Presuppositions, Eternal Marriage, and Matthew 22:30

It is no secret that Latter-day Saints read the Bible using a different hermeneutic or “interpretive lens” than Evangelicals (whether Arminian or Reformed), Roman Catholics, and others. Our lens has been forged through the revelations and teachings of Scripture revealed in this dispensation, as well as the authoritative teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his successors. In many respects, we are similar to the primitive Jewish-Christians whose worldview differed from their Jewish contemporaries who rejected Jesus as a Messiah—they had a different interpretive lens forged through the revelation of the Son of God and his teachings, as well as the authors of the New Testament texts, such as the Apostle Paul. As a result, one’s a priori assumptions will differ, sometimes markedly, with others who profess to be Christian.

Furthermore, Latter-day Saints do not believe Scripture (all the LDS canon) is formally sufficient; this is in contrast with Protestants, at least historical ones, that hold the Bible (Protestant canon of 39 OT books; 27 NT books) are formally sufficient, and all other authorities are subordinated to such (Sola Scriptura, for formal doctrine of the Protestant Reformation). While Latter-day Saints would argue that certain LDS doctrines are to be found explicitly in the Bible (as well as the rest of the LDS canon [Book of Mormon; Doctrine and Covenants; Pearl of Great Price]), we also would hold that many of our doctrines are implicit in the Bible and other unique LDS texts, and in some instances, to be silent, with the texts saying nothing for or against a certain doctrine. This is not, or at least, should not, pose a problem for Latter-day Saints, as we believe in continuing revelation.

Furthermore, notwithstanding how Latter-day Saints may “proof-text” some passages to “prove” (via [unintentional] eisegesis) a certain belief (cf. my post on Ezekiel 37), LDS teaching holds that, as we are in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times, certain doctrines that were either alluded to and never explicated, or never revealed to begin with in previous ages, were revealed in this dispensation.

In some instances, one may have, at best, a text or pericope that is, at best, weak or an allusion, and can be used by the Church to support a doctrine, whether in the biblical corpus or elsewhere. The New Testament gives witness to this. For instance, in Acts 1, the remaining apostles come together to choose a successor to Judas. As scriptural warrant for a successor and a continuation of the twelve, Peter cites two Old Testament texts. In Acts 1:20, we read:

For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein; and his bishoprick (επισκοπη [office]) let another take.

If one examines this verse, Peter is using two texts from the Psalter—Psa 69:25 and 109:8. However, nothing in these two verses say anything about Judas, apostolic succession, or the continuation of the need to have twelve apostles. If one reads these texts in their context, David is talking about people and events in his own day. Psa 69, David is addressing the sinful people of his time who had betrayed him and how he pleads for God to bring about judgement (v.25). Psa 109 is about the court of David where David says that, once an officer in his court has been removed, another will take his place.

Therefore, a text or series of texts that may be seen as “weak” at best, in light of further explicit revelation, be used by the Church to support a doctrine. Another potent example would be the case of the use of Amos 9:11 (LXX) in Acts 15 by James. The text is used as Old Testament support for belief that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised before entering the New Covenant. However, when one reads this text in its context, nothing is said about the cessation of the requirement of circumcision; furthermore, James is reliant upon the LXX notwithstanding its obvious translation mistakes (as discussed elsewhere).

Furthermore, as Paul (presuming Pauline authorship of the pastorals for this post), who, notwithstanding his high view of scripture, also held a high view of the Church, stating that it is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

In a letter from 1842, now canonised as section 128 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote:

. . .[F]or it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fullness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfection union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fullness of times. (D&C 128:18 [emphasis added])

The explication of this doctrine comes from revelations given to the Prophet Joseph Smith (see D&C 132). While Latter-day Saints may appeal to certain Old and New Testament texts as possible (implicit) evidence for such, ultimately, without the explicit witness of this doctrine from Joseph Smith’s revelations, such biblical texts could be interpreted (rather plausibly) in other ways.

Jeff Lindsay provides a typical list of biblical evidences for “eternal marriage”:

There are indications of eternal marriage and eternal families in the Bible. One of the earliest comes from Job. At the end, Job is blessed with double of all the things he had lost (Job 42:10,12). We are then given a lost of these things, and indeed we see that he was blessed with double the number of sheep, camels, oxen, and asses. But "he had also seven sons and three daughters" (Job 42:13), the same number be had before his trial (Job 1:2). The implication is that he still had the original children, consistent with the LDS view that families can be eternal.

1 Pet. 3:7 hints at eternal marriage, when Peter speaks of the man and woman being "heirs together" of the grace of life. Another suggestion of eternal marriage comes from the word of Christ about the sealing power he gave to Peter (Matt. 16:19 and Matt. 18:18): whatsoever you bind on earth will be bound (sealed) in heaven. And of marriage, Christ said "What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matt. 19:6). Also, in the Lord (possibly meaning in heaven or in the eternities), the man is not without the woman and vice versa, according to 1 Cor. 11:11.

At best, these are allusions or implicit evidences for such; nothing explicit as one finds in D&C 132:12, 15-17. Jeff admits that, “The Bible is admittedly incomplete in its teachings of eternal marriage."

