What is love?

[davejonescue]

I have been thinking about this and have a question?

If marriage and children will be no more in the life to come; is the love we have for our spouse and children a shadow of the love we will have for each other in the life to come, or, is it a shadow of the love Christ has for his bride? The reason I ask this, is while many of us would like to say we love others, I think it is normal, and even natural to love our family, spouse, and children especially. But in Heaven those vocations will annulled. So is that especial love the way God intended each of us to love the brethren, but since we fall short in doing so in this life because our devotion is divided, will we not realize this perfect love for all the saints until we are glorified and can do no other in Heaven?

 

[MW]

It is aptly called love of neighbour, that is, the one who is a near dweller to you. There are bonds of consanguinity and affinity in law. There is nearness in interests and concerns. There is spiritual nearness in the body of Christ. There is local nearness, from which we get our common idea of a neighbour living next to us. Each of these will have varying claims on our love. The nearer the relation the more claim upon us.

When our Lord says that in the resurrection people neither marry nor are given in marriage, He is not saying that the love between spouses or parents and children is erased. What ends is the institution of marriage, not the history of love. Marriage is a sign. The life to come is the reality. When the reality arrives, the sign is no longer needed, but the good that the sign pointed to is not lost. A spouse does not become a stranger. Children do not become generic souls in a crowd. Rather, the love we have for them is taken up, purified, and expanded. Hence Paul can speak of the brethren in the churches that he has planted as his joy and crown. Of course this also means we should do all we can for the salvation of those we love.

Marriage is explicitly called a mystery that points to Christ and the Church. So the exclusive, covenantal, self-sacrificial love of spouses is a symbol of Christ's redeeming love. Parental love also reflects God's fatherly love. Sibling love reflects the communion of the saints. Friendship reflects the love of Christ for His disciples. All our earthly loves are fragments of the one divine love refracted through different relationships.

In glory, our love is perfected, not redistributed. You asked whether our special love for family is something we should have been giving to all the brethren, but could not do so because of our divided devotion. A better way to put it is this: in heaven, we will finally love everyone with the same purity, intensity, and joy that we now reserve for our dearest ones. As a mother sometimes says when her boy grows up and gets married, I have not lost a son, I have gained a daughter. So our Lord teaches us that my mother, my father, and my brethren are those who do the will of God. This will be perfected in heaven.

 

[davejonescue]

It is aptly called love of neighbour, that is, the one who is a near dweller to you. There are bonds of consanguinity and affinity in law. There is nearness in interests and concerns. There is spiritual nearness in the body of Christ. There is local nearness, from which we get our common idea of a neighbour living next to us. Each of these will have varying claims on our love. The nearer the relation the more claim upon us.

When our Lord says that in the resurrection people neither marry nor are given in marriage, He is not saying that the love between spouses or parents and children is erased. What ends is the institution of marriage, not the history of love. Marriage is a sign. The life to come is the reality. When the reality arrives, the sign is no longer needed, but the good that the sign pointed to is not lost. A spouse does not become a stranger. Children do not become generic souls in a crowd. Rather, the love we have for them is taken up, purified, and expanded. Hence Paul can speak of the brethren in the churches that he has planted as his joy and crown. Of course this also means we should do all we can for the salvation of those we love.

Marriage is explicitly called a mystery that points to Christ and the Church. So the exclusive, covenantal, self-sacrificial love of spouses is a symbol of Christ's redeeming love. Parental love also reflects God's fatherly love. Sibling love reflects the communion of the saints. Friendship reflects the love of Christ for His disciples. All our earthly loves are fragments of the one divine love refracted through different relationships.

In glory, our love is perfected, not redistributed. You asked whether our special love for family is something we should have been giving to all the brethren, but could not do so because of our divided devotion. A better way to put it is this: in heaven, we will finally love everyone with the same purity, intensity, and joy that we now reserve for our dearest ones. As a mother sometimes says when her boy grows up and gets married, I have not lost a son, I have gained a daughter. So our Lord teaches us that my mother, my father, and my brethren are those who do the will of God. This will be perfected in heaven.

This is good. So is your expectation of heaven being that families (or what is left of them) will be connected as we are now, and that spouses (even if numerous) will grow in love over time?

 

[MW]

This is good. So is your expectation of heaven being that families (or what is left of them) will be connected as we are now, and that spouses (even if numerous) will grow in love over time?

Heaven is described in earthly imagery. After abstracting certain ideals from the imagery it is hard to know where it stops because we still have bodies and social relations in heaven. We still partake of the environment around us. As we are confined to a limited space we would have to dwell somewhere with someone. Are there communities? I really don't know. But our idea of perfection must also allow for growth. We do not become gods to know all things and to be able do all things.

 

[davejonescue]

Heaven is described in earthly imagery. After abstracting certain ideals from the imagery it is hard to know where it stops because we still have bodies and social relations in heaven. We still partake of the environment around us. As we are confined to a limited space we would have to dwell somewhere with someone. Are there communities? I really don't know. But our idea of perfection must also allow for growth. We do not become gods to know all things and to be able do all things.

