Eternal Marriage

[daydreamergurl15]

Problem is is that your further "misquoting" scripture. Christ specifically say's the Resurrection, he doesn't say Heaven. He only mentions heaven in the sense that those in the Resurrection are "as" the Angels in Heaven.

Further, LDS believe marriage occurs in "this life" not in the next lives.
I should note that whatever is bound by the Priesthood of God is in and of itself "Eternal", no man can break this bond. Thus, no matter whether you think the Bible directly speaks of Eternal Marriage, the fact of the matter is that Eternal Marriage by proper priesthood authority is a simple fact.

Anyway, some thoughts.

Um...if I'm not mistaken, when we are resurrected to be with Christ, we will be in heaven, after judgment, so unless, we are talking about judgment day, I don't understand why that verse would not pertain to heaven.

Are there scriptures that tell us that "whatever is bound by the Priesthood of God is in and of itself "Eternal", no man can break this bond"? If I am not mistaken in Matthew 16:18-19, Christ told Peter

18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”​

I don't remember Christ giving this command to anyone else but Peter.

 

[daydreamergurl15]

Genesis 2:24, I wouldn't even begin to assume what "one flesh" means to God. But I also won't assume that it means something eternal. For in the New Testament, we are told that if one spouses died, they can get remarried. Does that mean the second wife/husband are not of "one flesh"...I don't know. I don't know what "one flesh" mean to God.

Ecc 3:14, I'm not quite sure that we can interpret that verse that way...God created earth and it will not last forever, God created humans and we certainly do not last forever. I'm not sure we are interpreting that verse correctly.

Mark 10:9--we can interpret that as not divorcing because God has joined them together, especially since that's what Christ says in verse 10.

1 Cor. 11:11, I don't think that's speaking about a marital relationship because it is in the context of head covering and authority, reach 1 Cor 11:1-16,

1 Peter 3:7, seeing as we inherit eternal life, that would make sense.

But I don't know what will be in heaven and how things are, and we aren't really told, so I'm not going to assume anything beyond that and eternal marriages is not something we are told in scripture.

Does it make sense that a man is to cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh, only to be eternally ripped apart at death?

??? We are not told what happens in heaven when it comes to marriages, so I am not going to assume anything or go beyond what is in scripture.

Does whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever, apply to everything God does, except when he joins a man and woman in the marriage bond?

Again, I don't know if we are interpreting this correctly, because some things we know won't last forever...like the earth and being alive. And I don't know what will be in heaven, except the Glory of God there.

If it is so that, whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, does, "whatsoever," mean everything, except marriage?

That command was given to Peter, for he was given the keys to the kingdom...so what He did with those keys (symbolically) in the book of Acts--He preached!!!

If marriage, and the relationship between husband and wife, is so important that the Lord said of it that what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder, why would he put it asunder in heaven?

I don't know anything about marriage in heaven for we are not given those plans from God. The only thing that I have found about marriage after death, are those verses in Matthew 22.

Does it make sense that neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord, except when they are in heaven?

That phrase is in the context of authority and head covering. First Adam was created by God, then Eve formed by the ribs of Adam by God and then everyone else came from Eve (woman), through the birthing process, given by God; so men and women are very depended on each other. Because of that, even if I were not married in the Corinthian church at that time, my hair (women) would be my head covering.

And if husbands and wives are heirs together of the grace of life, does it make sense that this only applies to their mortal existence, but they are not heirs together of the grace of eternal life?

"heirs according to the promise" meaning that we inherit eternal life, that implies our spiritual existence. You will still be in heaven together, whether that means you will be considered "married" in heaven, I don't know, we are not told that in scripture.

Most importantly, what would be the point of comparing the relationship between Christ and his church, which is of an eternal nature and unity, to something that is without eternal consequence and has no future beyond mortality? Why would the Lord represent the eternal relationship between himself (the bridegroom) and the church (the bride) with something that is only temporary, and is severed and made null and void forever at death? Why compare a binding eternal relationship, to something that is completely dead and over, as marriage would be, if marriage could not, and was not intended to, be a lasting bond that continues beyond the grave and throughout all of eternity?

