Direct evidence that true marriage does occur in heaven is provided by Swedenborg’s experience there, where he saw weddings (e.g. Marriage Love 1,19-21, True Christian Religion 746-748) and spoke with married couples (e.g. Marriage Love 42, 137, 384).

Paul taught an apparent limitation on marriage in heaven.  He said that that the laws of marriage no longer applied to a woman whose husband had died so she could then marry again (1 Corinthians 7:39, Romans 7:2). The problem with this teaching is that it appears to have been extrapolated into the teaching of  “til death us do part” from the  1789 edition of the wedding service of the  Book of Common Prayer.  (The current edition of the Book offers that version or the alternative “until we are parted by death”.)  According to these teachings, death ends the marriage relationship. The teachings revealed through Swedenborg, however, tell us that, on the contrary, a variety of outcomes are possible.  Couples who have true spiritual marriage love in this life will find each other after death and live happily ever after.  If, however, only one of the partners has such a love, or if a person never met the right person here, then in heaven they find new partners with whom they will live happily to eternity.  But the main point is that there is no imposed separation of partners at death because there is marriage in heaven.

Paul also recommended celibacy as an ideal (1 Corinthians 7:1; 1 Corinthians 7:8; see also 1 Corinthians 7: 27) and said that, in a broader context, it was bad for a man to touch a woman (1 Corinthians 1). Such celibacy is by definition opposed to all marriage, including marriage after death. So which teaching is correct, Paul’s celibacy or Swedenborg’s marriage love? As noted at the outset, above, the whole Bible repeatedly celebrates marriage, not celibacy.  The teachings of Swedenborg’s revelation say that what makes a book of Scripture part of the Word and Divine is that it contains a continuous internal, spiritual sense (Doctrine of the Sacred Scripture 1) In the New Testament only the four gospels and the book of Revelation have this continuous spiritual sense (Arcana Coelestia 10,325, White Horse 16).  Thus, Paul’s Epistles are not Divinely authoritative.

In sum, the great body of authoritative evidence in both the Bible and the teachings of the Second Coming support the idea of marriage on earth and in heaven.

For details, see Market Driven Churches

Re:  A Quesion

 Hello  Swedenborg project.

Swedenborg is a interesting fellow, I have been studying him, on my own, for a few months. I recently became interested in him and am still learning much.

My question,

Swedenborg states that angel’s are former humans, and not a separate form from man, Do, I understand that correctly?

but, if Eve was tempted in the Garden by the snake, which is usually explained as Satan, how could this evil spirit be in the garden since no  humans where yet born from Adam and Eve?

When was the angel of the evil snake created since Swedenborg states that angels are former humans? There could not have been any humans , as yet, been born or died.

Who is the “light fallen from Heaven” that Jesus say’s he saw fall?

Since man had not produced any off spring for anyone to be a fallen angel.

If a person is transformed to a angel, after death and is in heaven. Could he still be cast out if he decides, by free will, to challenge God as satan had at his fall?

if free will is given to all, will free will be active in heaven?

 thank you for your reply.

David

—–Original Message—–

From: The Swedenborg Project <info@swedenborgproject.org>

To: queckie1 <queckie1@aol.com>

Sent: Wed, Dec 29, 2010 5:02 pm

Subject: Re: A question

Hi David,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I’ve attempted some answers to your questions.  I’ve also included a few citations in case you want to look up any of this material in the Writings themselves, which I recommend!

>>My question,

>> Swedenborg states that angel’s are former humans, and not a separate form from man,

>>Do, I understand that correctly?

Yes.  Every inhabitant of the spiritual world, good and bad, lived first as a human being in free will in the physical world. The difference between the two worlds is that on this planet we live in physical reality, in the other world in spiritual reality.

>>but, if Eve was tempted in the Garden by the snake, which is usually explained as Satan, how could this evil spirit be in the garden since no humans where yet born from Adam and Eve?

One of the particularly interesting teachings of Swedenborg’s revelation is that the Bible had a predecessor in the early days of the human race, a book called the Ancient Word (True Christian Religion 279). Moses copied from that book what became the first 11 chapters of Genesis (Arcana Coelestia 482, True Christian Religion  279, Doctrine of the Sacred Scriptures 103).  The rest of the Ancient Word is now lost, although the teachings of the Second Coming make a brief comment that it may one day be found (See Apocalypse Revealed 11, True Christian Religion 265, 269). It might be noted that later books of the Bible mention the Ancient Word’s books of Jasher, or The Book of the Upright (ibid., Joshua 10:13, 2 Samuel 1:18) and the Wars of Jehovah (Numbers 21:14).