True, I agree with that. I am kind of wondering in the aspect of sin. If God intended us to love the brethren with all our hearts; even to the point he can look at his mother dead in the eye and point to (relative) strangers, and say, "these are my brothers, and my mother, etc." i.e. all who follow God; then would it not be a sinful trait if our love were to fall short in that area? Meaning, would not perfect love be a component of glorification rather than gradual emotional upwardness? With God, we will only be able to love him perfectly, but there is growth in that love in comparison to the depths of his ways, which will be eternally revelatory. I am not so sure with man we contain the degree of depth as God does, instead, eternity will be God showing us the depth of ourselves by what he intended when he said "let us make man in our image." My point, we know from the word, there is a "perfect love." Perfection by definition means complete. What I am getting mixed up on is if 1. There is a perfect love, and 2. We will be like him. Then what about us will make us love us more? This is different with God, whose ways are beyond finding out and whose attributes are eternally inexhaustible. So that while we will have a perfect, static love for each other, the fount that never runs dry is the increasing love we will have for God.

 

[MW]

True, I agree with that. I am kind of wondering in the aspect of sin. If God intended us to love the brethren with all our hearts; even to the point he can look at his mother dead in the eye and point to strangers, and say, "these are my brothers, and my mother, etc." i.e. all who follow God; then would it not be a sinful trait if our love were to fall short in that area? Meaning, would not perfect love be a component of glorification rather than gradual emotional upwardness? With God, we will only be able to love him perfectly, but there is growth in that love in comparison to the depths of his ways, which will be eternally revelatory. I am not so sure with man we contain the degree of depth as God does, instead, eternity will be God showing us the depth of ourselves by what he intended when he said "let us make man in our image." My point, we know from the word, there is a "perfect love." Perfection by definition means complete. I dont know, maybe within perfection, the depth of that perfection is realized gradually, though obtained at once?

It is not sinful that we cannot love everyone with the same emotional intensity we feel towards our spouse or children. That limitation is part of being finite, embodied, and time‑bound. When that love turns to partiality in judgment it becomes sinful. The problem, then, is that we love others less purely, not that we are loving our family more. Our emotional limitations are creaturely. Our moral limitations are sinful.

Christ was not doing anything contrary to the filial affection He owed to His earthly mother. He is simply revealing the new family created by grace. At the end of His life He took care to ensure His mother would be provided for. Against Pharisaism He reiterated the duty to love parents.

Perfected love does not mean infinite emotional capacity, omniscient empathy, or a divine depth of being. It means no sin or selfishness, no rivalry nor partiality. But we would still place a value on diversity of relationship. We should not think of heaven as everything being absorbed into the One. That is the idea in eastern religions. We will love perfectly as creatures, not as God.

The word "perfect" in "perfect love" is ethical in nature; it allows for an eternal exploration of its depths. In the beatific vision we see God truly and perfectly, yet we grow forever in wonder, joy, and understanding. Perfection does not mean static but complete. Take a small bucket to the ocean and fill it with water; the bucket is filled with the ocean. Now take a bigger bucket to the ocean and fill it with water; the bucket is filled with the ocean. Yet there are differences between the two buckets.

 

[davejonescue]

It is not sinful that we cannot love everyone with the same emotional intensity we feel towards our spouse or children. That limitation is part of being finite, embodied, and time‑bound. When that love turns to partiality in judgment it becomes sinful. The problem, then, is that we love others less purely, not that we are loving our family more. Our emotional limitations are creaturely. Our moral limitations are sinful.

Christ was not doing anything contrary to the filial affection He owed to His earthly mother. He is simply revealing the new family created by grace. At the end of His life He took care to ensure His mother would be provided for. Against Pharisaism He reiterated the duty to love parents.

Perfected love does not mean infinite emotional capacity, omniscient empathy, or a divine depth of being. It means no sin or selfishness, no rivalry nor partiality. But we would still place a value on diversity of relationship. We should not think of heaven as everything being absorbed into the One. That is the idea in eastern religions. We will love perfectly as creatures, not as God.

The word "perfect" in "perfect love" is ethical in nature; it allows for an eternal exploration of its depths. In the beatific vision we see God truly and perfectly, yet we grow forever in wonder, joy, and understanding. Perfection does not mean static but complete. Take a small bucket to the ocean and fill it with water; the bucket is filled with the ocean. Now take a bigger bucket to the ocean and fill it with water; the bucket is filled with the ocean. Yet there are differences between the two buckets.

Its hard having these discussions with people with spouses and children because I think there is a tendency to be partial to the idea that such things demand eternal especiality. I don't see that in the Bible though. 1. Because not all children's parents will be in glory, 2. Not all parents children will be in glory, 3. Not all spouses will be in glory, 4. People will have multiple spouses in glory, etc. While of course, we are indued naturally (or at least should be) with especial love for our close relations, and it does serve a purpose on earth; many of those will be cut off in glory. So much so, God will have to wipe away tears in the finality of suffering, because in the consummation; though we have gained everything, we have still lost so much. Yes, there can be an argument made we will agree with the divine justice of God, yet, many of us agree with it now. This still doesn't change that we mourn for the reprobate, even though we know we deserve the same fate.

