A Theological Wrinkle

[DannyM]

I have a point to counter my own argument - was there an underlying assumtion, or even an unconscious assumption, that those who were married had faith? I wonder if no-one really thought that the married couple would have one who was without faith.

Dan

[DannyM]

Danny, actually we do know, because God's Word teaches us. We have to be very careful in how we read certain scriptures. There are certain scriptures which if read out of context or outside the whole counsel of God could lead one to this conclusion.

For example: 1 Cor. 7:14
If we take this verse out of context, we would think, "Oh this means a husbands faith saves his wife and vice versa." But if we read on to 1 Cor. 7:16 “For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?”
Obviously the sanctification in verse 14 is the sanctity of the marriage itself, and is advice not to divorce a spouse just because they are a non-believer. That children born of this marriage will not be illegitimate.


In Acts 16:31 we could also see a similar conclusion if we read the verse out of context. But then we read in Acts 16:32-34, "Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house."
The "others" heard and believed in Christ for salvation. Afterall, Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. (Rom. 10:17)

There is only one way of salvation, and that is through faith in Jesus Christ (Matthew 7:13-14; John 6:67-68; John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Ephesians 2:8).

Jesus Himself indicates that the Gospel often divides families. For example, in Matthew 10:34-36 Jesus said: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; and a man's enemies will be those of his own household.”

Salvation is a personal exchange between the person and Christ. As is judgment.

Hebrews 9:27
John 3:36

The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." (Rev 20:11-15).

If we read the scripture in light of the scripture, taking the whole counsel of God, and rightly dividing the word of truth, we can understand how salvation is accomplished. This need not be an unclear issue, nor do I think, based on the whole counsel of God, that He intends it to be. When we let our own devices lure us into "maybes" and "what ifs" we drift into dangerous territory. Be careful how you handle the Word. 2 Timothy 2:15

Jjay,

I appreciate very much you indulging me. I see a slight wrinkle, yet you see no wribkle at all. Yet you still take the time to join in with me, and for that I am very grateful. I too believe that Salvation lies within. I too believe that faith is a matter for the individual and Christ; it is between man and Christ alone. But further to your quote from 1 Corinthians, if you move along a little further to 1 Corinthians 7:25-29 we see Paul telling us to keep things the way they are, in preperation for the coming kingdom. It is not so much the marriage which is forbidden, it is intimate relations which is forbidden - or at least advised against.

Now, contrary to what my friend Jac says, I do *get it*. I know what the text says about no marriage or giving in marriage. But I suspect that the key to the text, behind the text, is celibacy. Paul tells us that if we are married to live as though we were not. Celibacy is what is hinted at, and devotion to God and not your wife or husband, at a pureness with God in preperation in the current crisis. So celibacy is promoted. The text does not say that the man and his wife will be physically moved apart from one another; it simply says that there will be no marriage or giving in marriage. Is this tantamount to divorce? Possibly. Is this remotely suggesting that the husband and wife will be physically removed from one another? No,I don't think so. So in this case the husband and wife, although not recognised as married, will still be within close proximity of one another.

So the question of the unbelieving wife, on this reckoning, becomes slightly more valid. Or do you still disagree?

God bless

[Jac3510]

Now, contrary to what my friend Jac says, I do *get it*. I know what the text says about no marriage or giving in marriage. But I suspect that the key to the text, behind the text, is celibacy. Paul tells us that if we are married to live as though we were not. Celibacy is what is hinted at, and devotion to God and not your wife or husband, at a pureness with God in preperation in the current crisis. So celibacy is promoted. The text does not say that the man and his wife will be physically moved apart from one another; it simply says that there will be no marriage or giving in marriage. Is this tantamount to divorce? Possibly. Is this remotely suggesting that the husband and wife will be physically removed from one another? No,I don't think so. So in this case the husband and wife, although not recognised as married, will still be within close proximity of one another.

