Marriage in the Afterlife

December 23, 2007 in Afterlife, Marriage

There probably hasn’t been a loving spouse who has faced the death of a beloved husband or wife who hasn’t been consoled by the thought of seeing that precious loved one again some day. Those of us who believe in the Word of God and have the hope of resurrection can know that the end of this life is not “goodbye forever,” but only a waiting period until we meet once again in the glorious life to come. And yet this hope is somewhat tempered for the grieving widow or widower by the commonly held belief that there is no marriage in the afterlife. This view is based on the statement of Christ given in the story in Matthew 22, Mark 12, and Luke 20. Yet is this really what Christ was saying? Will those whose marriages were such a success and whose love and devotion to each other mirrored the love of Christ for His people not be allowed to restore that marriage and continue that love in the life to come? Will they be forced to relate to and treat each other just as they would everyone else? This doesn’t seem quite fair, and raises a significant question about the resurrection.

Let’s tackle this problem head on and see what the Bible truly has to say on the issue. First, let us consider Matthew 22: 23-33. Many people get all excited here and insist that this passage proves there is no marriage in Heaven. This is not even talking about Heaven, however, but the resurrection before the Kingdom when many of the very Jews who were standing there would rise from the dead and take their place as the nation of priests in God’s government. I remember arguing about this passage with a man who claimed it taught that there is no marriage in Heaven. I asked him if there was then any marriage in the Kingdom, and he said that he supposed that there was. I found his statements rather devoid of reflection. These men would have been talking about the Kingdom when they spoke of the resurrection, and the Lord would have replied in kind. Let us examine carefully what is said.

First off, this is an attack on the idea of the resurrection. The Sadducees taught that there is no resurrection, and their indulgent lifestyles reflected their belief! Now, they offer to Jesus the standard argument that they no doubt used quite often to silence the Pharisees. No doubt it will work on Christ as well, they reason.

This story is rather out of date, as it has to do with laws and marriage arrangements in effect in that time and under the law. Let us make up a modern day story that would be somewhat equivalent. Suppose a young girl who believes in the Lord Jesus goes out and marries a man who also believes in Him. They live together as a couple for several years, after which he dies. She mourns for him for a time, but after a course of years recovers from it and, meeting another man who believes in the Lord, marries him as well. They live together for an approximately equal amount of time as the first marriage, and then, as her first husband did, her second also dies. Again she mourns for a time, but again she eventually meets another man who is a believer and marries him. This goes on for seven husbands, after which she also dies. No significant event marks out any of the marriages, as there are no children in any of them, they all last about the same amount of time, and none of the husbands survives the woman. Now which one of these men would she be the wife of when they rise from the dead, if there is indeed a resurrection?

Of course, these men did not recognize what Paul pointed out in I Corinthians 7:39, that a woman was only bound to her husband by the law as long as he lived. If he was dead, the marriage ties were over! This is what the law said, and these men, being teachers of the law, should have known it, but they did not. A woman in such a circumstance would have to REmarry in the resurrection before she would be married to ANYONE, since her death erased all marriage ties. And she could as easily marry a new man altogether as one of these men she had been married to before! This is what the law would imply, and these men should have known it.

Jesus is quick to tell these men that they are mistaken. Their problem, as He states it, was that they both did not know the Scriptures, and did not know the power of God. Let us all strive to be guilty of neither of these!

In the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in heaven. Since we do not know how the angels’ marriage arrangements work, this statement does not help us much. Marrying is what a man does when he proposes to a girl and marries her, and giving in marriage is what a father does when he arranges a marriage for his daughter.

As for the resurrection, God is so sure of it that He speaks of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as if they were alive already. It would be good if we would speak likewise, knowing that our own resurrection is as sure as the sun rising tomorrow.

But so far we have only considered Matthew 22. This passage has parallels in both Mark 12 and Luke 20. Let us look at them for a moment.

Mark 12 has little to add to the argument that is not already in Matthew 22, but in Luke 20 we have an extra line added to Jesus’ argument that can help us to understand it. In Luke 20:34-36 we read,

And Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”

If we would take this argument as meaning what most teachers say that it means…that is, that there is no marriage in the resurrection…then we must ask ourselves why Christ included the phrase, “nor can they die anymore.” If that was indeed His argument, then this phrase makes no sense. Why the fact that men will be undying in the resurrection would have anything to do with whether they marry or not, and whether they are still sexual beings or have become neuter beings, I have yet to hear any Bible teacher explain. This information would seem to be superfluous, if this is indeed the argument our Lord was attempting to make.

The other faulty part of this argument, I believe, is the belief that the angels are neuter beings, and therefore this passage is saying that we too will be neuter beings in the resurrection. If one would ask why it is believed that angels are neuter beings, this passage would be given as the proof. Therefore, we know that we will be neuter beings in the resurrection because this passage says that we will be as the angels, and we know that the angels are neuter beings because this passage says we will be like them in the resurrection, an argument which almost seems like circular reasoning to me.

The idea that the angels are neuter beings seems to me to be flawed. First of all, we know nothing of the marriage arrangements of angels. To claim that we know that they are neutral beings is only claiming to have knowledge that we do not have, something which Christ was admonishing the Sadducees for in this very passage! And since in Genesis 6:1-2, Jude 6-7, and other passages we seem to see the angels having sex with human women, the claim that they are neutral beings seems to me to be unfounded. How their sexuality is to be acted out according to God’s plan is a matter about which we know very little.

However, the passage in Luke does give us a clue whereby I believe we can arrive at a proper interpretation of this argument in all three of the gospels. The words, “nor can they die anymore,” shows that what the Lord was setting forth here was not the fact that they cannot marry in the resurrection, but why the problem the Pharisees were setting forth would be a moot point in the resurrection.

As I pointed out above, once you have died you are not married to anyone. Anyone who is resurrected is therefore single. And being single the matter of who will be married to whom becomes a legitimate question. So Christ sets forth why this will not be a problem. First of all, men neither marry nor are given in marriage in the resurrection. These two systems of pairing people off, both marriage by choice and marriage by the arrangement of parents or guardians, are the only methods of choosing a marriage partner that have been consistently used down through the millennia. However, both of these systems are flawed. First of all, marriage by arrangement is flawed because of parents or guardians who may care more about themselves or advancing their own positions than they do about their children. Secondly, marriage by choice is flawed because young people often are led astray by their own passions, desires, and emotions, and therefore marry ill-advisedly. We tend to look down with such superiority on societies that still arrange marriages, thinking that we are so advanced by having our young people choose their own marriage partners. Yet the fact of so many divorces and so many failed marriages shows us that we have no cause for boasting, as our system of choosing a mate has turned out to be an abject failure. Not that arranged marriages would fix the problem, for, as I said, this system too has its faults.

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.

So these are both my thoughts on marriage, and on the argument Christ made in Matthew 22, Mark 12, and Luke 20. I hope they will help you clarify your thoughts on these passages. God bless you in your further study of His Word.

239 comments

Comments feed for this article

April 19, 2009 at 3:36 pm

Kell Schmidt

The truth here only applies to Israel. Does not apply to That Body of Christ revealed in the post Acts 28 Epistles by The Apostle Paul.

April 20, 2009 at 8:33 pm

precepts

Kell Schmidt,

Thank you for your comments.

I agree that the Lord was talking to and about Israelites in the passages in question in the gospels. Yet much of our knowledge of resurrection and what it will be like comes from passages talking about Israel. If you try to limit yourself to only books talking about post-Acts 28 believers, you will not have a whole lot of information to go on regarding resurrection. Much of what we learn comes from things first spoken of Israel, and only by transfer apply to us.

Why do you believe that these things do not apply to believers post Acts 28? Do you find anything in post Acts 28 books that would indicate that marriage would no longer be appropriate for believers today?

I suppose my philosophy regarding this is that when God has established a principle or truth before this dispensation, that I only believe it changed if God spoke again of it and said something different, or if He established a new truth that would make the former truth null and void. I do not believe He ever did anything like this regarding marriage in the life to come.

