Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Sex in New Creation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sex in New Creation

    This thread is to explore an idea I've had. Constructive discussion only, please.


    For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
    Is it proper to infer that there will be no distinction between the sexes in the new bodies? And how does this tie in with Adam and Eve in Eden ("It is not good for man to be alone") and Christ and the Church in the New Eden ("for the marriage of the Lamb has come")?

  • #2
    1. The Lord Jesus still was a man in his glorified body so everyone else will retain their own gender.
    2. I'm not sure what you mean with how it ties in with Adam and Eve in Eden.....ditto with Christ and the Church in the New Eden.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Paprika View Post
      Is it proper to infer that there will be no distinction between the sexes in the new bodies [at the resurrection]?
      I do not believe so. It would seem males and females will still retain their respective gender identities as men and women in the Kingdom of Heaven/God. The only caveat is that men and women will not be engaging in sexual activity in the age to come. This level of physical intimacy is restricted to the present age. What may we infer from this? It would would seem that our biology will be reconstructed (or altered) in such a way that sex will no longer be a requirement or a need.1 Consequently, persons in the coming age will no longer be "tempted" by internal desires leading them astray (cf. James 1:14). I believe we may safely conclude that those in the Kingdom will no longer even feel a desire for sex.

      Lastly, I imagine we are to think of persons in the Kingdom of Heaven living more intimately in communion with the Creator and each other, not less.2 However, this intimacy will no longer be sexual in nature,3 or tainted by sin, double-mindedness, impure thoughts and/or motives. We should not imagine any level of unfulfillment in renewed creation. This would belong to the former things that will have passed away after the final judgement and the new heavens and new earth are established (Revelation 21:1-7).



      Notes

      1 It is quite interesting that you should initiate a thread touching on this subject, Paprika. I posted a thread sometime in 2012 (I believe) regarding this same basic subject on T-Web in its former state (well before the site crashed in mid-2013).

      2 I would invite everyone to Google "touch deprivation/starvation" and subsequently prepare him- or herself for some very enlightening—as well as very heartrending—reading. At a cultural and societal level, many persons today are suffering from a grave lack of intimacy and loss of positive touch (this would include many in the Church as well). I am hoping we do not have to wait until the Kingdom comes before we begin to see a change for the better. In light of this bleak widespread phenomenon, I can't help but think of Jesus' prophetic utterance: "And because lawlessness [anomian] will be increased, the love of many will grow cold" (Matthew 24:12 ESV).

      3 I am not meaning to insinuate that sexual relations in general are "unclean" (especially between a believing husband and wife). I am merely noting that sexual relations will not be present in the Kingdom in the coming age. This observation can only lead me to conclude that God instituted marriage as a temporary construct (albeit a sacred one). The ultimate marriage union is between Christ and the Church (cf. Ephesians 5:31,32). Believers are presently betrothed to Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2) and are awaiting the Groom's return to take his Bride for himself (Revelation 19:6-10).

      (Perhaps those theologizing from an Arminian or open theist framework may conjecture that God originally intended the union of man and woman in the context of a marriage covenant to continue on everlastingly, but this was interrupted as a result of the Fall. Sin has left its mark on humankind. In Revelation, the redeemed are not depicted as naked in Paradise as our first parents in Eden were, but clothed in clean white garments with restored access to the Tree of Life [cf. 22:14].)
      Last edited by The Remonstrant; 03-27-2014, 09:44 AM.
      For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by seanD
        I don't think the emphasis was on sex in that passage. Consider the context. They were asking Jesus specifically a marriage problem under the Mosaic law. The point was that we will be like the angels in the sense that the law is no longer an obligation to us... that yoke is finally broken. So moral is that the woman will not be under any marriage obligation to any of the men in their analogy after resurrection.
        I do not believe this explanation will suffice: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matthew 22:30 ESV). From a basic Hebraic mindset, the only legitimate sexual relations that take place are in the context of a marriage covenant (I'll leave aside the polygamy debate here). If marriage covenants are absolved, severed, no longer active or binding in the resurrection as Jesus indicates they are, then there will consequently be no sexual relations taking place in the Kingdom. This does not involve a huge logical leap.