Did you not read the context of Jesus' statement? Let me provide it for you:

• 23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24"Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"
  
  29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'[a]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." (NIV)

Now, I don't suppose you believe that a woman married seven times was much for practicing celibacy, do you?!?

Look, the Sadducees asked the very same question you are asking. What happens to a married couple at death? And more specifically, in their case, if a widow marries, then who gets her? Jesus' answer: NO ONE, because there is NO marriage at death. Beyond that, I've already shown that Paul disgrees with your central premise that marriage is eternal. It isn't. So when both Jesus and Paul DIRECTLY repudiate your question, I don't see the problem any more. You are arguing with Christ Himself, which is to argue with God Himself (much the same as people who insist that it takes more than faith to be saved). In that, your disagreement isn't with me or anyone else on these boards.

God bless

[DannyM]

Did you not read the context of Jesus' statement? Let me provide it for you:

• 23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24"Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"
  
  29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'[a]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." (NIV)

Now, I don't suppose you believe that a woman married seven times was much for practicing celibacy, do you?!?

Look, the Sadducees asked the very same question you are asking. What happens to a married couple at death? And more specifically, in their case, if a widow marries, then who gets her? Jesus' answer: NO ONE, because there is NO marriage at death. Beyond that, I've already shown that Paul disgrees with your central premise that marriage is eternal. It isn't. So when both Jesus and Paul DIRECTLY repudiate your question, I don't see the problem any more. You are arguing with Christ Himself, which is to argue with God Himself (much the same as people who insist that it takes more than faith to be saved). In that, your disagreement isn't with me or anyone else on these boards.

God bless

Jac! Whatever way we look at it, the fact remains that you have been drawn into the debate. You are now in the arena, and for that I am happy. Now, shall I be the Maxentius to your Constantine, or perhapse vice versa? But alas, brother, we are not at war. We are here to debate, and there are no losers in debate, just enlightened. So to push my absurd analogy further, we are both Constantines!

Well, for a start Leviticus 18:16 renders the hypothetically put question to Jesus obsolete. But I'll go along with it. The celibacy factor is explicitly made by Paul; I was merely reading beneath the verse of No marriage or giving in marriage in heaven as covering, among other things, celibacy. I concede that my original emphasis on "marriage" was hasty and wrongly worded. But the bigger picture I stand by, for now. It is merely a theological question. I am not "arguing with Christ"; I am merely excersising my Christian right in doing theology. I am not questioning Christ: I am questioning out interpretation of the text. I may well eventually totally concede the point, and if and when I do I can sleep easy in the knowledge that I have not "argued with Christ." You do make me smile sometimes, Jac.

God bless

[cslewislover]

[ You are arguing with Christ Himself, which is to argue with God Himself (much the same as people who insist that it takes more than faith to be saved).
God bless

This is off-topic, but since you brought up I wanted to say something. I'm so tired of hearing this on the board, Jac. I don't know anyone that believes it takes more than faith to be saved . . . well not that I can recall. Everyone that has written here that is sort-of a regular, and that I have written to personally, believes you are saved by faith, period. But things start to happen that are manifested by faith and the work of the Holy Spirit in people's lives. That's what I've seen discussed, not that you need more than faith to save you. And besides that, there are false "believers" in the church, and we are to be discerning, where possible (it's amazing how many people get "ripped off" by "people of faith"!!); that comes into that discussion too. But everyone knows we're saved by faith alone, it's very easy to understand!

[Byblos]

This is off-topic, but since you brought up I wanted to say something. I'm so tired of hearing this on the board, Jac. I don't know anyone that believes it takes more than faith to be saved . . . well not that I can recall. Everyone that has written here that is sort-of a regular, and that I have written to personally, believes you are saved by faith, period. But things start to happen that are manifested by faith and the work of the Holy Spirit in people's lives. That's what I've seen discussed, not that you need more than faith to save you. And besides that, there are false "believers" in the church, and we are to be discerning, where possible (it's amazing how many people get "ripped off" by "people of faith"!!); that comes into that discussion too. But everyone knows we're saved by faith alone, it's very easy to understand!