Personally, I do not believe that the issue of marriage in the life to come is ever dealt with after the dispensational change. In light of this, I would believe that this means that this did not change, and that the truth about marriage in the afterlife is one of those things that carries through from that dispensation to this.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

February 14, 2011 at 7:04 pm

Michael Scotto

Fascinating study. Thanks!

To often we bring our presupposition to scripture.

March 3, 2011 at 6:32 pm

precepts

You are welcome, Michael Scotto. I try to set aside every presupposition and return to the Scripture to determine what It has to say on every matter. This is not an easy task, and I don’t suppose I always succeed. But it is a good thing to endeavor to do, and I will continue to endeavor to do it.

At any rate, thanks again for the compliments. I am glad you enjoyed the article.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

July 4, 2012 at 8:12 pm

beyond24

Perhaps, there will be no marriage in the afterlife, but men and women will live together in a relationship that is similar to, but better than marriage. As for sex, God created it when He created man as male and female. God did not, as the Encratite heretics used to ignorantly say, create sin when He created sex. He does, however, want us to obey the rules He has prescribed for us regarding sex. In this present age, sex is to between a man and his lawful wife. In the afterlife, maybe it will be permitted only between a man and the woman he can lawfully live with in whatever kind of relationship that might be (that is, marriage or something that replaces marriage as being better). I don’t think that God is against the notion of men and women having children or having sex, as long as they obey His rules. St. Paul said that God created woman for man. (I Cor. 11:9) Before He created woman, He said, “It is not good for the man to be alone.” There is a hint in I Pet. 3:7 that Christian men will still be able to live with their Christian wives in the afterlife. There are hints that people will procreate in the afterlife in some of the prophecies of Isaiah and in Eph. 3:21, NKJV and Heb. 6:12-18 (Compare with Gen. 22:17 — St. Paul quoted the Septuagint version of this verse in this passage in Hebrews). The afterlife is a mystery still. We will find out after the general resurrection on the last day what happens next.

August 10, 2012 at 6:30 pm

Precepts

beyond24,

Thank you for your comments. As I said in my message, I believe that there will be the marital relationship in the life to come, though it will not come about through men marrying or giving in marriage, but through the will of God. It is the business transaction of marriage, not the relationship of marriage, that Christ is here saying will not exist at that time.

I agree that it is a grievous error to believe that sex is sinful. This was something created by God and commanded by God, and thus could not be wrong. This is one of the doctrines of demons that Paul warns about in I Timothy 4:1-3. Yet as you pointed out, sex is to be performed according to God’s rules for it. These rules are not meant to be burdensome, but tell us how the Creator of sexuality intends it to be used.

I agree that there are hints in the Bible that marriage and procreation will still be carried on in the life to come. These were good things, and there is no reason God should end good things in His coming kingdom. Rather, that time will be the time of all good things finding their final fulfillment.

There will always be mysteries about the afterlife that we will not know until we get there. However, there is much information about the life to come in the Scriptures, if we have eyes to see and ears to hear it.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

May 17, 2013 at 1:25 pm

I really liked this article. Youy were able to put in words what I thought but didn’t know how to express.. I absolutely agree with what you say!

June 14, 2013 at 6:32 pm

Precepts

NJ (nice initials, by the way,)

I am glad you enjoyed the article, and that you agree with my assessment! I am happy to express what other people feel but are not able to put into words. I do not think it is right to interpret the Bible as teaching that marriage, something that God created to correct the first thing He said in creation was “not good,” would ever be undone. God gave this to us for our good, and I do not believe He will ever take it away from us.

Thank you for your kind comments. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

June 25, 2013 at 5:03 pm

Toy Monique

Very profound assessment of the Word. I enjoyed the article and appreciate the depth of your study and interpretation. Sharing with my peers. Be blessed!

August 9, 2013 at 6:35 pm

Precepts

Toy Monique,

Thank you for your kind words. I am happy you enjoyed the article, and are passing it on. I pray you continue to find value in it, and learn more of our God and His works and ways.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

August 3, 2013 at 6:48 pm

Lily

Very interesting article. I think when you look at the Bible as a whole, you realize most church doctrine doesn’t tell the whole story. For example, Eve was Adam’s wife before they sinned, when they were immortal, refuting the argument that marriage is only to procreate because we were going to die. And, in Genesis, God said that it wasn’t good that man be alone and that marriage was good. The New Testament is where Paul said it was better to remain single. Why? I think your point explains this, in that once sin entered the world, we rarely had successful pairings. Intriguing article that gives us hope. Thanks.

August 30, 2013 at 7:35 pm

Precepts

Lily,

Thank you for your kind words! Yes, I do think doctrine commonly ignores the issues involved whether or not there is marriage in the life to come. They come to this passage about not “marrying and giving in marriage” and come up with a solution that would ignore much of what the Bible says elsewhere about marriage and God’s intention for it. If the common interpretation is right, it would seem that God is saying here that He made a mistake in giving us marriage, which cannot be the case.

God does not say He gave Adam a partner in order to procreate, but to give Adam a helper fitting for him. It was partnership, not procreation, that God had in mind. Passages that speak of life in the kingdom of God to come speak of children and people of different ages, which clearly would indicate that procreation, and therefore presumably marriage, is still going on. It makes much more sense if Christ’s teaching here is saying how marriage is going to be fixed, not how it is going to cease to exist.

Thanks for reading, and for your kind words. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

May 27, 2014 at 4:49 pm

Collin Cook

What are some passages that speak of procreation in the life to come? I can’t find any except for maybe Psalm 22.

August 1, 2014 at 6:50 pm

Precepts

Collin Cook,

You are correct that Psalm 22:30-31 speaks of a generation that shall be born after the resurrection of their parents.

Psalm 22:29. All the prosperous of the earth
Shall eat and worship;
All those who go down to the dust
Shall bow before Him,
Even he who cannot keep himself alive.

30 A posterity shall serve Him.
It will be recounted of the Lord to the next generation,
31 They will come and declare His righteousness to a people who will be born,
That He has done this.

I believe Isaiah 54:1 speaks of those who were barren of children in this life having more children than a married woman (in this life) ever had.

Isaiah 54:1. “Sing, O barren,
You who have not borne!
Break forth into singing, and cry aloud,
You who have not labored with child!
For more are the children of the desolate
Than the children of the married woman,” says the Lord.

Ezekiel 46:17 speaks of the resurrected David, called “the prince,” having sons. Of course, one could just assume that those are the sons he had in this life also resurrected, but I see no reason to think that there are not new sons included in this number.

Ezekiel 46:16. ‘Thus says the Lord God: “If the prince gives a gift of some of his inheritance to any of his sons, it shall belong to his sons; it is their possession by inheritance. 17. But if he gives a gift of some of his inheritance to one of his servants, it shall be his until the year of liberty, after which it shall return to the prince. But his inheritance shall belong to his sons; it shall become theirs.’

Hope those are some good verses for you. Thanks for the good question. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

August 23, 2013 at 4:53 pm

Collin Cook

Thank You for this article, it gives me hope. One thing I’d like to add is that it doesn’t matter whether that angels have sex or marry or not. We’ll be like angels in the fact that we won’t die. That’s why Luke 20:36 says “And they will never die again. In this respect they will be like angels.” I agree totally with everything else you said. Pray that I hang on to this truth. It really depresses me to think that there won’t be marriage in heaven and that God is getting rid of it.

October 10, 2013 at 10:47 pm

Precepts

Collin Cook,

You are welcome for the article.

I did speak of the “neither will they die anymore” of Luke 20:36 above. See paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 15, and 18 of my article. This is indeed one of the ways we will be like the angels, but it is not the only way. The translation you used interprets this questionably. It is not so clear that this is the only way they are like the angels. I think it is saying that the angels that remained in God do not die, nor do they choose their own partners for themselves or their children, but God ultimately makes the choice. This results in marriages that do not end, as ours do today. Human marriages in the resurrection will be this way too.

