First Essay on Marriage - An Eastern Perspective

Inspired by our conversations around the Eastern expression of the Christian faith, and because of how I have been driven to grow in knowledge and wisdom by her, this essay is dedicated to and inspired by Maggie Oneill.

Introduction

To continue what accidentally became a series on Eastern Christian theological ideas and perspectives, this time I'll speak on marriage. And, the first of what is becoming a series of essays on marriage - with each speaking about marriage in a different way, this one looking at it through an Eastern spirituality lens. This is one of the many articles that have been sitting in my drafts speaking on Eastern spirituality and theology, and I have come to thoroughly enjoy exploring and writing about such subjects. The reason for so many sitting in drafts is because it takes such a very long time to research these topics, and just as long to mull over the information and communicate well the absorbed information. There is more to come, whether or not anyone other than me reads what I've written.

What I wish to do here is much, but more generally it is to (hopefully) expose a rich idea of marriage come from the East as a starting point, and grow the conversation into a greater exploration of the mystery of matrimony. There is beauty in the different traditions of the Catholic Church when it comes to marriage, and I wish that I could explore the intricacies behind all of them. But, I do not have the time for that, so I will satisfy myself with what I present before you now, this essay brought together by more than just a little bit of thinking, prayer, and research.

This will be a somewhat lengthy essay where I will barely scratch the surface of Eastern understandings of marriage, commentary by Church fathers, and exploration of ideas of marriage from these points of interest, but I wish to at least make this introduction. For the East, simply put, the ceremony, the prayers, and the implications behind marriage in the East is very different from that of the Western Church of Rome. Of course it is not as if one is the "right" way to do marriage and the other is the "wrong" way, just that they are different. Here, now, we will explore what matrimony is like in the East, and explore the deep beauty of a different understanding of the binding of two bodies and souls.

Now, before diving into the meat of the article I will briefly speak on the allowance for variety of opinions within Catholicism, and then we will finally move into the topic. There are different ways in which many in the Church, and especially between the East and the West, articulate theological truths, and different ways in which each approach theoretical theology. Just because you may be from one tradition of the faith does not make your tradition immediately correct, and just because someone is part of the head Church, Rome, does not mean that the expressed opinion of the members of that Church is necessarily the sole correct opinion, or the only one allowed. Perhaps you agree more with Augustine, Aquinas, John Chrysostom, Palamas, Gregory the Great, Ephraim the Syrian, or any other in the long list of saints - some of these disagree on how to articulate or understand parts of the faith, and that is okay, these are saints and their variety of opinions is allowed. So long as the Church does not declare something dogma, or declare a position or perspective to be anathema or heresy, then you are allowed to have variety of opinion on these matters. And so, if you encounter something with which you are unfamiliar in this essay, recall that the Church is not just Rome, She is also the saints, She is her doctors of the faith, and She is West, and she is East, and in the garden of theology of Christ's Church a multitude of opinions varying in color are allowed to bloom.

Eastern matrimony

The ceremony

"What does marriage look like in the East?"

You may read online that a wedding for Eastern Catholics is "done this way, and not this way" and then you read someone else saying just the opposite. Some of this is because there is no "Eastern Church" in Catholicism, but there are many Churches, and many traditions that come from them. Also, there is leeway allowed by some bishops of the East in how the ceremony is done, and there are differing degrees of influence from the Latin Church throughout the Eastern Churches that affect how the wedding ceremony is conducted.

What I am saying is that there is some variety in Eastern marriage ceremonies, as there is in Western marriage ceremonies, but with both there are general things that remain the same. One, for example, is the part of the ceremony where the couple is crowned. It is at this moment that the couple is fully wed. Crowns made of precious metals, or laurels of sorts made from flowers or greenery, may be placed on the heads of the couple being wedded as part of the ceremony, crowning them as martyrs, and as a king and queen.

"Why crowns?" you ask. There is a lot of symbolism behind the crowning, and this will be explained more later on, but the simplest and most oft-used explanation is that you are being crowned as a martyr in this moment. Again, this will be explained more later. For the moment, just know that if you are getting married in the East that you receive a crown during the ceremony, though you don't get to keep it afterwards since it belongs to the church. Rather than making you a monarch of the land, you're meant to humbly carry these crowns in an invisible sense each day onward, witnessing the call of the crowns through your life as a sign instead of having them be a sign resting on your head.

One difference between the East and the West in how a Marriage ceremony is carried out is that in the "Mystery of Crowning", as it is called, the matrimony of the couple is "fully realized" in the Church at the moment that the crowns are placed on their heads. What is meant by "fully realized" is that the marriage is "completed" and that there are no steps left to do, that essentially the couple is as married as they are ever going to be in that moment. What does this mean exactly? If you look at the West, you will see that it is understood that the marriage is not "fully realized" until the couple becomes one flesh on the marriage bed, which is the moment that the Sacrament is completed in full. Meaning, the couple is "mostly married" in the ceremony, but their vows are not completed until the couple becomes one flesh on the altar of the marriage, which is the marriage bed. In the sacrifice of their bodies they die to themselves and become one person in one flesh, and in this sacrifice the offering of marriage is completed and their marriage fulfilled to the fullest.

Now, to explain the discrepancy briefly. The East takes the more traditional understanding of the ceremony in the Church which was held as the opinion from as far back as we can tell. The Mystery of Crowning is also more ancient than the Western ceremony of marriage, but that does not hold relevance to the topic at hand so nothing more will be said on it. Ancient does not infer that it is better.

The East maintains its practices of marriage which it has held since basically the start of Christianity. The West, on the other hand, essentially decided to look even further back than the first Christians, all the way back to the first man and woman and derive the theology of the marriage ceremony from there. In the West it is the couple - not the deacon, or the priest - who communicate the sacrament of marriage. In Genesis 2 where Adam says to the Woman "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" he is in that moment taking her as his wife. This is the primordial marriage, before there were any priests on the earth, for Adam was acting as the priest, as each father was meant to be the priest of his own household.

On the other hand, in the East the Sacrament is, in a way, given to them by the priest, who is acting in the person of Christ in this moment. The marriage is taking place in s church, and is seeking the blessing of the Church, and so it is right that the couple receives the blessing from the representative of the bridegroom of the Church, the priest. And so, again, in the East the marriage is fully completed inside the church in front of all those gathered.

Another difference in the marriage ceremony of the East is that the most traditional forms have no vows exchanged. Why? Well, because this was the ancient form of marriage, and so they keep to this. Why does the West have vows then? Because, in part, the implied promises of the East are made explicit in the West - that you enter into this marriage in this way, you make the promise to live this way, and when you unite in flesh you renew these promises and live them out in the moment - these promises being that you give yourself freely, fully, faithfully, and fruitfully to the other. In the East it is understood that you accept these precepts, and the fact that you are physically there is taken as ascent to these promises. In the West, rather than leaving it to implication, they instead cause you to make these promises out loud before witnesses.

Crowns of martyrs

"Why are there crowns in the ceremony?"

To return to what I mentioned earlier, the crowns placed on the heads of the betrothed are martyr's crowns. There is so much beauty here, and I will do what I can to expound on the idea.

On the day of your marriage you are making the decision to choose to die for your spouse every day, in each moment, for their sanctification from now until forever. Marriage is a death of sorts, it is a death to your own wants and desires for the benefit and holiness of your spouse and your children. These crowns are a sign of this obligation and promise to your spouse for your spouse and to all those present.

Many people are unfamiliar with the idea of a red martyr and a white martyr. In short, a red martyr is what you would traditionally understand a martyr to be, a person who sheds their blood in witness to their faith, love, and devotion to of God. The world is so out to get this person that they are killed for their faith. Their blood being shed, which is the reason for it being called a red martyr, is the sign of their martyrdom, and is an offering to the Lord.

On the other hand, a white martyr is a person who is not killed for their faith, for their conduct, but instead suffers for it. This may be direct persecution, or it may be indirect sufferings which come about because you live the life which Christ called you to, but you persevere through it in joy and communicating love. This martyr is not killed for their Christian conduct, but they instead choose to die each day as a witness to the Lord and for those around them. Their life of suffering for loving the Lord is their martyrdom.

In marriage we are all called to become white martyrs. God-willing, none of us will be killed by our spouses, but rather we choose to each day die to ourselves. On the altar of marriage we offer ourselves as a sacrifice for the sanctification of our spouse for the glory of God. "The altar of the marriage bed" is something you may have heard of before, and this is exactly what I am speaking about. To be a martyr you must be a willing victim, a willing sacrifice, you cannot be forced into martyrdom. In marriage you do not have to live as a martyr - but you should. All the chances you have to become more holy due to the virtues and vices of your spouse, you should take that opportunity to become more loving, more Christlike, and sacrifice your own desires for the betterment of your other half.

As a man I will speak of this to men, but it also has its applications to the woman in a marriage - you should be taking up the role of priest in your home. In the Catholic priesthood when someone divulges their sins in Confession the priest gives a penance to the man or woman, then he takes upon himself a penance of equal or greater intensity on your behalf. If you are commanded to say five Hail Mary prayers, he prays a Rosary. If you are commanded to pray a Rosary, he is fasting the rest of that day for you. So should you men do for your wives. As your spouse works on her faults, you should be constantly praying for her healing and sanctification. And if she confesses a fault to you, as the presbyter of your home you have no right to hold what she has confessed against her, you are meant to forgive her. Then, as she works to make amends for her faults, receive well the reparations she is working towards making and take upon yourself spiritual penance to aide in her healing.

Something that many people fail to see is that penance after Confession is not a punishment for your sins. In all of the Catholic Church, but especially emphasized in the East, penance is understood as the balm placed on the wound of sin, it is the bandage placed over the gash, it is the recovery plan to get well from your injuries. The priest does not give you a penance to make you feel sorry for your sins - you should already be sorry when you are going in to relieving yourself of these burdens - the priest, rather, is helping you to grow past these sins, to move on from them. You can fail to do your penance, you can refuse to do it, and what I've read from canon lawyers it says that your Confession is not then nullified - of course it isn't, forgiveness is unconditional; but, to not do your penance is like cleaning an open wound but failing to put a bandage over it to cover it. Yes you have cleaned out the infection, but by leaving it exposed that open wound will become infected once again.

