A Hint of Summer

“And when you will be gone,
just like every one else,
I will cry for you like the snow

that melts at the first hint of summer.”

Sanhita Baruah

A friend recently said she had a theological question for me: Will she and her husband still be married when they reach heaven?

When I heard her question, I felt relieved. From a Scriptural standpoint, this is a relatively easy question to answer. It wasn’t as if she had asked me to articulate and defend a particular order of salvation. And I gave her my answer, summarized briefly here:

The Sadducees once asked Jesus a similar question (Matthew 22). They described a situation in which seven brothers had each married a woman and then asked, “In the resurrection, whose wife will she be?” Jesus responded by saying, “In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.” So, Jesus taught that marriage will not continue in heaven. Pretty clear.

Also, the Apostle Paul used the temporal nature of marriage to underscore the reality that the Law only holds sway until death (Romans 7). He wrote that a woman is bound by the law to her husband “as long as he lives” but is released if he dies. If he dies, he declared, she is free to remarry. So, Paul affirmed as true what Jesus had already taught.

Furthermore, these Scriptural points are reflected in most marriage ceremonies – sacred or secular, as the couple vows to be faithful “till death do us part.” Yep, even humanity’s ‘natural instinct’ generally endorses the truths proclaimed by Christ and affirmed by His Church.

So, the bottom line, I explained, from a Scriptural standpoint, is that marriage between a man and a woman does not extend into heaven. The answer to her question, quite simply, was no.

I said all this, and then, looking at my friend, saw she was crestfallen.

 “Oh,” she said. “Oh, that’s sad… I love him so much.”

As she said that, I realized that I had once again permitted my brain to race ahead of my heart. I had given my answer without considering the emotional impulse that had driven her question. You see, the source of her question was very different from that of the Sadducees. They had been seeking to test Jesus and trick Him into a logical contradiction. They were attempting to win at a religious mind-game. But she wasn’t. Hers was no game. She was not trying to establish a proposition in a theological argument. She was not thinking of her relationship with her husband in terms of metaphor.

Her question was an expression of her love’s desire. She loves her husband, and the idea of losing the special intimacy she enjoys with him is crushing. I could see that, for her, my answer had turned the prospect of glory into a burden, not a blessing. Wow.

What can we say to all this? How could I have given a better answer?

Well, I think we can say that most of us have experienced similar feelings. We marry because we enjoy and appreciate the unique qualities of our spouses. And even with all the imperfections and annoyances of living in a fallen world, we treasure our spouses and our marriages. We recoil at the idea of losing that special intimacy. So, we share her concern.

And we can say that, still, we, as believers, must embrace the Scriptural realities that the current marital relationship between a husband and a wife is temporal. To do otherwise is to ignore God’s Word.

And we can also say that we must, as believers, affirm God’s Goodness and the superior blessing of Eternity with Him. Glory – our abiding future lives with Him – is uniformly presented in the Scriptures as immeasurably superior to life in this sin-cursed world. The constant proclamation of Scripture is that “the best is yet to come!” We have a future prepared for us that is better than anything we can imagine, the gift of an infinitely loving and good God. Glory will not be a burden; it will be a blessing!

But how then can we reconcile these thoughts with the emotional impulse expressed in my friend’s question?

I would like to offer a few suggestions for your consideration. (And, yes, I mentioned these to her.) See whether you agree or disagree with me…

First, my friend’s emotional impulse is a healthy one. The desire to see intimate fellowship continue for eternity is good and appropriate. Humanity was created for everlasting relationships. Death is the anomaly; death is the interloper and disrupter of fellowship. We should all desire intimacy to continue eternally.

Second, marital intimacy is a foreshadowing of spiritual realities. Paul describes the relationship between Christ and His Church using marriage as his metaphor. And there is more to his metaphor than as a mere blueprint for governance and roles. It speaks of intimacy, of an intimacy that extends to Christ and His Church universal. So, in short, the best of marital intimacy is an imperfect foreshadowing of an intimacy to be enjoyed between Christ and all believers.

Third, this intimacy between Christ and believers is an ‘already-not yet’ reality. We enjoy an intimacy with other believers now that we did not know before our conversions. And we will enjoy an oneness with God and other believers then that will transcend anything we have known yet.

Fourth, we ought to reframe the emotional question, turning it from its presupposition of loss to a presupposition of gain. Glory will not entail the loss of special intimacy with one’s spouse; it will entail the gain of special intimacy with all believers! Marriage will no longer be necessary because we will all enjoy the intimacy of marriage. Or, in other words, the intimacy of which earthly marital love hints will one day be fully realized in the eternal communion of the saints in glory.