Hanging on to truth is just a matter of realizing that it is true and submitting yourself to the truth. If you realize this is what God said, then be confident in it. He will do what He has said.

There is no reason for God to get rid of something He made good to go back to a situation He has already declared is not good. I don’t think you need to be depressed about this.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

October 11, 2013 at 7:43 pm

Collin Cook

The translation I used was the NLT, and you’re right it is pretty questionable. I figured that out after I did some more studying. It uses a “thought-for-thought” translation which I guess can skew the original meaning. Oh well, my bad.

By the way, I love this site! I read a lot your stuff and it’s really helped me learn more about the Bible. I use when I study.

Keep posting on this site!

Collin Cook

November 1, 2013 at 7:08 pm

Precepts

Collin Cook,

Thought-for-thought can confuse the meaning when you do not understand what the thought actually was.

Thank you for your kind words. I am glad you find my site helpful. May you grow in knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through what I have written.

Nathan

October 10, 2013 at 11:16 pm

That depresses me too. I’d hate to think all this love and longing is for naught. I messed up here, but I just know He was the right one waiting for me.
Thanks again, for expressing this subject matter. I get so excited when I’m alerted of comments on this topic 🙂

October 11, 2013 at 8:09 pm

Collin Cook

I get excited when someone comments on here too. It depressed me and I always wondered if did anyone else. I did some research and everyone said there was no marriage in the afterlife, but it didn’t seem like they realized what they were saying. My pastor even said the same thing. All the while I thought, “Doesn’t that make you sad?” Good thing I found this site! This makes a lot more sense then how they interpreted it.

October 11, 2013 at 9:44 pm

I was literally just thinking of this when I just now checked my email and saw this. I’m hoping it’s a sign 🙂

November 1, 2013 at 7:06 pm

Precepts

NJ,

I do not think this life is the end of the story. In the life to come, we will see marriage as God always intended it to be. He will give us the desires of our hearts (Psalm 37:4,) and fulfill them more gloriously than we can imagine. We indeed have much to look forward to!

Nathan

November 1, 2013 at 7:10 pm

Precepts

Collin Cook,

The idea that these passages teach that there is no marriage in the life to come is a common one. I do not think it is very well thought out, though. Most people are just repeating what someone else taught them. The whole topic needs rethinking, and that is seldom done.

Glad I was able to help.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

October 11, 2013 at 11:43 pm

Ms Nomy Jackson

Reblogged this on That's Ms Nomy Jackson To You.

November 4, 2013 at 6:00 pm

Collin Cook

You said everything will be restored to what God originally intended it to be. Will we be married like how Adam and Eve were or was that different since they were the only two people on Earth? It seemed like God arranged their marriage. I don’t think that the Bible even mentions how or when they married. As far as I can remember, the Bible says something like “He brought together.” My memory isn’t so clear so I’m not quite sure. If you had any ideas on Adam and Eve’s marriage, you wouldn’t mind clearing that up would you?

November 4, 2013 at 6:24 pm

I know you weren’t speaking to me, but I think God will just put us with our mate like He did with Adam and Eve. I believe it’s already planned out and will be just right. Maybe we had to experience things here with or without that person and only God knows exactly what’s up.
I often wonder if there’d be a ceremony or it would just “be”,lol

December 6, 2013 at 7:59 pm

Precepts

NJ,

If you read my reply above, you know I basically agree with you. Whether or not it is already planned would depend on your view of free will. (I tend to emphasize that God gives us real authority and real free will, so that we really are free to change outcomes.) But I certainly agree that what He does when He finally does it will be just right!

Some bad things that happen to us we cannot help. Some bad things that happen to us are the result of our own bad choices/selfish choices/sinful choices, and some bad things that happen to us are the result of bad/selfish/sinful choices of others. Whatever happens, we can learn from these and grow if we subject these things to God and try to see His perspective on them.

I agree that only God knows for sure what is up! I wish that all His children (myself included) could find themselves happily married and loved (at least, when that is appropriate,) but in this world, things are never going to be perfect. But I am thankful that we can trust that God will make things right in the end! No one will feel lonely or unfulfilled in that time.

Thanks for writing! May you grow in love for our Lord and Savior.

Nathan

December 6, 2013 at 7:51 pm

Precepts

Collin Cook,

I do think it will be somewhat like how Adam and Eve were married. (Note: her name was Isha until after the fall, translated in our Bibles as “Woman.”) What it says is that God made Isha (Eve) and brought her to Adam. I think God will bring people together in the life to come. Whether that will be “sight unseen” or whether they might be allowed to participate in the process, I do not know. All I know is that God will reveal His will in these things, and His will shall be done. That is the point of the statement that they will be “like the angels” in that they will not marry and give in marriage (arrange and carry out marriages themselves).

It will be different in that God will not be taking a part out of men and making a woman out of it, and then bringing the two together. These will be two already-living people who are not made out of each other. But as far as the actual bringing together, that might well be much the same.

God made Isha (Eve) for Adam, and then He just brought her to him, and that was enough. There was no need for any ceremony. In the future, there could be a ceremony or a celebration, as people see fit, and as God allows. But it will be the action of God that is important, not any human ceremony or celebration.

Thanks for the great question!

Nathan

December 6, 2013 at 11:49 pm

Hi Nathan,
I just wanted to clarify that I don’t necessarily think things “here” are completely planned.
I was thinking of an example: A young couple decide to have 4 kids and raise them in a nice suburban house with high morals and values,etc. So they set it up to happen-plan it out to happen that they will be good,Christian people and honorable citizens. But then that ol’ free will kicks in and little Susie ends up being a drug addict and Johnny is a theif, but the other two chose to stay on the straight and narrow.
So I was just thinking maybe the “draft” so to speak is planned out, but the end product depends on free will.I was just thinking that when we go home to our reward, it’s planned out accordingly. I could be wrong, but this is what I’m currently thinking,lol

And to your other point,I agree,too. It would certainly be nice if we could all have a bit of the happy love and marriage here. But maybe there’s a really good reason why not. I have to have faith in that.( Even though when I read of couples married 60 yrs and dying withing hours of each other, I get all choked up, wishing I would’ve had that,but oh well…que’sera, sera)
sorry for babbling….
May God bless you and all reading this blog:)

December 20, 2013 at 8:45 pm

Precepts

NJ,

I think you are very right in that God sets us up for good, but that He then allows us free choice to choose the bad if we wish. Case in point is Adam and Eve (Isha). God gave them everything they needed to be happy, and only asked of them that they obey Him and respect His commands. They responded with rebellion, and brought sin and death into this world. I think it was God’s will that they not eat the fruit. But He loved them enough to give them a choice, and they sadly made the wrong one. Same goes for your example, when some kids sadly choose the wrong course.

I believe that God is a God of relationship, and He really wants a relationship with us. Some people look at God as an “unmoved Mover,” Who cannot be affected by anything we say or do. Yet how could you have a relationship, say with a husband or father or mother or child, when the person said, “I am always going to be the same way, and I will never change my actions or activities in the slightest, no matter what you do or say.” Where would be the relationship? To be in relationship, you MUST respond to what the other person decides to do, or else there is no relationship. So it is with God. Of course, there is what He wants for us, but what He is able to actually give us depends on how we respond to Him along the way. Since I think we will always be in relationship with Him, I don’t think that will ever change. Of course, I am certainly hopeful that we will get smarter and smarter and more and more Godly, so our choices and therefore the relationship will constantly be getting better and better.

I think without the fall God would have seen to it that everyone had a happy and fulfilling marriage in which to love and to experience love. It is only in this fallen and often random world that that does not always work out. I am sorry that your relationship did not work out as you would have hoped. It sounds to me perhaps like you strongly believe that one should not remarry after a divorce, so you are figuring on never having another shot at such a relationship in the future in this life. I certainly respect your decision and that viewpoint. If I was in that situation, I would probably make that same choice myself. Perhaps I have given you some hope that you may yet (doubtless will) experience those things in the life to come. If so, I am happy to have done so.