Furthermore, I think there is a supernatural love God calls us to, that we would love the divine family, as our natural family, in contrast to the present discrepancy between natural and spiritual, which at times can be between temporal and eternal. So that it is not uncommon for us to disregard our genuine family (which would be the saints) to show partiality to our temporal family (which could be reprobate) because there is something in us presently that draws us to show partiality. I think Jesus' point in answering, "whose wife will she be?" or "who is my mother?" are those things (or potential hindrances to equilateral love) will be removed in glory. When Jesus asked the person to hold out the coin and asked "whose image is this?" Render thus to thus; is it not the same when we look in the mirror, we can ask ourselves the same question? Whose image is this? And render the respect due to whose image it is. Yet, this still doesn't change that our true family are those in whom Christ died. So that, while family, and spouses, and children are temporal shadows of things to come; I think the shadow they point to will be the depths of love we will have for our Lord, and the same love we will have for every saint, corporately. And this is what I mean by the tendency to want to cling to an eternal demand of loving something more. It is the present bond that doesn't want to give up the special place to universal love.

 

[MW]

Its hard having these discussions with people with spouses and children because I think there is a tendency to be partial to the idea that such things demand eternal especiality. I don't see that in the Bible though.

That applies in reverse to the person who doesn't have a spouse and children. What have you accomplished in saying this? Nothing. You are only pointing out one side of partiality and ignoring your own.

1. Because not all children's parents will be in glory, 2. Not all parents children will be in glory, 3. Not all spouses will be in glory, 4. People will have multiple spouses in glory, etc. While of course, we are indued naturally (or at least should be) with especial love for our close relations, and it does serve a purpose on earth; many of those will be cut off in glory.

I fail to see what bearing this has on whether it is sinful NOW. It doesn't really further your question. It just shows you are uncomfortable with the point you are raising. Even if the present jars with the future in heaven, it does nothing to speak to the present because God has accommodated His revelation to the present state of things.

Furthermore, I think there is a supernatural love God calls us to,

I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of supernatural. As soon as you apply it to man you have naturalised what is beyond nature. God doesn't call us to be anything other than human.

It is the present bond that doesn't want to give up the special place to universality.

God calls us to love certain people in a special way, not to universalise love. The bond between those who are married is expressed in an exclusive way that must not be expressed outside the bounds of marriage. My duty to my children is to discipline them. That is an office of love. I am not at liberty to discipline everyone. Simply because you are single is no reason why you can't understand what is entailed in being married and having children. I think you need to give that more consideration so you can gain a fuller view of the situation.

 

[davejonescue]

God calls us to love certain people in a special way, not to universalise love. The bond between those who are married is expressed in an exclusive way that must not be expressed outside the bounds of marriage. My duty to my children is to discipline them. That is an office of love. I am not at liberty to discipline everyone. Simply because you are single is no reason why you can't understand what is entailed in being married and having children. I think you need to give that more consideration so you can gain a fuller view of the situation.

You are mentioning this but not in the context of Jesus expressly saying there will not be such vocations in heaven. This means, that there is no need for marriage in eternity, and thus, negating especial love is what God intended. Otherwise, why could marriage not continue in Heaven? The context about supernatural, directly points to what Jesus was answering in the question relating to his natural family, and rebuking the natural consideration for something that supersedes familial ties. He is reversing the natural especial treatment, as to say, "we are raised to believe these ties are the closest, but what ties are actually the closest, are those relative to eternity." If you fail to see how parents not having children, children not having parents, spouses not having spouses, are spouses having multiple spouses, was not answered in Jesus' response to the question on marriage; I think you are purposely ignoring it. Parents, children, spouses; all stem from marriage. Jesus annuls the root and says that we will be like the angels in this regard. Yes, those ties that survive, will survive; but I don't think there is going to be an especial love for those earthly ties. Instead, the blessing of eternity is the realization of the entire divine family, the obtainment of perfect love, and temporality given over to immortality. So that, the shadow we now have with familial and marital ties, is the love we will have for God and for our real family, i.e. the saints; as eternity quickly surpasses the vapor we now live in.

There is a reason marriage ends. What do you think that reason is? No need for children? Surely that cant be it. And again, the reason it is hard to have these conversations with people that are married, and with children, and are parents; is they have a tendency to think these things are the epitome of life. I would push back on that a little. Not because I am not married, nor have children; but because Jesus says those things are temporal. There is a reason for their temporality. This also makes me want to push back on the idea that Jesus would forbid marriage in heaven, but make it so formally married people are especially loving each other in a way that mimics marriage absent of the physical intimacy. Such a marriage could exist if that were the intent.

My point, is that marriage, though while serving a present purpose, and a very good purpose; also often times creates a dependency. One where someone can tell you flatly "Jesus is enough" but the thought that we will not be especially loved by our former spouse, when we will be loved by Jesus, or could be equally loved by all the saints, is still a disappointment. There is a longing in us to be special, or to be especially recognized, even if it is only by a single one like us. And I think this is the fright of all those who would cling to especiality as opposed to universality in eternal love.

