post rapture/ressurection/new bodies queastions

[MacFall]

I would find it hard to take a certain position against post-Resurrection sexuality without the pseudo-Gnostic idea that sex is the result of a "lowering" of our nature after the Fall. So I understand your point. Sex is an aspect of the Created Order, and that Order was created good. Not evil, not a compromise of good and evil. God said it was good, so it's good, sex included. The New Creation will also be good. We don't know to what extent it will resemble this one.

 

[Thrillobyte]

I would find it hard to take a certain position against post-Resurrection sexuality without the pseudo-Gnostic idea that sex is the result of a "lowering" of our nature after the Fall. So I understand your point. Sex is an aspect of the Created Order, and that Order was created good. Not evil, not a compromise of good and evil. God said it was good, so it's good, sex included. The New Creation will also be good. We don't know to what extent it will resemble this one.

Ah, it's like a breath of fresh air to hear a reasonable POV.

My own personal belief is that God is going to allow us to populate all those quadrillions of galaxies out there. I can see no other reason for Him having created them except to inhabit them. I believe that children born in the new heavens and earth will be born with glorified bodies and will never be tainted with sin but will go on to have their own children, thus fulfilling the Revelation verse, "a multitude which no man could number" all singing praise to God. The universe itself will be filled with the sound of "Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."

 

[dysert]

In the 60's we would have called these people "hung up" ---serious psychological issues that have warped their sense of how God made sex and romance and partnership and called it "very good" when He was finished with creation and how He plans to restore everything that was "very good" in the apokatastasis, including romantic love, sex and procreation just as Adam and Eve were doing before the fall.

Procreation in the afterlife?

 

[Thrillobyte]

Procreation in the afterlife?

Yup. Why not. Where in the Bible does it say no? To the contrary, Isaiah 65:

“See, I will create a
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create...

19 I will take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more.
20 “Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
the one who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere child;
the one who fails to reach[a] a hundred
will be considered accursed.
21 They will build houses and dwell in them;
they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
23 They will not labor in vain,
nor will they bear children doomed to misfortune;
for they will be a people blessed by the Lord,
they and their descendants with them.

Isaiah 66:22
For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

Now against all that people whose only interest is bursting other peoples' bubbles will likely say, "Nope. Jesus said no marriage in the resurrection."

And in the face of all that they will firmly hold their ground, shut their ears and their eyes and keep repeating till they're blue, "Nope. Nope. Nope. Jesus said no marriage in the resurrection. Jesus said no marriage in the resurrection. "

I'm not pointing this at you, dysert, just those individuals who will never be persuaded "though one rise from the dead" to tell them, "it ain't so".

 

[dysert]

Yup. Why not. Where in the Bible does it say no? To the contrary, Isaiah 65:

I take vv 19ff as belonging to the Millennium, where there *will* be procreation.

 

[Thrillobyte]

I take vv 19ff as belonging to the Millennium, where there *will* be procreation.

Yeah, that's the usual rational. But according to dispensationalists the Millennium starts immediately after Jesus' return to stop Armageddon and bring an end to the 7-year tribulation (none of which I personally believe) whereupon He sets up rule in Jerusalem and all the Christians who weren't beheaded by antichrist go into the Millennium bodily to pick up their lives.

None of this far as the start of the millennium is supported by scripture, certainly not by Isaiah or Revelation. On the contrary, Isaiah 65-66 is a direct correlation to Revelation 21 far as the new heavens and the new earth goes. God creates the new heavens and new earth AFTER the millennium. That is scripturally indisputable. So everything that follows Isaiah 65:17 describes life for eternity when the heavens and the earth have been scrubbed clean of sin by fire per 2 Peter 3:10. Notice how perfectly Isaiah 65:17 and revelation 21:1 fit together:

Isaiah: new heaven and new earth; former things are no longer remembered.
Revelation: new heavens and new earth; the old order of things has passed away.”

Now within this new world that God constructs, Isaiah clearly lays out what part of life will be like: spiritual beings in their resurrected bodies having children and tending their fields and livestock--not married as per Matthew, but paired as Adam and Eve were before the fall. In fact, the entire scene is an exact duplicate of what life would have been like on the first earth had Adam and Eve not sinned. And this is what Peter, Paul and John talk about when they say the restitution of ALL things to their former state (before the fall). This is how God originally intended life to be like for us and how He wants it to return. Why would He suddenly completely change things around due to man's sin? Is man's failing that powerful that it could completely thwart God's original plan and cause Him to have to devise a totally new future for us devoid of all conjugal and procreational activity merely because of a blip in man's behavior? Doesn't it seem logical that He intends to get everything back on track to exactly the way it was and as He intended it to be? It does to me.