May God bring you His happiness and fulfillment as you walk with Him in the future.

Nathan

December 20, 2013 at 9:28 pm

Ms Nomy Jackson

Excellent points, Nathan. I always think of God as the ultimate Father and ask myself if an Earthly parent would do a certain thing or have certain feelings for their kid, the ultimate Father would have that 100-fold. I find it very comfortimg and makes it easier to accept when He says “No”.

You absolutely have given me hope of love in the life to come. I appreciate that and will focus my eyes in that direction.
Bless you:)

January 11, 2014 at 9:46 pm

Precepts

Ms Nomy Jackson,

I agree that God is the ultimate Father, and we should expect Him to be that in all He does. He is also the perfect Father, so sometimes what that looks like is different perhaps than the imperfect idea of fatherhood we have in our heads. Yet the reality is always going to be better than we expected.

I am happy that I was able to give you hope for the life to come. May you be blessed now and always in the love of our Lord and Savior.

Nathan

August 24, 2015 at 10:39 pm

Delphi Programmer (@Delphi_Pro)

It’s even worse than that. Notice that all of the seven men in the story died without fathering children. That’s a point completely missed by those who argue the point.

It turns out, according to the law of Moses, if a man died without bearing children, the woman was REQUIRED BY LAW to marry a “next of kin” to carry on the family lineage. She didn’t just go out and fall in love with someone else. Her marriage to the brother was compulsory and if she didn’t marry the brother, she was violating God’s law as it was interpreted at the time. The trap the Sadduccees laid, then was the law of Moses required the woman to marry multiple men on Earth, but the same law forbade the woman to marry multiple men WHILE THEY ARE LIVING. If there was a resurrection, she couldn’t help but break the law, and to the Sadduccees this implied that the very idea of a resurrection was contrary to scripture and therefore not possible..

September 25, 2015 at 6:23 pm

Precepts

Delphi Programmer (@Delphi_Pro),

You are quite correct that this was a law in Israel. Deuteronomy 25:5 declares it: “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her.” I did not go into this in the article, since I was more dealing with the issue of marriage in the afterlife than I was with thoroughly expositing that passage. I dealt with it, including the points you mentioned, in my articles focused on Matthew 22, Mark 12, and especially Luke 20. There were multiple reasons for the law demanding this, most of them having to do with their culture and society, which would not really translate into ours.

You are quite correct about the trap. They were saying that the LORD required something (the woman marrying someone else) that would be a violation of the law if the first husband were to rise from the dead. Therefore, they were arguing that there must not be a resurrection from the dead, or the law would not have demanded this. The Lord’s answer demolished their argument, as I tried to explain above.

I am not sure how this made things even worse, though. You mean it made the trap worse? That is certainly true, but the Lord still pierced through and destroyed it.

Thanks for writing. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

December 12, 2013 at 1:41 pm

Collin Cook

Hey Nathan, I heard once that Adam and Isha/Eve’s marriage was a common law marriage. Is this true? I can’t see this because there were no laws around during that time. Were there laws like that? Honestly, I find their marriage to be quite mysterious. All it says is that, they were brought together. Did God keep it secret on purpose? I know it’s to His glory to keep things hidden and the glory of a king to search them out so I guess that’s the case. (By the way, I find the whole Earth before the Fall, quite mysterious. We barely have two chapters of information before the Fall of Man of what the world was like.)

December 27, 2013 at 9:04 pm

Precepts

Collin Cook,

It is rather hard to talk about “common law” when there were only two people on earth to whom any law could apply. (“Common” with whom, then?) You are right that there were no laws regarding marriage at the time. What was significant here is that God brought them together. They were husband and wife, though she had never been a bride nor he a groom. They were married because God made them so, and for no other reason. It was not the ceremony that was important, but the fact that they were married, that they were husband and wife. Marriage ultimately is a relationship, and the wedding is only how we agree to culturally acknowledge and approve of that relationship.

I do not think that God kept anything a secret. He tells us exactly what happened here. He made Isha out of Adam, and then brought her to him, and they were together, husband and wife. In the life to come, God may arrange the marriages in much the same way (though making one spouse out of the other will probably not happen again.)

The earth before the fall is hard to conceive of since we have not seen nor experienced it. We will see the earth restored someday, and then we might have a much better idea of it. The information we have on it is scarce, so I would assume that this means that God does not think it necessary that we know any more about it.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

June 11, 2014 at 2:44 am

Rez Families

A positive (though speculative) scholarly case has been independently made (which contains ideas similar to this blog post) that male-female relationships like marital bonds can continue between the redeemed into the next life. This may then also imply a romantic, physical and even sexual (and procreative) aspect in such a relationship.

For more information please peruse the rezfamilies website (http://sites.google.com/site/rezfamilies) where detailed exegesis of the relevant passages, philosophical argumentation, and quotations from patristic sources are given.

September 12, 2014 at 6:54 pm

Precepts

Rez Families,

I did indeed read the speculative, scholarly article on the rezfamilies website. It is a very interesting paper, and, as you say, ends up making much the same arguments I made in this post, though written in a much more scholarly format than what I have written. Thank you for informing me of it. I enjoyed reading it.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

August 19, 2014 at 1:09 am

hydeobrit2013

Excellent article and thread. I do so hope that there will be marriage in heaven with all the physical intimacy that goes with it. I think that when the body is animated by the spirit and the spirit is pure love then it will be an awesome thing indeed. Imagine, two hearts in union enjoying outwardly what has already taken place inwardly.

Love cannot exist alone because love is by very nature something that is living and needs a living object upon which to expend itself and to be able to do so completely to the point that satiation is reached. That can only happen where the object is of the same nature for only same nature is capable of receiving that love. Also love cannot be requited unless the object of its love is able to produce a corresponding response. This dependence on another to enable one to love and to be loved, is argument alone for the necessity of marriage.

I only have one question. Will the fact that we can understand each other’s thoughts make marriage unnecessary?

October 10, 2014 at 7:30 pm

Precepts

hydeobrit2013,

Thank you for your kind words. I am glad you enjoyed the article and ongoing comments thread. I do believe that there will be marriage in the life to come, along with physical intimacy. God made this as a part of us, and I do not believe He made a mistake in doing so. I think we will be much more capable of loving like God loves at that time, without our own sin to cloud the picture.

I agree that love cannot exist alone. I am not sure exactly what you mean by the object of love needing to be of the same nature. Certainly God loves us, even though His nature is infinite and ours finite. Plenty of people love their pets, even though they are not of the same nature as humans. Marriage love in particular is meant to be love between equals, equal partners.

I do not think that the need for someone to love necessitates marriage in the next life, since God will be there and we will be capable of loving Him. The same thing was true in the Garden of Eden, of course, but God still saw fit to give Adam someone else to love besides Himself. I see no reason why I should not expect He will do the same thing in the next life.

Regarding your question, what makes you think we can understand each other’s thoughts in the life to come any more than we can now? I think you probably mean that we will be able to “read” each others’ thoughts or “hear” each others’ thoughts, since I can already understand other people’s thoughts if they will tell me what they are and explain them to me. I do not see any really strong reason to believe that we will be able to do this. You have not provided any verses for your assertion. My guess would be that you are thinking of I Corinthians 13:12:

12. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

The meaning of this verse is not at all clear, and I think it is quite a stretch to turn it into a statement that we will be able to read people’s minds in the next life. The context would lead me more to believe that we will know the things of God in that life that we only know in part now. I am not sure that the reading of thoughts would be all the desirable. Would you really want to not be able to keep anything to yourself?