In terms of patristic evidence, some have appealed to Tertullian (160-225) and chapter 10 of On Monogamy, where he writes that, “Indeed, she prays for his [her husband's] soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship (with him) in the first resurrection.” However, patristic evidence is far from overwhelming, though there does exist some evidence in favour of the belief (e.g. Origen, First Principles, 2.11.2 where he complains against certain groups that believed in a literal millennium and believed that marriage and begetting of children will continue in the Millennial Age).

This is not the “usual” route for discussing the LDS belief that marriage, when “sealed” can last eternally and that the marital “binding” won’t cease in the life to come and Matt 22:30, but often these differences of assumptions and sources of authority are not discussed when LDS discuss theology with non-LDS in certain settings, and is key to understanding what differentiates Latter-day Saints from other groups.

As for Matt 22:30, which is the most commonly-cited text used against LDS teachings on this issue has Jesus addressing the Sadducees, saying:

For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Firstly, it should be noted that the Sadducees rejected belief in angels and the resurrection. Furthermore, when one examines the Greek, it refutes the argument.

“[Neither] marry” is [οὔτε] γαμοῦσιν, the present indicative active of the verb “to marry” (γαμεω). “Given in marriage” is γαμιζονται, again, the present indicative active of the verb γαμιζω “to give in marriage.” Jesus is not speaking of there being no marriage bonds in the hereafter, but that, in the age to come, there will be no performances or marriage. One’s opportunity to be married is something that can only take place on this side of eternity, to borrow the common phraseology. Matt 22:30 is therefore addressing the act of being married; nothing is said, for or against, marriages performed in this age continuing into the hereafter.

As Kevin Barney wrote in a blog post addressing this topic:

If Matthew had wanted to report that Christ had said in effect “Neither are they now in a married state (because of previously performed weddings),” the Greek in which he wrote would have let him say so unambiguously. He would have used a perfect tense [gegamēkasin] or a participial form [gamēsas] of the verb. He did not, so that cannot be what he meant. Jesus said nothing about the married state of those who are in heaven. By using the present indicative form of the verb, Matthew reports Jesus as saying in effect “In the resurrection, there are no marriages performed.” Jesus goes on to compare those in the resurrection to the angels of God, for unlike mortals they will never die and, according to Jewish tradition, they do not need to eat. The key point is that, contrary to the misconceptions of the Sadducees, life in the resurrection will be different in many ways from life in mortality. (Jesus then goes on to make an additional argument in favor of the resurrection in the following verses.)

The potential continuation of the marriage state in the hereafter for those married in mortality is consistent with another statement of Jesus, as recorded in Matt. 19:6: “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

One non-LDS scholar, Ben Witherington, wrote the following, showing that the question of the eternality or lack thereof of marriage is not in view in Jesus' encounter with the Sadducees; commenting on the Markan parallel found in ch. 12, he wrote:

Jesus’ response, which begins at v.24, suggests that the Sadducees are ignorant of both the content of the Hebrew Scriptures and the power of God. Jesus stresses that in the age to come, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of terms γαμουσιν and γαμαζονται is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, “marry,” while the women are “given in marriage” by their father or another older family member. Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state (see, for example, Tertullian, On Monogamy 10, who specifically denies that God will separate in the next life those whom he has joined together in a holy union in this one). Jesus, the, could seem to be arguing against a specific view held by the Sadducees about the continuity between this life and the life to come, a view involving the ongoing practice of levirate marriage.

 I would suggest that Luke’s expansion of his Markan source at Luke 20:36 understands quite well the rift of the discussion. In the eschatological state we have resurrected beings who are no longer able to die. Levirate marriage existed precisely because of the reality of death. When death ceases to happen, the rationale for levirate marriage falls to the ground as well. When Jesus saying in v.25b that people will be like the angels in heaven in the life to come, he does not mean they will live a sexless identity (early Jews did not think angels were sexless in any case; cf. Gen. 6:1-4! [Though there is, interestingly, evidence that some early Jews believed that angels didn’t marry—see 1 Enoch 15:7. There was furthermore the belief that the dead became angels after the resurrection [cf. 1 Enoch 51:4; 104:4; Bar. 51:9-10]. On the discontinuity of this world and the world to come [including the assertion that there will be no begetting], see B. Ber. 17a), but rather that they will be like angels in that they are unable to die. Thus the question of the Sadducees is inappropriate to the condition of the eschatological state. I would suggest that Jesus, like other early Jews, likely distinguished between normal marriage and levirate marriage. In Mark 10 Jesus grounded normal marriage in the creation order, not in the order of the fall, which is the case with levirate marriage (instituted because of death and childlessness and the need to preserve the family name and line). Thus Jesus is intending to deny about the eschatological state “that there will be any natural relation out of which the difficulty of the Sadducees could arise.” (Ben Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001], 328-29)

Recommended Resources

Marc Schinder, "Doesn't Matthew 22:23-30 Contradict the LDS Doctrine of Eternal Marriage?"

Kevin L. Barney, "Matthew 22:30"

FairMormon Answers: "Temple Marriage"