Heck even the resident Catholic agrees with that . We go one step further to say even faith is a gift from God (but let's not get hung up on that Jac, okay? )

[Jac3510]

Jac! Whatever way we look at it, the fact remains that you have been drawn into the debate. You are now in the arena, and for that I am happy. Now, shall I be the Maxentius to your Constantine, or perhapse vice versa? But alas, brother, we are not at war. We are here to debate, and there are no losers in debate, just enlightened. So to push my absurd analogy further, we are both Constantines!

Well, for a start Leviticus 18:16 renders the hypothetically put question to Jesus obsolete. But I'll go along with it. The celibacy factor is explicitly made by Paul; I was merely reading beneath the verse of No marriage or giving in marriage in heaven as covering, among other things, celibacy. I concede that my original emphasis on "marriage" was hasty and wrongly worded. But the bigger picture I stand by, for now. It is merely a theological question. I am not "arguing with Christ"; I am merely excersising my Christian right in doing theology. I am not questioning Christ: I am questioning out interpretation of the text. I may well eventually totally concede the point, and if and when I do I can sleep easy in the knowledge that I have not "argued with Christ." You do make me smile sometimes, Jac.

No, Lev. 18:16 does NOT render the question obsolete. They were quoting the Mosaic Law, specifically Deut 25:5

• If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.

This is still more proof that as far as God is concerned, marriage ends at death. So now we have Moses, Paul, and Jesus all supporting this rather simple point.

Far from making their question invalid, it grounds it in exactly the same grounding you have. A man is married. He dies. His brother, by God's command, marries her. This happens seven times. She dies. Who gets her in heaven?

Answer: no one. She is no one's wife in heaven because there is no marriage in heaven. You can say you aren't arguing with Christ all day long, but you sure seem to be trying to find a way around His words. Jesus says, "There is no marriage in heaven," and you seem to want to say, "Yes, Jesus, you are sort of right. There isn't any marriage except in this or that case. So, really, Lord, to be absolutely technical, there IS marriage in Heaven, contrary to what You said. I know You were well intentioned and all, and really, You weren't trying to be so technical, but really there ARE a few exceptions to Your rule here . . ."

Call that what you want. I call it arguing with Him. If Jesus didn't make any exceptions to His statement, then why should you?

This is off-topic, but since you brought up I wanted to say something. I'm so tired of hearing this on the board, Jac. I don't know anyone that believes it takes more than faith to be saved . . . well not that I can recall. Everyone that has written here that is sort-of a regular, and that I have written to personally, believes you are saved by faith, period. But things start to happen that are manifested by faith and the work of the Holy Spirit in people's lives. That's what I've seen discussed, not that you need more than faith to save you. And besides that, there are false "believers" in the church, and we are to be discerning, where possible (it's amazing how many people get "ripped off" by "people of faith"!!); that comes into that discussion too. But everyone knows we're saved by faith alone, it's very easy to understand!

With all due respect, CSLL, if you are tired of discussing it, then perhaps you should just let others discuss it for whom it is an ongoing issue? To the best of my knowledge, we haven't banned the discussion of certain topics . . .

More directly to your point, I didn't have anyone on THESE boards in mind when I made that statement. But I can guarantee you that there are people who believe that faith is NOT enough to save, that you must repent and/or be baptized and/or commit your life to Christ and/or persevere in the faith (lest you lose your "salvation"), etc. They have an Andy's Gospel. They say and man bust believe AND he must repent; he must believe AND he must confess; he must believe AND he must live a life of good works, etc. Sorry, those people don't believe the Gospel. They are calling Jesus a liar. I am NOT saying that they are not saved. For all I know they could have believed the Gospel at some point in their lives and now simply are confused. It happens. But I make no apologies for defending what Paul said was the power of God unto salvation.