Even if we can read each other’s minds, whether all the time or with permission, I do not see that this would make marriage unnecessary. Part of the joy of marriage is getting to know the other person (assuming that person is worth getting to know), but once that is accomplished, only a very foolish person would lose interest in the relationship. The reason God gave us marriage, by His Own words in Genesis 2:18, was so that we would have an equal partner. Being able to read thoughts would not change the benefits of a partnership at all, that I can see.

Thanks for the question, and thanks again for your kind comments. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

January 25, 2015 at 5:50 am

fernando876

Great article Nathan. Well Hank Hanegraaff has written about this, but while he does believe in a physical reality of our future existence, he does at time have tendency to be driven by a spiritual vision model in his hermeneutics.

He said “We can safely surmise that there will be sexuality in heaven because heaven will personify enjoyment. Men and women will enjoy each another—not in a mere physical sense but in a metaphysical sense” “The materialist views sexual pleasure as a function of fitting body parts together” In heaven, the pleasure that the male and female sex will experience in one another will be infinitely magnified….but Nor will it involve sexual intercourse—for “at the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” In heaven we will experience a kind of spiritual intercourse” Will there be sex in the resurrection? yes and no. Yes, there will be sexuality in heaven in that we will be in heaven—and we by our very nature are sexual beings. And no, there is no warrant for believing there will be sex in heaven in terms of the physical act”

But if sex also expresses the longing for communion, it seems odd that genital sex is automatically excluded from eschatology. If Christian hope envisions the fulfillment of all things, the redemption of our bodies, then genitalia are not somehow exempt. If the communion that God´s love redeems all things, then it redeems sexual life,

February 20, 2015 at 8:09 pm

Precepts

fernando876,

Thank you for your kind compliments.

Mr. Hanegraaff seems to seek to wax eloquent here, but what is he really saying? For example, what does it mean that “Men and women will enjoy each other–not in a mere physical sense but in a metaphysical sense.” How exactly does one “enjoy” another person in a “metaphysical” sense? His suggestion of a “kind of spiritual intercourse” is just so much hand waving. This is just blowing smoke, not revealing any truth.

Platonic philosophy figures large in the minds of many in the west, including in western Christianity. It holds that the physical is somehow inferior and undesirable, and that it is much better if the physical is transcended to some sort of spiritual reality disengaged from the physical. This view Mr. Hanegraaff seems to have imbibed quite deeply. This is never the Biblical view of the matter, however. The Bible says that we are dust, and the physical aspect is and always will be an important part of us. To wave it away with a “mere physical sense” is to discredit the reality of what God made us to be. Christ became a Man, a physical Man, upon earth. This in and of itself should be enough to show us that the physical is not somehow degraded or undesirable. If He could become physical, then there must be the possibility of glory in the physical. The problem with what we are now is not that we are physical, as Plato imagined, but that our physical reality is marred and corrupted by sin. Once the physical is redeemed, we will see it as God intended it to be, and no one will be foolish enough any longer to look down on a thing just because it is physical.

I agree that the redemption of our bodies will include the redemption of our sexuality in all its aspects, including the physical. What is wrong with the physical world all has to do with sin and death. Christ has died to redeem us from these things. When they are redeemed, then we will see the way God intended them to be, including sexuality. Yet at the same time, I believe that couples should strive for true, Godly, self-sacrificing love in marriage even today, and this should be lived out as best we are able in all aspects of married life, including the sexual.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

May 10, 2015 at 9:19 pm

Edward Owen

Very interesting! Thank you for that,

If we have genders, why would we given that we wouldn’t have a need for it, since there is no procreation or “marriage”? Anyway, It’s difficult to imagine gender in heaven without some form of attraction between male and female and yes, even some form of “union” even without procreation/marriage

The following is from Richard M. Davidson: In the Song of Songs we have come full circle, in the OT, back to the Garden of Eden. Several recent studies have penetratingly analyzed and conclusively demonstrated the intimate relationship between the early chapters of Genesis and the Song of Songs. In the “symphony of love,” begun in Eden but gone awry after the Fall, Canticles constitutes “love’s lyrics redeemed.” Phyllis Trible sum-marizes how the Song of Songs “by variations and reversals creatively actualizes major motifs and themes” of the Eden narrative:

“Female and male are born to mutuality and love. They are naked
without shame; they are equal without duplication. They live in
gardens where nature joins in celebrating their oneness. Animals
remind these couples of their shared superiority in creation as
well as their affinity and responsibility for lesser creatures. Fruits
pleasing to the eye and tongue are theirs to enjoy. Living waters
replenish their gardens. Both couples are involved in naming;
both couples work…. Whatever else it may be, Canticles is a
commentary on Gen. 2-3. Paradise Lost is Paradise Regained”

But, Into the nature of sexuality from the Song of Songs, we note one aspect that is not mentioned. The Song contains no reference to the procreative function of sexuality. The sexual experience within marriage in the Song is not linked with utilitarian propagation. McCurley expresses it nicely: “The love affair is by no means designed for the production of progeny. The pleasure of the bedroom rather than the results for the nursery occupies the poet’s concern here.” Lovemaking for the sake of love, not procreation, is the message of the Song. This is not to imply that Canticles is hostile to the procreative aspect of sexuality: The lovers allude to the beauty of their own conception (3:4; 8:2) and birth (6:9; 8:5). But in the Song sexual union is given independent meaning and value; it does not need to be justified as a means to a superior (i.e., procreative) end. We might say that marriage is only necessary because of mortality (i.e. to further the species), but Genesis seems to disagree.Isn’t the point of the resurrection and the new creation to restore all that has been corrupted by sin and death? So if the Song of Songs is a return to Eden and if salvation is to restore man and woman back to the creation design which received such a postive affirmation from God, in other words the resurrection means the restoring to the real life of human corporeity, which was subjected to death in its temporal phase, the new creation is, in essence, creation redeemed What about sex? I believe that there will be sex in Heaven I am not talking about only the gender of male or female I am talking about erotic experience between male and female. Sexual intercourse.

My personal view just to be clear, I don’t think an immaterial existence in heaven is the plan. I think material existence without the stain of sin is the important eschatological goal. So that “marriage” would function in much the same way as it does now, but absent the selfishness, pride, and anger. Marriage is a representation of the relationship between Jesus and His bride (the Church), and is a bond where we share God’s love with each other – we will see Christ’s love in each others eyes. I believe that there will be “marriage” in Heaven as an eternal reminder of Christ’s love for the Church.

May 29, 2015 at 7:14 pm

Precepts

Edward Owen,

Thank you for your excellent and well-thought-out comments as well.

While your article suggests several sidetracks I could get into, I will stick to the issue at hand. I agree that we will have gender in the life to come. I do not believe that God has changed His mind about His proclamation that Adam being alone was “not good” and that giving Him the woman was good. I believe that there will be both gender, marriage, and sexual union in the life to come.

I found your analysis and Mr. Dawson’s analysis of the Song of songs interesting. I had never particularly thought about it in the light of Eden restored. I did notice that the heroine stands up to her tempter, avoiding the mistake Eve her mother made, and so in a manner reversing the story of Genesis. My own teaching on the Song is not written, but I have a series of sermons on the issue, which are posted here:

https://preceptsaudio.wordpress.com/category/song-of-solomon/

If you are at all interested in my teaching on the subject, you are welcome to listen.

I agree that God did not give sexuality in the beginning for the purpose of procreation. The Genesis story seems to be carefully written to deny this. God is certainly plenty inventive enough to have come up with a way for Adam to be fruitful and multiply without this, and there are animals in creation that procreate with no partner (although no mammals). I do not believe that God did this out of necessity. The best thing to believe is that God did it exactly for the reason He said He did: because He wanted a partnership to be created. I believe in the Song of songs He is answering all errors such as David and Solomon’s polygamy by showing in this example what He always intended for love and marriage to be like in the first place.

I agree that what God intended will be restored in the resurrection. This will include marriage returning to what He intended, not a return to a situation He already judged as “not good.”