The significant aspect of the Garden of Eden story for your question is that the Ancient Word was not actual history but an allegory, with a spiritual inner meaning.  In contrast, the rest of the Bible is a combination of spiritual allegory and actual history.  For example, at the allegorical level the snake is a symbol of our five senses.  Those senses are what put us in contact with the physical world, symbolized by a snake slithering along in direct contact with the ground.  The temptation involved in the story is to base our principles of life on worldly values because we think we know better than God what principles are best.  However “…God knows that on the day in which you eat of it [the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Genesis 3: 5) Choosing to do this is spiritually fatal, as the story of the two trees in the garden symbolizes (Genesis 3: 3).

This is a big subject and if you’d like to go into it further I’d recommend the 8th chapter of  Swedenborg’s True Christian Religion and the first volume of his Arcana Coelestia.

>>When was the angel of the evil snake created since Swedenborg states that angels are former humans? There could not have been any humans, as yet, been born or died.

Again, we are looking at an allegory teaching spiritual principles, not actual history. There is no such angel.

The story in Genesis also says that there were “sons of God” and “daughters of humans” (Genesis 6; 1-4).  Where did they come from if Adam and Eve were literally the first two people?  Genesis doesn’t tell us. The whole story is an allegory (see Arcana Coelestia 569).

>>Who is the “light fallen from Heaven” that Jesus say’s he saw fall?

I assume you’re referring to Luke 10, particularly verses 17 and 18.  The explanation that makes most sense to me is that Jesus is here telling his 70 disciples that He can see the results in the spiritual realm of the casting out demons that they had been doing.

>>If a person is transformed to a angel, after death and is in heaven. Could he still be cast out if he decides, by free will, to challenge God as satan had at his fall?

No one, angel or devil, changes their basic spiritual direction in the other nor would they want to.  They have built up a heaven or hell orientation over the whole course of their life in this world and do not want to change it once they reach the spiritual world. Furthermore, far from being cast out of heaven, people go to and stay in heaven or hell of their own free will to be with others like themselves with whom they are comfortable.

>>if free will is given to all, will free will be active in heaven?

A big question.  As I understand it, free will refers to the opportunity all through life on earth to build  heaven or hell in ourselves, and this all comes out into the open in the other world after death.  On the other hand, the angels choose to keep learning ever more about Jesus’ teachings into eternity, and so deepening their faith, and they can do this because they are in freedom to do so.  So in that sense freedom continues in heaven.

I hope this provides some food for thought.

Personally, I try to focus as much as I can on the many uplifting and insightful teachings of the Second Coming.

Best wishes,

Kurt

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 8:07 PM, <queckie1@aol.com> wrote:

Hello Kurt

thank you for your reply to my questions.  Swedenborg is interesting and I am studying more of his thoughts.

an other question for you,

Swedenborg teaches that all that follow their “religion” can gain heaven , but if this is true, what is the point of Jesus coming to earth?

Can a person find salvation in the old Roman gods and Greeks, salvation in pagan faiths of today and those that deny God and Christianity? What would be the benefit for someone to be baptized a Swedenborgian if all religions can find salvation?

  Is Swedenborg viewed as an equal with Matt, Mark , Luke and John? and with Old Testament prophets?

thank you for your reply

David

—–Original Message—–

From: The Swedenborg Project <info@swedenborgproject.org>

To: queckie1 <queckie1@aol.com>

Sent: Mon, Jan 3, 2011 12:08 pm

Subject: Re: A question

>>Swedenborg teaches that all that follow their “religion” can gain heaven

That is, assuming they acknowledge a Divine being and live a life of charity (Heaven and Hell 338, Arcana Coelestia 932, 2590, 10765).  For overview, see section starting at Heaven and Hell 318.

>> but if this is true, what is the point of Jesus coming to earth?

Jesus came because the existing church had become so corrupt that it was interfering with people’s ability to get to heaven.  He reordered the whole spiritual world to fix the problem.  For details here, I’d recommend Chapter 14 of True Christian Religion (starting at number 753) and The Last Judgment and Babylon Destroyed, particularly Section VI, published in the book entitled Miscellaneous Theological Works.

>>Can a person find salvation in the old Roman gods and Greeks, salvation in pagan faiths of today and those that deny God and Christianity?

