the fall and this was intrigal to his thought and not an artifact from his monasticism. I also know that St Irenaus said that Adam and his wife were not the perfected beings western theology sometimes protrays them as, but were like children. The prohibition of the tree of kowledge was a simple law God gave them as a simple way to being learning to express their love for God. So I know that the pre-fall state is not identical with the Resurection, but that if Adam had not fallen he would have being glorified eventualy. Given this, without the fall there would be two human beings? Right? And the number of the races of angels and humans are meant to be static and fixed for all eternity.

[Ryan]

After the general resurrection, is the number of the human race set? St Maximus taught that there was no sex before the fall and this was intrigal to his thought and not an artifact from his monasticism. I also know that St Irenaus said that Adam and his wife were not the perfected beings western theology sometimes protrays them as, but were like children. The prohibition of the tree of kowledge was a simple law God gave them as a simple way to being learning to express their love for God. So I know that the pre-fall state is not identical with the Resurection, but that if Adam had not fallen he would have being glorified eventualy. Given this, without the fall there would be two human beings? Right? And the number of the races of angels and humans are meant to be static and fixed for all eternity.

I read somewhere (I don't remember where) that either St. Maximus or some other father speculated that, had the Fall not occurred, humans would have reproduced in some asexual way, and that the Virgin's conception was partly an allusion to this

[Eric Peterson]

St. Gregory of Nyssa also teaches that Adam and Eve did not have sexual relations before the fall and that, likewise, there will not be sexual relations in heaven.

[Alice]

There is no marriage as we know it in the afterlife.

As for sexual relations not having been part of the human plan, my question becomes why do the animals reproduce this way? Were they intended to, but humans were not?

Generally I don't care for these endless philosophical ponderings, because I don't see how they edify our spiritual lives in the here and now, but since it was brought up, I was wondering if the Fathers who spoke about this vis a vis the Fall, addressed my above question about the animals.

Thanks.

[Peter S.]

St. Gregory of Nyssa also teaches that Adam and Eve did not have sexual relations before the fall and that, likewise, there will not be sexual relations in heaven.

Ha ha, of course there will be no sexual relations in heaven. It is only for the two of us here on earth. We ll be in a more intimate and problemfree relation in heaven. It is just for us to try to do good, hope and wait here on earth. ( btw no offence to you Eric. I would like to read what Gregory writes)

[Peter S.]

There will not be the case that children didnt get the chance to be born and then get to heaven. God is good, that's the explanation for that. This is only a philosophical question and speculation. But how it will be and turn out I don't know. Maybe it will be dreadful in the end of times? Every man that is supposed to go to paradise with Christ, will go to paradise with Christ.

[Father David Moser]

As for sexual relations not having been part of the human plan, my question becomes why do the animals reproduce this way? Were they intended to, but humans were not?


Without going into detail here (although I think it has been discussed elsewhere on the forum) - man is not an animal. Man was created with a body which is more akin to the angels. The animal like nature that we possess today is a result of the fall - referred to in the Scripture when God clothed Adam and Eve "with the skins of animals".

Fr David Moser

[Julia Hayes]

There is no marriage as we know it in the afterlife.

As for sexual relations not having been part of the human plan, my question becomes why do the animals reproduce this way? Were they intended to, but humans were not?

Generally I don't care for these endless philosophical ponderings, because I don't see how they edify our spiritual lives in the here and now, but since it was brought up, I was wondering if the Fathers who spoke about this vis a vis the Fall, addressed my above question about the animals.

Thanks.

And why were men and women designed the way they are?

[Mary]

And why were men and women designed the way they are?

Because there's something so beautiful about being different.

Also - the main purpose of our lives, isn't to make babies.

And now, jumping into things that I know nothing about - I'm not quite sure about this, but I think, maybe, our purpose is to draw nearer and nearer to God, and through God, to each other. This is totally asexual. But, I think, we need to be male and female in order to fit together perfectly, as One Body of Christ.

Sort of like a puzzle... have to be different shapes and sizes, different colors, different places, but fitting together perfectly to make one beautiful picture.

But, I don't know anything about this entire topic, so don't take me seriously. =)

In Christ,
Mary.

[Dova Nisavic]

No marriage in afterlife.


"At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." - Matthew 22:30

[Dova Nisavic]

But if no marriage in afterlife why people wanted to get married in the worldly life?

[Eric Peterson]

But if no marriage in afterlife why people wanted to get married in the worldly life?

Because marriage, like monasticism, is for the salvation of the soul. In a marriage, as in a monastery, one does not do one's own will, one is forced to bear various sufferings patiently and acquire humility, love, faith. In this life, we have much to do in order to prepare for the eternal life. The "how" of marriage, monasticism, or something else isn't as important as the "what," keeping Christ's commandments.

[Herman Blaydoe]

But if no marriage in afterlife why people wanted to get married in the worldly life?

Because you can't get married in Heaven, so if you do want to get married, better do it in this life.

Why? Ask St. Paul. He covers the subject rather thoroughly in his letters, I believe.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain

Herman the Pooh

[Dova Nisavic]

Herman Blaydoe :

Because you can't get married in Heaven, so if you do want to get married, better do it in this life.

:)

I read st Poul and that is reason why I ask: "If no marriage in afterlife why people wanted to get married in the worldly life?"

1 Corinthians 7:

28.But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
29.What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none;

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+7&version=NIV



Eric Peterson

Because marriage, like monasticism, is for the salvation of the soul.


Is the marriage and monastics same things?

[Fabio Lins]

People will not marry or be given in marriage. That does not mean that the marriages that already exist will end.

All love is eternal. If there is marital love between a man and a woman, surely this love will not end. What will end, of course, is the human law, the social pressure, the sexual drive. Marriages that rely on these will certainly not endure in the world to come. But those that are expression of true marital love will remain. Forever.