I also do not believe in an immaterial existence. The problem with us is not our physicality. That is how God made us to be. That is how Christ was when He came to earth. The problem is sin marring our physical bodies, as well as our minds and hearts. When this problem is taken care of, we will shine forth in the way God intended us to be, including in our physicality.

I agree that marriage will be an eternal reminder of God’s love and relationship with us. We will get to share in love sideways, as He does within the Godhead, not just upwards, as with Him.

Thank you again for your comments and thoughts. They were very good, and much appreciated.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

August 16, 2015 at 12:13 am

Larry Chmiel

Nathan,

I found your website today searching for an answer or opinion to my questions written below. However, what you have written seems to have answered my questions. I wonder, did God guide me to your website.

I pray that I am worthy to be with God the Father and the Son and living on the New Earth. What a wonderful and exciting day that will be!

On Feb 20 of this year my wife passed away, we would have been married for 48 years on April 1. For three years we dated because we were waiting for me to earn my college degree before we would marry. Before she passed away she told me that over the years that our love had grown stronger and stronger.

We talked about wanting to be together on the New Earth when we are resurrected. We hoped that we could live together and have a farm with animals, pastures, and woods. She also wanted to live by a small lake, she loved being near the water.
I have read many times people’s comments that there is no marriage in heaven or on the new earth and they would quote scripture. I have asked what is their opinion on whether or not God would grant our wish of living together on a farm liked my wife and I talked about?

Another question that I would ask was “Do you think that we will meet and say to each other “Hi, we were once married on the old earth” and go our separate ways because God has other plans for each of us?”

We also had a very short time expressing our love sexually because of personal and family illnesses. You have given me hope that we will be able to express our love for each other intimately in the afterlife that we missed in this life. I always felt that we were cheated because we were both faithful to each other for the 51 years we knew each other.

May God Bless!

Thank You,
Larry

September 4, 2015 at 8:01 pm

Precepts

Larry Chmiel,

First of all, my sincere condolences on your recent loss of your beloved wife and partner of 48 years.

I am glad that I was able to help you answer your questions regarding this issue. It will indeed be a glorious day when we are resurrected to live on God’s earth once He has made His new world. As far as being worthy of it, I do not suppose that any of us would be apart from being in Christ. As Romans 3:21-24 says, “21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” The word “freely” there is the same word as is translated of Christ that they hated Him “without a cause.” (John 15:25) So our worthiness to be there is irrelevant, since it is without a cause that we attain the righteousness of God. For those of us who are “in Christ” by faith, we are worthy because He is worthy.

I think the reading of those three passages to indicate that “there is no marriage in heaven” is a superficial reading. I have explained what I think the passage is really talking about above. The fact is that God created marriage because He said that “it is not good for the man to be alone.” It makes no sense that God would change His mind and decide that a situation that He Himself described as “not good” is suddenly the good and desirable one.

I cannot help but think that many who accept and promote the “no marriage” idea of the afterlife are those whose marriages and families are in a mess. They have had no success themselves in forming a lifelong marriage, and so they think they might well have been better off without it altogether. They therefore readily accept the idea that eliminating the marriage relationship might be ideal. However, when one has experienced the kind of beautiful, God-honoring marriage that you have, such an idea seems far different. Why in the world should not your dream of living together with your beloved in the life to come be a possibility? Why would God want you to just have the kind of relationship where you say, “Remember back when we were married?” and then move on? This does not make sense.

I also see no reason why sexual expression of love would not be a reality in the life to come. It seems to me that many have trouble believing God when He says, “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled,” Hebrews 13:4. I believe you and your wife will be able to experience this apart from all health problems in that glorious world to come.

Many seem to think that marriage was primarily for the purpose of reproduction, and therefore would be unnecessary in the afterlife. I just yesterday read an argument along those lines, and that was certainly not the first time I have encountered that argument. Even if there are no children in the life to come (which I do not at all take as a given), reproduction is not the primary reason God gave marriage in the beginning. Many come to this conclusion, but they did not bother to consult their Bibles before doing so. The primary purpose for marriage was partnership, and that purpose will not be gone in the next life, regardless of whether or not we will still be having children. Therefore, I see no reason why it should not be continued.

Thanks for reading, and for your kind words. I pray my article helped you.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

September 3, 2016 at 11:22 pm

Edward Downing

Great article. I believe that if pure love flourishes in heaven actually left room for a sexual life there.

It’s interesting to note that the most prominent of this view was the chaplain to Queen Victoria, Charles Kingsley.

For him, heaven was everlasting conjugal union; “those thrilling writhings” he wrote before he married “are but dim shadows of a union which shall be perfect.” Even in his published letters, carefully edited by his wife Fanny, Kingsley did not shirk from asserting that sexual love continued. Kingsley wife, Fanny said, “…if she (Eve) shrank not, why should I? If Holy Eden was the scene of marriage and marriage love, why should I fear to leap into your arms to realize one of Eden’s blessing or taste an enjoyment which must be pure if it was tasted there?”

For Kingsley, to limit marriage to reproduction thus confining it to earthly existence was “an old Jewish error” His own marriage was so intrinsic to his being that, “if inmortality is to include in my case identity of person, I shall feel to hear (Fanny) for ever what I feel now” Kingsley rejected any notion that sexual passion should be limited to the male. The mutual sexual enjoyment of husband and wife, far from being merely an unfortunate result of original sin, would survive in heaven. “There” Kingsley insisted, “we shall be in each other’s arms forever” Faced with the scriptural denial marying in heaven, he said it is marrying that shall end but not marriage. “All I can say is if I do not love my wife, body and soul, as well there as I do here then there is neither resurrection of my body or of soul, but of some other, and I shall not be I.”

Queen Victoria was buried in her bridal veil in preparation to meet her husband.

October 7, 2016 at 10:39 pm

Precepts

Edward Downing,

Thank you for your comments, and for the interesting stories about Charles Kingsley and Queen Victoria. I am glad to hear that there have been prominent teachers who do not hold what seems to be the common view (though to me it is a rather nonsensical one) that marriage is only for this life.

The idea that sexual union was a result of sin is a denial of Scripture and a desecration of what God created in the beginning. The idea that it was merely for reproduction is also a denial of what is the clear teaching of Genesis: that marriage was made for partnership and providing a helpmeet. Reproduction was actually a side issue and not the main purpose. It may certainly be an old Jewish error, and it certainly is an old Christian one as well.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and these interesting historical notes. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

January 8, 2017 at 7:45 am

Germán Vielma

Hi Nathan,

I really liked this article…. But, what do you think about this book on this issue?

https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=_-cZrZe19rYC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=sex+after+death+sampson&source=bl&ots=1ZSySv-oRy&sig=Z1ryu9d9S5WZxM0CHD5O9yFzQzQ&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw8ujmhLLRAhVjq1QKHQgXDxkQ6AEIGTAA#v=onepage&q=sex%20after%20death%20sampson&f=false

February 24, 2017 at 8:09 pm

Precepts

German Vielma,

Thank you for your kind words!

Regarding the book, I cannot say that I agreed with it. (Admittedly I only read about half of it.) From what I saw in the part I read, the author assumes many things that cannot at all be proven from Scripture about the life to come. Then, he is talking about things that happen “after death.” I am talking about things that happen after resurrection. He assumes that we will no longer have a physical aspect after death. I believe this is contrary to Scripture and all its teaching.

His view of “sex after death” is that it is a spiritual experience totally removed from the physical. I do agree that there is definitely more to the sexual aspect in a marriage than just the physical act of sex. There is also the inter-relationship of male and female that takes place between partners, that can also be very satisfying and gratifying and an important part of the marriage experience. My article is about marriage in the life to come, not about sex in the life to come specifically. But I do think that sex will be involved in marriage and an important part of it in the life to come, though not the most important aspect of marriage, even as I do not think it is the most important aspect of it even here.

