Theologically stuck on something

[eleos1954]

Hi eleos,

As far as there being anything 'wrong' with the sexual union for procreation, I never said that there was anything wrong with it. However, that there will be procreation in the eternal life is not known. What Jesus said, and it was in reference to marriage, that in the eternal life we will be like the angels. As far as I've found in the Scriptures, there is no reference to procreation among the angels.

As I understand the Scriptures, God is presently building a body of saints from the people of every tribe, tongue and nation upon the earth today. Once that body is built, that's it. There won't be any procreated additions in the eternal life. Those who, in this life, accept the conditions of God's mercy and thereby receive His promise of eternal life with him, will be the priesthood and body that gains eternal life with Him. Those who don't, will receive eternal separation from God and there's no scriptural reference that they will procreate either. So, my understanding is that once God brings this realm to a close and we find ourselves at the judgment of God, there will no longer be procreation. Everyone who is going to receive His promise will have been born and made their decision for Jesus or not.

I'm curious what evidence you've found to support an understanding that on the new earth, procreation will be 'very likely'. One of the problems I have with continued procreation is that the children born of such a union would then need to come to Christ. No one is born saved, according to the Scriptures. That means that there would still be a need for more judgment and some other time of separating the wheat from the chaff. Some of those children might grow up to reject God and some of them might not. How do you see that working out?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

there will be no sin on the new earth He will create.

There was nothing wrong with His original creation ... it was PERFECT!

The new earth is ALL NEWLY created without ANY corruption from sin.

I am talking about when EVERYTHING has been accomplished and God creates a brand new earth.

He destroys the old earth entirely by fire and then creates a new one. All judgement has been done before He creates the new earth.

 

[miamited]

Hi again eleos,

At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Here are words Jesus spoke, as recorded by his disciple, Matthew: At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

also by Mark: When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Question for you: If God blessed the act of the sexual union only in the context of marriage, then how is that blessing going to be carried out in an existence that, according to His Son, has no marriage?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

there will be no sin on the new earth He will create.

There was nothing wrong with His original creation ... it was PERFECT!

The new earth is ALL NEWLY created without ANY corruption from sin.

I am talking about when EVERYTHING has been accomplished and God creates a brand new earth.

He destroys the old earth entirely by fire and then creates a new one. All judgement has been done before He creates the new earth.

Hi eleos,

I don't think you're thinking through what it is that you're saying. Yes, I agree that all judgment has been done before He creates the new heaven and the new earth. However, what evidence do you then have that any babies born on the new earth will all be God loving children?

I contend that everyone who ever receives God's promise of eternal life with Him will have already been born and decided for His Christ. We will then, according to Jesus, become like the angels and will not have any marriage. If God's instructions for the sexual union and thus, procreation, were established to only be used in the bonds of a marital relationship...then how is that going to work?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Greengardener]

Which is where I would normally stand on it but people say, and Ephesians 5 and Song of Solomon are where they're getting it from, that the marriage relationship and even sex between a married man and woman, is a "peek" or image, of the relationship between God and us. That level of intimacy, love, and pleasure shared between two beings.
That's the theological knot that I can't work through.

I'm not sure if anyone else brought this up, and if so, please overlook the duplication. When I consider what I've read so far of your question, a couple of points come to mind that might help, Jamdoc. I'm no expert here, just sharing my view.

The marriage relationship is voluntary. It's binding. It's not something we were born into, where the obligations to nurture would be expected (as in parent/child). And while it's got perks that are in no other relationship (if you are taking your definitions from the Bible there was no approved sex outside of marriage), those same perks have risks that other casual relationships (friendships, family) do not have. It is a great act of trust to risk personal vulnerability in a sexual relationship: in those days, disappointment couldn't be healed or contained with an antibiotic or antiviral and was usually fatal, affecting one's opportunity to EVER have a future (due to death) or a family, which was also in effect one's future.

