Marriage as a "foretaste of heaven", an earthly reflection of our relationship with Jesus, is a common doctrine taught in all nearly all churches, but upon close examination, it doesn't seem to hold water:
1. The "match in heaven" in Revelation 21 is the union of Christ and his people, which marks the completion of salvation. The bride is the Great Multitude, the whole church of Christ in a collective sense, not any individual in particular;
2. As a historical fact, Lord Jesus himself was never married, he didn't even have any intimate relationship with any woman during his ministry; so was Paul, Timothy, numerous OT prophets like Isaiah, and generations of most devoted church fathers and mothers, abbesses, priests and missionaries, serving in the ministry is marriage with the Lord;
3. Paul taught in 1 Cor. 7 that we should be eschatalogically minded on the things of God (1 Cor. 7:29-31), marriage is merely a concession (1 Cor. 7:6), it's a burden (1 Cor. 7:28) and a distraction (1 Cor. 7:35); Jesus taught that celibacy is a gift, especially for those who choose celibacy for kingdom's sake (Matt. 19:12)
4. Ironically, it was the Sedduccees who couldn't comprehend resurrection, they tried to ridicule Jesus with their absurd hypothesis based on their projection of marriage into the afterlife; Jesus schooled them with a real preview of heaven: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven." (Matt. 22:30). Therefore, shouldn't a real foretaste of heaven be singlehood, i.e. "neither marry nor are given in marriage"?
5. During the early church period, marriage was merely a cultural norm, the early hermits and monks were all single like Paul, they abstained from marriage as a part of their ascetic pratice to evade worldly corruption. Even for some who did marry for economic and social reason, they remained celibate during their marriage, chastity was equated with spiritual purity. Only did marriage offically become a sacrament in late 12th century and early 13th century, then it was a major political move to forge unions and acquire properties, a climb on the social ladder into a higher class.
Another enormous game-changer is the prosperity after WWII, marriage rate once reached an abnormal peak of over 90% of the adult population, that's when the prosperity gospel began to take flight, marriage a pillar of this properity. Afterward was the hippie movement and sexual revolution, "purity culture" began to emerge as a countermeasure to that, marriage a license to sex; fast forward to today's hyper polarized political climate, marriage is further elevated by the conservatives as the saving grace to boost the declining birth rate, make America great again and save the decaying western civilization. It has gone so far that it has become an indicator of your political leaning, if you're married, you're suspected to be a right wing supporter.
So, as you can see, the meaning of marriage evolves over time. By God's original design, it a turning point in your life journey, THE sign of your independence, as you leave your parents and start your own. However, in reality, the meaning of marriage slowly evolves, from a cultural norm to a socio-economic union, a holy sacrament, a means for upward mobility, a romanticized "happily ever after", a status symbol of persperity, a countermeasure against the sexual revolution, an indicator of ringwing political leaning. Even within the bible itself, marriage evoled from polygamy to bigamy to monogamy and "serial monogamy", as was the common practice of the Pharisees during Jesus's ministry. When Jesus confronted the Pharisees on that in Matt. 19, he schooled them with the original design of marriage, but he had no intention of restoring it to its original design, nor did he order it on his followers. Therefore, the doctrine of marriage as a "foretaste of heaven" was not gleaned from the Scripture, but political and cultural context.
For purpose of clarification, I'm only against the idolatry and the romanticization of marriage, not marriage itself. Most assuredly, marriage is a turning point in your life journey, a rite of passage that truly changes you, but for better or worse depends on whom you're married to, and whether you're joined by God or by your own desire. Not every one can find a comparable partner to marry, and not every one is capable of all the responsibilities in marriage. Paul taught that husband and wife ought to be "equally yoked" in spirit, a godly partner is a blessing, an ungodly partner would be a curse, and a godly man like Charlie Kirk or a godly woman like the one in Prov. 31 is extremely rare.
1. The "match in heaven" in Revelation 21 is the union of Christ and his people, which marks the completion of salvation. The bride is the Great Multitude, the whole church of Christ in a collective sense, not any individual in particular;
2. As a historical fact, Lord Jesus himself was never married, he didn't even have any intimate relationship with any woman during his ministry; so was Paul, Timothy, numerous OT prophets like Isaiah, and generations of most devoted church fathers and mothers, abbesses, priests and missionaries, serving in the ministry is marriage with the Lord;
3. Paul taught in 1 Cor. 7 that we should be eschatalogically minded on the things of God (1 Cor. 7:29-31), marriage is merely a concession (1 Cor. 7:6), it's a burden (1 Cor. 7:28) and a distraction (1 Cor. 7:35); Jesus taught that celibacy is a gift, especially for those who choose celibacy for kingdom's sake (Matt. 19:12)
4. Ironically, it was the Sedduccees who couldn't comprehend resurrection, they tried to ridicule Jesus with their absurd hypothesis based on their projection of marriage into the afterlife; Jesus schooled them with a real preview of heaven: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven." (Matt. 22:30). Therefore, shouldn't a real foretaste of heaven be singlehood, i.e. "neither marry nor are given in marriage"?
5. During the early church period, marriage was merely a cultural norm, the early hermits and monks were all single like Paul, they abstained from marriage as a part of their ascetic pratice to evade worldly corruption. Even for some who did marry for economic and social reason, they remained celibate during their marriage, chastity was equated with spiritual purity. Only did marriage offically become a sacrament in late 12th century and early 13th century, then it was a major political move to forge unions and acquire properties, a climb on the social ladder into a higher class.
Another enormous game-changer is the prosperity after WWII, marriage rate once reached an abnormal peak of over 90% of the adult population, that's when the prosperity gospel began to take flight, marriage a pillar of this properity. Afterward was the hippie movement and sexual revolution, "purity culture" began to emerge as a countermeasure to that, marriage a license to sex; fast forward to today's hyper polarized political climate, marriage is further elevated by the conservatives as the saving grace to boost the declining birth rate, make America great again and save the decaying western civilization. It has gone so far that it has become an indicator of your political leaning, if you're married, you're suspected to be a right wing supporter.
So, as you can see, the meaning of marriage evolves over time. By God's original design, it a turning point in your life journey, THE sign of your independence, as you leave your parents and start your own. However, in reality, the meaning of marriage slowly evolves, from a cultural norm to a socio-economic union, a holy sacrament, a means for upward mobility, a romanticized "happily ever after", a status symbol of persperity, a countermeasure against the sexual revolution, an indicator of ringwing political leaning. Even within the bible itself, marriage evoled from polygamy to bigamy to monogamy and "serial monogamy", as was the common practice of the Pharisees during Jesus's ministry. When Jesus confronted the Pharisees on that in Matt. 19, he schooled them with the original design of marriage, but he had no intention of restoring it to its original design, nor did he order it on his followers. Therefore, the doctrine of marriage as a "foretaste of heaven" was not gleaned from the Scripture, but political and cultural context.
For purpose of clarification, I'm only against the idolatry and the romanticization of marriage, not marriage itself. Most assuredly, marriage is a turning point in your life journey, a rite of passage that truly changes you, but for better or worse depends on whom you're married to, and whether you're joined by God or by your own desire. Not every one can find a comparable partner to marry, and not every one is capable of all the responsibilities in marriage. Paul taught that husband and wife ought to be "equally yoked" in spirit, a godly partner is a blessing, an ungodly partner would be a curse, and a godly man like Charlie Kirk or a godly woman like the one in Prov. 31 is extremely rare.
Also, is there any evidence telling us that they were something other than homemakers 