He does not think that “sex after death” will be exclusively between two committed partners, but could be between a million men and one woman or a million women and one man. This is because he is defining it is a “spiritual” experience of love and pleasure rather than a physical experience. He thinks it will be a public experience rather than a private one. I believe that marriage and sexuality were meant to be a picture of the exclusive relationship every individual is to have with God. It is only such a picture when it remains exclusive. This suggestion of his I find rather abhorrent, though I fully realize that he is trying to make sex something that “transcends” the physical.

His idea of sex after death seems largely like a pie-in-the-sky one to me. Ultimately, his thoughts have to do with philosophy, not Bible study. In fact, he actually scoffs at the idea of trying to prove his idea from the Bible! I am afraid all that is left for me is to simply scoff at his idea back. The Bible is the standard for my faith, not reasoning or philosophy.

Thanks for reading!

Nathan

December 7, 2017 at 6:11 pm

Tj Brunder

Most likely, there will be no marriage in heaven simply because there will be no need for it. When God established marriage, He did so to fill certain needs.

First, He saw that Adam was in need of a companion. “The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’” (Genesis 2:18). Eve was the solution to the problem of Adam’s loneliness, as well as his need for a “helper,” someone to come alongside him as his companion and go through life by his side. In heaven, however, there will be no loneliness, nor will there be any need for helpers. Eve was created because Adam was alone. We will never be alone when we are finally with our Savior. He will be our eternal joy and fulfillment. We will also be eternally surrounded by multitudes of believers and angels, (Revelation 7:9), and all our needs will be met, including the need for companionship.

Another point, God created marriage as a means of procreation and the filling of the earth with human beings. Heaven, however, will not be populated by procreation. Those who go to heaven will get there by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; they will not be created there by means of reproduction. Therefore, there is no purpose for marriage in heaven since there is no procreation or loneliness.

A final note is on your statement:
“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.”

Revelation 19:7
“Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready.”

Revelation 21:9
Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.”

All translations (NASB, ESV, NIV, KJV, and NKJV) give this interpretation. You can have your view on marriage in the afterlife, but be careful not to make bold statements that go against what Gods Word explicitly says. It is very clear in Scripture that there is such thing as a “bride of Christ.”

December 15, 2017 at 8:18 pm

Precepts

Tj Brunder,

Thank you for your reading, and for your interest in the subject.

You are quite right that God created a partner for Adam because of what He said in Genesis 2:18: that it was not good for him to be alone, and that he needed a helper. Your follow-up to this is just your own thoughts on the matter, however. How do you know that “in heaven” there will be no need for helpers? Have you been there to see this is true? Will there be no work to do, no tasks to accomplish, no goals to reach in the life God has planned for us in the future? God is always working, John 5:17. Is His plan for us to be idle?

It is true that it was not good for Adam to be alone. Yet there is no indication that Adam felt lonely. It was God who decided it was not good for him to be alone. Moreover, Adam had his Savior with him already, and they walked together in the garden in the cool part of the day, Genesis 3:18. If all that was needed was to be with the Savior, then Adam already had that and a help meet for him was unnecessary. Yet God still states quite plainly that this was not good, and that Adam needed a help fitting for him besides just having a relationship with the Lord. If this was true then, there is no reason to think that it will not be true in the future as well.

Again you make a lot of assumptions about “heaven” that you cannot prove. How do you know that there is no procreation there? Have you been there lately and checked? The angels seemed perfectly capable of reproducing when they had illicit relationships with Adam’s daughters, Genesis 6:2. Jude describes this as “leaving their own habitation,” Jude 6. Moreover he says the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was “in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh,” Jude 7. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah the strange flesh was homosexuality, but clearly in the case of the angels it was human women. Does not “their own habitation” and “strange flesh” indicate that there was proper flesh and proper habitation? Does not the apparent fertility of angelic men indicate that there was a purpose in it? Why should we think there is no reproduction among angels?

As far as being surrounded by multitudes, that describes most everyone in the world today. We have billions of people on earth. Yet somehow many people still find it agreeable to get married, and often feel lonely if they cannot find anyone to marry. Does being surrounded by multitudes really make marriage unnecessary, then? It does not seem to in the minds of many, many people!

I am happy to see that my statements about the “bride of Christ” led you to search your Bible. That was part of my goal in making these statements. Far too many people simply accept the idea of the “bride of Christ” without ever imagining that perhaps they should make sure there really is such a thing first.

It is hard for you to prove that there really is a “bride of Christ” when you find that you cannot find the phrase “bride of Christ” in Scripture. Okay, you found a “Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” Very true. But does this really equate to “the bride of Christ”? Do the names and titles of our God really matter so little? If the “bride of Christ” is really a true doctrine, then why is it that those who teach it cannot use the actual phrase the Bible uses when talking about it? I often find that this is the first sign of something seriously wrong with a doctrine: when we cannot describe it with terms the Bible actually uses.

What would happen if you went further than the two verses you listed and actually looked at what is said about the “Bride, the wife of the Lamb”? Would you find that it backs up what is commonly believed about the “bride of Christ”? We both know what is believed and taught about the bride of Christ. It is taught that “the church is the bride of Christ.” Is there anything in Revelation 19 or Revelation 21 to indicate this? Is that what “the Bride” is that is mentioned there? I think you would find that this is not the case. What the Bible talks about when it talks about the “Bride, the wife of the Lamb” is not what people are talking about when they talk about the “bride of Christ.” Therefore, not only is the phrase “bride of Christ” not in Scripture, but the concept that people are referring to when they talk about the “bride of Christ” is not there either. The bride of Christ is simply not in the Bible.

I have written an article on “The Bride of Christ” wherein I address this issue. It would be good for you to consider what I have written there. Feel free to comment on that article as well, if you wish.

The Bride of Christ?

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

December 15, 2017 at 8:26 pm

Ms Nomy Jackson

Excellent points, Nathan!

December 15, 2017 at 10:29 pm

Precepts

Thanks, Ms Nomy Jackson. Glad to see you are still following this thread. God bless you in your life and studies of His Word!

December 15, 2017 at 10:57 pm

Ms Nomy Jackson

Always! God bless you as well. 🙂

February 4, 2018 at 9:30 pm

Rachael

Hi Nathan,

I was happy to find your site and article. This is something I’ve been struggling with personally. After 28 years I suddenly lost my husband without warning. I’ve reached out to more churches, locally and online than I can count asking the same question; why would God take away something that He created before the fall and found to be good. Every answer I’ve received has said the same thing, that we will all be married to God and therefore there is no reason for marriage to continue. I’ve tried to respond with several points you’ve made but I’m always told I’m wrong. This has caused severe depression. I’m told I’m being selfish because the only thing I should be concerned about is being with Jesus. I now feel guilty for wanting to be reunited with my husband. I don’t have anywhere near the knowledge you have, but completely agree with the points you’ve made. Being told over and over I will not be with my husband has taken away what hope I did have. I don’t understand why churches don’t talk about this issue. Thank you very much for this article.

February 21, 2018 at 7:21 pm

Precepts

Rachael,

You are very welcome for the article.

I can only imagine what it would be like to suddenly lose your husband after 28 years. My sincere sympathies.

I am sure that the churches you are reaching out to are basically all repeating for you what for them is the “party line” on this issue. It is doubtful that many of them have really deeply thought about the matter or dived into Scripture to determine if this is really what is taught there. They have been given at least one of the three passages I mentioned above as the “proof text” that what they teach is true, and that is as far as they have gone with it. To depart from the party line is frightening, for someone might think you “sound like” a Mormon or something. (I am not a Mormon, by the way, just a Bible student.) God’s truth deserves more careful and reasoned consideration than this, particularly about an issue that touches so many people so deeply.

The “married to God” idea is quite a cop-out. God is obviously not going to do the standard, marriage-partner-type activities with you in the resurrection. God clearly always wanted a close relationship with His people, and He did not seem to think that marriage would be a threat to that when He first instituted it. Why should He have become afraid of it later?

