Will we be sexless in heaven?

[sawdust]

Traditions of men are not the same as words from Christ.

Matthew 5


so simply having the feeling inside is enough to have crossed the line.
even if you don't outwardly act on it.
even if you act contrary to it.

Jesus isn't talking about emotions in the Matthew 5 verse, He is talking about attitudes. The key is the use of the word "heart". The heart represents the core place of one's thinking, where one holds those things of value. The belly represents emotions and emotions (in and of themselves) are neutral but if you try to use them as your basis for thinking, as many do today, you will end up in trouble. Ultimately it is how and what you think that determines who you are. Feelings are responses and are not controllable, they arise from what you already believe to be true. If your thinking is true (to God's word) your feelings will follow true.

 

[Jamdoc]

Jesus isn't talking about emotions in the Matthew 5 verse, He is talking about attitudes. The key is the use of the word "heart". The heart represents the core place of one's thinking, where one holds those things of value. The belly represents emotions and emotions (in and of themselves) are neutral but if you try to use them as your basis for thinking, as many do today, you will end up in trouble. Ultimately it is how and what you think that determines who you are. Feelings are responses and are not controllable, they arise from what you already believe to be true. If your thinking is true (to God's word) your feelings will follow true.

I look at it as conviction to show the futileness of trying to earn salvation by following the law.

First you have to know you need a savior.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

Traditions of men are not the same as words from Christ.

Matthew 5


so simply having the feeling inside is enough to have crossed the line.
even if you don't outwardly act on it.
even if you act contrary to it.

Notice the phrase "to lust after her" because it suggests that a man lusts deliberately after a woman. But if my best friend Tim feels sexually attracted to his wife without lusting for her, he's not doing what the passage describes.

It's important to quote a passage in context because outside its context, it may be easy to misinterpret. That's why I don't make Bible-verse flashcards to memorize Bible passages. A verse's context can include more than one chapter and even more than one book. Since divinely inspired New Testament writers knew their readers knew the Old Testament well, those authors quoted Old Testament passages when they didn't cite their sources. Christ quoted Psalm 22 when he said, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" But that doesn't show the he thought God the Father did forsake him since the rest of that Psalm is hopeful.

 

[GenemZ]

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

That had to do with ones standing before God. Slaves did not have the same rights as a free man. And, women were typically denied certain rights in what was seen as a 'man's world.'

It had nothing to do with loosing one's sexuality. If it did? How could it be compared to a slave and a free man? It had to do with one's status before the Lord.


We will not be sexless in heaven. We will simply have no need for sexual reproduction in our resurrection bodies.

For its the soul that is either male or female. (Genesis 1:27) Its all about expressed attitudes, and ones response to life and others. Women respond differently when interacting with others, and men do likewise.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

It says we will not be Male or female. Does that mean we will be transgender or sexless or something? And if that's the case, then what about the verse that says the effeminate will not I herit the kingdom of earth? Aren't sexless people typically effeminate looking in appearance?

1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

Personally I'm okay with being sexless in heaven.

Getting into a discussion about the Greek word Paul uses here in 1 Corinthians 6:9 would likely just open up a massive can of worms. But I think I can safely say that no, sexlessness is not "effeminate".

However, Scripture does not say we will be sexless in the resurrection. Was Jesus sexless when He was raised from the dead? No, He was the same human being that was crucified, His flesh was raised up and glorified. He was still Himself.

Beyond that, what can we say? Not much, St. John reminds us that what we will become is something we don't know right now, but when He comes and we are raised we shall be like Him. We, says Paul, currently see only through a glass dimly.

But there is no reason to believe that in the resurrection we will become sexless, or that we will lose any part of ourselves that makes us us. Even if we may not know what that fully means.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RevealedTruths]

The resurrected body will be physical and will include all of its parts and organs. Not a single hair will be lost. Any notion that we will be sexless in 'heaven' is an attack on the image of God in man.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

The resurrected body will be physical and will include all of its parts and organs. Not a single hair will be lost. Any notion that we will be sexless in 'heaven' is an attack on the image of God in man.

