Marriage: An Eternal Covenant

Marriage – that most wonderful of covenants that a man and woman pursue together – tragically, even in the Church, has become diluted and estranged from the original designs God had for it. Today, even within the Church, it is seen as merely a temporal affair, good only for rearing children. It is viewed as inferior to other states of life, with perpetual virginity as the ideal and marriage as a compromise.

It is most certainly not a compromise, nor is it inferior to perpetual virginity (for it is in fact higher, more pleasing to God, and offers greater room for holiness, than consecrated virginity). Nor is its primary focus child-rearing as marriage was instituted by God before the concept of childbearing existed. Most importantly though, marriage does not end with in this Vale of Tears with death; it is a bond once forged that will remain connected throughout eternity, and it will be the very bond you share (with your spouse) in the Beatific Vision.

There is much that the secular world, the Church, and pro-natalist groups misunderstand about this primordial sacrament. It is vital, therefore, that a correction be issued so people may enter more deeply into this wonderful element of what it means to be human. This article will attempt to inform you, dear reader, of the rich patristic teachings on marriage from theologians such as Chrysostom and Tertullian, as well as literary works like The Shepherd of Hermas (all of whom maintained that marriage does not end at death but is in fact an eternal covenant). It will also explore the true meaning of Genesis 2. 18, Matthew 22. 30, and 1 Corinthians 7, passages often misinterpreted to the denigration of this sacrament.

Before we begin to rediscover this rich patristic nectar or reclaim a correct interpretation of Scripture, it would be helpful first to revisit precisely what the modern Church teaches about marriage. This will better highlight its errors. As defined in various places, the Church essentially sees marriage as:

‘A covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole life, is by its nature ordered to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament.’ [1] With ‘the spouses’ union achieving the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life.’ [2]

The definition upon which I base my argument differs, maintaining that sacramental marriage (the type of marriage the Church espouses) is only part of the married state. The married state is an eternal covenantal relationship, trinitarian in nature and form, between a man, woman, and God. It is ordered to the good of the spouses (namely their salvation) and serves as the primary relationship above all other bonds of kinship or fraternity. It is eternal and therefore never ceases.

Whereas matrimony – or sacramental marriage – is the sacrament consisting of the marital act between a man and woman within the bounds of wedlock, ordered toward strengthening this bond in this life. It ceases at death.

Scripture

Genesis 2 and God’s Designs

Perhaps the best place to start will be with Scripture itself. There are a few things worth noting here: first, marriage was created by God in the Garden of Eden in response to man’s loneliness. God, who is perfect relationship and has known eternally the closeness of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, sees man (who at this point is in relationship with God) and declares that it is ‘not good.’ That is a groundbreaking statement because God, who knows all, sees that it is just Him and man and states categorically that this type of relationship is not good for man. He creates for him another to form a trinitarian relationship with Him (the type of relationship God has always known perfectly). A helper to enable him to enter more deeply into relationship with Him.

Secondly, the manner in which the woman (who will go on to be named Eve) was created. Eve was created from Adam – not from the dirt like Adam – she was created from Adam. No other creature owes their origin to another in scripture; only Eve, the pinnacle of God’s creation. Created already elevated so that she and Adam may join together and pursue God together, united as one flesh. This is significant because it shows that in her creation, God compensated for the lowliness of Adam (which created a deficiency in their relationship) by, in union with Woman whom he created elevated, elevating the now one flesh to a higher status than it was at the onset of creation. Hence why the sole goal of a married couple is to help each other reach the empyrean and subsequently the beatific vision, where this trinitarian relationship finally reaches its zenith.

Let us now take a close look at the passage and see what other elements of the primordial sacrament God constitutes its nature of:

‘And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself … And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself. Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib that he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam. And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.’ [3]

The whole of this passage points further to the error in the statement of the Catholic Church in the Catechism, namely that marriage ‘had been raised to the dignity of a sacrament.’ [4] God already created the sacrament elevated and desired this for all of man. What Christ did was restore the dignity of the sacrament from the continual denigrations and attacks it had received due to the hardness of men’s hearts in the Old Testament: such as divorce, polygamy, relations outside of wedlock (both premarital and adultery), as well as remarriage.

The point of the Incarnate Word, as He himself says: ‘Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.’ [5] Christ perfects and restores what was already created. Hence why for a Christian who follows Christ, the commandments surrounding this primordial sacrament are so high. ‘But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.’ [6] A Christian’s goal is perfection and living out the commandments without fault or compromise – as is suggested by another element this passage contradicts with the Catechism: the primacy of relationships.