 

[AntiVillain]

Anywhere that the Resurrected Christ is referred to as "he" and not "it".

But gender is not the same thing as sex.

As for sex, those who think that they would be missing out on something if we don't have a sexuality after the Resurrection are like carefree children who recoil in horror at the idea that one day they won't be able to watch cartoons all day. The child should, if he matures properly, one day discover much greater pleasures than cartoons (such as the companionship of good friends, intellectual pursuits, and yes, sex). Likewise, the greatest pleasures this world and our bodies have to offer us will seem trite and even silly compared to "what God has prepared for those who love Him", which "no eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind can conceive."

Difference is, he's not actually forced to never get to watch cartoons again, unlike how the cliched interpretation of Matthew 22:30 reads for Resurrected people.

I have spent thousands of hours studying universalism vs eternal torment vs annihilationism, but I've also spent hundreds studying the issue of romantic love in the afterlife and what I've discovered is that Acts 3:21 is far more important in determining yea or nay than Jesus' words to the Sadducees:



Mention "no sex or conjugal love" to most Christians who have entered the bliss of marriage and they will groan at the thought. The question is will God really take away something so fundamentally a part of our identity and enjoyed by the average person? If so, why? When I ask people this question, of course they go straight to Matthew 22:30. That's all they have to stand on. But they rarely stop to contemplate what comes before that



Someone please tell me where in the Old Testament God gives any hint that those in the resurrection do not marry. Quite the opposite, Isaiah in 65-66 gives a beautiful picture of life in the resurrection here on a new earth with husbands and wives raising children, tending gardens and enjoying a blissful life in communion with each other and with God . So if there's nothing there pertaining to the opposite of this picture, then why did Jesus berate them for not understanding something they had no possible way of understanding from having studied the scriptures?

Many scholars believe that Jesus was berating them for
1. their hypocrisy because they didn't even believe in the resurrection
2. their silly example regarding Levirate Law

They say that what Jesus was actually saying to the Sadducees (to paraphrase) was "For in the resurrection they neither marry [in the ridiculous way you have portrayed it] nor are given in marriage [with women being handed off as chattel] but are as the angels in heaven [living immortally and serving the Father]."

I've reads hundreds of comments from people who swoop in to post responses to this innocent question from somebody asking if they will be reunited with their departed spouse or, if they're single, if they'll ever experience the joys of companionship with a special someone in the afterlife and you wouldn't believe how vehemently they try to kill any hope the person has. "Nope. Sorry, Fred. In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage. So you won't be with Ethel in that way. You two will just be brothers and sisters in Christ." They seem to take a devilish delight in crashing peoples' expectations for being given something so meaningful after we die and go to heaven. In the 60's we would have called these people "hung up" ---serious psychological issues that have warped their sense of how God made sex and romance and partnership and called it "very good" when He was finished with creation and how He plans to restore everything that was "very good" in the apokatastasis, including romantic love, sex and procreation just as Adam and Eve were doing before the fall. Almost to a tee these people are Fundamentalist and also believe in eternal torment. In a nutshell they are "cosmic killjoys" trying to rob as many people as they can of any hope for doing something really significant and--dare I say it--fun. They portraying God in as bad a light as they possibly can in the process: "Oh, don't worry. You won't miss sex and marriage and having someone special in your afterlife. We'll all be married to Jesus and spend our time sitting around His throne giving thanks and praises to Him 24/7 for alllllllllll eternity." Then they smile when the person's face drops to the floor.

Yes, your attitude is one of the healthier ones I've seen. My point was that there is nothing in all of scripture outside of one badly misunderstood and badly misinterpreted sentence by Jesus that precludes those who want 'it' from having 'it'. But most people here on earth who don't have 'it' or have been hurt by 'it' invariably try to burden the naive with their own issues and hang-ups. It's like they are saying, "I never got it and I feel like I've grown beyond a need for it in the afterlife so I don't want you to have it either."

All I ask is that they simply acknowledge there is a good possibility that those who want 'it' will be given 'it' by God in our next life because the scriptural evidence is more heavily for it than against it, instead of being so adamantly opposed to any suggestion that it's possible and hauling out that old worn out "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage."

"Well, Adam and Eve weren't married, they were paired...."
"Nope. Sorry. No marriage or sex in the afterlife"
"But God said He would restore everything..."
"Don't you understand Ingels? Jesus said no marriage in the afterlife."
"But..."
"We'll be like the angels. They don't have sex. Don't you get it?"
"Well...."
"Well then, what? No sex, no romance, no children in the afterlife. Get over it."