That's a relief. I wonder what an acquaintance of mine thinks of the news, though. He told me that God gave Adam and Eve material bodies because they sinned in what he called "the spiritual realm." For him, they're like the un-embodied souls waiting for bodies in Plato's Republic.

 

[Jamdoc]

That's a relief. I wonder what an acquaintance of mine thinks of the news, though. He told me that God gave Adam and Eve material bodies because they sinned in what he called "the spiritual realm." For him, they're like the un-embodied souls waiting for bodies in Plato's Republic.

Cryptoplatonism crept into the church centuries ago unfortunately, and it even influenced Paul to a degree, the "flesh bad, spirit good" idea is influenced by Greek Philosophy where the biblical view is that flesh and spirit were both good, flesh got corrupted and spirit was dead, spirit is made alive, and flesh will be redeemed at the resurrection. Paul does teach that, but sometimes the way he words it comes across as a platonic view.

 

[GenemZ]

Before God provided bodies for the souls He created in Genesis 1:27?

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them."

It was the souls that God created male and female. Before a body was given God created male and female souls!

After the souls were created in Genesis One? Then, bodies were provided for those souls in Genesis Two. Bodies designed for the expressing of the natures of the male soul and for the female soul.

God breathed into the nostrils of the lifeless body designated to become Adam his soul. He became a living 'soul.'

grace and peace.....

 

[concretecamper]

Personally I'm okay with being sexless in heaven.

Beholding the Beatific Vision and this is what you are thinking about?

 

[Jamdoc]

Beholding the Beatific Vision and this is what you are thinking about?

during the 5th seal of Revelation the souls of the martyrs, who are in heaven, cry out to God impatiently asking when He's going to avenge them.

So.. yeah, other thoughts will take hold other than just staring slack jawed at God and being high. He's not a drug.

 

[BillMcEnaney]

Cryptoplatonism crept into the church centuries ago unfortunately, and it even influenced Paul to a degree, the "flesh bad, spirit good" idea is influenced by Greek Philosophy where the biblical view is that flesh and spirit were both good, flesh got corrupted and spirit was dead, spirit is made alive, and flesh will be redeemed at the resurrection. Paul does teach that, but sometimes the way he words it comes across as a platonic view.

Ancient Platonists seemed to believe that matter is evil. In Plato's Phaedo, Socrates tells his friends that he's eager to leave his body because, in the afterlife, bodily needs won't distract him from philosophy. He wants to spend the afterlife talking with other philosophers. From what I can tell we won't need to tolerate bodily distractions in heaven. We'll be able to eat, but we won't need food. We likely won't need restrooms either. So I feel empathy for Socrates.

Dr. William Lane Craig, the brilliant Christian apologist from Biola University, is a substance dualist who believes that he is his soul. So his substance dualism is like Plato's substance dualism. But Dr. Craig knows that matter isn't evil since he knows that God creates it. St. Augustine was a Platonist who condemned heresies that said matter was evil. My point is that Platonism and substance dualism aren't evil in themselves. But some Platonists drew false conclusions from Platonism when those conclusions didn't follow from it.

My acquaintance's seeming pride troubles more than his theory does. He believed that he's the first person to interpret Genesis accurately. That's news to Our Blessed Lord, the second Person of the Holy Trinity since he and the other two divine Persons inspired each book of Holy Scripture. Then again, my acquaintance may believe that he's the only human person to interpret Genesis accurately.

My acquaintance became a home-aloner because his Baptist pastor disagreed with his theory. Soon after that, another pastor invited my acquaintance to publish is theory because that pastor wanted to teach it to his congregation. If I remember correctly, my acquaintance thought God revealed the theory to him after his nearly deadly motorcycle crash. I don't know about you. But I don't think it would be rational to believe just any old thing that popped into my mind after a severe head injury.