 

[MW]

You are mentioning this but not in the context of Jesus expressly saying there will not be such vocations in heaven. This means, that there is no need for marriage in eternity, and thus, negating especial love is what God intended. Otherwise, why could marriage not continue in Heaven?

It doesn't continue in heaven because it is consummated. It is like Christ fulfilling the law. This abrogates the ceremonies like sacrifice but we still understand what He has done in terms of sacrifice.

Nothing is negated except what is sinful. It seems to me that this is lurking beneath your view of marriage -- that it is sinful in some way. But marriage is honourable in all. Even single people should think of it in an honourable way.

The context about supernatural, directly points to what Jesus was answering in the question relating to his natural family, and rebuking the natural consideration for something that supersedes familial ties.

That is not right at all. He doesn't rebuke the natural consideration. He applies it to a broader conception. Your use of the word "rebuke" again suggests that you have a lurking idea beneath the surface that marriage is somehow sinful. I think you need to clear your thoughts of this misconception. It is casting a negative light on marriage.

Jesus annuls the root and says that we will be like the angels in this regard. Yes, those ties that survive, will survive; but I don't think there is going to be an especial love for those earthly ties. Instead, the blessing of eternity is the realization of the entire divine family, the obtainment of perfect love, and temporality given over to immortality. So that, the shadow we now have with familial and marital ties, is the love we will have for God and for our real family, i.e. the saints; as eternity quickly surpasses the vapor we now live in. There is a reason marriage ends. What do you think that reason is? No need for children? Surely that cant be it.

He does no such thing. Marriage is like the Sabbath. It is a sign, not the final reality. We enter fully into the married state in heaven just as we enter fully into our rest. It is a symbol pointing towards the union between God and His people. Perhaps this is what you are missing. It is not about relations with each other. It is consummated in our relation with God Himself.

When Jesus says people will be "like the angels," the point is that the conditions of life will change. With no death, no loss, no insecurity, there is no need for the protections that marriage provides in this world. Childhood does not end because it was pointless. It ends because you grow into something larger. In that sense, marriage is often seen as a training ground for love -- fidelity, sacrifice, mutual care -- that matures into something even more expansive.

Love does not flatten out in heaven. Personal identity is not erased. Relationships that shaped you do not vanish; they are healed, completed, and purified. The idea is not that you forget your spouse or parents or children. It is that love is no longer limited by exclusivity, fear, or scarcity. You do not love them less; you love everyone else more.

 

[arapahoepark]

Did anyone read the title of this thread and their mind immediately went to this?

 

[davejonescue]

Nothing is negated except what is sinful. It seems to me that this is lurking beneath your view of marriage -- that it is sinful in some way.

Please stop with the hogwash. We both know I don't think that. You are simply trying to stir emotion to deflect from the discussion.

 

[MW]

Please stop with the hogwash. We both know I don't think that. You are simply trying to stir emotion to deflect from the discussion.

You used the word "sinful." That is what is under discussion. There is nothing sinful in giving oneself to another person to the exclusion of others. It is honourable. It is virtuous. Your thoughts are undermining that.

 

[davejonescue]

You used the word "sinful." That is what is under discussion. There is nothing sinful in giving oneself to another person to the exclusion of others. It is honourable. It is virtuous. Your thoughts are undermining that.

I think it is sinful that we are cursedly incapable of the love of the brethren God calls us to. And my point is, I think this is the very reason he does away with marriage. Marriage serves a purpose on earth, in that it breaks society up in little units, and it gives us some one to pour all our affection into. Resources are limited, families couldn't last if sacrifice were uniform. But in glory, there will be no danger to be protected from, there will be no provision that needs to be met, there will be no mourning that needs to be consoled. All of the things that a spouse or parent provides us with, are met in Christ; and the family we lose, we gain in the saints. So that there is a transference, of the way we were intended to corporately love the saints; but were incapable of doing due to temporal constraints, is now handed over from those who we temporally deemed "closest" to us, to those who are truly closest. Again, this is why I think Jesus rebuked the person telling him his family was looking for him...No, he said, my family is here; with those that love God. Another thing, that may be missing, is that there will be no innate longing for the depth of intimacy marriage provided. Because there will be no physical attraction, each of us can love a Mary Magdalene or a Jonathan with no inkling of sin indwelt. We can recline in the bosom of each other, in pure affection like John and our Lord, with no sin, back-biting, jealousies, suspicions, etc. present; confiding to the depths of our souls. Each man will be a brother, each woman will be a sister; because sin will be no more. I don't think some married people want that depth of love to be universal. I think they want to be especially loved by some one, and for some one to reserve that depth just for them....eternally. Yet, I don't think that is what God intends, otherwise he would have continued marriage.

 

[Theoretical]

He does no such thing. Marriage is like the Sabbath. It is a sign, not the final reality. We enter fully into the married state in heaven just as we enter fully into our rest. It is a symbol pointing towards the union between God and His people. Perhaps this is what you are missing. It is not about relations with each other. It is consummated in our relation with God Himself.