I think it is clear that the passage plainly states married couples become one and supersede the parental bond, so I shall gloss over that. What is perhaps deeper and more significant in an exegesis is that ‘they shall become one flesh.’ Unlike a surface-level argument, this argues essentially both Adam and Eve at the point of their marriage became one unique creature. Considering the elevated nature of the relationship between man and God – whom man alone among creation is unique in that he was made ‘to our [the Trinity’s] image and likeness’ – the argument stands that God cannot separate Himself from what He is a part of. [7]

If God cannot separate Himself from relationship with man (as only man, by his own sinful actions, can separate himself from God), how then could He sever the bond between man and woman: a bond that He Himself created essential to humanity? As the Apostle Paul later states: ‘The body is not for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.’ [8] The union of a man and woman’s bodies is solely for the Lord: for relationship with God. There exists no conceivable argument as to why God would break this bond.

1 Corinthians and Paul

The other passage of scripture that is often used to justify an erroneous interpretation of marriage is that to be found in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians:

‘But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. For I would that all men were even as myself: but everyone hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife.’ [9]

The all-important context is vital in interpreting this passage, not to mention the thoughts of some prominent theologians on this. As Aquinas states plainly, ‘the Apostle did not forbid the marriage act,’ Paul, like the later Church such as Augustine, Ambrose, Pius XII to name a few, tries to argue that the perpetual virginal state is preferred by God over that of the married state. [10] The argument against that is out of scope of this particular paper, however I will touch upon later why later theologians such as Ambrose, Augustine, as well as the modern Church in Pius XII’s Sacra Virginitas, hold to this view and why it is a misinterpretation of earlier passages in Scripture. For now, the importance of this is that Paul is presenting what he believes, and he himself states via indulgence and not commandment, that Christian love is in response to the wildly sexually immoral Church in Corinth (who are engaged in widespread adultery, fornication, as well as prostitution). [11]

This is not a commandment, nor is it a theological extrapolation on the complete nature of the married state, rather it is Paul correcting what is going wrong in Corinth. Call to mind his earlier statement: ‘I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able; for you are yet carnal.’ [12] If the nature of marriage is eternal, and the focus of the couple should be on reaching the beatific vision together, is not here Paul merely stating that those who are only temporally focused (or carnal as he has put it) are ill-suited to enter this state until they have first set their eyes upon the empyrean and God? Must we not first understand the fullness and beauty of the gift of the married state before we set out upon it with our spouse? For the record this argument is applicable to all of the Pauline epistles, including to the Romans in which Aquinas erroneously held that marriage is ended at death, as the Pauline letters are essentially applied teachings to specific contexts and not an exposition of the fullness of revelation and are useful for formation of the burgeoning Church (not to mention the continued scholarly debate surrounding the authorship of these letters). [13]

Matthew 22 and the Problem of the Sadducees

The final passage of Scripture that I would like to touch upon before turning our attention to the early Church’s interpretation of this sacrament is that of Matthew 22:30. The passage often gets used to present marriage as temporal, and under consecrated virginity in the ordering. Below is a better representation of that passage with the context of the earlier verses intact in order to dismiss this erroneous interpretation:

‘That day there came to him the Sadducees, who say there is nor resurrection; and asked him, saying: Master, Moses said: If a man die having no son, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up issue to his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first having married a wife, died; and not having issue, left wife to his brother. In like manner the second, and the third, and so on to the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. At the resurrection therefor whose wife of the seven shall she be? For they all had her. And Jesus answering, said to them: You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven. And concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken by God, saying to you: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. And the multitudes hearing it, were in admiration at his doctrine. But the Pharisees hearing that he had silenced the Sadducees, came together: And one of them, a doctor of the law, asking him, tempting him…’  [14]

The argument is that Christ expressly states that they ‘shall neither marry nor be married’ in heaven and rather should be like angels. However, Christ uses the transitive verb, marry or as in the Koine Greek γαμοῦσιν. I argue that, like all sacraments, matrimony itself points towards something higher in the empyrean. Therefore, there is a twofold expression of marriage: one that is eternal (namely the state we shall exist with our spouse and God in the empyrean), and the other transitory (the sacrament that we call marriage that enables a couple to enter into the married state).

The sacrament of marriage is itself the sexual act between a man and a woman in the bond of wedlock. You are not married in the Church; rather you are married at the moment of consummation, namely the sexual act (hence why virginity is essential in entering the married state as you can only enter this bond once), and the Church service is merely a polite and public witness to the couple’s relationship.

So therefore, what Christ is referring to in heaven is that the sacrament of marriage will not exist or, to put it more candidly, there will be no sexual relations in heaven. Sex will not be needed as the sole purpose of the sexual act is the unification of a man and a woman (many studies have been done on the chemical nature of sexual intercourse that permanently leaves a bond with that person, another reason why virginity is required to enter into married life, and casual sex is an abhorrent and venomous corruption of God’s design for sexual relations). [15] He does not say that the married state will not exist in heaven; rather, as many prominent theologians have envisioned, the empyrean will be a return to the purified state pre-fall, as it was in the Garden. And as marriage existed in the Garden (notice that, as Thomas Aquinas proposes, sex, or this sacramental form of marriage, does not exist in the Garden pre-fall: it is only after the fall in Genesis 3 that arguably sex enters as the way humans going forward will be married), therefore we will still be married to our spouse. [16]

This is not to mention the context in which he was speaking. The Sadducees were trying to get him to speak out of turn and to discredit him in front of their own followers. This is not a serious theological argument that they were making, as it clearly states that they themselves did not believe in the resurrection, and therefore their own argument carries no merit.

