Introduction
LDS Christians proudly proclaim that woman and man may be joined in marriage through the power of God both for this life and the life to come. For Mormons, the marriage covenant does not necessarily have to end when “death do[es] you part,” but may potentially exist “for time and all eternity” when “sealed” by God’s power, provided that both partners of the marriage relationship persist in faithfulness to each other and to God. LDS Christians usually make reference to uniquely Mormon sources, such as Doctrine and Covenants 132.15-19, when attempting to clearly delineate the source for this theological understanding. The relevant portions of D&C 132.15-19 read:
…[I]f a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world. Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven…And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word…And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood…it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world…
However, there is a tradition in the synoptic gospels that records a controversy-dialogue between Jesus and the Sadducees concerning the resurrection of the dead and marriage in the new age/afterlife, which tradition seems to seriously call into question notions of marriage, gender, and sex in the new age/heaven. The oldest account of this tradition is found in Mark 12.18-27, which account was then modified and redacted separately by both “Matthew” and “Luke.”
Mark 12.18-27 (NRSV, used throughout) reads:
Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, saying, ‘Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man [lit. "his brother"] shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children; and the second married her and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; none of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died. In the resurrection [lit. "when they rise"] whose wife will she be? For the seven had married her.’ Jesus said to them, ‘Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how God said to him, “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; you are quite wrong.’
Matthew’s version (22.23-32) reads:
The same day some Sadducees came to him, saying there is no resurrection; and they asked him a question, saying, ‘Teacher, Moses said, “If a man dies childless, his brother shall marry the widow, and raise up children for his brother.” Now there were seven brothers among us; the first married, and died childless, leaving the widow to his brother. The second did the same, so also the third, down to the seventh. Last of all, the woman herself died. In the resurrection , then, whose wife of the seven will she be? For all of them had married her.’ Jesus answered them, ‘You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God, “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.’
Luke’s version (20.27-38) reads:
Some Sadducees, those who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, ‘Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no children, the man [lit. "his brother"] shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. Now there were seven brothers; the first married, and died childless; then the second and the third married her, and so in the same way all seven died childless. Finally the woman also died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had married her.’ Jesus said to them, ‘Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. Indeed they cannot die any more, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection. And the fact that the dead are raised Moses himself showed, in the story about the bush, where he speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Now he is God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive.’
Analysis
The following analysis is that of biblical feminist scholar Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza [1], and will be referring to the oldest account of this tradition found in the gospel of Mark (although I have provided all three accounts for the reader’s convenience so that the differences in each account might stand out more sharply).
—
The Sadducees rejected a belief in the resurrection on the grounds that such a view is not found in the Torah (the first five books of the Bible, traditionally ascribed to Moses), which is the only authority that the Sadducees accepted as authoritative. They thus approach Jesus in an attempt to show the inconsistency of the notion of a future resurrection with the procedure of levirate marriage (outlined in Deuteronomy 25.5-10), since levirate marriage would (seemingly) entail that in the resurrection one woman might be married to several persons to whom she was married serially in mortal life. For the Sadducees, the issue clearly pertains to the resurrection, as they certainly believed that the levirate marriage as prescribed in the Torah was a correct practice.
As Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza has stated:
The law of levirate marriage served the purpose of continuing the patriarchal family, by securing its wealth and the inheritance within it, a concern important to the Sadducees, many of whom were upper class and priests, rich landowners living in Jerusalem…For them the levirate law protecting and perpetuating the patriarchal structures of the “house” was of utmost importance. Although this law sometimes created more hardship for the brother of the deceased husband, while protecting the financial security of the widow, it nevertheless served the continuation of the family line and maintenance of patriarchal structures. [2]
According to Fiorenza, Jesus’ response that the Sadducees are wrong must be seen in the context of his call to equal discipleship for both men and women in the messianic community that is being brought about through Jesus’ proclamation of the basileia (“kingdom, dominion”). In God’s world the patriarchal marriage system, to which the Sadducees adhere, does not exist. The statement that “when they rise from the dead they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” must be seen with this context. Fiorenza states:
The last expression ["like the angels in heaven"] is often understood to mean that their “being as angels are” implies asexuality or freedom from sexual differentiation and sexual intercourse. There is no doubt that this interpretation has claimed a long tradition but it has no basis in the text. The eschatological being of men and women “like the angels or heavenly messengers” must be understood with reference to the first part of the sentence. It is not that sexual differentiation and sexuality do not exist in the “world” of God, but that “patriarchal marriage is no more,” because its function in maintaining and continuing patriarchal economic and religious structures is no longer necessary. This is what it means to live and be “like the angels” who live in “the world” of God. [3]
My Reflections
Often in apocalyptic Judeo-Christian texts of the Second Temple period, the coming eschatological age was seen in terms of the original creation of the earth. In the original creation, before there was death and corruption, God created woman and man as equal partners in marriage. Thus in the age to come women an men are to be equal. However, Jesus’ ministry, by his proclamation of the basileia of God through his miracles, was seen as inaugurating the coming age in the here and now. Jesus’ call was for “domination-free relationships in the community of disciples” in the here and now. [4] Thus human marriage is not to be patriarchal, but rather coequal and egalitarian in the present as well.
It seems additionally worthy of note that Jesus is not arguing for asexuality in the life to come, but rather that patriarchal marriage, grounded in patriarchal socio-religio-economical structures, will be eliminated. Jesus’ call is for equal discipleship, and this does not necessitate asexuality, but can theoretically be accomplished with sexual differentiation in place (whether in the present or future age).
Questions
What other interpretations or suggestions might be offered for the text? Is it possible to reconcile Fiorenza’s analysis with LDS Christian thought concerning “eternal marriage”? And if so, how? Additionally, what other impact(s) might this analysis have for an LDS Christian understanding of marriage in this life?
Notes
[1] The following feminist analysis is that of Elisabeth Schusser Fiorenza. See her book entitled In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Co., 1988), pgs. 143-145.
[2] pg. 144.
[3] pg. 144.
[4] pg. 143.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing (although I see this more as egalitarianist than feminist
)
m&m,
“I see this more as egalitarianist than feminist”
What is the difference?
I like this. My view of relationships in the next life is that there will be no dependency that will bind us together but instead individuals will be free to be with whom they want. Celestial marriages will be the ones where couples really want to be with each other.
My comment was meant to be a little tongue in cheek, but imo, sometimes feminism swings to the side of focusing on women’s rights and issues rather than on the (I will add divine) balance of partnership. Sometimes feminism will seek to eliminate important elements of gender roles and differences that I believe are essential to our journey here, so we can come to the point that is discussed in this (again, very interesting) post.
And maybe to some, it’s all the same, but feminism to me has become so charged (and sometimes extreme) that I’m not really a fan of the concept. (My friend and I were just talking about this today, and so that spurred some of my comment as well.)
m&m,
I do not see feminism doing that, in many ways most feminists are defending the “differences.” Be careful not to buy into the nasty picture that the enemies of feminism have painted of a great movement and a rich school of diverse thought.
TYD,
You say:
“Thus human marriage is not to be patriarchal, but rather coequal and egalitarian in the present as well.”
Sound good to me, but I am a radical eqalitarian. I do not see this flying in official or cultural Mormondom. I thik we are too wedded to the idea of traditional marriage and have lost sight of the celestial/eternal.
Be careful not to buy into the nasty picture that the enemies of feminism have painted of a great movement and a rich school of diverse thought.
Chris, it’s not that I have bought into some opinion ‘out there.’ I have seen enough of feminism to know that it has its problems. And sometimes it causes big problems for women in the church (or women who are wondering if they could ‘be feminist and be Mormon). Sometimes it’s the ‘feminists’ themselves who contribute to such misunderstandings about our doctrine. (In other words, don’t just blame the ‘enemies of feminism’ for my point of view.)