When Jesus says people will be "like the angels," the point is that the conditions of life will change. With no death, no loss, no insecurity, there is no need for the protections that marriage provides in this world. Childhood does not end because it was pointless. It ends because you grow into something larger. In that sense, marriage is often seen as a training ground for love -- fidelity, sacrifice, mutual care -- that matures into something even more expansive.

Love does not flatten out in heaven. Personal identity is not erased. Relationships that shaped you do not vanish; they are healed, completed, and purified. The idea is not that you forget your spouse or parents or children. It is that love is no longer limited by exclusivity, fear, or scarcity. You do not love them less; you love everyone else more.

I think these are extremely strong points. Even this side of heaven, there are married couples and families who have very open hands to and build richer ties than just their blood to point to this greater reality and there are singles who have big hearts towards others, whether married or single. Conversely there are those in both sets of relations that see Christian love as zero sum rather than limited by finitude but not a closed system. Large families can be welcoming to those outside the nuclear or extended ties or closed off to them and singles can see their married brothers and sisters as vital parts of the body of Christ or as an "other" they have nothing in common with.

A really simple example of this I have seen in my own life has been with very open-handed couples and families who have loved me dearly. Sometimes, they have given quite a hefty chunk of time, including when it's an extreme premium for them in seasons when I've been in deep distress. Other times, we will have plans and the husband will reach out to me and say, "I really need to spend time with my wife - this week had a lot of fires," to which I'll gladly say, "go!" because their marriage thriving is important to them and it makes my life richer for knowing them. I might be situationally sad plans changed (and my couple friends the same in the first scenario) but we're both richer and deeper in our friendship and lives. It's not zero-sum beyond our simply being finite creatures.
[automerge]1772063579[/automerge]

I think it is sinful that we are cursedly incapable of the love of the brethren God calls us to. And my point is I think this is the very reason he does away with marriage. Marriage serves a purpose on earth, in that it breaks society up in little units, and it gives us some one to pour all our affection into. Resources are limited, families couldn't last if sacrifice were uniform.

I think that's far too negative a view, even of splitting up people into households, since marriage was a pre-fall ordinance.

 

[davejonescue]

I think that's far too negative a view, even of splitting up people into households, since marriage was a pre-fall ordinance.

I can see that, but I am also looking at the aspect that God doesn't make mistakes. If a marriage-less eternity were not what he intended as plan A, it would not be so.

 

[Theoretical]

I can see that, but I am also looking at the aspect that God doesn't make mistakes. If a marriage-less eternity were not what he intended as plan A, it would not be so.

Except that eternity is not marriageless. We as the Church are married to Jesus Christ eternally, and that's the consummation of the entire Creation. In some unfathomable way the plural of members of the church are all united singly, not plurally, to Christ Himself in an eternal marriage.

I'm still not sure what I fully think of all of the author's conclusions (Dr. Dani Treweek's works on marriage and singleness in an eschatological lens), but I do think there is something to idea that married people are imaging the eternal union of Christ and His church and singles are imaging what brothers and sisters in eternity are to be like in their respective small ways.

 

[davejonescue]

Except that eternity is not marriageless.

I think you know what I mean. The Lord even address this plainly; In the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.

 

[MW]

I think it is sinful that we are cursedly incapable of the love of the brethren God calls us to. And my point is, I think this is the very reason he does away with marriage.

You are doing the same thing. You have a thought about something "sinful" and you associate "marriage" with it. I am not trying to gain the upper hand in a discussion here. There is something in your thought patterns that joins these two things. And again, he doesn't "do away" with marriage. It is consummated in heaven. You are not seeing the intrinsic good of marriage. I think these are things you need to address. Associating marriage with something sinful leads you to read a whole number of things into the Scriptures that are not there.

 

[Theoretical]

I think you know what I mean. The Lord even address this plainly; In the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven.

Like the angels in heaven, we will not individually be married to one another; however, unlike the angels in heaven, we will collectively, as the Bride of Christ, be united to our Husband in a way that earthly marriage does point to vis a vis Ephesians 5:32.

 

[davejonescue]

You are doing the same thing. You have a thought about something "sinful" and you associate "marriage" with it. I am not trying to gain the upper hand in a discussion here. There is something in your thought patterns that joins these two things. And again, he doesn't "do away" with marriage. It is consummated in heaven. You are not seeing the intrinsic good of marriage. I think these are things you need to address. Associating marriage with something sinful leads you to read a whole number of things into the Scriptures that are not there.

I am going to let it go because I dont think you are understanding what I am trying to say. I am not saying marriage is sinful. Nor am I saying that especial love for our wife and family is sinful. What I am saying is that God has called us to an equal love for the saints as our spouse and natural family that we are incapable of doing at the same time we are called to the present love we have due to natural relations. Those are purposely annulled in heaven. There is a reason for that. You say it is because being married to Christ is the fulfillment of that, I say because the present is a shadow of the future love we will have for each other. I think maybe we are saying the same thing, since Christ will be all of ours husband, then we will love and be loved together as the same bride.

 

[MW]

What I am saying is that god has called us to an equal love for the saints as out spouse and natural family that we are incapable of doing at the same time we are called to the present love we have due to natural relations.