I think it's concepts like those that show what was intended in comparing our relationship with Yeshua to a marriage, or, if you prefer to see it this way, in setting up marriage for humans to show us what God intended for our eternity. Look how He laid down His life for us, and how He promises to NEVER leave or forsake us. Look how we are called to trust Him and walk with Him. We have this marriage comparison and the comparison of parent/child, both of which help us in this dark world to trust Him amidst all the world's deceptions.

If He indeed created mankind and wants us to live the best lives possible, I'm all for getting to know what can be known about Him. It looks to me like our relationship with Him now is voluntary and individual with the potential for intimacy probably only limited by what degree of trust we have in Him. We do seem to do better in a community of people who encourage each other in this difficult life. I hope the best for you in your search.

 

[Tolworth John]

just get stuck on this hangup all the time

Then you will have discussed this with your pastor.
What did he say and what reasons do you have for not believing what he said.


To give you an answer.

Jesus is not physically marrying every Christian women and having sex with them any more than he is marrying every Christian man and having sex with them.

It is a picture of the unity between Jesus and his church, that is the whole company of Christian men and women.

 

[eleos1954]

Hi eleos,

I don't think you're thinking through what it is that you're saying. Yes, I agree that all judgment has been done before He creates the new heaven and the new earth. However, what evidence do you then have that any babies born on the new earth will all be God loving children?

I contend that everyone who ever receives God's promise of eternal life with Him will have already been born and decided for His Christ. We will then, according to Jesus, become like the angels and will not have any marriage. If God's instructions for the sexual union and thus, procreation, were established to only be used in the bonds of a marital relationship...then how is that going to work?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Because there is NOT going to be any sin on the new earth He re-creates.

We are born with a sin nature .... If pro-creation is continued on the new earth .... they will not be born with a sin nature .... nor ever exposed to sin.

We will then, according to Jesus, become like the angels and will not have any marriage.

Many people take the verse in Luke to mean there will be no marriage ... nor children on the new earth .... but His word does state there will .... in fact be children on the new earth.

so ... visiting the verse in Luke

Here is Jesus’ response again, from the Gospel of Luke:

The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34–36)

If Jesus’ main point here is taken to be that there is no marriage in the afterlife, some of the things he said don’t seem to fit in. Why does he say, “and they can no longer die”? And why does say that they are “God’s children”? What do these things have to do with marriage?

It is important to recognize that Jesus is talking to the people of “this age” (specifically, 2,000 years ago) according to their view of marriage. Marriage, as they saw it—and as many people even today still see it—is a legal and social contract whose purpose has to do with offspring, property rights, and certain other legal and social rights and privileges.

Notice that the Sadducees’ story is all about the woman having children for her husband. The whole point of this particular law of Moses was to provide offspring for a man, to continue his name and inherit his property after he died.

But what if there were no such thing as death? What if a man (or woman) never died? What would be the purpose of all of these marriage laws whose purpose was to carry on a man’s name and lineage, provide for the future ownership of his property, and ensure that his land is tended to and his business continued after died?

In a world in which there is no death, all of the laws about providing for offspring for a family’s lineage and inheritance would serve no purpose whatsoever.

So that odd-sounding statement, “and they can no longer die,” is actually right on target. In the resurrection, Jesus is saying, there is no death. This means that all of your marriage laws (such as the law of levirate marriage), whose purpose was to provide for children, property, and inheritance, have no purpose in the afterlife.

He then deals specifically with the issue of children—one of the primary functions of marriage as traditionally understood—by saying, “They are God’s children.”

With these words Jesus is saying that in the afterlife there are no human parents, children, and family lines. There is no inheritance of the father’s property, no carrying on of the father’s name and lineage. All people who achieve the resurrection and the age to come will be God’s children, not children of Abraham or Isaac or Jacob or any other human being.

In short, Jesus is saying: All of your laws and ideas about marriage, family, children, inheritance of property, family lineage, and so on, simply don’t exist in the afterlife! “You are badly mistaken!” (Mark 12:27).