In short, I think it’s incredibly important to be willing not only to see the benefits of feminism, but also its limitations of feminism (or any other ‘ism’ for that matter) esp. in the light of the gospel.
But rest assured, that doesn’t mean I reject feminism outright. I’m just selective about it all. And I also find that the concept of ‘feminism’ has so much baggage that I prefer other words to describe what I’m passionate about. I don’t like to call myself a feminist; I liked what my friend said today as we talked: “I’m not a feminist; I’m an egalitarianist.” Whatever that might mean.
As with any ‘ism’, it sort of means whatever you want it to mean. Which is part of the problem of any of those labels, anyway, imo.
And actually, Chris, I am sensing perhaps one way in which we differ in our points of view is that I think ‘egalitarian’ in our doctrine includes traditional gender roles as an important part of our quest for the eternal…that following what the Proclamation teaches (which includes both gender roles AND equal partnership — which to ‘feminists’ (or perhaps even egalitarianists!) would seem impossible to have as co-existing principles) is part of what can prepare us for the blessings of eternity, including eternal marriage.
So in a way, I’m not really an egalitarianist (yes, I realize I’m making up a word) in the sense that it appears you may be. There’s a tension that I think is essential in our mortal journey, even as I don’t pretend to fully understand all the whys and wheretofors of it all.
In short, I think it’s incredibly important to be willing not only to see the benefits of feminism, but also its limitations of feminism
And that should read ‘but also its limitations’ — I’m tired and it’s late…. sorry.
m&m,
Does complementarianism describe you better?
TYD
m&m,
I think that equality is being oversimplified. However, it does appear that we are on different ends of this spectrum. My problem is not with the idea that the genders are different, be the traditional vocabulary and paradigm used to classify and define those differences.
TYD,
Sorry for the threadjack.
Interesting evaluation. I think I get what you’re trying to say. Although it brings up further theological investigation by asking questions like, “why marriage in the first place?” and “what are the parameters of angles in heaven and can they marry?”. My understanding of the purpose for marriage here on earth is to replicate God’s plan for creating us in HIS image. God exists in three parts and is in constant community. The first time we see God say in Genesis, “…it was not good” is when God addresses Adam’s loneliness. So, Husband + Wife + Holy Spirit… and whalla! We have our closest replication of the trinity here on earth (minus the fallen part of course). Once we are in Heaven, we are told we will be face to face with God. Therefore, is it really necessary to continue marriage?
TYD, I think I’m probably a combination, sort of.
And I, too, am sorry for the threadjack. Again, thanks for the interesting article.
This is very interedting, thanks TYD.
Oops make that interesting (typing on cell phone = not easy)
I actually disagree with ESF on this point that “angels in heaven” implies sexual difference without sexual hierarchy. While there is one passage in Jubiliees that says that angels are circumcized, and some ancient Hebrew traditions in Ezekiel about angels covering their “feet,” I am not aware of any traditions about female angels in antiquity. I think that the passage is not about the displacement of patriarchal marriage in the eschatological community, but the lack of sexuality and sexual difference. And it turns out that is exactly how ancient Christians interpreted it.
That is not to say that ESF’s reading isn’t a perfectly acceptable one, and one that I think Mormonism can appropriate because we accept that sexual difference persists, and because I don’t see much need for patriarchal marriage in heaven, at least not in a way that resembles first century Judean notions of patriarchal marriage. But that is not to say that this is “what it means.” (Though there are some complicated hermeneutical moves that ESF makes to be able to make that kind of claim.)
If one takes a more apocalyptic view of Jesus’ teaching there is no conflict between this teaching and LDS teaching. In that case the kingdom is an earthly kingdom in the here and now, as soon as the Son of Man made it all happen (really soon!). On that interpretation Jesus would be talking about equality in that kingdom, which would be totally unrelated to any kingdom after death. In that case marriage after death would be totally unrelated to an equality based marriage in the post Son of Man kingdom on Earth.