God hasn't called us to an "equal love." If He did that, and then instituted marriage to give exclusive marriage to one person, He would be instituting something that requires us to break the demand for equal love. God's ways are perfect.

Those are purposely annulled in heaven.

Nothing "good" is annulled in heaven. It is perfected. Marriage is good.

 

[davejonescue]

Nothing "good" is annulled in heaven. It is perfected. Marriage is good.

Is that your formal rejection of "till death do us part?" Seriously? Everybody on here knows what I mean when I talk about marriage ending, or marriage being annulled. Jesus knew exactly what people meant when he addressed it. Yet, every time I mention it I get semantical wrangling instead of just dealing with what I am talking about.

 

[MW]

Is that your formal rejection of "till death do us part?"

Is that a vow that is made to everyone equally? No. So this effectively denies your assertion.

When something is good, God doesn't erase it. He brings it to its fulness. Earthly marriage has a purpose for this life, and Scripture is clear that it doesn't continue as an institution in the resurrection. But that doesn't mean the love, the communion, or the good that was formed is discarded. It is transformed, not annulled.

 

[davejonescue]

Is that a vow that is made to everyone equally? No. So this effectively denies your assertion.

That is true, a husband and wife are covenanted for life. But are you sure the love for our wife should be more than our brethren, or is that it facilitates a different role? We know that both men and women are equal in Christ. Men are not loved more than women, nor women loved more than men. Yet God has chosen to place the man in preeminence and dominion over the woman. Because there is a preeminence, doesnt mean there is a greater love. Simply because we are called to love our spouses in different ways than we would our brothers, and our neighbors, and our enemies; doesnt mean we are called to love them more. Otherwise we would have permission to watch a saint die in front of us, and not risk our lives to save him, if we had a family that depended on us at home. But would that be considered the love God has called us to? Yet, are we not also called to lay down our lives for our spouses? So I do not think it denies my assertion. I think marriage complicates (what I perceive our call to) love the brethren to the same degree as we do our spouse, because it has put vocational role of preeminance on the spouse, (but not the degree of love), but one day that preeminance will be lifted, annulled, stopped, whatever you want to call it. And who will be left to channel our effections unto besides the Lord and our brethren, without the call to giving certian vocations preference which was pertinent to the physical world?

You keep saying God doesnt do away with marriage. You know what I mean. The only way I can think what you are saying or trying to mean, is if you and your spouse will spend eternity as neighbors, adventuring in the eternity, like a retired couple in an RV? I guess possibly, I just dont see that from scripture.

When something is good, God doesn't erase it. He brings it to its fulness. Earthly marriage has a purpose for this life, and Scripture is clear that it doesn't continue as an institution in the resurrection. But that doesn't mean the love, the communion, or the good that was formed is discarded. It is transformed, not annulled.

Jesus has clearly said this. Nowhere in the bible does it say our present marriages will be fulfilled in our vocation as Christs eternal bride. Your point I think deminishes a bit if you are saying you can be enraptured by God as his bride, but more enraptured by your former spouse, than your then present fellow spouses? Its not making sense to me?

While Jesus calls us his bride, we are not espcially loved as his bride more than we are loved as his bretheren. The depth of each type of love is the same; yet each facilitate a diffrent role. In Heaven, God will be our Father, and Jesus will be our Brother and Husband. So that, there is an meshing of familial and intimate love shared between a spouse and brethren; but a fatherly love reserved for God alone. My point, Jesus dosnt love us more as his bride than he does as his brother. And, we will not love a former spouse more than we will love our fellow spouses and family.

The present points to the future as a shadow of what is to come.

 

[MW]

That is true, a husband and wife are covenanted for life. But are you sure the love for our wife should be more than our brethren, or is that it facilitates a different role? We know that both men and women are equal in Christ. Men are not loved more than women, nor women loved more than men. Yet God has chosen to place the man in preeminence and dominion over the woman. Because there is a preeminence, doesnt mean there is a greater love. Simply because we are called to love our spouses in different ways than we would our brothers, and our neighbors, and our enemies; doesnt mean we are called to love them more. Otherwise we would have permission to watch a saint die in front of us, and not risk our lives to save him, if we had a family that depended on us at home. But would that be considered the love God has called us to? Yet, are we not also called to lay down our lives for our spouses? So I do not think it denies my assertion. I think marriage complicates (what I perceive our call to) love the brethren to the same degree as we do our spouse, because it has put vocational role of preeminance on the spouse, (but not the degree of love), but one day that preeminance will be lifted, annulled, stopped, whatever you want to call it. And who will be left to channel our effections unto besides the Lord and our brethren, without the call to giving certian vocations preference which was pertinent to the physical world?

In what sense are we laying up treasures in heaven? What is done now is not irrelevant to what will be there. The saints works follow them into the next world. The resurrection does not flatten all relationships and things into identical sameness. What God joins and sanctifies in this life is not discarded as if it were meaningless. The form of marriage ends; the good that God worked through it does not vanish. That is the distinction I am making.

He that provides not for his own is worse than an infidel. I have a duty to provide for my family that does not lie upon me in relation to my brethren. I still have a duty to them. If I see them in need and have what will relieve them I am obligated to relieve them. But that is not the same as maintaining a family, and the family will require their needs met first before I assess whether I have what will relieve my brother.