 

[BobRyan]

Which is where I would normally stand on it but people say, and Ephesians 5 and Song of Solomon are where they're getting it from, that the marriage relationship and even sex between a married man and woman, .

But the post I just gave you shows that the bride of Christ in Rev 21 is the city. You cannot carry the imagery being used to the sexual relationship level. In Rev 21 it is Father vs human as son and the city as bride.

IN Solomon we find that God enjoys that corporate relationship and the father-son relationship with the same passion of enjoyment as you see on earth in marriage.

I would "keep it simple"

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Maybe you guys can help.
As we know, Male and female He created them (Genesis 1:27)
and He created marriage (Genesis 2:24), and Marriage, romantic love, is supposed to be an image of how Christ loves His "bride" (Ephesians 5 and Hosea 2 go into this analogy, Ephesians more or less saying it's a great mystery). It's the relationship we'll have forever, since there won't be marriage between men and women in eternity, only the marriage between Christ and His church.
For male Christians then, it's a male+male marriage relationship, which romantic love and even sex are to be an image of.
Yet that kind of relationship between 2 males is an abomination in the bible all over the place.
So how does this pan out? How is a romantic relationship between a man and a woman, how is sex, between a man and a woman, supposed to be an indicator and image of a relationship between what is ultimately 2 males?
I just get stuck on this hangup all the time.
I just imagine it's so much easier to deal with this relationship issue if you're a woman where you just know, Christ is your eternal husband and the perfect man, so there's no emasculating feelings or feeling of rejection because it's same sex.

Accurate biblical hermeneutics should always be exercised when symbolism is used to describe anything in scripture. This is one of those examples where the holy union between a man and woman is used as a symbol for the Holy union between God and man through His Holy Spirit. This is all it means.
Be blessed and stay healthy!

 

[Josheb]

Maybe you guys can help.
As we know, Male and female He created them (Genesis 1:27)
and He created marriage (Genesis 2:24), and Marriage, romantic love, is supposed to be an image of how Christ loves His "bride" (Ephesians 5 and Hosea 2 go into this analogy, Ephesians more or less saying it's a great mystery). It's the relationship we'll have forever, since there won't be marriage between men and women in eternity, only the marriage between Christ and His church.
For male Christians then, it's a male+male marriage relationship, which romantic love and even sex are to be an image of.
Yet that kind of relationship between 2 males is an abomination in the bible all over the place.
So how does this pan out? How is a romantic relationship between a man and a woman, how is sex, between a man and a woman, supposed to be an indicator and image of a relationship between what is ultimately 2 males?
I just get stuck on this hangup all the time.
I just imagine it's so much easier to deal with this relationship issue if you're a woman where you just know, Christ is your eternal husband and the perfect man, so there's no emasculating feelings or feeling of rejection because it's same sex.

I suspect the problem arises because you're thinking of marriage as a binary relationship when it is not.

It is trinary. Within the context of the Bible the marrital vows are not spoken simply or solely between the husband and the wife to each other. The officiant priest/minister/pastor stands as there as an agent on God's behalf to Whom some of the vows are pledged.

Marriage is a temporal expression of a divine relationship.

God exists inherently already-in-relationship as a triune God. The marriage between one woman, one man, and one God has its roots in the Trinity. Love is - by definition - an inherently relational condition. Selfish self-love is decried in the Bible. So to is a marital relationship that is (only) self-seeking. Love requires 1) a "sender," a person who voluntarily and unconditionally values ("love" is the word we use to communicate a unique valuing of another) a person 2) who also necessarily both receives and returns that affection just as voluntarily and selflessly for the well-being of the other, and 3) a protective and serving witness to that mutual valuing.

This is why so many western marriages fail in Christian cultures; we have forgotten or neglected the necessary structures necessary for a marriage to thrive.