See, this idea doesn't really make sense. If Christ is the (bridegroom) and the church (body of Christ) is the bride, why then do we think there will be many marriages within the marriage of Christ and His church in heaven? I can be completely misunderstanding what it means for the Church to be His bride, Lord knows that is something that I can't wrap my head around it.

And as for asking me why Christ would compare the marriage relationship to eternal relationship between Him and the Church, if the marital relationship between man and woman is not eternal? I don't know. That's like me asking why God gives us a description of heaven through descriptions that we would understand like "pearly gates" and "golden streets" when this world is not eternal? It help us understand heavenly things when we are mortal beings.

 

[Zechariah]

I think that "shadow" would have been a better choice of words than reflection.

Fine. If our marriages are a shadow of the unity that is to come between Christ and his church, they would not come to an end. The union between Christ and his church is eternal. It will never cease, never end, never die. To compare that supernal union to marriage, is really quite absurd, unless the marriage union, as God ordained it, is intended to last eternally.

 

[skylark1]

Fine. If our marriages are a shadow of the unity that is to come between Christ and his church, they would not come to an end. The union between Christ and his church is eternal. It will never cease, never end, never die. To compare that supernal union to marriage, is really quite absurd, unless the marriage union, as God ordained it, is intended to last eternally.

I think that the Old Testament sacrifices were a shadow of the sacrifice that Christ would make. His sacrifice was one time for all eternity, yet the OT sacrifices were offered again and again, and have ceased. There are ways in which they differ, as the comparision between a marriage between a man and woman, and Jesus and the church differs in some ways.


Below is where Hebrews 10 speaks of the OT sacrifices being a shadow:

Hebrews 10

1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' " 8First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
​

 

[Zechariah]

Genesis 2:24, I wouldn't even begin to assume what "one flesh" means to God. But I also won't assume that it means something eternal. For in the New Testament, we are told that if one spouses died, they can get remarried. Does that mean the second wife/husband are not of "one flesh"...I don't know. I don't know what "one flesh" mean to God.

But you do you what it means for a man to cleave unto his wife, correct?

Ecc 3:14, I'm not quite sure that we can interpret that verse that way...God created earth and it will not last forever, God created humans and we certainly do not last forever. I'm not sure we are interpreting that verse correctly.

Why would it not apply to everything God does, including marriage?

Incidentally, God did not create either the earth, or man, in a dying state of existence. It was the fall which brought sin and death into the world. Before the fall there was no sin, neither was there any death.

But there was marriage, because God said it was not good for the man to be alone. Even in that most idyllic environment, which was so entirely pristine in the perfection of God, that God himself walked there with man, He still said it was not good for the man to be alone, so provided him a wife.

Does this not indicate a rather significant eternal nature and purpose of man, woman, and the marriage union ordained by God?

Mark 10:9--we can interpret that as not divorcing because God has joined them together, especially since that's what Christ says in verse 10.

And what else does Jesus say on this point?

Matt. 19: 7-8
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

(divorce: to disassociate, part, cease, or break association with)

If, "from the beginning it was not so," then when did God decide to decree divorce in heaven? If he did not, and would not, then marriage would not end, or be meant to end.

1 Cor. 11:11, I don't think that's speaking about a marital relationship because it is in the context of head covering and authority, reach 1 Cor 11:1-16,

How is this not pertinent to the marital relationship? Do you make no connection between 1 Corinthians 11:3, and Ephesians 5:23?

1 Peter 3:7, seeing as we inherit eternal life, that would make sense.

It would make sense, if husbands and wives inherit eternal life together, as indicated, yes.

But I don't know what will be in heaven and how things are, and we aren't really told, so I'm not going to assume anything beyond that and eternal marriages is not something we are told in scripture.

We are not told what happens in heaven when it comes to marriages, so I am not going to assume anything or go beyond what is in scripture.