Do you think that I had any particular individual in mind when I made the correct statement that people who say you must do something in addition to faith (i.e., repent, be baptized, confess, maintain faith, etc.) are arguing with Jesus? I assure you, I didn't, and I the only reason I don't take exception to your assumption on this point is that I too am guilty of assuming things that people don't mean.

As to whether or not salvation necessarily leads to good works, that is a pneumatological question, not a soteriological one. It only bears on whether or not a person actually believes the Gospel if it affects their view of assurance, and the vast majority of people are not nearly that nuanced in their initial faith in Christ. I am on record here saying that the belief that salvation necessarily produces good works IS contradictory the the Gospel of Christ, but only as a logical corollary. Plenty of people have trusted in Christ alone and have gone on to make that theological error. That doesn't mean that they didn't believe the Gospel.

If, then, you aren't so tired of discussing this after all and would like to open another thread, I'm always more than happy to talk about the truly Good News of Jesus Christ, that we are saved by grace through faith ALONE and totally apart from any works whatsoever, including repentance, baptism, confession, or even our perseverance in faith and/or good works. And if not, then I am happy to leave it here as well, and rejoice in the fact that we both do believe the Gospel and will, whatever we may disagree on theologically, spend our eternity in the same place serving and praising the same God.

God bless

[cslewislover]

This is off-topic, but since you brought up I wanted to say something. I'm so tired of hearing this on the board, Jac. I don't know anyone that believes it takes more than faith to be saved . . . well not that I can recall. Everyone that has written here that is sort-of a regular, and that I have written to personally, believes you are saved by faith, period. But things start to happen that are manifested by faith and the work of the Holy Spirit in people's lives. That's what I've seen discussed, not that you need more than faith to save you. And besides that, there are false "believers" in the church, and we are to be discerning, where possible (it's amazing how many people get "ripped off" by "people of faith"!!); that comes into that discussion too. But everyone knows we're saved by faith alone, it's very easy to understand!

Heck even the resident Catholic agrees with that . We go one step further to say even faith is a gift from God (but let's not get hung up on that Jac, okay? )

[Jac3510]

Heck even the resident Catholic agrees with that . We go one step further to say even faith is a gift from God (but let's not get hung up on that Jac, okay? )

The way I see it, Jesus didn't say, "Whoever has the right view of the origin of faith has everlasting life." So as long as you Augustinians (I've decided to use that term rather than "Calvinist" because I think it is more accurate, don't you?) have trusted Christ alone for your salvation apart from your repentance, works, baptism, continuing in the faith, etc., then, as that old song says, "When all get to Heaven what a day of rejoicing that will be!" and there is nothing to get hung up on. And that, sir, is something I have no doubt about as far as you go (not that MY beliefs on what you have or haven't done with Christ have anything to do with it, of course, but hey, just sayin' . . .).

[cslewislover]

I'm so glad that Jesus said to have faith like a child. The child listens to the Father through His Word and doesn't put too much weight on what other people say (like Augustine, Calvin, Barth, or whoever), since it all comes from Him and goes back to Him. All blessing and discipline come from Him, not from anyone else. Love is His too, and love and respect should flow to all eternal folks created by Him (I like CS Lewis' Weight of Glory sermon).

[DannyM]

This is off-topic, but since you brought up I wanted to say something. I'm so tired of hearing this on the board, Jac. I don't know anyone that believes it takes more than faith to be saved . . . well not that I can recall. Everyone that has written here that is sort-of a regular, and that I have written to personally, believes you are saved by faith, period. But things start to happen that are manifested by faith and the work of the Holy Spirit in people's lives. That's what I've seen discussed, not that you need more than faith to save you. And besides that, there are false "believers" in the church, and we are to be discerning, where possible (it's amazing how many people get "ripped off" by "people of faith"!!); that comes into that discussion too. But everyone knows we're saved by faith alone, it's very easy to understand!