To more fully understand the real and potential depth of marriage we must understand more accurate the vows are said between to individuals, male and female, both of whom bear the image of God in complementary but hugely different expressions to attendants of both male and female each of whom also bears the image of God in completely diverse but nonetheless complementary ways to a God Who exists as three-in-one - a God Who Himself is a complex three persons as one God, three individual intellects, affects, volitions, and behaviors all completely and cohesively united under the single sovereign, authoritative and grace-ous head of what the New Testament calls the "Father."

So marriage, properly understood, is a combining, a joining (the word "engage" means to join, the word "wed" means join, the word "marry" means to join); marriage is a joining of many people,two of whom join with God to reflect and hopefully grow to emulate the love that is ontologically and existentially God!

This is the human teleology (assigned to us by God in creation).



So.... rethink the whole idea of marriage and this males marrying Jesus won't pose a conflict .

 

[Jamdoc]

Hi jamdoc,

One question that I would ask is what verification in the Scriptures do you have that there will be sexual relationships in eternity?

The Scriptures say that we will be like the angels in heaven. Do you have any Scriptural evidence that angels have sexual relations with one another? We do know that many of the fallen angels had sexual relations here on the earth with humans, but that seems to be something that God did not approve of. I haven't come across any evidence that angels have baby angels and wean and nurture them as they grow into adult angels.

So, this idea that 2 males might desire a sexual union in the eternal existence, I don't think, is founded upon any evidence that I've seen from the Scriptures will be the case, anymore than a man and a woman having sexual relations. It has long been my consideration that God is going to squelch the sexual desire in us in the eternal existence. We will all live as brother and sister to one another. Enjoying eternal life in peace and harmony and companionship with one another without getting entangled in sexual unions.

The sexual component of human life is a very, very powerful motivator. People are murdered all the time over issues revolving around sex. Fornication is not approved of in the Scriptures and Jesus seems to tell us that in the eternal life there will not be marriage. So, if God did, as I and many others believe, give humans their sexual drive, which was increased as a part of the curse, for procreation on the earth, perhaps in the eternal life there won't be procreation. I've found no evidence that the angels procreate with one another. In fact, there are some who believe that all of the angels are male, as far as their sexual orientation. The Scriptures tell us that the fallen angels had sexual relations with women on the earth. There is no account that female angels attempted sexual relations with men upon the earth.

So, I believe that there is a fair amount of evidence in the Scriptures, with what little information we are given concerning the eternal life, that the sexual drive will not be a player in the eternal life. Now sadly, in our human thinking, we think that this would be a terrible thing. But God promises us a 'new' heart and that heart may have different desires and drives than the heart we have in this life. That heart may merely be a heart of caring for one another and loving God. Much like, I think, the angelic realm lives today and has forever. The Scriptures seem to indicate that God created each of the angels individually by His own hand. We are told that Satan was innocent in the day that he was created until iniquity was found in his heart.

If my understanding is correct, and I'd welcome any scriptural evidence to the contrary, then this issue of same sex relationships in the eternal life becomes moot.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Not really sex itself but like I said, rather that sex is described by some as a "pointer" or "indicator" of heaven or something along those lines.
John Piper uses Song of Solomon as his basis for these lines of thinking. It's not that anyone will be having sex in heaven but rather that being in God's presence is a sensation like, but better than, a simultaneous [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] with your spouse was what he said.
I think we'd agree that God would not just take away something that people universally find so pleasurable and desirable without replacing it with something better, right?

 

[Jamdoc]

Christ is the Groom of the Church, but remember that God is masculine, not male. Sex (male/female) is analogous to gender (masculine/feminine), but sex and gender aren't the same thing. So although males are masculine to the women's feminine, Mankind is Feminine to God's Masculine.

The language of marriage used for our ultimate relationship with God isn't analogous to human marriage, it's the other way around. Human marriage is the analogy, and while in heaven our relationship with God will not be sexual, it will be unimaginably more passionate and intimate than anything we experience in human marriage.