The only problem with that interpretation is that it never happened…
Great comments all, thanks for your participation!
Mrs. Mornis,
Thanks for stopping by!
First, I think it is relevant that at least some texts in antiquity seem to indicate that angelic beings had sex and/or sexual abilities (see TT’s comment just above, for instance). I have blogged, for instance, on Genesis 6, which states that the members of the divine council (later interpreted as angels, but originally they were gods) mated with human women. This tradition was then later expanded upon in the book of Enoch. See my post here:
http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2009/05/wait-thats-in-the-bible-celestial-sex/
Although I also believe with you that God in a significant sense is a community of three divine persons, I don’t believe that this is a teaching found in the Hebrew Bible (or Second Temple Judaism, or the New Testament really), and so I don’t think it can factor into a historical-critical interpretation of what the the P (Gen. 1.1-2.4a) and J (Gen. 2.4b ff.) stories of creation meant. God in the Hebrew Bible is simply seen as one divine person, not three persons in one God. See my posts on this subject here:
http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2009/02/listen-o-israel-yahweh-is-our-god-yahweh-is-one%E2%80%9D-does-the-bible-teach-radical-monotheism/
http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2008/12/the-divine-council/
Finally, you said:
“Once we are in Heaven, we are told we will be face to face with God. Therefore, is it really necessary to continue marriage?”
I would point out that Adam was “face to face” with God in the J story of creation (again, Gen. 2.4b ff.), yet God still deemed it appropriate for him to have a wife as an equal partner. I can see no reason as to why marriage, sexuality, and sexual differentiation is theologically inappropriate in the next life in se if one accepts that it was/is deemed appropriate and positive by God for humankind in his/her state before expulsion from the garden of Eden, as well as in this life.
(P.S. I have several posts on the creation stories and separating sources (i.e., P and J). They can be found here:
http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2009/02/creation-in-genesis-1-3-part-4-the-heavenly-council/
http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/2008/12/genesis-1-3-and-the-documentary-hypothesis-again/ )
—
TT,
I also can’t think of any texts that specifically mention traditions of female angelic beings. I wonder, however, given the textual evidence from antiquity that seems to indicate that at least some angelic beings were sexually male (and sexually active!), if this silence is simply on account of the fact that the few relevant texts which we have access to are typically quite androcentric and patriarchal in focus, content, and tone.
I would also like to ask that, if you accept this controversy-dialogue between Jesus and the Sadducees as an authentic Jesus saying/tradition, how an interpretation of this story that posits that Jesus believes in the elimination of sexuality and sexual differentiation could be appropriated for the LDS tradition and its belief in eternal marriage, etc.
Best wishes,
TYD
I would point out that Adam was “face to face” with God in the J story of creation (again, Gen. 2.4b ff.), yet God still deemed it appropriate for him to have a wife as an equal partner.
I’ve also been intrigued at considering the possibility that when God talked about the necessity of man ‘leaving father and mother’ to marry, that Adam’s father and mother were Heavenly Parents. Probably not a new notion, and I have no idea if it’s a notion that holds water, but it’s something I have wondered about.
TYD ~ Interesting post. I actually did read it when you first posted it, but was busy at the time and didn’t have time to comment.
ESF’s interpretation is interesting, but I’d agree with TT that it seems like a bit of a stretch for the reasons he listed.
My biggest concern with applying her interpretation to Mormonism would be that I think current church teachings on the afterlife make it out to be unquestionably patriarchal, though we can hope the church changes on that in the future. There is a strong framework within the LDS church for an egalitarian complementarianism (as opposed to what the evangelical world usually calls “complementarianism,” which really isn’t), and that could be applied to both real life and teachings on the afterlife someday.
On female angels, some Christians today interpret Zechariah 5:9 as describing female angels:
Unfortunately, I don’t know if any surviving ancient commentators agreed with that interpretation.