So is faith alone, without works, enough? Paul tended to believe so, and James tended to believe not. I tend to believe, through my understanding of New Testament scripture, that faith in the glory of Christ Jesus is what saves us. But this DOES NOT mean that we are to sib back, relax, and not give a stuff about the world.

Now I don't know if your point is addressing the likes of me. But if it is, then you would be wrong about me and the point you are making is false. And what would constitute a "false believer" in your world? Someone who disagrees with your interpretation of a thing, perhaps? Would this make a person a false believer in the church, because they disagree with you on the thing? If so, what part does logic play in this reading of it?

Catholic doctrine dictates that Transubstantiation and the real presence is a manifestation of the bread into the body and of the wine into the blood of Christ. It takes literally a metaphorical meaning. This is what Catholicism would consider correct opinion (orthodoxy). But there is no correct opinion; it is just a metaphor. Jesus never meant this to be taken as literal. But even the great Thomas Aquinas tried in vain to use Aristotelianisms like "substance" and "accident" to prove the real eucharistic presence. It is nothing more than a maltreatment of words to try - and fail - to prove a thing that was never meant literally in the beginning. So a Catholic will more likely believe in this, while I do not. This makes neither the Catholic or myself a "false believer." It simply means we have both interpreted the thing differently. The thing in question is a thing of nonorthodox value: there is NO correct opinion. The believer in Transubstantiation has taken the text literally; the nonbeliever of this doctrine has taken the thing as an intended metaphor. But neither are necessarily "correct" and neither view is "false."

Now if I say that I believe the resurrection of Christ to be a metaphor for a spiritual ascendancy then I am teaching "false doctrine." This is where I become a false believer in the church. If I say that Christ is not both fully human and fully divine, this again is where I teach a false doctrine of orthodoxy. But because I disagree with you about nonorthodox issues and issues which are emphatically about interpretation, then I or anyone else is not a "false believer in the church" and I would suggest that it would be good for you not to make such wild and impious judgements. And not to say utterly INCORRECT judgements.

God bless

[DannyM]

No, Lev. 18:16 does NOT render the question obsolete. They were quoting the Mosaic Law, specifically Deut 25:5

• If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.

This is still more proof that as far as God is concerned, marriage ends at death. So now we have Moses, Paul, and Jesus all supporting this rather simple point.

Far from making their question invalid, it grounds it in exactly the same grounding you have. A man is married. He dies. His brother, by God's command, marries her. This happens seven times. She dies. Who gets her in heaven?

Jac, would YOU rather your brother marry your wife and not "outside the family"? Your question of who "gets her" in heaven is redundant, as you are acknowledging that they will both/all be in heaven. You are trying to reduce the wife to some second-rate meaningless role by wishing her into utter insignificance by positing the seven-brother scenario. This is to utterly belittle my original point. Although your hypothetical scenario is a perfectly legitimate hypothetical scenario it brings my meaningful question down to the level of ridicule. Now if you're happy with that and do not see my question or dilemma as meaningful then that's okay, and I appreciate your input no less. But I am not going to accept that I am "arguing with Christ" as I am simply and transparently trying to make sense of a theological wrinkle. Because you see no wrinkle takes nothing away from my seeing a wrinkle. Christ's statement of "no marriage or giving in marriage" is NOT saying "the married man is not going to heaven and the married woman is not going to heaven." It is definitely rendering marriage ineffectual and redundant in heaven, but it is NOT saying that the actual married man and the actual married woman will not be entering heaven. This is NOT arguing with Christ. It is reading his exact words and NOT changing ANY of his words or there meaning. I am arguing with YOU, and if you think this amounts to arguing with Christ then I strongly recommend stepping back and re-evaluating your statement

Answer: no one. She is no one's wife in heaven because there is no marriage in heaven. You can say you aren't arguing with Christ all day long, but you sure seem to be trying to find a way around His words. Jesus says, "There is no marriage in heaven," and you seem to want to say, "Yes, Jesus, you are sort of right. There isn't any marriage except in this or that case. So, really, Lord, to be absolutely technical, there IS marriage in Heaven, contrary to what You said. I know You were well intentioned and all, and really, You weren't trying to be so technical, but really there ARE a few exceptions to Your rule here . . ."