This is a quote from near the end of the great book Perelandra, by C.S. Lewis:

"What Ransom saw at that moment was the real meaning of gender. Everyone must sometimes have wondered why in nearly all tongues certain inanimate objects are masculine and others feminine. What is masculine about a mountain or feminine about certain trees? Ransom has cured me of believing that this is a purely morphological phenomenon, depending on the form of the word. Still less is gender an imaginative extension of sex. Our ancestors did not make mountains masculine because they projected male characteristics into them. The real process is the reverse. Gender is a reality, and a more fundamental reality than sex. Sex is, in fact, merely the organic adaptation to organic life of a fundamental polarity which divides all created beings. Female sex is simply one of the things that have feminine gender; there are many others, and Masculine and Feminine meet us on planes of reality where male and female would be simply meaningless. Masculine is not attenuated male, nor feminine attenuated female. On the contrary, the male and female of organic creatures are rather faint and blurred reflections of masculine and feminine. Their reproductive functions, their differences in strength and size, partly exhibit, but partly also confuse and misrepresent, the real polarity.”​

If you haven't read his Space Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength) I suggest you do so. Especially if you like Tolkein's work.

You might also be interested in the Theology of the Body, by Pope John Paul II. The original work is quite dense, so Fr. John Riccardo's audio series would be a good place to start. There's about four minutes of introductory material that can be skipped if you want to get straight to it.

Well honestly being told we're all the feminine to God's masculine doesn't exactly help with the feeling of being emasculated in the whole "bride of christ" euphemism..

 

[Jamdoc]

I suspect the problem arises because you're thinking of marriage as a binary relationship when it is not.

It is trinary. Within the context of the Bible the marrital vows are not spoken simply or solely between the husband and the wife to each other. The officiant priest/minister/pastor stands as there as an agent on God's behalf to Whom some of the vows are pledged.

Marriage is a temporal expression of a divine relationship.

God exists inherently already-in-relationship as a triune God. The marriage between one woman, one man, and one God has its roots in the Trinity. Love is - by definition - an inherently relational condition. Selfish self-love is decried in the Bible. So to is a marital relationship that is (only) self-seeking. Love requires 1) a "sender," a person who voluntarily and unconditionally values ("love" is the word we use to communicate a unique valuing of another) a person 2) who also necessarily both receives and returns that affection just as voluntarily and selflessly for the well-being of the other, and 3) a protective and serving witness to that mutual valuing.

This is why so many western marriages fail in Christian cultures; we have forgotten or neglected the necessary structures necessary for a marriage to thrive.



To more fully understand the real and potential depth of marriage we must understand more accurate the vows are said between to individuals, male and female, both of whom bear the image of God in complementary but hugely different expressions to attendants of both male and female each of whom also bears the image of God in completely diverse but nonetheless complementary ways to a God Who exists as three-in-one - a God Who Himself is a complex three persons as one God, three individual intellects, affects, volitions, and behaviors all completely and cohesively united under the single sovereign, authoritative and grace-ous head of what the New Testament calls the "Father."

So marriage, properly understood, is a combining, a joining (the word "engage" means to join, the word "wed" means join, the word "marry" means to join); marriage is a joining of many people,two of whom join with God to reflect and hopefully grow to emulate the love that is ontologically and existentially God!

This is the human teleology (assigned to us by God in creation).



So.... rethink the whole idea of marriage and this males marrying Jesus won't pose a conflict .

In that sense okay.. who's the 3rd person in the eternal marriage then? If it's now on earth Man + Woman + God, and in eternity Man(or Woman) + God + ?

 

[Josheb]

In that sense okay.. who's the 3rd person in the eternal marriage then? If it's now on earth Man + Woman + God, and in eternity Man(or Woman) + God + ?

Re-read the post because that question has already been answered. Re-read it and think about it. Re-read it as often as it takes. Start with this: stop thinking in binary terms.