I say all of this regarding Confession and penance to make a point regarding marriage. It is good that spouses apologize to each other - not just saying "I'm sorry" since that is so often very hollow, but "I apologize" or "I was wrong" and asking "Will you forgive me?" - it is good that spouses do this, but this is not enough on its own. The spouse who has done the wrong should look for ways to make amends, to heal from the hurt they have caused. To apologize for breaking a window is one thing, but the window remains broken even after the apology, so you should pay to fix it. Apologize to your spouse, yes, but repair what is broken. The choice is yours, whether you coast along on an apology, or whether the relationship repairs and grows. When marriage becomes difficult I ask you to reflect, how many of these broken windows have you not made amends for? How many wounds have you caused that you never bandaged up? Perhaps there is an infection in your relationship left by you, from the times you said "I'm sorry" but did not make amends.

The spouse who receives the apology should not expect or demand reparations be made after fault occurs. No, only be grateful for what your spouse does do for you. To repeat this once again, penance is not punishment, it is a healing balm. You cannot force the offending spouse to apply the medicine to the wound, it is up to them to willingly do so. Perhaps there are times where it is both right and just to demand reparations from your spouse be made, but I will not provide advice on the situations or the frequency in which you may demand reparation. Instead, I advise you to be grateful for when your spouse does make amends with you.

"I will make of myself a great offering on the altar of the marriage bed, and a great high priest in the cathedral of our home." Don't you want to be able to say this and mean it? Christ, our great high priest, made himself a sacrifice for His bride, the Church. He offered His whole life up for the sanctification of His Church, and in the end He offered His death for Her as well. You should be able to say that you want this. Yes, you will fail, and yes, it will be a scary thing, but it is something that you should want and strive for. If giving up yourself out of love for your spouse does not sound like a good thing to you, then you should not get married.

In 1 Corinthians 6:19 we are told that our bodies are temples. Every temple needs a priest. Be the priest of the temple of your spouse, be the priest in the temple of your home. This is the calling of marriage, the calling made very explicit in the East. The willing sacrifice of yourself, as Christ did, for the sanctification of the other. Whether or not the other accepts the sacrifice on their behalf is between them and God, but the obligation is yours to be a sacrifice for them.

A kingdom of your home

"What is meant by a 'domestic kingdom'?"

An obvious association that you can draw with the crowns of the marriage ceremony is that of a king and queen, and that is a connection that's been made many times before. Along with "the domestic church" a marriage, a family has been called "a domestic kingdom". The monarchs of this kingdom are the husband and wife, and all those living under their dominion are their subjects.

This understanding is ancient, something that comes from long ago, it is not just a modern interpretation of what the crowns mean for the married couple. I will not spend this time explaining the history behind this concept since it is not relevant to the idea itself for this essay, but will instead rather speak about it in the theme of this essay. If you wish to learn more about the history of this idea then go back to read the Christians at the beginning of the Church, especially the favorite of the East, St. John Chrysostom.

With the crowns being bestowed upon you in the marital ceremony there is an expectation of royal conduct within your domain. Yes, these are lofty terms I am using, but it can essentially be summarized to mean that you should govern your home well. This goes beyond the common understanding of being nice to your spouse and raising good kids, because the standard that you are being called to live up to is not the conduct of those around you, it is to be like your King in Heaven. This is a perfect standard that you will not meet, yet it is what you should strive for. You will not become Christ, because you are imperfect, but you should always be striving to be like Him.

A monarch properly acting out their place of authority will create a safe, secure, prosperous, and desirable living situation within their realm, and so should the man and woman in the marriage. The king loves his queen, and the queen loves her king. The sign of a good kingdom is one where the king and queen enjoy time spent together and are often seen in each other's arms; a good kingdom is one where the subjects are prosperous and feel protected from foreign threats; a good kingdom is one where the Christian faith permeates through all things that those in the land do, where their lives are focused on the Lord, and their goal is sanctification. A good kingdom and a good home are the same thing.

Why should you have this mindset? Why does the Church want you to see your home as a domestic kingdom? Because, your marriage is much more than just you and your spouse looking after each other and your children and raising them up to be good people; this is a limited view of the Sacrament, whereas the Church says that your marriage is in fact the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth. You are an outpost of the Kingdom - but even that is not a drastic enough term to encapsulate the meaning of this idea. Think of an embassy, which is one country's representation in another country. The embassy, though, doesn't represent the country in the foreign land, it is an outpost, it is that country there. The embassy affords the rights of its home country to the citizens of the home country which enter onto its grounds. When the embassy is attacked, the country is attacked, the home country has been assaulted. And so, while your home may not be the entirety of the Kingdom of Heaven, it still is the Kingdom, and you and your spouse have been set to rule over this domain.

And so, your practices, your conduct in your home, your presence, your home itself, these should reflect the Kingdom of God. No, I do not mean that you must don crowns and purple garb, or that you should gild your furniture in rare metals, but rather that people who enter your space should know that they have entered a domain dedicated to God; they should know they have entered into God's Kingdom. Not, as you may think, because you have a crucifix on every inch of the walls, or because you act meek and mild as some of the saints, or because you dance and glorify God as David did, or because you preach as a preacher does, not any of these but rather they should know that you are representatives of the Lord because of how well you love God and share that love with others.

What does it mean to love God? How is it that you should be a representative of the Lord in your domain of the Kingdom? I protest to the hippie idea of "free love" where an individual tries to present a soft and unchallenging love unto others as the ideal, which so many today have taken to be what "love others" is meant to convey. No, we will look at the kings in our faith of the past. Look at David, a writer of most of the Psalms, glorifying and petitioning God in song, a man of war and cunning. Look at his son Solomon, a writer of great poetry, a man of peace, a builder of the first great Temple, a wise judge consulted for difficult decisions. Look at the greatest prophet, Moses, with his visions and prophecies, his pleading for mercy for the rebellious Hebrews, the great and just judge over Israel who was appealed to for rendering good judgement over disputes. The first among the Apostles, Simon Peter, who had passion and zeal for the Lord, calling up his brothers and the followers of Christ to something higher, rebuking those false friends of the Lord, and boldly proclaiming the good news before the Sanhedrin even when it could mean his death. And see Christ, our great King, who showed mercy for the lowly, brought the haughty down low, He flipped the tables of the sinners who thought themselves righteous, and of those who humbled themselves before Him were healed of not only their sins, but of their ailments as well.

What does it mean to have your home be the Kingdom of God? What does it mean to be a king and queen in your kingdom? You should reflect reflect the virtues of God, this is what it means. You may represent more the passions of the Lord as David and Peter did, or the wisdom of God as Moses and Solomon did, or perhaps you will express the goodness of God in another way. To reflect God, that is what it means to bring about His Kingdom in your home. How you do that, and in what way you represent Him, that is up to you, but the purpose you are meant to have is that you represent the Lord, in the way He made you to reflect His goodness upon the world.

I, along with many others, have gotten tired of hearing about this "soft Jesus" which has become very popular today. This is a leftover in our culture from the hippie revolution which asked for softness in all ways, free sex, no responsibilities, and a freedom from consequences. In order to reconcile with the difficulties of Christianity the people of this movement emphasized His forgiveness far and above any responsibility to have relationship with Him and obey what He asked of us. Reflect on His goodness, on His forgiveness, yes, but do not forget that the Lord asks more of us than just to "try to be good" in our lives. "They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them." so says the Lord (John 14:21).

What I wish to do is show you who our King is, and give you some revelation, so that you may know what is expected of you in the Kingdom. You will see the goodness of God still, but you will also see the warrior that He is. I intend to convey this with one story.

In the book of Numbers, starting in chapter 12, we see the Lord command Moses to send scouts into the land of Canaan in preparation for the Hebrews to go and take possession of the land. Over the next couple chapters you see a story transpire of the Hebrews not having faith in God to give what He promised them, and God say that none of those who rebelled against Him would see the promised land. You can read the passages from Numbers if you'd like to explore the story, but I would like to focus on Joshua son of Nun. Joshua, one of the twelve scouts sent into Canaan to scout the land, was one of two who trusted in God and advocated for the Israelites to go take possession of the land promised to them by the Lord. Because these two men trusted in the Lord when others did not, they were the only ones who came out of Egypt that allowed to see the promised land, while only the children of those rescued from slavery would cross into what God had promised.

Now that we have the background for this story, we turn to the book of Joshua, named after the man we've been speaking of. He, along with all of Israel, cross into the the promised land, and are about to war against Jericho. Once Joshua comes near to the city he looks up the hill he was climbing to get a good vantage of the city they were to conquer, and atop the hill he sees a man standing at the top, with a drawn sword in his hand, clad for battle. Then comes the famous line, where Joshua asks the man before him "Are you for us, or are you against us?" and the man responds "Neither; but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come."

This story very much deserves to be in the mind of all of us believers, and should be our response unto others - I'm on nobody's side but the Lord's. But you are wondering, "What does this have to do with this theme of being kings and queens for the Lord?" Look at the next few verses; after the man says he is the commander of the army of the Lord Joshua falls on his face and worships the man. In other passages you see people fall on their face in terror and worship, but when it is merely an angel sent as a messenger from God the angel will command them to cease their worship and only worship the Lord. This man, though, does not tell Joshua to stop his worship, but rather repeats what the Lord commanded Moses in the burning bush: "Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place where you stand is holy." This man accepts worship and gives the same command as the Lord God - and that is because He is our King, Christ the Lord. This is one of those instances in the Old Testament that scholars refer to as the appearance of the preincarnate Christ to His people, guiding us along until He comes in flesh to save the world.

Just as David went before the people of Israel in war, so does our King go before His people, us, when it is time to wage war. Though Christ is gentle, kind, and humble, He is also the King, and kings fight battles and stand next to the men in the conflict. He is not simply the gentle Jesus we are used to - He is that still - but He is also a warrior who is come to fight for us and with us on our behalf.