Actually, we do get several glimpses from the Bible on the eternal nature of marriage, and we also have additional scripture to enlighten us further. I realize, though, that if one does not believe marriage can be eternal, it might be hard to recognize those glimpses. I also understand that of one does not believe that God can add to his word, he's likely to reject whatever knowledge that can be gained from scripture beyond the Bible.

Again, I don't know if we are interpreting this correctly, because some things we know won't last forever...like the earth and being alive. And I don't know what will be in heaven, except the Glory of God there.

Yes, the glory of God will be there. But neither the earth, nor men and women, were created to cease to exist. That all will die, because of the fall, is true. But through the atonement and resurrection wrought by Christ, we will be resurrected and live forever, as well as having the opportunity to be, "joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may also be glorified together." The earth, as well, will be resurrected, and glorified.

That command was given to Peter, for he was given the keys to the kingdom...so what He did with those keys (symbolically) in the book of Acts--He preached!!!

Priesthood keys are used when one, having been given authority from God, acts in God's name, to proclaim the word of God, and to administer the ordinances of salvation to man in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

I don't know anything about marriage in heaven for we are not given those plans from God. The only thing that I have found about marriage after death, are those verses in Matthew 22.

Actually we have been given more.

That phrase is in the context of authority and head covering. First Adam was created by God, then Eve formed by the ribs of Adam by God and then everyone else came from Eve (woman), through the birthing process, given by God; so men and women are very depended on each other. Because of that, even if I were not married in the Corinthian church at that time, my hair (women) would be my head covering.

Again, do you make no connection between 1 Corinthians 11:3, and Ephesians 5:23?

"heirs according to the promise" meaning that we inherit eternal life, that implies our spiritual existence. You will still be in heaven together, whether that means you will be considered "married" in heaven, I don't know, we are not told that in scripture.

I'd say when the scriptures say husbands and wives are "heirs together of the grace of life," that addresses it.

See, this idea doesn't really make sense. If Christ is the (bridegroom) and the church (body of Christ) is the bride, why then do we think there will be many marriages within the marriage of Christ and His church in heaven? I can be completely misunderstanding what it means for the Church to be His bride, Lord knows that is something that I can't wrap my head around it.

Because this is figurative language used as a representation. It's symbolism. In scripture Christ is symbolized as the Bridegroom, with the Church being his symbolic bride. He is also the Lamb of God, but he is not literally a lamb. He's also the bread of life, the stone, the living water, etc. But these are symbolic representations. He is not literally those things.

And as for asking me why Christ would compare the marriage relationship to eternal relationship between Him and the Church, if the marital relationship between man and woman is not eternal? I don't know. That's like me asking why God gives us a description of heaven through descriptions that we would understand like "pearly gates" and "golden streets" when this world is not eternal? It help us understand heavenly things when we are mortal beings.

If such things are to help us understand heavenly things (of which I concur) then there is more for one to understand about his eternal relationship with Christ, by the symbolism of the marriage supper, the bridegroom, and the bride. And there is more for one to understand about the eternal relationship of marriage, by use of that same symbolism.

 

[Zechariah]

I think that the Old Testament sacrifices were a shadow of the sacrifice that Christ would make. His sacrifice was one time for all eternity, yet the OT sacrifices were offered again and again, and have ceased. There are ways in which they differ, as the comparision between a marriage between a man and woman, and Jesus and the church differs in some ways.


Below is where Hebrews 10 speaks of the OT sacrifices being a shadow:

Hebrews 10

1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' " 8First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
​

I don't make the connection, other than you deciding to change your wording from reflection to shadow, that is. Was the purpose of that change to make a case that because animal sacrifice had an end in Christ, marriage must also? Are you trying to say that if something that occurs on earth can be viewed as a type or shadow of something in heaven, that it can't last for eternity, and was never intended to? I fail to see the logic.

Marriage is ordained of God and was instituted in the garden of Eden to unite man and woman together, before either sin or death entered the world, before man was cast out of God's presence. Animal sacrifice, on the other hand, was instituted after man was in his lost and fallen state, to point him to the source of his rescue from sin and death.