 

[Jamdoc]

Hi again eleos,

At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Here are words Jesus spoke, as recorded by his disciple, Matthew: At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

also by Mark: When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Question for you: If God blessed the act of the sexual union only in the context of marriage, then how is that blessing going to be carried out in an existence that, according to His Son, has no marriage?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

This is a left field thought I've had, so take it with a grain of salt, I take it with a grain of salt myself, it's more of a thought exercise than anything about the ways in which having a world without sin is possible (without lobotomizing everyone and removing all their desires and making them robots)...

But first off, about why fornication and adultery are sins, and in part, I think it is because sex outside of marriage is a vector for disease, and it is also a means where children would be born outside of loving families to raise them, a single parent is never an ideal situation for a child. The other part is that God created sex as an act to express love, a good thing. But without love, when people are doing it ONLY for the physical pleasure, it's ignoring the real reason God created it, and devaluing it. Finally sex can be used as a means of exerting power or control over someone and even used as a source of violence, the ultimate perversion of something good that God created. It's understandable that God would be furious about giving us something good and we abuse it and spit in His face by making something He created to be loving and beautiful and joyful into something ugly and hateful and painful.
This becomes solved in eternity because:
1. There is no death or disease, sex is no longer a vector that can cause suffering
2. There is no procreation, so no children raised outside of loving families, and as a tangent, those who are children in the next age would be raised by a giant loving family, and would never lack anything or ever be endangered, no more "broken home" children. This would mean that sex, if it exists in some form in eternity, is solely an expression of love and bonding, or that it just completely doesn't exist, if God only wanted it for procreation and is being utilitarian about it.
3. the Redeemed will love each other selflessly and perfectly. That means if it existed in some form in eternity, it would never be about selfish physical pleasure but always about love, never used to cause someone, that you love, pain or to exert power or control or violence in them.
4. It should be pointed out, that all the redeemed are in the same marriage, in Christ. Therefore, if it exists in eternity, then it is all within the confines of a marriage relationship.

I'll say again this is all purely speculation and is a rather extreme concept on the idea that as we become spiritually mature (and by the time we reach eternity we will be "the fullness thereof"), that some things we consider sin now, will not be sin there. Similar to how God does not tell us that some foods are abominations to us anymore in Acts. He can trust us that we'll avoid foods that are bad for us on our own rather than having explicit rules. Some things, like murder, will not need explicit laws against because they will be impossible. But here's the thing. we're going to have new, physical bodies. Either we'd be barbie and ken dolls with no means of having sex in the first place, or if we have all of our "members" do you really think nobody, having memories of earth, say a husband and wife on earth, would never think to put 2 and 2 together? You leave an avenue for a new sin, to ruin the new earth and new heavens. That can't happen.
There are 3 ways that can be prevented:
1. Barbie and Ken doll physiology, making it physically impossible
2. Minds lobotomized to not even have memories of the act or any desire for it, or even any kind of ideation of doing the act. Basically robots.
3. The only way that God can restore us physically intact and keep our free wills; we're all in the same marriage and all the hazards of sex have been removed, so it is no longer sin.

I'm not sure which I believe, 2 is the least desirable to me, to just have no free will.

TL;DR Sorry for the tangent, but it is something I think about, about how you can accomplish a sinless paradise, and the 3 ways are basically to make the sin impossible to do, to take away free will, or to make clean what was unclean.

 

[Jamdoc]

Then you will have discussed this with your pastor.
What did he say and what reasons do you have for not believing what he said.


To give you an answer.

Jesus is not physically marrying every Christian women and having sex with them any more than he is marrying every Christian man and having sex with them.

It is a picture of the unity between Jesus and his church, that is the whole company of Christian men and women.

Well I haven't been able to go to church lately because of all that's going on, and to be frank, something like this that I'm stuck on that borders on what is always kind of a taboo subject for Christians, some Christians see sex as this borderline sin act even within marriage.. and I'm new to the church so I just haven't really had the opportunity for it yet.

 

[PaulCyp1]

Christ loves His bride, the one Church He founded, not as the human identity He took on 2,000 years ago, but as God, Who has no gender.