And now, what does this have to do with you and your kingdom in your home? Tell me, are we not called to emulate our Lord? Are we not called to be like Christ? I am not telling you to go out and wage war, seeking another crusade for the Holy Land, but rather to be a warrior. Be a good monarch in peacetime like Solomon, but also be a good monarch in time of conflict like David.

There is much to be said, but I will keep this generally focused on marriage since this is the theme of this essay. To begin to finish this section, we are not simply meant to be a contemplative home, or a productive home. Each home is its own church, its own monastery, its own kingdom, its own military. We are a military church, we are a domestic church, we are a domestic kingdom. We should, as men and women, reflect and emulate our King, when He is peaceful and when He is out to war. We should be fostering peace in our own homes, but sometimes there is a battle to fight in our own homes. There is absolutely a battle to be fought out there in the world, to rescue the souls of those claimed by the Enemy, and we need to fight for their souls. We should fight for their souls, and to defend and protect our own. All are called to do this, but you should ensure first that the castle that you return to each day is set in order, or else you will not be able to fight well in the battles out there. If your home is not secure, it will be susceptible to infiltration, and subversion, and your kingdom may fall.

And so, go love your wife, go love your husband, be a good steward of the Kingdom of God. Fortify your home with love, thanksgiving, and gratefulness. Strengthen each other with the weapons given to us by our King, and train yourself by them often. If you do not step up to rule in your kingdom, then someone else will. But then, recognize that you are not the true ruler, but the steward, and you are keeping watch and preserving this kingdom while waiting for the true King to return.

Theosis

"How is this different from sanctification?"

To start off this section I feel that it would be good to place the Eastern definition of theosis at the start. That is, to become like God. Similar to sanctification, and some would say is an aspect of sanctification, it is in the simplest sense the idea of pursuing what it means to be like God.

What is not meant is a Mormon (or Latter Day Saints) understanding of the idea, which to them means to become as God is - essentially, they will also become a god. No, when we say it we do not mean that godhood is something that we may ascend to, or a thing which we may be lifted up into, but that we are like God where we are pursuing Him and wishing to reflect Him in ourselves and how we exist as individuals, we become as God in that we reflect Him in whatever way we can.

Now, what does that have to do with marriage? In the East marriage is understood as a thing to help in theosis, it is an assister in making you holy, in making you like God. Why and how does marriage do this according to the East? I will explore and explain that more in a moment, but I want to present you more of what theosis is, and I want you to read this while keeping in mind that marriage is one method of theosis. This first paragraph is from the Ukrainian Catechism which explains the Eastern Christian idea of this process.

“Every human being that comes into the world is called to grow in likeness to God–to achieve divinization (also known as deification, the process of theosis) … This partaking in God’s nature constitutes human happiness. Likeness to God can be attained by us only by free choice and assent, and by cooperation with God’s grace.” (CUGCC 124)

Here are excerpts from a medieval work called Theoretikon, which speaks on it. This will give you a partially greater understanding of what theosis is.

What are ascent and deification? For the intellect, they are perfect knowledge of created things, and of Him who is above created things, so far as such knowledge is accessible to human nature. For the will, they are total and continuous striving towards primal goodness. And for the incensive power, they are energetic and effective impulsion towards the object of aspiration, persistent, relentless, and unarrested by any practical difficulties, pressing forward impetuously and undeviatingly. The soul's impulsion towards beauty should surpass its impulsion towards what is base to the same degree as intelligible beauty surpasses sensible beauty... It should be remarked, however, that an unillumined soul, since it has no help from God, can neither be genuinely purified, nor ascend to the divine light. What was said above refers to those who are baptized.

To put it more succinctly, theosis is to be so like God and to be so near Him that you become indistinguishable from Him. Of course we do not believe that you become absorbed into God as some heretics believe, but rather that you gaze into God so much that you start to look like Him. You do not lose your self-ness, your individuality remains, yet you become more like God.

Let's explore this idea of becoming like God, and speak about it through the lens of spouses spending time together. The science is still out on this, but there are studies which suggest that over time a couple which spends time together will, over many years, start to look more similar to each other. How is this so? Because the expressions you make with your face determine, often, how wrinkles form on your face, and therefore the crevices you gain on your face can become a reflection of your spouse's.

If you haven't studied mirroring you may find it very interesting - but of course, don't take it as gospel. The idea, which is generally proven true pretty frequently, is that you mirror the expressions, stance, energy, and movements of a person you're actively engaged with in conversation. They cross their arms, you cross your arms. You lean back, they lean back. So on and so forth.

Marriage, properly realized, will result in you becoming more like your spouse. If you like your spouse, and if your spouse likes you, the two of you will become more similar over time rather than more different. You become mirrors of each other, reflecting the likeness of your spouse back at them as you adopt parts of them into yourself.

Marriage, properly realized, has both of you pursuing God as best as you can. When Moses would go up on the mount and come down with his face glowing like how God glows, so should you be with your spouse. Your face should reflect them back upon themselves. If you are reflecting your spouse back to them well then you should be reflecting that love of God, you should be returning God's love to them. You should be both a mirror to your spouse, and a window which lets through the light of the love of God.

St. Athanasius wrote in the fifty-fourth chapter on his work called "On the Incarnation" a sentence which has, to a degree been very controversial. Though some may dislike it, when you understand what he says through the idea of theosis you will find it is a brilliant summary of the Gospel. Athanasius wrote: “God became man so that man might become god.” Once again, this is not the Mormon idea of becoming our own gods, but rather it is becoming inseparable from God. Become so close to God that when others see you, they see God. Now, reflect on this in the context of marriage.

In the next section I will speak more on the idea of a married couple "becoming one", but before that I wish to draw your attention to the idea of a couple acting with one mind. A couple that constantly seeks unity with each other and pursues each other will eventually find that they know before a question is asked what the response of their spouse will be. When you ask a husband a question directed at the mind of his wife, he should be able to answer as her, giving the response that she would because they are so united. They are inseparable, indistinguishable. As St. Athanasius writes that man will become God, so should a husband become his wife, and a wife become her husband. You should seek to become so lost in the goodness of your spouse that you become like them - and your spouse should do the same. It is not simply becoming one flesh, it is becoming one man, one woman, one person together.

Both spouses should allow the light of the love of God to shine through them, and both spouses should reflect that given light back to them in an ever-returning exchange of love and virtue. Theosis is the process of reflecting God better than you did yesterday, and marriage is an avenue for that. Marriage will purge you of your selfishness if you allow it to, just as Purgatory will. Marriage will call you to a higher state of virtue, as God always does. Marriage will give you the opportunity to be humble, to get humbled, to serve, to celebrate, to weep, to love, to become better.

So, what is theosis? It is to become like God is, as God is. Our God is not one person floating out in the void, He is three Persons in relationship; perfect relationship, always giving, constantly loving. The better we love our spouse the better we reflect the Trinity, and the better we reflect the Trinity then the better we will be at loving our Lord. This life is often described as preparation for Heaven, and as much as possible we should be doing that - which for us means reflecting the Trinity by loving our family well.

A spousal debt

One flesh, one soul

"What is the obligation spouses have to each other?"

This section is very applicable to both the Eastern and Western theological expressions of marriage, but I will take a semi-East perspective when speaking on this subject. Namely I will speak about "the economy of marriage". What exactly is this? The "economy" of a thing is often spoken about in the East, also called often said as economia (οἰκονομία, oikonomia) because of it being a Greek term. This is the idea of applying the spirit of the law over the letter of the law, or a relaxing of what the law says for the sake of charity. Think, for example, of baptism and how we as Catholics say that it is necessary for salvation. We see that it is a command in the New Testament (Acts 2:38-41), it is how you enter into the new covenant (Romans 6:3-4), it saves us (1 Peter 3:21), and so if you wish to be saved then you must be baptized according to Scripture and the Church. And yet, St. Dismas, the first saint, the good thief on the cross next to Christ, was never baptized, so how could he have been saved? For one, the maker of the law is above the law, He is not subject to the law which He makes for us, and so He may grant mercy where He chooses. Secondly, related to the idea of economy, the man had faith in Christ, and because our Lord could see his heart He saw that if Dismas had the opportunity to be baptized and become a disciple then he would have. Therefore, although he lacked the opportunity to be baptized as he was dying next to Christ, his desire was still there, and that conferred the saving graces of baptism upon him.

That is the introduction of economia - now what does it have to do with "a spousal debt" in marriage? Take 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, for example. Thomas Aquinas speaks about a "marital debt" between the spouses - and we will go into his thoughts in a moment - which is that both spouses have the right to the body of the other. Of course it goes beyond just the body, but we will get to that in a moment as well. Here is the passage from Scripture below.

3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

I would like to speak on the Eastern perspective, but first I feel it necessary to speak on the Western and Thomistic opinions around this passage. And, when I mention the Western opinions, I do not mean that these are the only ones, I just mean that those influenced by Thomism could be articulated in the way which I am about to present to you.

Now, Aquinas takes what I would call a more aggressive interpretation of the passage, and one that I can in all honesty appreciate. I will put his quote below in a moment, but in short this doctor of the Church takes the passage literally, and says that a man is not his own once he marries, and the same goes for a woman. It is the right of a spouse to demand of the other person what was promised to them in their vows, in their marriage. A gift given, and the gift being accepted, is what marriage is. In a sense, this is what St. Thomas is saying in the below quote.

It is written: "Defraud not one another, except by consent, for a time," etc. Therefore when one spouse asks the other must pay. I answer that, Since the wife has power of her husband's body, and "vice versa," with regard to the act of procreation, the one is bound to pay the debt to the other, at any season or hour, with due regard to the decorum required in such matters, for this must not be done at once openly.

As is stated in the quote, obviously when one person demands the right of marital union with their spouse the environment in which they are in can determine whether or not they engage in the act. Out in public is not a permissible place to engage in sexual unification, in front of others, in a sacred space, and so on. But, assuming appropriate circumstances for the act, is this not a beautiful idea? Your body is not your own in marriage, you give up control to your spouse. Women in their core understand this because to bear children in the womb they surrender what is normal for their bodies in order to care for the developing life within them. When a good man becomes a husband, a father, he spends his life working his body away for the benefit of those under his care, utilizing his body to provide a good life for his family. Your body is not your own, not anymore, because you have gifted yourself to your spouse.