Marriage complicates nothing. Sinful human beings complicate things. God's ways are straightforward. If one embraces what God says is "good," we have no problems. If one embraces a false philosophy of free love then everything is easily complicated.

You keep saying God doesnt do away with marriage. You know what I mean. The only way I can think what you are saying or trying to mean, is if you and your spouse will spend eternity as neighbors, adventuring in the eternity, like a retired couple in an RV? I guess possibly, I just dont see that from scripture.

When I have mansions in heaven I won't be living cramped in an RV.

There are social factors and dynamics. One of those factors is familiarity. It is essential to the social circle. We group around it. That is not sinful. It is human. Like begets like. One of the things the Puritans speak about the beatific vision is its transforming nature. We see Christ and we are made like Him. This supposes the human psychology and sociology continues in some sense. It is strange to think that I would ignore somebody I know very well. The knowledge itself is a bond. These kinds of things don't just disappear.

Jesus has clearly said this. Nowhere in the bible does it say our present marriages will be fulfilled in our vocation as Christs eternal bride. Your point I think deminishes a bit if you are saying you can be enraptured by God as his bride, but more enraptured by your former spouse, than your then present fellow spouses? Its not making sense to me?

Who are these "present fellow spouses?" There are no spouses. Again, the institution is no more. But the "good" in it cannot be forgotten and laid aside. Granted, they are all our fellows in heaven. Can I not distinguish Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob with whom I sit down to feast? Could not Moses and Elijah be distinguished on the Mount? Can I not distinguish one who was my wife from others? Wouldn't Jesus know the disciple who leant on His bosom?

While Jesus calls us his bride, we are not espcially loved as his bride more than we are loved as his bretheren. The depth of each type of love is the same; yet each facilitate a diffrent role. In Heaven, God will be our Father, and Jesus will be our Brother and Husband. So that, there is an meshing of familial and intimate love shared between a spouse and brethren; but a fatherly love reserved for God alone. My point, Jesus dosnt love us more as his bride than he does as his brother. And, we will not love a former spouse more than we will love our fellow spouses and family.

You are assuming that if two relationships share the same kind of love, then they must be identical in degree and shape. Scripture never teaches that. The love of Christ as Bridegroom, as Brother, as Shepherd, as Lord, as Friend are not interchangeable roles, and Scripture never collapses them into one flat category. Likewise, in glory, our love will be perfected, not made identical. Perfect love does not erase the unique history, sanctification, and communion God cultivated between two people in this life. It simply removes all disorder and rivalry.

 

[davejonescue]

Perfect love does not erase the unique history, sanctification, and communion God cultivated between two people in this life. It simply removes all disorder and rivalry.

And this is one of the points I think we may be mixing up in. And one where I think possibly a single and married may not agree. You put a lot of emphasis on things done in this life, as if they are some sort of epitome. We know people here on earth as long as a vapor; in heaven we will know people as a spec of sand in the desert of time. Unless you are wrapping up something that can be found here that will not be overshadowed by something greater in heaven, I do not see why you think something like a temporal marriage is going to be pivotal to the relationships you will form in heaven. And this goes back to the marital longing some have that will not be so in Heaven. Here, many long for a spouse, because God has naturally put that burden in us. In Heaven we will perfectly realize as to what and whom we are eternally loved by. All other shadows will pale in comparison, even temporal marriage. While we will recognize spouses, children, family (if they make it to glory) all of those relations will be shrunken in comparison to our main relation to our Lord. So that no longer is that marriage or familial relation pivotal, it is only a part of something that once was.

You speak of Moses and Elijah on the mount. Did Moses live when Elijah did? No, but each has their part. Were not Peter and the other Apostles married? Yes, but is it their wives duty to sit on thrones with them in eternity? When the brothers asked about the right and left hand, is it not for whom God appoints? To me, you are making this vapor to be so much more than I think it was intended to be, and as such it blurs your vision on the relational value we will have with each other in glory. Yes, this life is important. But it is only a single step in the ladder of forever. No one is talking about a oneness, or the void, or anything like that. What am talking about are the 2 greatest commands being fulfilled in Heaven, i.e. Love God with all, and love your neighbor as yourself. Here, we have a neighbor that is closer than others; in Heaven that role will cease. I see this as the path to universal love (without partiality) for all the saints. You see it differently.

I don't want to accuse, but I think you think there will be a carrying over of these relationships, particularly the marital one. I just don't know how clearer Jesus can cast down that thought. Especially in the context of the question that was being posed. "Whose wife will she be?" was a question also enwrapped with the question "in who will she owe affection?" Jesus I believe clarifies there will be no such question or debt. There was never a question of the goodness or permissibility of the marriages themselves; but a question to whose she will be? She will not be yours, nor will she be mine; she will be Gods.

 

[MW]

And this is one of the points I think we may be mixing up in. And one where I think possibly a single and married may not agree.