 

[Jamdoc]

Re-read the post because that question has already been answered. Re-read it and think about it. Re-read it as often as it takes. Start with this: stop thinking in binary terms.

I did, you pose the idea that marriage is not a binary relationship but a triune, between a man, a woman (who are the senders and receivers and returners of love) and God, who is a witness and binds the relationship.
I put that in terms of the eternal marriage as in us + God (the senders and receivers and returners of love) .. and who is the third, the witness?

 

[miamited]

Hi jamdoc,

Thanks for your response.

But first off, about why fornication and adultery are sins, and in part, I think it is because sex outside of marriage is a vector for disease, and it is also a means where children would be born outside of loving families to raise them, a single parent is never an ideal situation for a child. The other part is that God created sex as an act to express love, a good thing. But without love, when people are doing it ONLY for the physical pleasure, it's ignoring the real reason God created it, and devaluing it. Finally sex can be used as a means of exerting power or control over someone and even used as a source of violence, the ultimate perversion of something good that God created. It's understandable that God would be furious about giving us something good and we abuse it and spit in His face by making something He created to be loving and beautiful and joyful into something ugly and hateful and painful.

I absolutely agree with all of your reasons as to 'why' God would ask us to only use the sexual relationship within the bonds of marriage. However, He does seem to make it within the bonds of marriage and Jesus says there won't be marriage after the resurrection. Yes, I absolutely agree that God can do things that we can not even think to imagine, but that also means that He could just as easily take away our desire for sexual relations with one another. As you pointed out, sex within the marriage generally means children, and I haven't found any evidence that children will be born after the resurrection. Therefore, why would we then have the sexual relationship except for the physical pleasure of it?

I'm not dogmatic on the issue and am certainly willing to wait and see what the eternal existence is like. What I know, from the Scriptures, is that it will be a life of satisfaction with no more emotional pain or tears in which we all desire to give God the worship and honor that He deserves in the mere creating of and giving us a life to live. It will also be a life where we will have no remembrance of the former things. So, if there is no longer any sexual desire within us for another human being, we won't miss it. We will generally live a life like we live now with friends and neighbors.

As to the three options you posit, I'm not really clear on why you think that a single desire that we do experience today, taken away, makes us robots. We would still live satisfying lives, according to Jesus. We would still have the freedom to do any righteous thing that our hearts might desire to do in all the other aspects of life. Why do you feel that just because we may no longer have a desire for the sexual union, that makes us like robots? There are, even in this life, a lot of actions available to us that God asks us not to be involved in. Do you feel like a robot because you have no desire to gamble? Assuming that you don't gamble. Do you feel like a robot because you have no desire to shoot heroin or visit prostitutes or go out clubbing and drinking in excess?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Josheb]

I did...

You did not.

you pose the idea that marriage is not a binary relationship but a triune, between a man, a woman (who are the senders and receivers and returners of love) and God, who is a witness and binds the relationship.

Not quite. Go back and re-read the post.

I put that in terms of the eternal marriage as in us + God (the senders and receivers and returners of love)

Yes, that is what you did but it was not put in a manner consistent with my op-reply.

.. and who is the third, the witness?

Stop thinking in trinary terms.

 

[Jamdoc]

Hi jamdoc,

Thanks for your response.



I absolutely agree with all of your reasons as to 'why' God would ask us to only use the sexual relationship within the bonds of marriage. However, He does seem to make it within the bonds of marriage and Jesus says there won't be marriage after the resurrection. Yes, I absolutely agree that God can do things that we can not even think to imagine, but that also means that He could just as easily take away our desire for sexual relations with one another. As you pointed out, sex within the marriage generally means children, and I haven't found any evidence that children will be born after the resurrection. Therefore, why would we then have the sexual relationship except for the physical pleasure of it?