No kidding. That's how a lot of the conversations go.

They actually make it sound like our "reward" is some kind of eternal quarantine.

Even worse, some actually respond to understandably discouraged people with things like, "Well, if you don't like Heaven, then there's only one alternative."

Textbook Pharisees/Sadducees.

 

[Yahu_]

The only thing we are told we'll eat is the fruit from the Tree of Life, which of course wouldn't kill anything. Other than that, our food supply (although unnecessary) is unknown.

I have to disagree here. Only the blessed are even allowed access to the tree of life.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

You have to be an overcomer of the problem of the church of Ephesus to even gain that reward.

Yeshua also said He would drink wine in heaven with his disciples. There is also the wedding feast of the lamb. Mana is called angels food.

To say we ONLY eat of the tree of life is not supported by any means.

 

[AntiVillain]

"The blind will see, the deaf will hear, the lame will walk, the mute will speak, and the barren will receive their vague consolation prize because there's no procreation in eternity."

I'm sorry, but I refuse to buy that last one.

It just doesn't jive with God's original design in the Garden Of Eden, all those promises of healing and recompense, etc.

It does, however, sound like a clever Satanic tactic of making Heaven, the New Earth/Jerusalem, the Resurrection, etc., actually sound negative in some fashion.

 

[SPF]

Heaven

 

[AntiVillain]

Heaven

For the most part, it's spot-on.

But sadly, when it comes to the subject of marriage in Heaven, it's yet another one that drops the ball.

 

[SPF]

For the most part, it's spot-on.

But sadly, when it comes to the subject of marriage in Heaven, it's yet another one that drops the ball.

In your opinion perhaps~ We will be fulfilled on the new Earth when Christ returns and will have deep, intimate, and meaningful relationships with all people. We will be completely satisfied in Christ and in our personal relationships.

 

[AntiVillain]

In your opinion perhaps~ We will be fulfilled on the new Earth when Christ returns and will have deep, intimate, and meaningful relationships with all people. We will be completely satisfied in Christ and in our personal relationships.

Adam had that with God -- yet God still said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him" (Genesis 2:18), hence the creation of Eve and establishment of "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).

However you try to spiritualize it, an eternity without human childbearing and romance is an eternity of something God explicitly called "not good."

I choose to believe in an eternity more like this:

"Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord." -- Isaiah 54:1

"They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them." -- Isaiah 65:23

 

[SPF]

Divorces would be permitted under cases of abuse and infidelity.

Adam had that with God -- yet God still said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him" (Genesis 2:18), hence the creation of Eve and establishment of "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).

However you try to spiritualize it, an eternity without human childbearing and romance is an eternity of something God explicitly called "not good."

I choose to believe in an eternity more like this:

"Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord." -- Isaiah 54:1

"They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them." -- Isaiah 65:23

Your assumption that I'm trying to spiritualize something is false, and we know what assuming does to the assumer.

There are some unique differences between the world that God created populated with only Adam compared to how the world will be populated when Christ returns and redeems and restores all things.

God created us as relational beings. It wasn't good that Adam be alone. But we will not be alone when Christ returns. And what of the twice widowed? Who will their spouse be in Heaven?

The intimacy that my wife and I share is like nothing else on earth. It is the greatest blessing this side of heaven that God has given me. Yet, when I am in heaven, I will have even more fulfilling, deep, and spiritual relationships with everyone. I can't exactly picture that right now, and that's ok. But I do know that Christ is the fulfillment of all things and while I can't imagine life without being married to my wife, if I'm not married to her, then what I do know is that somehow it won't be a "loss".

Bottom line for me is that I'm not hard set on there is no marriage in Heaven, but I certainly lean that direction, and I think it's probably unwise to take a hard stand one way or the other.

 

[AntiVillain]

We'll just have to agree to disagree, then.

 

[SPF]

We'll just have to agree to disagree, then.

Which is fine. I am curious though who you think the twice widowed woman is married to, or someone like King David and King Solomon who had multiple wives?

 

[AntiVillain]

I am curious though who you think the twice widowed woman is married to, or someone like King David and King Solomon who had multiple wives?

Is There Sex or Marriage in Heaven?

Marriage in the Afterlife

 

[SPF]

So in your opinion the lucky people that die married get to stay married and enjoy something special and unique in heaven that nobody who is unmarried when they enter heaven will get to experience or enjoy?

Something about that doesn’t sound right.

That sucks for Bob, who was happily married for 65 years and dies 6 months after his wife died.

 

[AntiVillain]

Of course not.