But, of course, there are many who will dislike the sound of this. Some outright ignore the Scripture, perhaps saying that it is outdated and no longer applies to Christians, like parts of some of Paul's other writings. Some hate the idea that they are not in control of themselves, and dislike the idea of surrendering power to another person. This could be from a selfishness, or it could be from past wounds, it could be from distrust of others, or it could be a misunderstanding of the purpose of the passage as if it were saying that your body must be a slave to the desires of your spouse. All of these miss the meaning of the passage, which is this: that you hold nothing back in marriage, that you are no longer your own, and as your spouse has rights to demand things of you, so do you have rights to demand things of your spouse. It is not about control, it is about surrender. It is not about one spouse taking what they desire from the other, it is about you giving wholly of yourself at all times to your spouse as you promised on your wedding day.

But, people may still dislike the verses and Aquinas' interpretation of the passage. So, it must be wrestled with. For those who have trouble with the passage, I believe having a more Eastern perspective will help in having a proper, positive perspective on this spousal call. Namely - to return to the beginning of this section - an "economic" understanding of the Sacrament.

The ideal marriage is one where any time that sex is asked for, the response of the other member of the marriage is a resounding "yes" - and not only this, but both spouses are making this request of each other at similar frequencies, and with regularity. Put simply, ideally the two spouses should each be desiring, pursuing, and receiving each other in some way at all times. But, this is not just a physical uniting I am speaking of, it is not simply that alone. For marriage is not just two bodies coming together, it is also the bringing together of two souls. The Church teaches that the divinity and humanity of Christ come together in a thing which we call a hypostatic union - a unity of these two things coming together into one being. He is both God and man, two things which have, in some mysterious way, become united. This idea has been carried into the spousal union of matrimony, where some understand the Sacrament to not only be the bringing together of two bodies, but also of two souls. Humans are (in a sense different than Christ) in a form of hypostasis as well, a composite of both the material body and immaterial soul, and so when the man and woman come together in marriage it is not just their bodies becoming united, but their souls as well. See it articulated below by the 12th century Patriarch of Antioch, Theodore Balsamon:

So that they are no longer two, but one flesh, we believe and confess that the spouses are on account of the marriage, reckoned to be one humanity having more or less the same soul, which is perceived in two hypostases.

And Ephraim the Syrian, who says:

After Adam's rib had been taken out in the twinkling of an eye, God closed up the flesh in its place in the blink of an eyelsash. The bare bone took on the full appearance and all the beauty of a woman. God then brought her to Adam, who was both one and two. He was one in that he was Adam, and he was two because he had been created male and female.

And from Ephraim again:

Then Adam said, "Let the man leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife so that they might be joined and the two might become one" without division as they were from the beginning.

As well, there is this quote from Aphrahat:

Scripture adds, "They will become one flesh." It is true that some men make one flesh and soul with their wife, and their mind and thoughts are driven away from their father and mother, so those who never take a wife and stay alone may have a single spirit and mind with their father.

Then there is one of the great fathers of tradition in the Byzantine Churches, and the author of the Liturgy many Eastern Catholics use on Sundays, St. John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople. Instead of using the phrase "and the two will become one flesh" he says that “they become one man”. Hypostasis, a unity, not just of flesh, but also a melding of souls perhaps. Not in the literal sense of course where one soul inhabits two bodies, but in a poetic sense where these two people not only connect physically but have a welding of their souls in the Sacrament.

I speak on all of this for the express purpose of saying this: 1 Corinthians 7 speaks of a physical obligation that spouses have for each other, but Christians for a long time have understood that it is not just a physical obligation that the two have towards each other. Each spouse has a right to all of the other.

Take verse 5 again, which says "Do not deprive one another [of coming together as one flesh] except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again..." For those who have the understanding of the two being wedded not only becoming one flesh but one soul in the Sacrament, verse 5 is understood not as an allowance for abstinence but meant as a period of time where the non-physical parts of the spouses which were promised are then the focus of intimacy. Namely, the uniting of the soul, of the mind, of the heart is the intimacy you should be seeking at this time. In marriage you promised not only your bodies to each other, and so in this time where it is agreed between you two that becoming one flesh would would not be appropriate, you are then to engage in becoming one soul, one heart, one mind. This is not a period of time for abstinence from sex, but a time to reengage and emphasize the uniting of your two souls. It is a shift of focus away from one form of intimacy and back to another, which will constantly ebb and flow throughout your marriage. Neither spouse should feel deprived of physical or emotional intimacy in their marriage because there is essentially a schedule built into the sexual cycle which requires a shift in priority of intimacy.

Take Genesis 1:27 where it says "So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Together, as a couple, we are more in the image of God than when one spouse acts alone. In the "male and female he created them" we see that it is not a singular one that is made in the image of God, but both, together. Man reflects part of God, woman reflects part of God, and when we come together and properly live out a Christian life, we two more wholly reflect who our God is.

Fully entering in

"How do the promises of marriage apply after the ceremony?"

And now we return to the East - but actually, we never left. We've spoken on St. Thomas Aquinas' perspective on the "marital debt" which is a sort of maximalist view of unity of the spouses, calling on them to unite as often as at least one of them desires it. In the Eastern expression of Christianity there is a more wholistic view of marriage compared to Thomas I think, where the health of the relationship is part of the factor in understanding the 1 Corinthians passage. You should want to unite with your spouse, but if you don't want to then you need to address the reasons why. But even if you don't want to you still should, because marriage is not about what you want, but about what is good for your spouse. Your relationship should not be subject to the whims of your desires in the moment - whether it is because you are suddenly feeling aroused, or because suddenly you don't feel like connecting with your spouse through sex.

To enter into marriage you must do so freely and fully, with the promise of being faithful and the intention to be fruitful. When you make your vows, these are what you commit to your spouse. In order for a marriage to be valid, for it to be lawful, it must meet these criteria. Your promise in these vows is to each day live out these four f's for your other half. Each time you reunite as one flesh through sex you renew these promises of your marriage.

And so, even if you don't feel all of these in the act of sex, even if "the mood is not right", you should participate, because the other moments of living out your vows in your marriage are not - and should not be - subject to how you feel in each moment. Sex is not just one of the four f's, it is all of them. Each day you must live out your vows, regardless of how convenient or comfortable it feels in that moment. You do the dishes, you make the food, you clean the house, you make the bed, you paint the rooms, you get the groceries, you sharpen the knives, you fix what's broken, you kiss your spouse - each of these things you do because your vows demand them of you, because you gave ascent to this life. You do these things because it is true, it is right, it is just, and your spouse deserves all of you. All of you. Not just the parts that they like, or the parts that you like, or what is easy, or what is simple. All of you.

In the marital vows of the West the words are said "for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part". These are not simply the abstract "when times are really bad, and when they are really good, I am with you", here you are making the promise to live these out in each moment. The promise made in these vows is that you will love and respect your spouse in the moments when you feel rich and when you feel poor, when you fall to sickness and when you are of good health, for the good moments and the bad ones. You promised in these vows that when your spouse feels he or she is rich and in the moment they feel poor, sick and well, good and bad, you will love and honor your spouse regardless. Through your vows you make the promise to love them not only in the times of abundant wealth and in destitution, but also when it is decided that you two should eat in more often to save money. Your promise is to engage with your spouse not only when one or both of you are bedridden or when one or both of you are at your most healthy, but also when one of you feels like going for a walk outdoors. The vows do not limit your love to your spouse to when you are having a divorce-worthy dispute or when either of you are in ecstasy, but also when someone does not know how they feel and just needs someone to sit with them for a moment.

Marriage was not made to be easy. It was not made to be hard either. It was made to bring together two bodies, and two souls. The first man was made in Genesis, but "there was not found a helper fit for him" in all of the plants and the animals which God had created, and so God put him to sleep, took from his side a rib, and created for him a wife. The first man's reaction was "this at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh", he had finally found his match, his pairing, his partner. He was, in a sense, incomplete before now. This is because "So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." In the male and the female we are made in the image of God. The male reflects parts of God, the female reflects the other parts of God. Marriage wasn't made to be easy or hard, it was made that we might reflect God fully.

God did not make man a perfect reflection of Himself, or woman as a perfect reflection, because in order for us to be like God we also needed the opportunity to give and receive love, and to make life. In the family, in a husband and wife with children, are we more in the image of God.

Now to return to the economy of marriage. What is "right" is that spouses come together as one flesh as often as is asked by either of them. But, this is not a reasonable expectation, and so we consider the economia of marriage, what the spirit of the law is, what is good for the relationship and the individuals. Spouses should "unite" often, but not just through intercourse. There is an insurmountable debt between the two of you, the debt of you being two separate people when you promised to be one. The debt you owe is to unite in every way - physically, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, etc. - and do it as often as possible.

A theologoumenon

Explaining the minority Eastern position

"What is meant by 'eternal marriage' exactly?"

Something that you may hear on occasion from those in the East, though it is rare, is the term "eternal marriage". Some of you may have been invited to a Byzantine wedding, or perhaps you've read about the ceremony before now, and perhaps you've read the writings of some in the East on this idea. Simply put, it is the idea that marriage does not end in this life, and so whomever you are wedded to in this life you will remain wedded to in the next as well.

"Whoa, whoa, whoa!" you say. What exactly does this mean? In the West the idea is that earthly marriage is a precursor, a foretaste of the relationship with God that we will have in the future. It is often articulated that the sacraments are merely foretastes of our relationship with the Lord in Heaven, that these Sacraments will go away in this new life since we will no longer have a need for them. This is not universally the view in the East, and I will share with you one perspective which you will likely be unfamiliar with. This view diverges from the Latin understanding of what marriage is, and its lasting effects. I request your patience while this concept is unfolded. You may disagree with it, but hear first the propositions and the evidence behind the idea first, then levy your criticisms.