What is interesting about their specific stance though is that it is used as the same justification by the Church for remarriage and marriage being until the death of one of the spouses. As the Church too, albeit this time they do profess the resurrection, do not understand the power of God to maintain that bond even if the spouses are separated by the Vale of Tears.

With the argument being that marriage has to be temporal and exited on the death of a spouse, otherwise how would God allow multiple people to be married to the same person. I tell you most solemnly, that this is a gross misinterpretation of this passage, not to mention a gross misinterpretation of death. Remember death is not the ending of life; rather it is the translation of the believer to eternal life: ‘For since the life is not cut short by death.’ [17]

‘Behold, I tell you a mystery. We shall all indeed rise again: but we shall not all be changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall rise again incorruptible: and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality. And when this mortal hath put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory.’ [18]

If then, when we die, God preserves us as we are, albeit purified from sin, how can you say that the covenantal bond that He himself has entered into, He would break? No, the use of this passage by the Church to specify the temporal nature of marriage is erroneous and disregards our understanding of the resurrection much akin to the Sadducees.

Early Church Fathers, Theologians, and Texts

John Chrysostom

Let us now turn our attention to some early Church theologians on the nature of marriage and its existence in the empyrean, starting with John Chrysostom and his Letter to a Young Widow. In this letter, in which he was writing to a recently widowed young woman, Chrysostom highlights that marriage itself is a bond that exists outside of time and space and that, for this young widow, she would do well to remember her husband and remain faithful to him as the marriage bond does not end in death. Rather, it finds its fulfillment in the empyrean with God.

Early on in the letter he interprets the Pauline Epistles in light of this reverence for the widowed state, such as in 1 Timothy 5. 10 where he states that the high requirement to be declared a widow by Paul goes to show the moral character and extraordinary heroism of the widow, and that they now have Christ to provide for them on this earth. ‘By this expression he gives us to understand that they who have lost their husbands are wedded to Christ in their stead.’ [19] Which, when marriage is viewed as a trinitarian covenant, is most certainly true. Christ always dwells within the bond of marriage of two believers. He does this to comfort the woman and to set the stage for the next key insight.

Namely that of the special state of widowhood as an exalted title (as well as again the care that God has for them). ‘And this is not my saying but that of the blessed prophet David for he says “He will take up the fatherless and the widow,” and elsewhere he calls Him “father of the fatherless and judge of the widow;” thus in many passages you will see that He earnestly considers the cause of this class of mankind.’ [20] ‘That this name of widow is not a title of calamity but of honor, aye the greatest honor.’ [21] And in fact, it is higher than that of virginity:

‘You see what great praise is bestowed upon widowhood, and thus in the New Testament, when the beauty of virginity also was clearly brought to light. Nevertheless even the lustre of this state could not obscure the glories of widowhood, which shines brightly all the same, keeping its own value. When then we make mention of widowhood from time to time, do not be cast down, nor consider the matter a reproach; for if this be a matter of reproach, far more so is virginity.’

The apex of this letter is when Chrysostom explains to the widow why she should not despair. This is where he weds both a theology of marriage and a correct interpretation of the nature of death together (a mixture that, if it was at all one way or the other, he would have lost this rich understanding):

‘Now if it is not the name of widow which distresses you, but the loss of such a husband I grant you that all the world over among men engaged in secular affairs there have been few like him, so affectionate, so gentle, so humble, so sincere, so understanding, so devout. And certainly, if he had altogether perished, and utterly ceased to be, it would be right to be distressed, and sorrowful; but if he has only sailed into the tranquil haven, and taken his journey to Him who is really his king, one ought not to mourn but to rejoice on these accounts. For this death is not death, but only a kind of emigration and translation from the worse to the better, from earth to heaven, from men to angels, and archangels, and Him who is the Lord of angels and archangels. For here on earth while he was serving the emperor there were dangers to be expected and many plots arising from men who bore ill-will, for in proportion as his reputation increased did the designs also of enemies abound; but now that he has departed to the other world none of these things can be suspected. Wherefore in proportion as you grieve that God has taken away one who was so good and worthy you ought to rejoice that he has departed in much safety and honor, and being released from the trouble which besets this present season of danger, is in great peace and tranquility. For is it not out of place to acknowledge that heaven is far better than earth, and yet to mourn those who are translated from this world to the other? For if that blessed husband of yours had been one of those who lived a shameful life contrary to what God approved it would have been right to bewail and lament for him not only when he had departed, but while he was still living; but inasmuch as he was one of those who are the friends of God we should take pleasure in him not only while living, but also when he has been laid to rest. And that we ought to act thus you have surely heard the words of the blessed Paul to depart and to be with Christ which is far better. But perhaps you long to hear your husband’s words, and enjoy the affection which you bestowed upon him, and you yearn for his society, and the glory which you had on his account, and the splendor, and honor, and security, and all these things being gone distress and darken your life. Well! The affection which you bestowed on him you can keep now just as you formerly did.