 

[skylark1]

I don't make the connection, other than you deciding to change your wording from reflection to shadow, that is. Was the purpose of that change to make a case that because animal sacrifice had an end in Christ, marriage must also?

The purpsoe of the change was to be more accurate. Shadow more accurately describes what I was trying to say. The word type would also describe what I was trying to say. They both describe a prefiguring, a foreshadowing, rather than a reflected replica.

Maybe this excerpt will better explain:

The word “type” is from the Greek tupos, which primarily denoted a blow, then the impression left by such a mark. In Romans 5:14, Adam is spoken of as a “type” of Him who was to come, that is Christ. Consider the following definition of a type or shadow: “A type is essentially a prefiguring of something future from itself. It is a person, institution, office, action, or event, by means of which some truth of the Gospel was divinely foreshadowed under the Old Testament dispensations. Whatever was thus prefigured is called the antitype” (Biblical Hermeneutics, Milton S. Terry, p. 336). There must be some notable point of resemblance between the type and antitype or the shadow and the substance, yet they may in many points be dissimilar as well. Adam, for example, is made a type of Christ, yet in 1 Corinthians 15:45-49, Paul notes more points of unlikeness than of agreement between the two. Secondly, the Scriptures make it clear that we always expect to find in the antitype something higher and nobler than in the type, “but the substance belongs to Christ” (Colossians 2:17); “Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these” (Hebrews 9:23); “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come” (9:11).
​

Are you trying to say that if something that occurs on earth can be viewed as a type or shadow of something in heaven, that it can't last for eternity, and was never intended to? I fail to see the logic.

Not really. It would probably be more accurate to say that if something is a type or a foreshadow that it does not necessarily last for eternity. It points to a spiritual reality.

Marriage is ordained of God and was instituted in the garden of Eden to unite man and woman together, before either sin or death entered the world, before man was cast out of God's presence. Animal sacrifice, on the other hand, was instituted after man was in his lost and fallen state, to point him to the source of his rescue from sin and death.

Animal sacrifice was only an example. There are a lot of shadows and types in the Bible.


I like how the following explains:

Oftentimes a thing is described in the OT, be it a person or an event, a thing or an institution or ceremony which rightly is described therein, but which also illustrates some NT truth, often dealing sith some aspect of the person or work of Christ, but occasionally foreshadowing some other NT truth. Eve, bride of Adam, for example, is used in the Scriptures as a type of the Church, the bride of Christ. Adam, the first man, is used as a type of Christ, the "second man." The marriage relationship is often used to foreshadow the relationship between Christ and His bride, the Church. The Passover Lamb is used in the Scriptures as a type of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. That is, there will be aspects of each of these which are used specifically in the NT to illustrate an important truth, so that the OT example becomes a foreshadowing of a NT truth. Many of the rituals and ceremonies under the Mosaic system of sacrifices and feasts portray some aspect of the work of Christ. The unleavened bread, for example, typifies the sinlessness of Christ, whereas the leavened meal represents the sin that remains in the believer. Indeed, the ritual sacrifices ordained are referred to as a shadow of the greater savrifice made at Calvary.

It would be entirely possible to attach some spiritual significance to most any passage of the OT, making it seem to represent almost anything else. Therefore does Scofield well say that a type must have a clear and explicit NT authentication. For example, the marriage relationship is authenticated as a type of the relationship between Christ and the Church by the passage in Eph 5:22-32, which concludes in the following manner:

This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (Eph 5:32)


Types & Shadows
​

 

[daydreamergurl15]

But you do you what it means for a man to cleave unto his wife, correct?

The verses says "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Gen 2:24
"Flesh" is physical. He did not say "therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one soul." The soul is eternal, if that verse is supposed to tell us that marriage is eternal, i don't understand why God would not just simply say soul.

Why would it not apply to everything God does, including marriage?

Incidentally, God did not create either the earth, or man, in a dying state of existence. It was the fall which brought sin and death into the world. Before the fall there was no sin, neither was there any death.

But there was marriage, because God said it was not good for the man to be alone. Even in that most idyllic environment, which was so entirely pristine in the perfection of God, that God himself walked there with man, He still said it was not good for the man to be alone, so provided him a wife.