One of the views of marriage in Eastern Christianity is that the sacramental marriage between Christians in this life lasts into the next life, that it does not end with the death of one of the spouses. In this view the Sacraments won't exist in the afterlife as they do in this world now - but just as Christ still bore the wounds of the Crucifixion on His resurrected body so will the "marks" of the Sacraments exist on us even after we die. It is taught in the West that Baptism and priestly ordination leave an "indelible mark" on a person's soul, and to a degree some in the East believe this is also the case with the Sacrament of marriage.

"Heresy!" you cry, but I ask you to be patient for a moment longer. There is a spectrum of belief on lasting marriage for those of this theological persuasion, some which many of the West agree with. You are still free to object to the idea, but first wait to hear the explanations before throwing the idea away. For, this is not simply "I feel like this is true", it is also based in Scripture and traditions from our faith long ago.

Perhaps I should ease you into this topic, so I will give you a preview of things to come that I believe you will find palatable. In the East they may not all believe in the strictest form of eternal marriage as I will explain in these next paragraphs, but generally they believe that there will be a special relationship with your spouse and children in the next life, a relationship different from that which you will have with the saints and all the other saved. The next life will be perfect, but as mentioned already the marks on our bodies today will in some form remain on our resurrected bodies, and so the thinking goes that certain "marks" that we have from relationships with others in this world will also last. If our bodies will have the effect of lived life here on earth, why would our souls not also maintain the marks of those we loved and who loved us? You may not agree with this conclusion, but you would be hard-pressed to say this is an unreasonable thought to have.

And a few more things, though I know this introduction is getting long - and be prepared, this is going to be a long section. The Western view of marriage, the articulation of the marriage bond being completely, fully severed after death and that we will have the same relationship with a stranger as we would our spouse in the afterlife - this is not dogma. You are not bound by the Church to believe this. Of course you may never oppose the Church in Her teachings, but where She does not declare truth there is allowance for the variety of opinions. And so, you may not like this different perspective on the bond of marriage, but unless you can point to something declared by the Church or clear in Scripture which refutes this different understanding - and I know you're looking at the Matthew passage right now, we'll get to that one - then you must allow for the idea despite your discomfort.

Before going further, I want to preface a few things. What I'm about to express is not "the perspective of the East" it is "a perspective held by some in the East". As stated already, this more "expansive form" of understanding of eternal marriage is not how all understand it. Nevertheless, since it is not a fringe opinion held by only a few of those in the East, I therefore believe it worthy to be spoken on. And, it is a theological opinion that has merit, which I will lay out for you in a moment, and so even if you do not agree with it - which you are free to do - it will be a good thing for you to be aware of.

In the Eastern Christian tradition "eternal marriage" is a theologoumenon, which is a theological statement of individual opinion and not doctrine. It is not that you must adhere to the idea of eternal marriage, but you may if you are convinced by the arguments for it. A theologoumenon is something that has not been made doctrine, but it is something that does not oppose the doctrines of the Church and therefore can be held as an opinion by the faithful.

Some will say that this idea of eternal marriage is a novel theology because of the writings of Fr. John Meyendorf (an Eastern Orthodox priest) and dismiss it since his works are recent. It is true that his writings are recent in Christian thought, but what he has essentially done is conglomerate and articulate strains of thought that have been present in the East for a very long time. He is not the inventor of this line of thinking, he is an assembler of the ideas. Another example is Archbishop Raya, a leader in the Melkite Catholic Church, a member of the Catholic Church, and he maintains and teaches beliefs regarding eternal marriage.

In the Eastern marital ceremony the words "'til death do us part" do not exist. There is no "parting" from each other in the East - but if these words did have a place in the Eastern ceremony then it would simply mean "until we are away from each other because of death" rather than "until death severs our union". In this understanding of marriage, death separates spouses in the way that distance separates spouses - it is something that will not always be so, and eventually there will be a day that the two are together once again.

"BUT WAIT! What about Matthew 22:30? Scripture directly contradicts this!" I will speak on that passage in the very next section, so please bear with me a moment longer until we get to that passage. I'm sure for those well-read in Scripture this passage has been in your head this entire time as you have been reading up to now. When it comes to the Western perspective then yes, the Eastern perspective does contradict the passage, but just because it's a different perspective does not make it wrong. This is not a copout to say "we think differently about the passage, therefore we are right", but as I said, we are going to speak on this in the next section.

"Where are you getting this idea of eternal marriage from?" you ask. From the traditions in the East of course, but I know I need to cite my sources. This is a theological opinion that has been held by some for a long time, and I mentioned the names of two men earlier who hold to some version of the idea of eternal marriage, but this is an opinion maintained by some for a very long time. I believe it will be helpful to bring up an example from today as evidence for this theology. Here is the official website for the Melkite Catholic Eparchy of Newton. I will share the image below this text for you to see specifically which part I'm referencing in regards to eternal marriage, but the moment in question in the ceremony that often starts people down the path of asking about eternal marriage is when the crowns are removed from the heads of the newlyweds, with the prayers that take place during this moment. A prayer is often said to God, but perhaps not in every church, to petition that their crowns and their marriage be preserved forever in the Kingdom. See below.

You can find this prayer in the Priest's books in different Eastern Catholic Churches, this is not exclusive to just the Melkites. The question is then, what is meant by this prayer? Well, it's simple, it means what it says, that we ask that the marriage last past the death of its members and remain in the afterlife. Here is a quote from Fr. Economos (a Byzantine priest) on the matter.

The Liturgy says what it means and means what it says. At the prayer for the Removal of the Crowns on the Eighth Day (itself suggesting eternity) we hear the priest pray that these crowns be brought into the heavenly kingdom. In my nearly fifty years of priesthood I have always drawn the attention of the couple to this rich eschatological dimension of our conjugal theology.

As was touched on earlier, and will be spoken on once again later, there is seemingly this implication of a change in the souls of the couple when they are wedded, as if there were an indelible mark placed on them. In the West there is the belief that ordination to the priesthood places an indelible mark on the man, in both the East and West we believe baptism places an indelible mark on the person, and in the way that there is an unseen change in the soul in these other circumstances something similar, or perhaps the same, is believed to take place during the wedding ceremony.

Matthew 22:30

"How does 'eternal marriage' not contradict what Christ said to the Sadducees?"

Now we finally get to it. I know for you reading what has been written so far have been waiting for this to be addressed. You wonder how it could be that some in the East believe in marriage lasting after death when we look at the words of our Savior and He seems to refute this notion. This is really the biggest passage to contend with to propose the idea of eternal marriage, and we must address it now. There are other passages in Scripture that I could also speak on, but I believe this to be the greatest one and so will settle with having this be the main contender in this discussion, since most people view this passage in that light. There is only one verse that really needs to be spoken on, but rather than isolate it we will see the whole context of the passage. Bolded will be the verse to be addressed the most.

23 The same day some Sadducees came to him, saying there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question, saying, 24 ‘Teacher, Moses said, “If a man dies childless, his brother shall marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.” 25 Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died childless, leaving the widow to his brother. 26 The second did the same, so also the third, down to the seventh. 27 Last of all, the woman herself died. 28 In the resurrection, then, whose wife of the seven will she be? For all of them had married her.’ 29 Jesus answered them, ‘You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, 32 “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? He is God not of the dead, but of the living.’ 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astounded at his teaching.

So, what is the context of this passage? Briefly summarizing it, the Sadducees deny the resurrection after death, and so this is what they come to challenge Christ on, creating a trap for Him as the Pharisees have done in the past. They propose that a woman is married to seven men in her life, each dying before being able to give her a child, and they ask whose wife she would be in the resurrection. Given that they did not believe in the resurrection they wanted to lay the best trap for Christ as they could, and I will speak on exactly how this is a trap in a moment. But first, we will go Greek.

Let's look at some of these lines individually. The most "troublesome" line is the "they neither marry nor are given in marriage" spoken by Christ. In our modern languages we often miss the fact that these words for marriage in Greek are both verbs, meaning that marriages will not take place in the resurrection. This does not mean that the marriage held here on earth ends, simply that no new marriages will occur in Heaven.

Did what I just put forth disprove all objections surrounding this passage to eternal marriage? Of course not, because this was not enough to convince me at least, so for those scholars of Scripture this will not be enough either. But, what it does do is show that things are not so open-and-shut regarding this conversation. Some translations into English have the passage say "they will neither be married nor given in marriage" which says approximately the same thing in English but is firmer in the anti-eternal marriage position, or you might say the pro-temporary marriage position (I haven't yet found a more positive label to give those who do not believe in eternal marriage, I apologize for that). And yet, though the translation to English says "they will not be married" the Greek, if you can believe it, still says the same thing as before. In Greek it reads, essentially, as "they will neither go and get married, nor will they go and get married" which seems to be the masculine and feminine aspects of becoming married - the man seeking a woman out, and the woman being given in marriage by her father respectively. The passage in its original text says nothing about whether a person who has been married here on earth will or will not maintain that marriage in Heaven. There is nothing in the passage which says that marriages will be void in death, or in the resurrection.

"But are like angels in Heaven" - this part of the passage bolsters the position of those opposed to the idea of eternal marriage, or at least it seems to. We will not marry in Heaven because we are like the angels in Heaven - we lack bodies in Heaven, as the angels lack bodies because they are pure spirit. But, we will not remain this way, for there is a resurrection of the body (1 Cor. 15:35-58, Rom. 8:22-24, Phi. 3:20-21, and more) and so while our bodies remain here in the dirt of the earth we will be like the angels in Heaven - spirits. Once the final resurrection comes though, then we will have our bodies back once more, for that is how we were meant to be from the start.

A form of pure spirit is not the natural state of man. We see after Christ rose from the dead that He had His body, because it is proper for the soul and body to be united. When God made Adam and Woman in Eden the two were made of both flesh and spirit, and so it is right that we once again, after the resurrection at the end of all things, have our bodies reunited with our spirits again. For many of us that will not be until the final judgement and the New Earth comes about (Isaiah 65:17, Isaiah 66:22, Matthew 24:35, 2 Peter 3:7, 2 Peter 3:10-13, Revelation 21:1), but it is something that will come about eventually. We will be like angels in Heaven, for angels are disembodied spirits - unbodied spirits, and that is how we will be until we receive our bodies once again. Angels cannot marry, and neither will we marry in Heaven. Angels cannot reproduce, and neither can we in Heaven.