I think the pertinent teaching here is that  “Saving faith is faith in the Lord God the Saviour Jesus Christ” (Chapter VI of True Christian Religion, starting at number 337) and “Those who are outside the Church, and yet acknowledge one God, and live according to their religion in a kind of charity toward the neighbor, are in communion with those who are of the Church, because no one is condemned who believes in God, and lives well” (Arcana Coelestia 10765).

>> What would be the benefit for someone to be baptized a Swedenborgian if all religions can find salvation?

Let me say to begin with that I don’t like the term “Swedenborgian.”  Followers of the teachings of the Second Coming are Christians, just like all other Christians.  Other Christians would not refer to themselves as “Matthewists,” for instance, but just “Christians.” So the followers of the Second Coming are not “Swedenborgians,” but Christians as well.  Turning to your question, then, my understanding, based on the numbers cited above,  is that what we are talking about here is a matter of degree.  A person not taught Christian truths and not baptized into the Christian church will not be have the basis for as much of the happiness built on those two things as the person who gets the whole package. 

>>  Is Swedenborg viewed as an equal with Matt, Mark, Luke and John? and with Old Testament prophets?

Swedenborg was, like those predecessors, a revelator.  However, he was able to be aware of the process rationally, which those predecessors were not.

In closing, I would note, if you’re not already aware, that it appears that the books of Swedenborg’s theology are not always authoritative divine revelation. Only the books Swedenborg published himself are.  For details on the matter see “Which of Swedenborg’s books are Divine Revelation?” online at

http://swedenborgdigitallibrary.org/contets/books.html

Best wishes

Kurt

http://inewchurch.org/archieves-of-sermons/special-collection/

http://www.secondadventchristian.com/

Click here to access the complete online version of the book, available  in several formats. (Googlebooks has an online copy but classifies it as “Limited Preview,” meaning some pages were deleted,)

“Our Only Incorporation is the Body of Christ. Free Christians and Churches…. 

“As mainstream Christianity breaks free of the institutions that established it, and evolves into the living, breathing, and active body of Christ, the Freedom Church Network seeks to provide resources and networking opportunities for all those who walk with Christ in faith and life.”

Check it out at  http://www.FreedomChurchNetwork.com/

* * * * *

“We desire especially that the attitude of the organized New Church may no longer continue to be one of seeming antagonism or conscious superiority to other religious bodies, but rather one of modest self-appreciation, and kindly fraternal recognition of other Christians….  There is little danger, we think, of becoming too broad in our sympathies, too catholic in our feelings, or too conciliatory in our disposition and attitude toward others.  The danger, we submit, lies wholly in the opposite direction.  We believe there never has been and never can be more than one Church, in the large and comprehensive sense of the term, at any given time, –though this, like the human body, may consist of a great variety of parts.  We believe that since the time of the Last Judgment (1757), the New Church, signified by the New Jerusalem, has been and continues to be the only Church on earth.  We believe that this Church is much larger and more inclusive than any sect;  that it is distinguished less by its beliefs or doctrines than by righteousness of life, –love to the Lord and the neighbor being its great fundamental…. We believe, therefore, that members of the New Church are to be found in all existing religious bodies, –and some, doubtless, outside of all; for we cannot doubt that there are, both within and without such bodies, some who truly love the Lord and the neighbor; while some who accept the doctrines of this Church, and join the organization bearing its name, may be quite destitute of its heavenly spirit and in reality constitute no part of it….

“We believe that, since the time, and in consequence of the Last Judgment, there has been and continues to be a freer, more interior and more universal influx of spiritual good and truth into all humble, earnest and truth-seek ing minds, – giving them more enlightenment on subjects of transcendental interest…. Believing this, and finding for our belief the amplest justification in the teachings here referred to, as well as in reason …, we are anxious that the body which assumes the name and stands as the most conspicuous representative of the New Church at this time, should by its declared policy  and its attitude towards Christians, exemplify the grand catholicity of this Church.  We do not deprecate a separate organization based upon the New Doctrines; this perhaps, was unavoidable, and has doubtless been useful.  We would not lessen but gladly increase its efficiency and usefulness…. We desire especially that the Convention cease to claim for itself any special prerogatives, any special right to the Christian name or ordinances or any special efficacy in the latter when administered by its own officials; that it frankly admit…  that these ordinances are equally valid, efficacious and significant, when reverently administered by Christians of whatever name or creed….. [By this action] you will remove all just grounds for the charge or even suspicion of narrowness and illiberality.  You will regain the affection and confidence of brethren who have been alienated by what (to them) has seemed like a sectarian exclusiveness.  You will, – we doubt not, open new channels of usefulness and new avenues for the descent of the Divine Spirit, and many souls will thereby be blessed.”