What do you think? Do you agree? Are these answers emotionally satisfying? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

“And the glory which You gave Me

I have given them, that they may be one

just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me;

that they may be made perfect in one.”

John 17:22-23a

--Christian Pilet

Covenants Made Concrete

This was a momentous week in the Pilet household. Wednesday evening, Grace was asked by her boyfriend, Leif Jacobsen, to marry him. More importantly, from our perspective, she said “yes.” And now she is wearing some serious ring-finger blingage. (And, yes, he asked for our blessing first.) But I won’t go into all the details about how he asked her. That’s their story, and I’ll leave it for them to tell.

As we were doing the customary gushing over Grace’s diamond engagement ring, I started wondering about the origin of the wedding ring in general and the engagement ring specifically. Why do we give rings? Why do we give diamonds? Is it some sort of “Pebble and the Penguin” thing? What’s up? And why do most of us follow the tradition?

Discerning the origins of the wedding ring is not easy. There are, apparently, two main schools of thought concerning the matter (if we can really call a few debating geeks rivaling schools). One school of thought maintains that the modern ring is symbolic of the fetters used by barbarians to tether a bride to her captor’s home. If that is true, then today’s double ring ceremonies fittingly express the new found equality of the sexes.

The other school of though focuses on the first actual bands exchanged in a marriage ceremony. A finger ring was first used in the Third Dynasty of the Old Kingdom of Egypt, around 2800 B.C. To the Egyptians, a circle, having no beginning or end, signified eternity – for which marriage was binding.

Rings of gold were the most highly valued by wealthy Egyptians, and later Romans. Indeed, there is evidenced that young Roman men of moderate financial means often went from broke for their future brides. Tertullian, a leader of the early Christian church, observed in the second century A.D. that “most women know nothing of gold except the single marriage ring placed on one finger.” In public, the average Roman housewife proudly wore her gold band, but at home, according to Tertullian, she “wore a ring of iron.”

One of the first mentions of a diamond wedding ring is found in a Venetian document 1503. It lists “one marrying ring having diamond” belonging to a “Mary of Modina.”

The Venetians were the first to discover that the diamond is one of the hardest, most enduring substances in nature, and that fine cutting and polishing releases its brilliance. Diamonds, set in bands of silver and gold, became popular as wedding rings among wealthy Venetians toward the close of the fifteenth century. The rarity and cost of diamonds slowed the spread of this fad, but by the seventeenth century, the diamond ring had become the most popular, sought-after statement of a European engagement.

The question of when the giving of an engagement ring became common practice has a fairly clear answer, at least within Western Europe. In A.D. 860, Pope Nicholas I decreed that an engagement ring become a required statement of nuptial intent. And for Nicholas, a ring of just any material or worth would not suffice. The engagement ring was to be of a valued metal, preferably gold, which for the husband-to-be represented a financial sacrifice.

As far as diamond engagement rings, it is easy to see how the two traditions merged, and the diamond engagement ring became the standard statement of intent.

At its most basic level, the giving and receiving of an engagement ring is a promise, a promise made visible and concrete through a sacrificial gift.

One of the great metaphors used in the Scriptures to describe the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Church is that of a husband and wife (Ephesians 5:22-33). The Church has and will have a special, spiritual relationship with Him analogous to that of a married couple. But just as Grace and Leif did not and will not enter into marriage without a process and covenant, so also Jesus and the Church did not enter into their unique relationship without a process and a covenant. Jesus came, in His first Advent, and paid the brideprice with His blood. He demonstrated His total commitment with a visible, concrete, sacrificial gift, His death on the cross. And then, following His resurrection, He ascended into heaven “to prepare a place” for His bride, promising, “If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.” This is the great event we in the Church are now awaiting… our Lord’s Return. Yes, when He returns, He will snatch up His bride and take her to heaven for the Wedding and the Marriage Feast. So we wait for that glorious moment, with longing and joy.

Leif left yesterday to return to his teaching position in Beijing, China. In the meantime, Grace has been left with a promise, made visible in a diamond ring. She awaits his return and her new married state with longing and joy. She is already thinking about wedding dresses, and flowers, and decorations.

For me, the ring on Grace’s finger is a powerful reminder of our current relationship to Christ. We wait for Him, longing for Him with joy. And in the meantime, we live our lives in ways that will please Him, that He might find us faithful and prepared at His return.

May the diamond rings in your life can serve as concrete reminders of your relationship to Christ today.