        I believe this conclusion is further strengthened when we take into consideration Jesus' relationship to the Church as the Groom and the Church as the Bride of Christ in the New Testament. Paul speaks of believers being betrothed to Christ presently (2 Corinthians 11:2). The implication to Paul's analogy is that the marriage of the Church is not consummated until Jesus returns (we see further verification of this line of thinking elsewhere in the NT). Moreover, we see no evidence that suggests saints will be having sexual relations with anyone in the renovated heavens and earth in the NT or that the marriage covenant between husbands and wives in this age will extend to the next.
        Last edited by The Remonstrant; 03-27-2014, 09:14 AM.
        For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          This thread is to explore an idea I've had. Constructive discussion only, please.



          Is it proper to infer that there will be no distinction between the sexes in the new bodies? And how does this tie in with Adam and Eve in Eden ("It is not good for man to be alone") and Christ and the Church in the New Eden ("for the marriage of the Lamb has come")?
          I don't think the emphasis was on sex in that passage. Consider the context:

          Matthew 22:23-30 On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him, asking, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up children for his brother.’ Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother; so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh. Last of all, the woman died. In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her.” But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

          Remember he was having a discussion with people whose whole lives revolved around the Mosaic law and that it would still be instituted in the new world to come. They were asking Jesus specifically a marriage problem under the Mosaic law. The point was that we will be like the angels in the sense that the law is no longer an obligation to us... that yoke is permanently broken. So the moral is that the woman will not be under any marriage obligation to any of the men in their analogy after resurrection because the law is nullified.
          Last edited by seanD; 03-27-2014, 08:32 AM.
          "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

          Comment


          • #6
            seanD:

            It appears you deleted your initial response and have written a new one. I have quoted your old post (formerly message #4) and have not modified it in any way.
            For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The Remonstrant View Post
              seanD:

              It appears you deleted your initial response and have written a new one. I have quoted your old post (formerly message #4) and have not modified it in any way.
              Sorry about that. It's 5:30 AM where I'm at. Didn't think anyone was up
              "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by seanD View Post
                Sorry about that. It's 5:30 AM where I'm at. Didn't think anyone was up
                It's okay. I have a habit of revising my posts numerous times.
                For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                Comment


                • #9
                  Isn't the main purpose for sex reproduction? That function would be unnecessary if no one ever died.
                  If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                    Isn't the main purpose for sex reproduction? That function would be unnecessary if no one ever died.
                    And part of the process of procreation is physical attraction to the opposite sex, which obviously can be easily abused in the mortal life. Without having spent a lot of time pondering this, I would be inclined to believe that we will still be 'gendered' the same as we were on earth, but without the sexual drive/curiosity/attraction that fuels procreation.
                    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      seanD: I am aware of the original context of Jesus' answer. Obviously, He wasn't answering my question. But that's not my point- I'm wondering if we can infer something else from his answer.

                      Now this is the point where I'm venturing into rather unknown (to me) territory. If we can take Jesus' statement to imply that there will not be any sexual relations after the eschaton, and given that a great deal of our identity as male/female is expressed sexually, how can we say someone is "male" if there is no sex?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Again, you guys have to look at the whole context. When Jesus says "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God," I believe is the key. There's no passage that I know of that proclaims the resurrected saints become unisex or asexual creatures. However, there are quite a few OT passages proclaiming that the Mosaic law would be either modified or become obsolete to what God ultimately intended. So the point wasn't focused on reproduction but specifically how the law would be treated in the next life, because that was specific question.
                        "I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole, it was like... we had entire training courses. It reminds you of the glory of the American experiment." - Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State (source).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by seanD View Post
                          Again, you guys have to look at the whole context.
                          Agreed. I used "if", because I'm perfectly fine if the condition can be refuted.

                          However, there are quite a few OT passages proclaiming that the Mosaic law would be either modified or become obsolete to what God ultimately intended.
                          Then again, in the relevant passages (Matthew 22, Mark 12 and Luke 20), Jesus does not say that the Mosaic Law in general would be abrogated. Sure, elsewhere in Scripture that is said but not here; should we then import such an understanding?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                            Isn't the main purpose for sex reproduction? That function would be unnecessary if no one ever died.
                            The Lukan passage is most interesting in that respect, and seems to confirm your view:

                            And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                              The Lukan passage is most interesting in that respect, and seems to confirm your view:
                              If people could still reproduce, you do know what would happen to the population correct? And what's the point of sex? Other than reproducing and strengthening the marriage bond.
                              If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X