 

[Jamdoc]

Ancient Platonists seemed to believe that matter is evil. In Plato's Phaedo, Socrates tells his friends that he's eager to leave his body because, in the afterlife, bodily needs won't distract him from philosophy. He wants to spend the afterlife talking with other philosophers. From what I can tell we won't need to tolerate bodily distractions in heaven. We'll be able to eat, but we won't need food. We likely won't need restrooms either. So I feel empathy for Socrates.

Dr. William Lane Craig, the brilliant Christian apologist from Biola University, is a substance dualist who believes that he is his soul. So his substance dualism is like Plato's substance dualism. But Dr. Craig knows that matter isn't evil since he knows that God creates it. St. Augustine was a Platonist who condemned heresies that said matter was evil. My point is that Platonism and substance dualism aren't evil in themselves. But some Platonists drew false conclusions from Platonism when those conclusions didn't follow from it.

My acquaintance's seeming pride troubles more than his theory does. He believed that he's the first person to interpret Genesis accurately. That's news to Our Blessed Lord, the second Person of the Holy Trinity since he and the other two divine Persons inspired each book of Holy Scripture. Then again, my acquaintance may believe that he's the only human person to interpret Genesis accurately.

My acquaintance became a home-aloner because his Baptist pastor disagreed with his theory. Soon after that, another pastor invited my acquaintance to publish is theory because that pastor wanted to teach it to his congregation. If I remember correctly, my acquaintance thought God revealed the theory to him after his nearly deadly motorcycle crash. I don't know about you. But I don't think it would be rational to believe just any old thing that popped into my mind after a severe head injury.

Well, I could be wrong about this
but it's not that we won't have needs, God created us to have needs but God has created providence for those needs. It is reason to be thankful and praising the Lord when we have a need, and God provides for it, it deepens love for God. It's like why the fall and redemption? Because it increases dependence on God and deepens love for Him that He is your redeemer.

Now, I know people will point to something like this

Revelation 7

13 And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they?
14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.

and say see? no more biological needs

but to that I point to the next verse:

17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

It's not that they don't still have needs it's that they do not have unmet needs. see the first word, "for". The never hungering or thirsting is not because God removed the needs.... it is because God provides for those needs till their cup runneth over. Nobody would starve because nobody would ever have a lack of Providence.

That was how it was in the beginning. God provided, no needs unmet. The curse involved things not coming forth abundantly but now had to be worked and labored for

Revelation 21

5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

Romans 8

32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

Let's break this one down too
Many people say "Jesus is the reward, you don't need anything else"
But that's not the promise. The promise is WITH Jesus God provides everything else too freely.. it brings me back to..

Matthew 6

31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Most people just think this has to do with Providence in this life, but to be frank, there are Christians who starve or die of dehydration or exposure. It does happen. The promise is fulfilled in the next age, after the resurrection, in the Kingdom of God, that is where God provides for all needs.

People think God provides now but..
I think we don't even know the tip of the iceberg of what Providence from God is actually like.

 

[LW97Nils]

Sexless maybe. No more marriage. But genderless? Never.

 

[RevealedTruths]

Sexless maybe. No more marriage. But genderless? Never.

Nobody will be sexless. Man and woman will still be male and female. The interpretation that God will turn humans into some sexless, ethereal beings is a lie from the devil, and it's a part of Satan's war against paternal and husbandly love. Because, if marriage and families were to pass away (which, by the way, Matthew 22:30 and its parallel verses do NOT state), then that would mean that the paternal and husbandly love, which are the image of God's love for man and Christ's love for His bride, the Church, were to disappear as well. In other words, teaching that there will be no marriage / children / families is the same as saying that humans will stop being made in God's image.

 

[RevealedTruths]

That's a relief. I wonder what an acquaintance of mine thinks of the news, though. He told me that God gave Adam and Eve material bodies because they sinned in what he called "the spiritual realm." For him, they're like the un-embodied souls waiting for bodies in Plato's Republic.

Sound like typical gnostic bullcrap.

 

[RevealedTruths]

Beholding the Beatific Vision and this is what you are thinking about?

Adam beheld the Beatific Vision in Eden, and yet God still said, it's not good for man to be alone.