- From M. Block The New Church in the New World  (New York: Henry Holt 1932, p. 306)

The General Church took its top-down structure from the Anglicans (ibid., p. 216), who in turn had copied the Roman Catholic model. (For details on just how wide the power of the General Church’s executive bishop is, see T.L. Kline “A Statement of the Order and Organization of the General Church of the New Jerusalem” Bryn Athyn, PA 2008.) So the end result was that the General Church adopted the papal model. However, there is something of a mystery about that adoption. The General Church’s founders, notably W.F. Pendleton, were certainly familiar with the teachings of the Second Coming about how corrupt the papal model was (e.g., Pendleton wrote eloquently in Topics from the Writings (p. 75) on the theme of God and truth leading, not ruling or commanding). Then, driving those teachings home, those under Benade’s leadership had experienced his papal-type autocracy, particularly in the more extreme forms following his stroke (Block, op. cit., pp, 231, 240). They also were familiar from their own experience with the long battle over centralized “popery” in Convention (Block op. cit., pp. 188ff.). And, finally, the “fear of episcopal autocracy was strong in the breasts of many” (ibid., p. 242) members of what would become the post-Benade General Church. But Pendleton after the separation from Benade nonetheless continued in Benade’s episcopal/papal model (which Benade had first adopted 20 years earlier, (ibid., pp. 211, 216)). The mystery is how completely Pendleton believed in his decision. For, in seeking to allay the concern over autocracy, he “laid down the principle of ‘freedom according to reason’” (ibid.). Since such freedom is the logical opposite of the episcopal/papal model, it raises question of whether Pendleton was in fact conflicted about his decision to continue with that model. It is interesting to speculate where the General Church might be today if he had gone the other way and made freedom of conscience the top governing principle. An editorial in Convention’s Messenger at the time of the Academy/General Church split from Convention suggests some of the consequences of taking the course he and the General Church did follow:

“In an editorial on the causes of the split [with Convention]…all the blame was laid on the General Church’s ‘assumption of infallibility.’ Instead of admitting that there should be varieties of usages and beliefs in the New Church, and being contented with a Convention broad enough to hold them all, [the General Church] had attempted to make their uses and beliefs a standard for all, and continually referred to Convention’s ‘denial of the Writings as the Divine Human.’ The General Church had assumed in the New Church the position of the Catholic Church in the Christian world. ‘This resemblance is shown in a literalism of interpreting doctrine, in an assumption of the supremacy of the Church as the authorized interpreter of doctrine, in the conception of the nature and order of the priesthood and its function in the church, and also in its declarations against the ecclesiastical legitimacy of those who do not agree with it….” (Block, op. cit., p. 230ff.)

“…[T]here should be varieties of usages and beliefs in the New Church, and being contented with a Convention broad enough to hold them all” (ibid.). What a thought. Again, what if Pendleton had made freedom of conscience the General Church’s priority and taken up Convention’s offer of reconciliation, made several times by the Rev. Frank Sewall? (There was a brief period of friendly relations with Convention following the General Church’s separation from Benade, during which Sewall made the last of his appeals, but that friendliness did not last (ibid., p. 231, 243).) If that freedom and reconciliation had been made the policy of the two bodies, where might the overall New Church have been today? Would it have saved both bodies from going down some of the roads they subsequently did, with unfortunate results? It is certainly interesting to note that the Academy split came at the end of the nineteenth century, during which church membership had been approximately doubling every decade, ending in the highest membership the US organized New Church ever saw (7,095 in 1890) (ibid., p. 173). However, after the split that growth not only stopped, but decline set in (e.g., ibid., p. 356), to the smaller numbers that still apply to both bodies today, a century later.

For further reading

1. Do we Need Church Organizations?

2. A dialogue between Mac Frazier and Steve Simons on the evangelization implications of this issue: See opening post at “My Life’s Purpose, and following Comments #9-13 (particularly #13) and “Church Planting Seminar: Day Two” #5 and 6.

3. See posts at Second Advent Christian™ .

4. Followers of Christ – Disciples or Subordinates?