Because it has never been just about physical pleasure or children. It is an expression of love, there are other physical expressions of love too, like hugging, and kissing. Is God going to say no more of those either? They're all physically pleasurable things to do, and why are they physically pleasurable things to do? Because God made them that way to be positive reinforcement for doing something good. Just like eating is a pleasurable experience physically, you are nourishing your body, something good that God intended for you to do, that He WANTS you to do, even Jesus in His resurrected body ate in fellowship with His disciples, it's one of the first things he asked of them, and eating and drinking are still things that we will do in eternity. We will not be at risk of dying of starvation in the new earth, yet we will be eating and drinking, Revelation talks about the marriage SUPPER of the lamb, and the trees of life bearing different kinds of fruit and the water of life that God gives freely. So you have to look beyond basic biological necessities and realize, that eating and drinking are not just to maintain our physical body, they are pleasurable experiences that are done socially as a means of fellowship. You eat at the table with your family and friends, Jesus ate with his disciples.
Wouldn't you one day want to drink wine (whether you believe the wine was alcoholic or just grape juice is not of importance) with Jesus after He said in Matthew 26:29 "But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."? Wouldn't that be a pleasurable experience in fellowship with Christ?
So, if sex exists in eternity, like I said, we are all in the same marriage at that point, that is some part of the mystery that Paul talks about, how a corporate marriage works, then that sex would only exist as an expression of love, like hugging and kissing. Again it's an IF, not something I concretely believe.

I'm not dogmatic on the issue and am certainly willing to wait and see what the eternal existence is like. What I know, from the Scriptures, is that it will be a life of satisfaction with no more emotional pain or tears in which we all desire to give God the worship and honor that He deserves in the mere creating of and giving us a life to live. It will also be a life where we will have no remembrance of the former things. So, if there is no longer any sexual desire within us for another human being, we won't miss it. We will generally live a life like we live now with friends and neighbors.

As to the three options you posit, I'm not really clear on why you think that a single desire that we do experience today, taken away, makes us robots. We would still live satisfying lives, according to Jesus. We would still have the freedom to do any righteous thing that our hearts might desire to do in all the other aspects of life. Why do you feel that just because we may no longer have a desire for the sexual union, that makes us like robots? There are, even in this life, a lot of actions available to us that God asks us not to be involved in. Do you feel like a robot because you have no desire to gamble? Assuming that you don't gamble. Do you feel like a robot because you have no desire to shoot heroin or visit prostitutes or go out clubbing and drinking in excess?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

That is good food for thought in regards to shooting heroin and so on, again those would be rather extreme boundary pushing concerns in the freedom of Christ realized the fullness thereof. Is intoxication sin because it causes harm to our bodies? If our bodies cannot be harmed anymore, are those things still sin? How would God make such a sin impossible to exist? Is it impossible to create alcohol in the new earth, the chemistry simply isn't there or we lack the receptors for alcohol or other drugs to affect us in any way, making intoxication a physical impossibility (IE the barbie and ken doll bodies that are incapable of sex)? Is it the removal of free will (IE the robots)? Or is it that God created the law for our own good to protect us, and when we no longer need to be protected, the law is no longer in effect? However there is a 4th option here in that drugs and alcohol are often used as a means of escapism or coping with stress, poverty, etc. In a place where there is no poverty or stress, the desire for drugs wouldn't exist on its own.
Sex and a desire for marriage however, is not escapism from bad things, it's seeking out a good thing, it can be distorted by sin and our fallen world but a sexual desire for someone that you love is a desire to express that love. So if you're in eternity, and your body is NOT a barbie and ken doll model, so sex is physically possible, to make it not psychologically desirable, would require removing free will, because if you're physically capable of it, you might want to use it to express love and intimacy with a person, just like you might want to hug or kiss them, or clap them on the shoulder in a handshake and smile, it's an expression of affection. We will have affection for each other right? So all forms of showing affection would be desirable, unless God specifically denies free will in an act, or makes it physically impossible.
I just prefer a means of not having sin that doesn't involve removing free will.