To end my rambling before it goes much further, I wish to wrap up my point about being "like angels in Heaven". Do the points I have made banish all objections to eternal marriage? No, obviously not. But, I am trying to show you that the idea is not so easily dismissed. Some understandings of what Christ is speaking on in here is an intermediary point in salvation history, for we will not always be like the angels in Heaven since we will one day have our bodies returned, and so people reading the passage interpret the previous statement from Christ as one also of an intermediary point in existence, one that is impermanent. We will be like angels in Heaven, for a time. We will not be able to marry in Heaven, for a time, until the new creation comes - so goes the understanding.

"But," you say, and you are about to make a great point against what I've put forth, "this still does not address what the Sadducees brought up. Who would the hypothetical woman be married to in Heaven if eternal marriage is true?" This, to me, is the strongest argument against eternal marriage, as with this question it makes all previous points look like it was skirting around the underlying question asked by the Sadducees. I don't believe this was the actual underlying question, and I will explain why in a moment, but yet the question remains unanswered. Here below is a quote from Theophylact of Orchid in his commentary on Matthew 22. Here he speaks on what Levitical marriage was like in the Old Testament and, if the marriage were covenantal as the Christian marriages are today, answers succinctly the question at hand who would be her husband. And of course, we will dive into what "Levitical marriage" was in the Old Testament in the next section, so bear with me until that is explained.

They speak of seven brothers so as to ridicule the mystery of the resurrection even more. "Whose wife shall she be?" they ask. One could answer, "O foul Sadducees, she shall be the wife of him who first married her, if we concede that there is marriage in the resurrection; for the others are surrogates and not true and lawful husbands" (Deut. 25:5-6).

According to Old Covenant thinking, the first husband is the "true" husband. There were laws in the Pentateuch which were to help in the growing of the nation and creation of families. As you see in the passage referenced in the quote, the purpose for the old kind of marriage was to maintain the lineage of the family, and the obligation of the brother of a deceased man to take up the widow as his wife was so that the first husband's name and lineage did not disappear from the earth. In the Old Covenant if a man dies without giving his wife any children the next male kin must marry the widow and give her children, and the first child will be child of the deceased husband, with any more children being born after this seen as his own offspring. This is no longer something we do with marriage today, and the growing of a nation and maintaining of a lineage is no longer the priority in marriage. While it used to be that the purpose of wedding another was to create and raise up children, today it is for much more than that. In the East a marriage is for the theosis of each member, which I spoke on earlier.

There are a few more objections in regards to the Matthew passage that should be brought up before explaining how Old Covenant and New Covenant marriage is different and why that matters for the discussion. For one, I have heard "but it literally says you won't be married in Heaven" many times in my research on this topic, and as I have already shown that is not what the passage says. But, if you were to take this same approach to reading to when Christ teaches us how to pray in Matthew 6:9-13 with the Our Father, you will see how problematic this approach is. "Our Father in Heaven" - Christ is the Son of God, and He is saying "our Father", so are we also the Son of God, are we going to be equal to Christ in Heaven? "Forgive us our sins" - Christ sinned? "Lead us not into temptation" - does God try to tempt us with sin, does He try to make us fail?

"Oh, no, that's taking it too far. Christ was obviously giving the Apostles the words that they should use, we shouldn't misunderstand it so much." Truly? Why was it plural language then? Christ could have said "my Father" and His followers would have known from this that God is their Father. Or, if He was telling the Disciples how they should pray and He instead said "your Father" it could have denoted Christ's unique relationship with the Father. But instead, He used plural language.

You see how the words can be twisted? This is why you cannot simply trust to the on-the-face reading of a passage necessarily, especially when you are reading something other than the original text and are dealing with a translation. Obviously we know that the relationship between the Son and the Father are different than our relationship with the Father. We know that in the plural use of the passage that "forgive us our sins" does not mean that Christ sinned, just as Romans 3:23 says "all have sinned" does not apply to Jesus or Mary. But, if you choose to read Matthew 22 in this way, what is to stop someone else from reading Matthew 6 this way?

If you read commentary from St. John Chrysostom (specifically look under the Matthew 22:15 heading in the link) on the Matthew passage we have been speaking of you'll find that he believes - and he's not alone in this - that the Sadducees were attempting to be deceitful in this question, and had no interest in the answer to the question. This is not a surprise, because the Pharisees frequently did the same thing to Christ. It goes, therefore, that Christ did not give them a full answer, since these men were not asking a true question.

I have heard from people that this is not a good explanation of Matthew 22:30, and feels like a way to avoid addressing what seems to be a difficult theological question. We must address the questions put forth by Christ's response, yes, but that does not mean this is a bad explanation of what Christ did. For example, take Mark 12 where Christ is asked whether they should pay taxes, and He says "give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's". The Pharisees were looking for an argument from their law, but He gave them a different answer than what they were expecting.

Not convinced yet? There is a better example of Christ not playing their games and throwing away their question. John 8:1-11, the woman caught in adultery. "This woman has sinned, and in the law we are commanded to stone such women." He ignored them. They kept questioning Him, pushing Him to give a judgement, finally saying "You without sin cast the first stone". Then they all left, starting with the eldest on down to the youngest. Does the Lord respond to their questions and break down why it's wrong? No. Instead, He gives them something that they cannot respond to, something they cannot answer, a thing they cannot move past, rather than explaining in detail why the woman should not be stoned.

Could this not also be the case in Matthew 22:30? Could it be, perhaps, that what He said was not a resolute declaration of precisely how marriage does or does not exist in the next life? The Greek records of the text show the words for "married" and "marriage" are verbs. "They will be like angels in Heaven" - we will be as spirits, not marrying or getting married - but eventually we will get our bodies back. Perhaps this is not the fullness of what marriage will or will not be like in the new life, perhaps as some Church Fathers believe, Christ only gave a partial answer to those who were not truly curious in the asking of their question.

Now some final points to finish off this section and move onto the next one. You may not have realized this, so I will point this out now. The fact that the Sadducees asked about whose wife the woman with the seven husbands would be shows that conversation about marriage in the next life was taking place at that period of history. This is not something we are inventing today, some people had the idea back then that marriage could last past death.

Our Lord says specifically “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven”. In this time before the Second Coming, all of the souls of the saved will be awaiting the new creation promised at the end of time. There is the first resurrection, and the second resurrection taught by the Church and found in Scripture. Exactly what each of these are, we do not know definitively, but one theory is that the first resurrection is when those who die are raised up, and the second resurrection is when we receive our bodies back in a perfected form. Another idea is that baptism is the first resurrection and our spirits going to Heaven is the second resurrection. I have personally favored the first idea that the second resurrection is when we receive our perfected bodies.

What is the purpose of me bringing in the first and second resurrection into this topic? To point out that what exactly was meant in Scripture by these terms we do not know, and what life will look like at the end of time we do not know. If we do not know of these things, then be careful of speaking on them with undue confidence. And so I say the same about Matthew 22:30, the passage is not so clear, and for all of the history of the Church has been a debate, so be careful when speaking confidently on its interpretation.

Further examples of this theologoumenon

"That's an interesting thought, but I'm not convinced. Are there other places and people you can point to as evidence for this idea of marriage?"

Marriage is not just for a body, but also for souls. When a man is wed he stands before those gathered and proclaims "I take you as my wife", and the woman declares "I take you as my husband". Notice, they do not take the body of the other - that would be crude, animal, because we are more than just a body. In marriage you take the other, the whole of the other, and you do not just wed their physical form but also the spirit that is united with it. The body is a part, the spirit is a part, the body-spirit composite is the whole, and you do not wed just a part of the person.

Perhaps you are unconvinced of marriage lasting after death, and that is fine, this article is not meant to convince you but to enlighten you to the ideas of eternal marriage. But, to continue with what was said in the previous paragraph, recall in Western ceremonies the phrase "'til death do us part". Our bodies die, but our souls do not. Perhaps you do not believe in the fullness of marriage in the new creation, but we do agree that marriage is not just "I take your body in marriage", yes? The soul does not die - and so perhaps you believe marriage may not exist because there is no body at this moment of time - but, can you at least see where some people get the idea that spouses will have some kind of unique relationship with each other in the new creation? If I wed all of a person, can you see where I might get the idea that I still have a special relationship with them in the next life? I am not telling you that you must hold to this idea, but you must at least see where those with this thinking are coming from.

To some degree most Christians believe that our earthly life extends into the Kingdom of Heaven. Some believe the more Christ-like you are in your life, the more you live out the virtues put forth by God, the more of a reward you will have in Heaven. What form that takes, we do not know. Some believe that there is to a greater or lesser degree a continuation of marriage in the afterlife, which we see through the practices or teachings of some of our great examples in the Church from long ago. Take the below excerpt of a writing by St. John Chrysostom, called The Letter to a Young Widow. Chrysostom argues for the woman to remain single now because her husband is not dead, but with the Lord in Heaven.

But if you wish to behold [your husband] face to face (for this I know is what you specially long for) keep thy bed in his honour sacred from the touch of any other man, and do thy best to manifest a life like his, and then assuredly thou shalt depart one day to join the same company with him, not to dwell with him for five years as thou didst here, nor for 20, or 100, nor for a thousand or twice that number but for infinite and endless ages. For it is not any physical relation, but a correspondence in the way of living which qualifies for the inheritance of those regions of rest… Wherefore desisting from mourning and lamentation do thou hold on to the same way of life as his, yea even let it be more exact, that having speedily attained an equal standard of virtue with him, you may inhabit the same abode and be united to him again through the everlasting ages, not in this union of marriage but another far better. For this is only a bodily kind of intercourse, but then there will be a union of soul with soul more perfect, and of a far more delightful and far nobler kind.

To briefly summarize what St. John Chrysostom said in more current language, keep saving yourself for your husband, because your husband is waiting for you in Heaven. One part that feels like whiplash at first is where he says she will not be united with him in marriage - which feels like an anti-eternal marriage perspective - but then he says that she will have her soul united with his soul in a way that is closer than intercourse could ever bring them in this life. He says for the woman to be faithful to her husband, because he is waiting to be united with her again. John speaking of something greater than marriage does not mean that marriage is necessarily left behind, it could mean that or it could mean that this is an elevated form of relationship between the spouses and marriage is too limiting of a word to describe it.

