When God did the pairing in the Garden of Eden It was the first of what God intended to be the pattern of all relationships in the future for all eter

[Tony]

A friend of mine was saying that the real reason that there is no marriage in heaven is because marriage was never part of God’s original plan in the first place. The discussion on Mt. 22:23 is about the marriage of levirate (Deut 25: 5.6) Levirate marriage is unlike regular “marriage” in that it only exists because of death.
Therefore, in the restoration of all things it is not present either. He said God proposes us to mate as His Holy Spirit leads. In the Garden of Eden God brought Eve to Adam and He instantly recognized her as his mate. It the first of what God intended to be the pattern of all such relationships in the future.

Do you think everybody will find their perfect partner for all eternity in Heaven? A female for a male, and a male for a female. All created in the image and likeness of God.

 

[Lee1]

the real reason that there is no marriage in heaven is because marriage was never part of God’s original plan in the first place.

In heaven, where our spirits will abide if we’re good there is no need or want for marriage. We will be satisfied by our relationship with God and probably enjoy communion with all other souls, not one in particular. In my opinion.

 

[midori]

If the definition of Heaven is “the presence of God”-- why would we make our priority finding a perfect partner? Why would we distract ourselves from the Creator by focusing on the Created?

On earth, we’re supposed to recognize Jesus in other people. But in Heaven, we’ll see God as he Is.

On earth, we’re supposed to love our neighbors as ourselves. But in Heaven, we see the Source of Love.

That’s not to say that Heaven is a 1:1 thing, just me and God, sitting in a locked room and staring at each other. You can get that in Adoration. Jesus made it pretty clear that the Kingdom of God is a community.

But one of the cool things is not being limited by your senses anymore. There’s no “learning” about other people-- not like in college, where everyone’s first conversation is “Hi! Where are you from? What’s your major?” etc, etc. Instead, you just know automatically who they are, what they’re doing, and so on.

So, rather than having “a perfect partner”, I’d posit that Heaven is more like being in a “perfect community”, where you’re finally in a stadium of a zillion people— and all of you are united. And I think that would be a thousand times cooler than merely connecting with one perfect someone.

 

[Evan]

The reason for marriage is the procreation of children. Not something that will happen in heaven.

The unitive aspect is unneeded as we will all be in relation with God.

 

[edwest]

The answer to the OP is yes.

 

[westie]

The reason for marriage is the procreation of children.

Procreation as “the” reason for marriage is a sticky wicket, scripturally, especially given the two stories of creation (Genesis Chapter 1, and Genesis Chapter 2).

Although Genesis 1:28 commands mankind to “be fruitful and multiply”, Genesis 2:20b-24 does not address procreation as “the” reason, but rather suggests man’s need for “a helper”.

So while procreation might be a natural consequence of marriage, it may not as simple as claiming it is “the” reason.

Such claims bring into question other theological issues: 1) The joy of sex is a gift from God, and if engaged in by married couples with an openness to bringing children in the world, married couples can enjoy sexual intimacy. 2) Marriage is no less sacramental for couples who are without children due to fertility issues, and claiming procreation is “the” reason for marriage in these cases might be a odds with God’s intentions, and certainly causes undo pain on those couples. While God allowed Sarah, Hannah, and Elizabeth to give birth after being assumed infertile, we learn that with God, all things are possible (Luke 1:37).

So, while procreation is a natural and desired consequence of marriage, it is not “the” reason for the Sacrament.

 

[fhansen]

It could be. Either way God will be exalted above all just because we’ll want Him to be-He’s that good. He’ll satisfy all of our desires in any case-He created us with them and knows our needs far better than we do anyway. Here on earth the male/ female relationship should help us to learn of our “creaturely status” as the catechism terms it, of our dependency and need for others besides just ourselves instead, getting over our pride that wants to exalt the self. Only God is all in all, needing nothing or no one else. But He’ll give us all we could ever want either way.

 

[Aloysium]

God brought all humanity into existence beginning with one man, who became two, because it was not good that he be alone. We are not complete in ourselves but in relation to others, unified as one body, through love, in Christ. As someone stated above, there will be no procreation after the general resurrection, so no need for marriage. I would imagine that there would still be people towards whom one would have greater affinity and more intimacy, the sharing of one’s inner life, although we would know one another as God sees us. As to the physical act of sex, I believe that the pleasure would be irrelevant when experiencing the joy and fulfillment of all desires, to be found face to face with God.

 

[Tony]

In fact, the Song of Songs celebrates the redemption of our sexual desires as it describes a man and a woman in garden settings, again naked and enjoying each other as, for example, in Song of Songs 7:11-13.