Genesis 2. It is not good for man to be alone; therefore God made an help meet for him. It is possible that a married person understands something about investment in a long term relationship and what bearing that has on the meaning of life. One can see how formative it can be, especially working in partnership and such things. A part of the blessing of married life is the way it deepens a person's perspective on the social aspect of man. Although a single person does not enjoy this in marriage he should still be able to appreciate in others and look, as it were, through their eyes. If we rejoice in the "good" of others it has a way of blessing us in its extensive influence.

You put a lot of emphasis on things done in this life, as if they are some sort of epitome. We know people here on earth as long as a vapor; in heaven we will know people as a spec of sand in the desert of time. Unless you are wrapping up something that can be found here that will not be overshadowed by something greater in heaven, I do not see why you think something like a temporal marriage is going to be pivotal to the relationships you will form in heaven. And this goes back to the marital longing some have that will not be so in Heaven. Here, many long for a spouse, because God has naturally put that burden in us. In Heaven we will perfectly realize as to what and whom we are eternally loved by. All other shadows will pale in comparison, even temporal marriage. While we will recognize spouses, children, family (if they make it to glory) all of those relations will be shrunken in comparison to our main relation to our Lord. So that no longer is that marriage or familial relation pivotal, it is only a part of something that once was.

Yes, heaven will be an up-making portion and compensate for all our losses in this world. But it is also true that it will not take away the "good" we have enjoyed. I don't think the Lord will shrink anything. If He enlarges us in distress, Ps. 4, we can be sure He will enlarge us in deliverance, Ps. 31. In Christian relationships we already put the Lord first and He enriches our lives with others. He does not compete with them. He gives out of His fulness. He has no sense of want. It is His love that we share with others. He is not narrow-minded.

You speak of Moses and Elijah on the mount. Did Moses live when Elijah did? No, but each has their part. Were not Peter and the other Apostles married? Yes, but is it their wives duty to sit on thrones with them in eternity? When the brothers asked about the right and left hand, is it not for whom God appoints? To me, you are making this vapor to be so much more than I think it was intended to be, and as such it blurs your vision on the relational value we will have with each other in glory. Yes, this life is important. But it is only a single step in the ladder of forever. No one is talking about a oneness, or the void, or anything like that. What am talking about are the 2 greatest commands being fulfilled in Heaven, i.e. Love God with all, and love your neighbor as yourself. Here, we have a neighbor that is closer than others; in Heaven that role will cease. I see this as the path to universal love (without partiality) for all the saints. You see it differently.

To be human is to be limited. It is to make choices, have preferences. We do not see everything the same as individuals. Moses and Elijah meant something to our Lord. Hence they were sent to speak to Him of His departure. Different people mean different things to us. There is nothing sinful in that. I can love my neighbour as myself without making Him the same as me, and I can appreciate the differences between us and the relative value that we both have. There is no reason why everything has to be flattened out and absorbed into a singularity in heaven. That idea fails to see the rich diversity in the goodness that God has created.

 

[davejonescue]

I can love my neighbour as myself without making Him the same as me

But you cannot love your neighbor as yourself and love your neighbor less than yourself; that is the point of this entire conversation. The things a life long married person gains and loses in marriage are unique to that vocation; they are not obtained another way. The same is said for life long singleness. That is not my point. My point is you still want to cling on to this idea that your wife will spend eternity thinking of you like a husband as she does now. I don't think she will, nor do I think you will of her. Lovers will become sisters and brothers. And apart from the sensual affection associated with marriage, what is one left with besides family? In heaven you will no longer look at her like you do now, because she will not be your wife. You will not even lust after her because to do so would be adultery. And adultery will not exist. Your marriage does not carry over into eternity, so that the only affection you will have for her, will be what is allowed in a perfection where marriage doesn't exist. My point, is your marriage affords you that privilege here. But where there is no marriage, there is no privilege. I am not saying she will just be an unknown face in the crowd, not at all; I am saying the only love you will be allowed to have for her, will be that love common among all. And who is to say within that confine you will not love another equally? Because of what you been through? I think when we finally see what lies ahead all that will pale in comparison. But we cant imagine that now because this is all we have ever known.

 

[MW]

My point is you still want to cling on to this idea that your wife will spend eternity thinking of you like a husband as she does now.

If that is what you think you have misconstrued what I said. She won't think of me as her husband; but she won't forget the good which God has wrought from that relationship. She doesn't enter into eternity a tabula rasa.

And apart from the sensual affection associated with marriage, what is one left with besides family?

You are speaking as a stranger to the other affections of married life. There are bonds that are created through our associations with other people. Marriage is a legal relation. The bonds that are developed within it are personal. They cannot be dissolved by death.

In heaven you will no longer look at her like you do now, because she will not be your wife. You will not even lust after her because to do so would be adultery.

We are like the angels; there is no procreation. So those types of lusts are gone. It doesn't mean I won't have sweet memories. Do yo have any view of the depths of personhood? It does not appear that you do.

And who is to say within that confine you will not love another equally? Because of what you been through?

Experiences do not evaporate. The church celebrates redemption in Christ -- a past experience. We are not swallowed up into a static nothingness. The more you argue your view the more I wonder if I am speaking to a computer who has no power to reflect on the personal goods of life.