For such is the power of love, it embraces, and unites, and fastens together not only those who are present, and near, and visible but also those who are far distant; and neither length of time, nor separation in space, nor anything else of that kind can break up and sunder in pieces the affection of the soul. But if you wish to behold him face to face (for this I know is what you specially long for) keep your bed in his honor sacred from the touch of any other man, and do your best to manifest a life like his, and then assuredly you shall depart one day to join the same company with him, not to dwell with him for five years as you did 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. For if it was identity of moral constitution which brought Lazarus although a stranger to Abraham into the same heavenly bosom with him, and qualifies many from east and west to sit down with him, the place of rest will receive you also with the good Therasius, if you will exhibit the same manner of life as his, and then you shall receive him back again no longer in that corporeal beauty which he had when he departed, but in luster of another kind, and splendor outshining the rays of the sun. For this body, even if it reaches a very high standard of beauty is nevertheless perishable; but the bodies of those who have been well pleasing to God, will be invested with such glory as these eyes cannot even look upon. And God has furnished us with certain tokens, and obscure indications of these things both in the Old and in the New Dispensation. For in the former the face of Moses shone with such glory as to be intolerable to the eyes of the Israelites, and in the New the face of Christ shone far more brilliantly than his. For tell me if anyone had promised to make your husband king of all the earth, and then had commanded you to withdraw for twenty years on his account, and had promised after that to restore him to you with the diadem and the purple, and to place you again in the same rank with him, would you not have meekly endured the separation with due self-control? Would you not have been well pleased with the gift, and deemed it a thing worth praying for? Well then submit to this now, not for the sake of a kingdom on earth, but of a kingdom in Heaven; not to receive him back clad in a vesture of gold but robed in immortality and glory such as is fitting for them to have who dwell in Heaven. And if you find the trial very unbearable owing to its long duration, it may be that he will visit you by means of visions and converse with you as he was wont to do, and show you the face for which you yearn: let this be your consolation taking the place of letters, though indeed it is far more definite than letters. For in the latter case there are but lines traced with the pen to look upon, but in the former you see the form of his visage, and his gentle smile, his figure and his movements, you hear his speech and recognize the voice which you loved so well. [22]

There is much to break down in this resplendent passage, though I shall leave the most obvious for the reader to ponder in his own time. As such, I shall focus on just a few of the main themes.

Firstly, the nature of death and how it affects marriage. Chrysostom clearly holds to the notion (the correct Christian interpretation) that death is not the end of life but rather, in his terms, a ‘translation’ to the better part of life – that of our eternity with God. The argument that the Church holds – that marriage is only bound in life and breaks at the death of a spouse – does not take into consideration the nature of death, the resurrection, nor the power of God.

This vale of tears is a miserable place, and ultimately not our end point. Therefore, as Chrysostom clearly states, why would something as holy and wonderful as marriage merely end at death? Why would God institute it just for our exile? If the goal of marriage is to help each other become sanctified and reach God, surely at the end of the path God would allow the couple who have journeyed together along the narrow path to rest together in Him?

It seems to me that Chrysostom here has a clearer understanding of the human condition and the nature of God than detractors who hold marriage as a temporal affair that will be done away with at the end of our lives.

This brings me to the second point that Chrysostom makes: the power of love. The argument that the marital bond, which is forged in love, breaks at the death of a spouse is a complete repudiation of the Christian understanding of love. We often think of love as merely human construct; hence why people limit its power – but that could not be further from the case.

Love is the most powerful thing in existence, for love is God: ‘He who loveth not, knoweth not God: for God is Love.’ [23] The Incarnate Word, when He came down to save us, what do the scriptures say about Him? ‘Greater love than this no man hath.’ [24] Paul, in his letter to Corinth, writes of love (a passage you may perhaps be familiar with): ‘Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.’ [25]

No, dear reader, you would err if you thought there were any limits to love. Therefore, if there are no limits, is Chrysostom not right in what he says about love conquering even the temporary physical separation caused by the death of your spouse? Such is the power of love.

Part II – Covering Tertullian, The Council of Trent, Vatican II, as well as Pius XII and Leo XIII – Coming 2026.02.22

---