The Song contains no reference to the procreative function of sexuality. The pleasure of the bedroom rather than the results for the nursery occupies the poet’s concern here.” Lovemaking for the sake of love, not procreation, is the message of the Song. This is not to imply that the Song is hostile to the procreative aspect of sexuality: The lovers allude to the beauty of their own conception (3:4; 8:2) and birth (6:9; 8:5).

But in the Song sexual union is given independent meaning and value; it does not need to be justified as a means to a superior (i.e., procreative) end. We might say that marriage is only necessary because of mortality (i.e. to further the species), but Genesis seems to disagree.

 

[westie]

The Song contains no reference to the procreative function of sexuality. The pleasure of the bedroom rather than the results for the nursery occupies the poet’s concern here.”

Except the Song of Songs is an metaphoric expression of “the” bridegroom’s love for His bride, not the physical man’s love for his wife (and who is “the” bridegroom, and who is His bride? Christ, and the Church, but of course).

 

[Cruciferi]

In heaven, where our spirits will abide

You won’t be a spirit forever. There’s the Resurrection of the Body and the New Heaven and Earth.

The reason for marriage is the procreation of children. Not something that will happen in heaven.

The unitive aspect is unneeded as we will all be in relation with God.

As far as we know, Marriage and sex won’t exist after the end of time. If God wishes to increase humanity’s numbers he could create them himself.

Matthew 3:9

“And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.”

 

[tafan2]

A friend of mine was saying that the real reason that there is no marriage in heaven is because marriage was never part of God’s original plan in the first place.

Your friend is wrong. As Jesus himself points out, the Book Of Genesis describes Adam and Eve’s relationship as a marraiage. St John Paul II referred to marraige as the preternatural sacrament, ie it existed before the Fall.

 

[tafan2]

Why? 10 characters

 

[Tony]

Your friend is wrong. As Jesus himself points out, the Book Of Genesis describes Adam and Eve’s relationship as a marraiage. St John Paul II referred to marraige as the preternatural sacrament, ie it existed before the Fall.

So if salvation is to restore man and woman back to the creation design which received such a postive affirmation from God. What about marriage?
Isn’t the point of the resurrection and the new creation to restore all that has been corrupted by sin and death?

 

[ses]

I was always under the impression that it referred to the physical as well as a divine metaphor (according to JP2). He viewed it as sexual and sacred.

 

[John_Martin]

The resurrection is a place of being complete; it is not a place of becoming complete.

In the resurrection You Are All That You Are.
Having children means becoming.
Becoming the father or mother of a son or daughter means that you are not yet complete or perfect.

In heaven or in the resurrection we will operate in our completeness just as God operates in his perfection; we will not try to become complete, as if we were lacking something.

John Martin

 

[tafan2]

I am not for sure how to answer you question, if any of this is wrong, I welcome being corrected. Before the fall, we had the preternatural gifts of immortality and lack of concupiscence. These were not part of our natural creation, but gifts God gave us. After the fall, God took away these gifts.
Now, I believe that after the resurrection, we receive more than just these preternatural gifts, our actual nature becomes immortal and our will is set against sin. So it goes beyond just restoring us to our state before the fall. So it doesn’t necessarily mean that marriage will be part of that restoration, just because it existed before the fall.
And of course, Jesus told us there would be no marriage in heaven.

 

[fisherman_carl]

A friend of mine was saying that the real reason that there is no marriage in heaven is because marriage was never part of God’s original plan in the first place.

I think that would be a big assumption to say that marriage was not part of God’s intention. If anything, I think logic would bear that it must have been God’s intention just from looking at the nature of human beings having bodies that are either male and female and therefore must come together in order to make procreation possible. If God did not intend marriage then he should have made us Asexual. But, having made us sexual creatures automatically creates this union between the two sexes for the purpose of procreation and family. This creates a strong bond between parents and between parents and children that you cannot really or easily get through any other means.

And I think this bears out by the fact people are willing to suffer for their own children, but not so much for other people’s children. It is because we are biologically wired to care for our own children. This family bond is so great that we can consider it sacred. The trust between a mother and infant for instance. A sacred bond, a sacred Temple, is the family. And I think this points to a God who desires to have a sacred bond with us and for which the family reflects.

When you think about it how we see the world is through the lens of the family. We can better relate to God by calling him a Father. Or we can relate better to Mary by calling her a Mother. It is because we are born into a family and our entire world view is colored by that. We can’t relate to a world governed by robots for instance.

And I think that the reason there is no marriage in heaven is because there is no more procreation. But I think that we will have still have our families in heaven. And we will gain new ones there as well. So the idea of the family that we learned about on earth will not die but expand and be perfected in a way that only God can do. And it will enter into it’s full significance there.