There are other examples of the idea of remaining faithful to your spouse even after death long ago in Christianity. Take St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, also known as Epiphanius of Salamis, who lived in the fourth century. He says that:

He who cannot keep continence after the death of his first wife, or for a valid motive such as fornication, adultery or another misdeed, if he takes a wife, or if the wife (in similar circumstances) takes another husband, the Divine Logos does not condemn them or exclude them from the Church.

This is just another example of the belief that you are meant to be faithful to your spouse even when death has separated you from them. The idea is that your first marriage is your truest marriage comes from Christians long ago, and is either influenced by or predated and therefore influenced Paul's writings on widows and how they should remain unmarried (1 Corinthians 7:8).

This idea to a degree persists in parts of the East. You'll find the idea that the first marriage of a person is the one which is, in a sense, "most sacramental" compared to any subsequent marriages after the passing of a spouse. There is also the tradition held by some bishops that men only married once may be ordained to the priesthood, which will be covered in just a few paragraphs.

Take the story of St. Makrina the Younger, a sister to Sts. Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Peter of Sebaste, as an example. For what little we know about this woman from the writings of her brother, it seemed as if she used her fiance's death as a reason to not marry again - for in ancient Christianity you were wedded at your betrothal, and you may or may not engage in the marital act during this time and wait to live together until a year after your betrothal took place. Some have taken this to suggest that she believed that marriage did not end in death, or that Christians of the region and time agreed with this, or that those Christians thought this was acceptable as an idea since she stopped getting marriage proposals after her engagement and did not receive any more proposals after the fiance's death.

Can you read the writings regarding St. Makrina the Younger and come to a conclusion different than what I spoke of in the previous paragraph? Of course. But, this is an understanding that some have taken in the past, and this is why I bring it up. I once again make the point that this is not an idea that was come up with yesterday, there are bread crumbs of a path showing this idea in earlier times in our faith.

Another way to think about a lasting marriage is in the sense of continuity and discontinuity. Discontinuity in this context would be that our physical forms will not be the same in the next life as they are now - why? Because Christ walked into a room where all doors were shut and locked, He was able to appear anywhere He wanted to with His resurrected body. So, will we be as we are now in the next life? No. We will be different, we will be changed. What is now, will not necessarily be so in the next life.

But, there is also continuity. Christ maintained the wounds from the crucifixion on His resurrected body. This body which died was the same one that returned to life. He also ate food (Luke 24:30, 42-43) so it would follow that we will also do so with our renewed bodies. And so, perhaps there will be a full continuity of marriage in some form, or perhaps it will only be partial. Perhaps in the new earth we will continue to make children, perhaps not. But, according to the belief of some ancient Christians, marriage in a full or partial form continues in the new creation.

St. Epiphanius of Cyprus said men who become priests should have only been married once. For deacons this was also his standard, as was the role of deaconesses (though there is a similar name, the roles of these women was very different than that of the deacons). Those reading this are likely already aware of this, but in the traditions which allow married men to become a priest, if the wife of the man passes away he is not permitted to marry again; this is also the case for deacons in the Church.

Why is this so? Rules, regulations, codes of conduct, and so on - but there are underlying reasons behind this, as there should be. Some explain it simply as exemplifying the ideal. It used to be common (at the very least in some regions of Christianity) that you would only ordain a man to the priesthood who was a virgin or married only once because this was the ideal. And a priest who loses his wife, he cannot remarry because he is supposed to represent a standard - the standard of one man being married to one woman. Although laymen may be allowed to marry again, what was considered "most proper" was that you are married but once, and it is this standard priests are held to.

Whether or not you agree with this is up to you, but some then understand this as not just an ideal, but a reality in Heaven which we are respecting. If marriage is a solely earthly concept, what is wrong with marrying again after your spouse is deceased? Why should those wishing to enter into religious orders be held to a standard such as this if it is merely a earthly bond? As mentioned, this is generally a thing in parts of the East, it is not universal throughout Christianity, so I know this will not impact everyone in the same way. But, as the thinking goes, and as I've shown to you in previous parts of this essay, it is believed that the coming together of two souls and bodies has lasting effects, and there may be a bond that lasts beyond death.

And now a quick point, which on its own obviously won't prove the idea of marriage lasting after death, but I wish to make you think. Is Christ still wedded to His Church? He died, He rose, and He is in Heaven now. Yes it is metaphorical, but is it not also a spiritual reality? The marriage which is the unity of our Lord and His people is an elevated form from the marriages we get to experience on the earth. But, our marriages here in some way reflect the Heavenly relationship of the Lord with His people - what is the limit of how we reflect this Heavenly reality?

A new marriage

Old and new matrimony

"You keep saying New Covenant versus Old Covenant marriage. What is the difference? What does this have to do with eternal marriage?"

Rather than go on a winding journey as if this were a book and I had all the pages in the world to build up suspense and add context for this portion of the conversation, I will jump into this section rather quickly - and by this I do not mean it will be short. According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, marriages which preceded the New Covenant established by Christ were non-sacramental unions, while those marriages within the Church are sacramental (you can read more on this at Catholic Answers). How is this relevant to the conversation around Matthew 22:30? "In the resurrection, then, whose wife of the seven will she be?" The men are asking about Levitical marriage - pre-sacramental, or you might call it "natural marriage" - they were not speaking about the elevated form of marriage that would come about with the Church since they did not know of it yet. "Oh, I see, the old Jewish idea of marriage was different from ours." Yes, correct. The old form of marriage did not have the divine element that marriages within the Church today do.

One argument by those advocating for eternal marriage is the framing of the question by the Sadducees. I do not give this argument merit in that the eternal marriage idea is proven or even bolstered here, but I buy the underlying implication that the Sadducees were acting shrewdly and dishonestly when speaking with Christ. As the argument goes, there's a reason why the Sadducees asked Christ about a woman who had seven husbands rather than a man who had seven wives. The men were laying a trap before Christ, because with their understanding of marriage as non-sacramental union meant for sex and the bringing about of offspring, and therefore sex, in their eyes, must be present in the resurrection if marriage is in the resurrection. Now, the reason why this was a trap is because they wanted Christ to say "yes, there will be marriage in the resurrection" which in their eyes would mean that the woman would be married to seven men and she would be having intercourse with each of these men. This was an especially scandalous idea in that age, to say a woman would have multiple husbands, or that it would be permissible for a woman to have relations with many men. On the other hand, it would not be scandalous for a man to have many wives, since we see that being the case with some of the Hebrew patriarchs - thus the reason why the Sadducees asked about a woman with several husbands.

Another thing to add to this, polygamy happened in the Old Testament, but it was not something that God intended from the start. And so, if it is not right that there would be polygamy on earth, it is not right that there will be any of it in Heaven. There is meant to be marriage on earth, and it does not necessarily follow that there will be marriage in Heaven - but, in this instance where the Sadducees were trying to argue in regards to polygamy Christ redirects them, shows them that polygamy is not what God intended from the start.

Now, how is this used as an argument for eternal marriage? Mainly, that Christ was telling the Sadducees that there would not be their kind of marriage in Heaven, which is one where sex and the creation of children is the purpose of the union. In Heaven we will be "like angels" and not have bodies, and so we will not have sex and make children.

Let me propose something else in the "new marriage" and think it over for a minute. Take Matthew 18:18 which says "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven", and there are a few ways that this has been interpreted to mean, but is always understood to mean that God's Church present in both Heaven and earth are connected, and that what is true of the Church in Heaven is true of the Church on earth. "What God has joined together, let no man separate" (Matthew 19:6) is something that I want to loop into the conversation, the passage speaking on marriage and divorce. If God has joined a man and woman together in marriage, and what is bound on earth is bound in Heaven, could it be that this couple is joined by God both now on earth and also in Heaven?

Perhaps marriage does end with death, perhaps it does not. But what about 1 Corinthians 15:55? Where O death is your victory? Perhaps death does not even have "victory" over marriage, and it continues to last. Or, perhaps death does sever the marital connection. I suppose we shall all find out one day.

Marriage in the new life

"What in this life will be had in the new life?"

Those saying that there will be no marriage in the next life have, in my eyes, been on shaky ground for a long time. If you take the verse on which we've spent so much time - "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven." - and use this as your basis against marriage in the next life things will easily fall flat. Why? Because there are other verses that would call your presupposition into question or contradict it altogether.

Take for example Genesis 1:28 where God commands Adam and his wife to "be fruitful and multiply". In context, this is in a perfect place, without sin, without corruption - this is humanity perfected, and they have been commanded by God to come together and create offspring, make families. In God's perfect place He made a wife for Adam, and He told them to have children. They were, according to the understanding of the ancient Hebrews and the Church Fathers, married in a primordial way. In the perfect place, with perfect people, they were embodied, they were married, and they were told to make children.

"But we'll be in Heaven, not Eden, so the rules will be different." According to Scripture this is not the case. As I already covered earlier, there will be a "new Heaven and a new earth" at the end of the age - so yes, we will be in Heaven but only for a time, until we are in the new Eden. Man was not made for the purely spiritual place of Heaven, he was made to walk with God in a perfect earth, and that is what we will return to.

There is very little we know about the new creation at the end of time, and we know so little of what we will be like as new creations, and so we do not know what our relationships will be like with others in this new life. Now, I do not think it unreasonable to make the assumption that the new world which is perfect will be similar if not the same as the old perfection made for our first parents. And so, I do not find it unreasonable to assume that we will also be commanded to "be fruitful and multiply" in this new world. If you are opposed to this idea, that in the new earth we will no longer "be fruitful and multiply", the onus is on you to show why we will not have the same privileges and duties as our first parents in the perfect place. I am not saying you cannot put forth a good argument for this, but it will not be so easy to do. I am not telling you that those who say there will be no families, no marriages, no "multiplying" in the new creation are wrong - what I am saying is that I, and others, will not simply accept your assumption that this new life will be the way you propose. Instead, I assume perfection will be the same or similar to the perfection we've already seen in Eden.