Does this not indicate a rather significant eternal nature and purpose of man, woman, and the marriage union ordained by God?

Because earth will be destroyed, and that we humans will not last forever, for the body will be destroyed but the soul, for those of us in Christ, will not, for us to interpret Ecc 3:14, the way we do, contradicts many other things that God told us that He will destroy. So for us to automatically assume that "hey marriage must be one of those things that will last forever", not quite sure about that one.

And what else does Jesus say on this point?

Matt. 19: 7-8
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

(divorce: to disassociate, part, cease, or break association with)

If, "from the beginning it was not so," then when did God decide to decree divorce in heaven? If he did not, and would not, then marriage would not end, or be meant to end.

"from the beginning" divorce, no earth, was not so. God is explaining how He wants us to be on earth. What marriage entails in heaven, we are not given and I'm not going to assume simply because of the idea of eternal marriages.

How is this not pertinent to the marital relationship? Do you make no connection between 1 Corinthians 11:3, and Ephesians 5:23?

THe verse you gave me was 1 Corinthans 11:11, and that is explaining why a woman should have a headcovering on her head, which is her hair. Even, if I was not in a marital relationship, in the Corinthians church, my hair would be my headcovering. And Eph 5:23 is explaining why women are to be submissive to her husband.

It would make sense, if husbands and wives inherit eternal life together, as indicated, yes.

God willing that both of them are "in Christ".

Actually, we do get several glimpses from the Bible on the eternal nature of marriage, and we also have additional scripture to enlighten us further. I realize, though, that if one does not believe marriage can be eternal, it might be hard to recognize those glimpses. I also understand that of one does not believe that God can add to his word, he's likely to reject whatever knowledge that can be gained from scripture beyond the Bible.

1 Corinthians 4:6

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.​

I don't go beyond what is written in the bible.

Priesthood keys are used when one, having been given authority from God, acts in God's name, to proclaim the word of God, and to administer the ordinances of salvation to man in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Is there a scripture that tells us that.

I'd say when the scriptures say husbands and wives are "heirs together of the grace of life," that addresses it.

Gal 3:26-29

26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.​

If a husband and wife have both put on Christ, of course, they would be "heirs together of the grace of life." We are told in Gal, that everyone who have put on Christ through baptism are heirs according to the promise.

Because this is figurative language used as a representation. It's symbolism. In scripture Christ is symbolized as the Bridegroom, with the Church being his symbolic bride. He is also the Lamb of God, but he is not literally a lamb. He's also the bread of life, the stone, the living water, etc. But these are symbolic representations. He is not literally those things.

I understand what symbolism means. But you asked me why the relationship, as Christ as Bridegroom and the Church as His bride, would be compared to marriage if it is not "eternal" in nature? And I'm telling you, I don't know. And I certainly don't know what it is going to symbolize in heaven. If you read in Revelations the description of the Lamb's wife (Rev 21:9-27), the description of the "wife" seems to be descripting a place rather than a person--I know Revelations is very symbolic and a direct reading of it can really confuse a person, so, I'll say again, I seriously don't know what the relationship symbolizes.

 

[Blackmarch]

Lately I've been trying to research "Eternal Marriage" - not exactly in the Mormon way though. But I do credit them to getting me to think about it.

In the Gospels there's the story where Jesus is asked about the widow and he says no, there won't be marriage we'll be like the angels as far as relationships. But I believe he's talking about during the resurrection there.

I am really starting to think that maybe in the Kingdom there will be marriages. It's just a personal thought though. Completely "Unorthodox Theology" here... but just wondering what others thought.

well in LDS thought its along the lines of all the marriage will be taken care of before one gets to the kingdom.. If you are properly married whenyou get there they you remain married, otherwise if you get there without being married you'll remain unmarried.

On eternal marriage the bible has very little unfortunately.

Just a couple things to think about tho; the people who asked christ about the widow were not his followers/bleievers.

And When God creted adam and Eve, he created them Man and Wife.