I was just thinking about something a few days ago. Say a man is married to a woman for, say, 20 years, and they both love each other very much, but the woman dies, and then the man remarries another woman, who is his wife for the remainder of his life.
According to Christian theology, will all three of these people be together in Heaven? Or will only the first wife get to be with the man? How are such issues handled, theologically, by religious scholars?
According to the Gospel of Mark, those resurrected “neither marry nor are given in marriage.”
Yeah, and funnily enough Jesus was responding to exactly the same question (though it wasn’t Christian theology at the time, it was just Christ’s theology!) put to him by the Pharisees.
Indeed! The very first thing I thought when I read this was, “I think there’s a pretty straightforward answer to this!”
What? Are you guys saying that Jesus was some sort of expert on Christian theology or something? Talk about your basic appeal to authority!!
-XT
Wait, do you mean that if I convert to Christianity, and go to Christian heaven, then I can be sure I can’t be having fun with my bestest girl? Or my three bestest girls? Fuck that noise then–this whole conversion thing is now OOTFQ, fuhgeddaboutit. That totally sucks–back to Plan A: Straight to Hell!
Only in a “know thyself” kind of way, really.
According to Christian theology, you won’t spend much time with your loved ones at all. How you spend your time in heaven is called the Beatific Vision.
Which seems pretty horrific to me.
Yeah, I definitely say that citation is needed. I don’t think even the Bible backs up the idea that all you do is stare at God forever. And Jesus’ point seems to be that marriage is irrelevant in heaven, not that no one cares about their loved ones. In fact, one of the great appeals of heaven is being able to see those who have gone on before you.
Why would one not be able to spend time with one’s loved ones in this scenario?
Funny, the other day I was just reading a site that suggested that the popular “no sex or marriage at all in the Final State” pov might not have been what Jesus meant after all, but that this life’s marriage was not necessarily on the same basis as whatever the Final State’s version of marriage was. That people may indeed have their beloveds from this life OR they may be with the Divine intended ones. And there was a lot more speculation from the Church Fathers on this than has been supposed.
OTOH, the thought that I might have to spend eternity banging my ex-wife makes Hell seem downright cozy.
Leave it to Gustav Dore to make the Divine Presence seem dark and menacing.
For all I know, heaven could be one big group marriage.
I know you asked about Christian, but I’ve often wondered…Our god Krishna, when He was on this Earth, loved Radha to distraction but due to complicated reasons, married Rukmini. I’ve heard it said that Radha will sit at His side and that Rukmini at His feet for all time, which sounds like a bum deal for Rukmini. But then, maybe just sitting at the feet of the Supreme Godhood is enough.
And some writings give the whole thing a miss by saying that when we are in heaven, our physical bodies won’t matter. It is clear that there is some sort of intermediary heaven between this world and <i>moksha</i>, however, sort of a stepping stone to the real Oneness with God, so what happens in that stepping stone?
Anyway, sorry for the hijack.
This OP made me think of another question that should be addressed. According to Christian theology, should we pay our taxes to the government or not?
This is also what I’ve been lead to believe.
Marriage as we know it is nothing more then little children playing house, where one is the daddy and the other is the mommy, with no ‘adult’ understanding of the union that God intended.
There is union in heaven between man and woman far surpassing what we can imagine here.
Christian theology, pretty much the same as Jewish, so yes, but if the Son sets you free then no, the government has no right to take from a Son (or Daughter), but you play along and let the Father reach into Uncle Sam’s pocket and return to you what was unjustly taken.
It’s all very well for Americans, whose money bears the image of Washington. But what about Canadians? “Render unto loonies that which belongs to loonies?”
This was Piers Anthony’s view, IIRC. At least until God was replaced.
That’s not your reward, that’s her punishment. 