To those who forget that we will have our perfected bodies in the new earth it is perfectly reasonable to think there is no marriage in Heaven because we have no bodies to promise to each other. If we have no bodies, we cannot fulfil the command to be fruitful and multiply, and though this is not the whole of it, that is the purpose of marriage. If we have no bodies, we cannot marry. If we are just spirit in the next life, then there is no marriage.

But, we will one day have our bodies again. What then? Will marriage be allowed in this new life? According to the current normative Western view, no it will not be necessary because marriage is a foretaste of the relationship with God - this thing you enjoy with your spouse is just the appetizer to an eternal meal you enjoy with God. In the Eastern view marriage is meant for theosis - marriage is meant to draw you closer to God and make you more like Him. In the East is is not a foretaste, it's a way to draw you and your spouse nearer to the Lord. Will you need your spouse to draw nearer to the Lord in the next life? No, but that does not mean that you will no longer have your spouse after this.

Think about the Old Testament understanding of marriage, and how the Sadducees speak about the woman with seven husbands. The men speak of her as property rather than out of love, and Christ's response at the very least shows that nobody "belongs" to anyone in the next life, nobody is property to be given or taken.

Closing thoughts

If you have made it to the end of this document I thank you, that was quite a read, and it took months of reading to assemble all the things you've now consumed. There was a lot of work put into this, requiring a lot of reading and research, studying of Scripture, and searching out the opinions of Church Fathers. Part of why I did this was because I thought it would be a fun project to work on, then it went from being a project to full-blown research for me. It evolved from an interesting read to studying theology and philosophy, challenging myself to not look at things from a preconceived lens, and challenging myself to avoid reading things in a way that appeals to me rather than what most makes sense. And here we are now - perhaps your questions have been addressed, perhaps not, but I now have the answers which I was looking for.

And now we come to it, the closing of this research. There are definitely many things I've learned in my time of research, and my perspective on marriage has experienced a tangible shift. I won't speak on everything which I've written here, but I do feel it necessary to speak on one specific thing. You, dear reader, are likely wondering about my thoughts on the idea of eternal marriage. After all of my reading I wish to confess that I do not adhere to it. Is this surprising to you? I do all this research, I write these many paragraphs, but have not been wholly convinced of it - what do you make of that?

I do not mean that I reject the idea of eternal marriage, but I am not wholly convinced of it. I am partial to it, and perhaps that is because I had some semblance of an idea of eternal marriage since I was young. I would like it to be true, I think it sounds awfully romantic, and emphasizes the importance of marriage in this world. But, there are still enough questions that I have in my mind that I need addressed, and I need my heart to feel at ease with this idea before I may embrace it.

"So if you don't really believe in eternal marriage, why would you write all this stuff about it?" Because I find it an intriguing idea, and again I say that it is a beautiful concept. I am not wholly convinced of it today, but perhaps I will be one day, or perhaps I will not, but regardless of where I end up on this theologoumenon I want anyone curious regarding it to receive the best arguments for it. Perhaps what I put forth are the best arguments, perhaps not, but I did my put forth my best effort in pulling this together.

In part I do not allow myself to be convinced of the idea of eternal marriage because, through this reading and research these past months, I find the idea too limiting. I believe our common concept of marriage is too small, and that we miss so much by limiting the reality of eternity to temporal terms. What I am unconvinced by is the idea that marriage as we know it will remain in eternity, but what I have come to believe is that there is some form of eternal mark on the soul by your spouse which you both share, as well as there being some sort of bond made between the souls which takes place through matrimony. To repeat myself once again, when I speak of a connection, bond, or melding of souls I do not mean that part or all of one spouse's soul becomes indistinguishable from the other, but rather that there is a type of hypostasis formed as was mentioned earlier, an opinion shared by some Church Fathers. The hypostasis of Christ is that He is both God and man, and the hypostasis of a sacramentally married couple is that the two become one flesh and one soul. In both instances - with Christ, and with the couple - the two parts do not combine into one, but remain distinguishable from each other. In Christ, He has a human and a divine nature, but He is one person. In marriage they are man and woman, but they are one marriage; they are one body in moments, and they are one soul in others.

It could be that eternal marriage is true as it has been represented. It could be that there is absolutely no form of marriage in the next life. If it is either of these, I will not be upset, I am resolved with whatever God's plan is for us and what is planned for our eternity. But to say it again, I have become convinced that a soul is changed, is marked by marriage, whether due to the impact of the sacrament itself, or due to the influence of a soul being intimate with another. Perhaps you are uncomfortable with using the term "indelible mark" for marriage, but just as a body bears its marks in some form in the next life, I do not see why a soul would be left unmarked by the relationships and connections had in this life.

Now, to continue with the idea of eternal marriage or a perpetual mark on a soul, I wish to address some questions one may have which would need to be answered. Such as, what happens to a couple who married in the Church, but one leaves the faith while the other stays in it and this results in one going to Heaven and the other to Hell - what happens to their marital bond then? Or, what about the cases where a marriage is declared as annulled, then one or both of the people "marry again" in the Church to other people, but the annulment process was not done correctly - what then?

To speak in brief - for I see these as deserving their own articles, but I choose rather to make a short address now - a soul which comes nearer to God is more united with Him and gets to more fully rejoice in His gifts to us, and the soul which rejects Him also rejects His gifts. After life itself, marriage is the first gift God gives us in Genesis, and so if you reject God and are eternally separated from Him then you also abstain from any of His gifts He may have given you. And I think this is part of the issue with the discussion of eternal marriage since it is using a human concept to understand something which transcends us. But if you take the indelible mark approach to the question, this mark will remain in the next life, and perhaps the one in the place of suffering will long for the spouse they've separated themselves from, but "marriage" is not present.

This is not the place to write about this in depth, but I will share my thoughts in brief on how I think a soul is "sticky". My idea, which is still novel to me and needs thought out more, is that there is an intangible "residue" left when two souls interact with each other, and the more they interact the more there is an intermingling of their souls. And, as a consequence, the more that two souls interact, the more alike they become, and the more drawn they are to each other, and thus the more at home one soul feels next to another. Just think, the more you are around a person the more comfortable you become with them, and when you become more comfortable with them then the more you wish to be around them.

Regarding again the question of souls separated by the eternity of Heaven and Hell, these separated souls would have the impact of the other left upon them from their time on the earth, but draw towards each other would no longer be present. The one in Heaven is always drawn towards God, and has those that mean the most to them being drawn alongside to the Lord. The one in Hell cannot be drawn to God, for they have rejected Him. Perhaps they long for the bond with the one whom they were married to, but it can never be fulfilled because of where they have placed themself for eternity.

And now I wish to again speak on the different perspectives of faith and how we articulate them. Something that I want you to think about is how this is not the only seemingly contradictory teaching coming from the two lungs of the Church. The perspective on Purgatory, sin, God's Essence & Energies or lack thereof, the state of being in Hell, and more are "opposed" between the East and in the West. There are several things that are "at odds" within the Catholic Church - but are not truly at odds, it is just that we each have different traditions from which our theologies develop, which basically means we have different perspectives from how we view a theological reality. Think of the story of the six blind men and the elephant, and apply that to us in this moment in time. St. Thomas Aquinas, doctor of the Church, is a true genius, but his way is not the only way to understand theological realities. St. Gregory Palamas, a highly influential man in the development of Eastern mysticism, is not the only way to understand theological truths. The ideas of theosis (Eastern) and sanctification (Western) are the same, yet they are different. They are different angles which we look at the same thing, becoming perfect and coming to be more like God. What we are really trying to do is explain a reality that is divine, something we mortals cannot fully comprehend, and we use limiting and incomplete language to understand what is incomprehensible. Perhaps both the East and the West are correct on certain issues, perhaps one more than the other, perhaps one is exactly right and the other is very off, we will not know until the end of time.

All of this is to say that those feeling the need to convince everyone of eternal marriage, and those who feel as if they must argue against eternal marriage, I think you worry too much. The Church has not declared one view or the other to be doctrine, or one or the other to be heresy, therefore variety of opinion is allowed. I think that people are hypersensitive today to holding beliefs that are not explicitly endorsed or taught by the Church. And this, I think, is due to the tumultuous state of cultures across the world at this moment. I understand this, the stability of the Church is something that should be held onto when the world is in upheaval - which it always is, but is even more so now. But, something beautiful about the Church is that it is a large structure with room for all of its believers, and not all believers will articulate the divine truths in the same way, yet they are all still within the walls of the Church.

I caution you - all of you, whatever your persuasion regarding eternal marriage and those other teachings not explicitly laid out by the Church - do not be strict where the Church is not strict. Do not condemn variety where the Church allows for it. You may dislike a theological approach, but that does not make it wrong. Obviously there are ideas that are wrong that are not yet condemned by the Church, but you need to argue well against it to prove the issues with it.

And so, I truly begin my final thoughts here. My intention was to explore ideas on marriage and to dive into the theology around it specifically using Eastern and Church Father writings and theology. I believe I have accomplished this. It is up to you whether or not you find any of the things presented here convincing. It is up to you to whether you choose to hold to these ideas as your own. And then, if you find a specific idea, such as eternal marriage, to be convincing as an idea, it is up to you to defend it. But, in the end, recall that the Church has not said what you may or may not believe in regards to these different articulations of marriage, and so it is up to you to wrestle with and settle on what you find to be convincing.

There are many more things which I could address here, had I the energy or desire, but I will not. I do not feel the need to make an air-tight argument from every angle for what I've brought up here, only to propose the ideas as I have and address the biggest criticisms I have seen against them. I could speak on St. Paul's writings on widows, but I will not. I could address St. John Chrysostom's other writings which do not mesh so well with the ideas of marriage said here, but I will not. I could speak on St. Augustine's beliefs of the marriage of our first parents and how it differs from other Fathers, but I will not. I could battle with some of the greater minds in the litany of saints, but I will not. I do not intend for this to be my life's work, and I am satisfied with the work I have done. And so, I let my mind rest and seek the comfort of God.

Written for VME Catholic, an essay by Ethan Hall