An excerpt from one of said articles:

But Christ has some good news for us here. In the resurrection, we will no longer marry, nor will we be given in marriage. So how then are we married? Notice that it does not say that there is no marriage in the resurrection, only that men do not marry or give in marriage. So who does? And the answer, I believe, is God. God arranges all marriages, God gives away in marriage, and it is by God’s choice that all marriages take place. There is no more making a choice based on selfish reasons…there is no more making a choice based on your emotions and not your reason…for God Himself arranges and plans all marriages. Thus human error, which so often plagues our marriages today, is done away with.

But what of that inexplicable argument about, “nor can they die anymore”? This is easily answered by the argument I have just set forth. You see, there are two major problems today that are instrumental in breaking up even the best of marriages. One of them is human error in choosing partners. But the other is death. It doesn’t matter how much a couple loves each other, it doesn’t matter how good of a match they are. If one of the two dies, then that is the end of the marriage. But this is not true in the resurrection. Not only is human error not a factor, but death is eliminated as well. This will result in marriage being what it was always meant to be…a wondrous act whereby two individuals are made into one flesh. No longer will “one flesh” be torn apart by sin and selfishness. No longer will death rip one dearly loved partner away from the other. In that day, the mess that is modern marriage will be cleaned up at last, and two individuals will be free at last to become one flesh the way God always intended for it to be.

So how will God go about marrying people in the afterlife? I’m sure I do not know. He certainly wouldn’t have to be in a hurry…with all eternity to do it…but I doubt he would wait overly long…probably this would go on a case-by-case basis. I have no doubt that He will almost immediately recreate some marriages…there are some people whom we can have no doubt are already as close to one flesh as we can get in this life, and I think that we cannot imagine God not reunifying the wonderful thing that death had torn apart. But He will be under no obligation to do this, and in many cases He will not repeat the same error that had been made in this first life. But then an infinite number of options will be open to Him. We can imagine couples who had lived millennia apart in the first life, suddenly being brought together by God as a couple in the new life of that day. We can imagine people who didn’t even speak the same language suddenly being united in the day when tongues will cease. We can imagine people who never lived through childhood, or who never had the chance to marry in this life, being given at last the chance to participate in a God-planned marriage. And we can imagine those who never had a family or anyone to love them being given not only a wife or husband but a family of their own, a blessing they had never before experienced. For the Scripture says of God that, “He setteth the solitary in families.” What a wonderful time that will be!

So one last question remains to be asked. Why do so many seem to think that it is so strange or unthinkable that there might be marriage in the resurrection? After all, it was God Himself who said, “It is not good for man to be alone.” Why would God change His mind? Why would something that He has already said is not good suddenly become good again?

There are several errors that I think lead men to believe that marriage in the afterlife is unthinkable. The first is that our future existence is in some sort of spiritual form. If we do not have bodies, then we certainly cannot commence a physical union. This idea (which basically denies the resurrection by stating that spirits, not men, will be resurrected) is one that I have dealt with at length in other messages. The second error is that everything in the afterlife must be vastly different than it is now. I have found people who seem to cling to this idea…that everything now is somehow bad and will be eliminated in the resurrection. I agree that many things now are flawed, but I believe that the Scripture teaches that in the life to come these things will be FIXED, will become what God had originally intended them to be, not that they will be done away with.

The third wrong idea is that sex is somehow dirty or sinful. This slanderous idea seems to have its origin in the evil one, who, as I Timothy teaches, likes to forbid to marry. But this is totally untrue. God created sex, and He pronounced all His creation as “very good.” The fourth wrong idea is that marriage is not even desirable. This might be held by those who have been in nasty marriages, and who now feel that they would be much better off if they didn’t need anyone. This idea is wrong, however, because God Himself has stated that we do need a helpmeet. The solution is to fix marriage, not to eliminate it. I feel for those who have suffered so in bad marriages, but I do not believe that this means that marriage should be eliminated. Nor do I believe that God will give up on it just because we have. He created it, and He still has a plan for it.

The final error is that we will be the Bride of Christ in the resurrection. First of all, there is no such thing in Scripture as a “bride of Christ,” “wife of God,” or any other imaginary phrase like this. God has often used the figure of a husband and wife to describe His relationship to His people Israel or even to His ekklesia, but He also describes the city of Jerusalem as His bride. To take these statements as eliminating marriage in the afterlife is foolish. He told Israel that He was an husband to them, and this hardly meant that none of them could marry or have sex forever after! It is foolish to imagine that marriage to God would eliminate actual marriage between human individuals, even if the concept of our being the Bride of Christ were a Scriptural one, which it is not.