Call that what you want. I call it arguing with Him. If Jesus didn't make any exceptions to His statement, then why should you?

Again, you appear to be ever so good at reading words, but seem to fall some way short in understanding the exact meaning of them. I am not even so much concerned with the nonbelieving wife anymore as the fact that you think I am "arguing with Christ." I must say I take exception to someone telling me I am arguing with Jesus Christ, as you are appearing to be elevating yourself into a position which, frankly, you do not hold. So again, i am not arguing with Christ; I have acknowledged the redundancy of marriage - or have you not read that part? I am going to capitalise these words now, not out of anger or sarcasm, but to try to ram home what you seem to be missing - THE TEXT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE ACTUAL MAN OR THE ACTUAL WOMAN NOT BEING GRANTED A PLACE IN HEAVEN; IT IS MAKING CLEAR THAT MARRIAGE WILL BECOME INEFFECTUAL, REDUNDANT, IN HEAVEN; IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE MARRIED MAN AND THE MARRIED WOMAN WILL NOT ENTER HEAVEN: THEY WILL MERELY ENTER HEAVEN AS IF THEY WERE NOT MARRIED.

Thus it is the claiming the insignificance of the marriage, not the people who are married. No arguing with Christ here, I'm afraid. But I'm glad you feel you are in a position to judge me as such.

God bless

[Byblos]

THE TEXT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE ACTUAL MAN OR THE ACTUAL WOMAN NOT BEING GRANTED A PLACE IN HEAVEN; IT IS MAKING CLEAR THAT MARRIAGE WILL BECOME INEFFECTUAL, REDUNDANT, IN HEAVEN; IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE MARRIED MAN AND THE MARRIED WOMAN WILL NOT ENTER HEAVEN: THEY WILL MERELY ENTER HEAVEN AS IF THEY WERE NOT MARRIED.

I'm confused. Could you state once more What the theological wrinkle you're attempting to show is? Does it have to do with marriage (or lack of) in heaven or does it have to do with spousal salvation?

[DannyM]

THE TEXT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE ACTUAL MAN OR THE ACTUAL WOMAN NOT BEING GRANTED A PLACE IN HEAVEN; IT IS MAKING CLEAR THAT MARRIAGE WILL BECOME INEFFECTUAL, REDUNDANT, IN HEAVEN; IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE MARRIED MAN AND THE MARRIED WOMAN WILL NOT ENTER HEAVEN: THEY WILL MERELY ENTER HEAVEN AS IF THEY WERE NOT MARRIED.

I'm confused. Could you state once more What the theological wrinkle you're attempting to show is? Does it have to do with marriage (or lack of) in heaven or does it have to do with spousal salvation?

"Spousal survival."

[Byblos]

THE TEXT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE ACTUAL MAN OR THE ACTUAL WOMAN NOT BEING GRANTED A PLACE IN HEAVEN; IT IS MAKING CLEAR THAT MARRIAGE WILL BECOME INEFFECTUAL, REDUNDANT, IN HEAVEN; IT DOES NOT SAY THAT THE MARRIED MAN AND THE MARRIED WOMAN WILL NOT ENTER HEAVEN: THEY WILL MERELY ENTER HEAVEN AS IF THEY WERE NOT MARRIED.

I'm confused. Could you state once more What the theological wrinkle you're attempting to show is? Does it have to do with marriage (or lack of) in heaven or does it have to do with spousal salvation?

"Spousal survival."

Still not clear Danny. Spousal survival where, in what sense?