It is sad that you were heartlessly made to feel inferior as a believer because you want to be with your husband in the life to come. This is hardly fair. It does not mean you do not love our Lord Jesus if you love your late husband as well. The Lord is the very One Who would call upon us to love our spouses. Perhaps before making such claims those who said this should have considered whether or not they really believe God when He said that it is “Not good that man should be alone.”

I pray that I have been able to help lift you from depression and given you hope that, more than just seeing your husband in the life to come, you might well be able to live as his wife once again. As I said, this will all be up to God’s judgment, so I cannot offer you absolute assurance of this. But I believe strongly in both God’s wisdom and compassion, and am convinced that every decision He makes will be for the very best. Without any reason to think that you being reunited with your husband would not be the very best, I would encourage you that this will more than likely be the case.

May God bless you with the comfort and encouragement of His truth.

Nathan

February 3, 2019 at 4:02 pm

Eric Breaux

What do you make of the objections to eternal marriage, not simply levirate marriage, in this article? https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Jan/6/do-you-think-it-possible-new-earth/ Is there any evidence for the intended meaning of what Jesus said to the sadducees that contradicts the possibility that he meant there won’t be married couples, and therefore elimination of sexual desire and attraction?

April 11, 2019 at 7:31 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

I believe I made an argument above that for the most part speaks to the claims of Mr. Alcorn in this article. I pointed out first of all that the point of the Sadducees’ argument was denying resurrection, not denying marriage in the resurrection. The Lord needed to answer their argument against resurrection, not that against marriage in the resurrection. To stop at His answer to marriage in the resurrection is to miss the point.

As the questioner tried to point out (and Mr. Alcorn seems to have ignored) is that what Christ denied is that in the resurrection they do not marry nor are they given in marriage. This was a way of speaking of the human, business arrangement aspect of marriage. Back then marriage was considered a business arrangement, whereas today we view it more as a romantic arrangement. Perhaps they were too pragmatic, and perhaps we are not pragmatic enough. But ultimately the assumption of the Sadducees was that marriages arranged by human beings in this life are binding on them and on God in the life to come. The Lord Jesus denies this. Marriage in the life to come will not be up to men, but up to God. What people have done regarding marriage “business deals” in this life will in no wise be binding on them or on God in the life to come. They were assuming God would be bound by the business deals they have arranged. They showed how little they knew the power of God by claiming this.

For Christ to have done as Mr. Alcorn suggests, to have said, “The first husband,” or “all of them,” would have been for Him to acknowledge the very thing He denied to the Sadducees: that God has no power in the face of the “mighty” authority of men to arrange marriages as they see fit. He must be bound by your first marriage choice, or by all your marriage choices. But this is the very thing He denied. The woman did not need to be bound to ANY of the human choices for her in the resurrection. God will be entirely free to partner her with any person He sees fit. That is what He did with Adam and Eve. That is what He will do with everyone in the resurrection.

Mr. Alcorn hits very close to Christ’s point in the fourth to last paragraph of his answer, but he seems to miss the very thing he just said. Of course Christ’s point is that the Sadducees were wrong to think that earthly partnerships (I would call them man-made partnerships) will continue in the resurrection. That is the point. God is under no obligation to restore what we have done. He will be completely free to join together as He sees fit. To assume that He will not be free is to deny His power, as Christ said. He does not have to bow to our decisions.

As for evidence that he is wrong, I would say it is the very words of God in the beginning, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him,” Genesis 2:18. This was the first thing in all His creation that God found “not good.” It is unthinkable that God would find Himself wrong or change His mind. I firmly believe in the resurrection, not just of the dead, but of dead men. We are men in this life and we will be men in resurrection. And if it was not good for men to be alone back then, it will not be good for men to be alone in the resurrection either. To say anything else is to claim that God was wrong in the beginning. This I am not prepared to do.

Keep studying the Word.

Nathan

February 3, 2019 at 10:09 pm

Eric Breaux

This one is especially dogmatic and claims that Christians originally believed marriage and sex would end after the resurrection of everyone, until a couple centuries ago. https://polygamypage.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/marriage-is-for-life-not-forever/ I don’t know the historical evidence for what the consensus about that was during early Christianity.

April 11, 2019 at 7:40 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

This article is focused on the idea that some have that there are marriages that can continue beyond death into the life to come. For example, the Mormons have a teaching that if one is married in a certain sacred building of theirs, that marriage will last forever and extend beyond death into eternity.

Of course this view is completely refuted by what Christ said. He pointed out that man has no power to arrange a marriage and make it binding on God in the resurrection. The Mormons fool themselves when they believe they can do this.

Yet this does not prove that God cannot institute new marriages in the resurrection. That was beside Christ’s point. As I said previously, since God Himself stated that it is not good for man to be alone, and since He invented marriage as the fix to that problem, and since we have every reason to believe that we will be raised as men and not as something else, we have every reason to believe that there will be new marriages instituted in the life to come. But they will be new marriages, not the continuation of old ones. I agree this far with this article.

Thanks for writing, and keep studying the Word.

Nathan

February 6, 2019 at 3:11 pm

Eric Breaux

According to this article, the conditions of Eden are a moot point, because it wasn’t actually perfect and God had intended from the start to replace human marriage with marriage to Jesus, thus eliminating sexual desire and intimacy. https://www.crossway.org/articles/10-things-you-should-know-about-the-garden-of-eden/

April 11, 2019 at 7:54 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

I don’t know that I see exactly what you have summarized the article as saying in the article, but I suppose you could gather that from it.

I find this talk about “temporary human marriage will give way to the substance-the eternal, unbreakable, most intimate marriage between Christ and his bride” to be typical pie-in-the-sky talk with no real substance to it. If a gloriously intimate relationship with God is so fragile that He dare not share it with anyone else, then are we to imagine that every one of us in the resurrection will experience just “me and God” and will never see another living soul ever again, lest forming a relationship with anyone other than God would mar our perfect relationship with Him? Surely this is a foolish suggestion (though I have had something along those lines suggested to me!). But if that is not the case, then why would marriage be a “threat” to a relationship with God but not any other kind of relationship? I think plenty of people manage to have a good relationship with God and a good relationship with a marriage partner at the same time. I see no reason to think we will get less good at loving others the better we get at loving God. Quite the opposite.

Moreover the assumption made in this article is along the lines of what I would characterize as the largely feel-good doctrine of “the bride of Christ.” This phrase never once appears in Scripture, and those phrases that do appear with this type of illustration are all either describing God’s relationship with Israel in general or with the New Jerusalem in particular. I discuss this matter here: https://precepts.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/the-bride-of-christ/ We have no reason to suppose that we will ever be “married to God.” We will be part of His body. We have no promise that we will be part of His bride.

Keep studying the Word.

Nathan

April 11, 2019 at 8:12 pm

Ms Nomy Jackson

Good answer!

April 12, 2019 at 7:36 pm

Precepts

Ms Nomy Jackson,

Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.

Nathan

April 25, 2019 at 5:36 am

Eric Breaux

Thank you for the answers, I’m just seeing your responses to me for the fist time. You gave me some good information as to what Jesus meant by the sadducees not understanding the power of God. I had always wondered what that has to do with whether people will remain married or not, though I often forget that deatil in his answer. Your explanation makes a lot of sense and helps to understand that the context was human marriage customs, not the state of being married. I’ve been confused about this topic and doubtful of the hope of being eternally united with someone God deems ideal for me as a marriage partner to have a unique sexual intimacy with. The way you eplain things makes less assumptions than many other people’s ideas that I’ve read online.

June 19, 2019 at 7:59 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

You are welcome for the answers. I am glad I was able to help you understand the point of Christ’s answer to the Sadducees. Their assumption that God was bound by people’s decisions and arrangements was a fatal flaw to their argument against the reality of resurrection. Often arguments that are made against Bible doctrines display just this kind of shallow thinking. Simply a knowledge of the Scriptures and the power of God can help us out of such difficulties, as Christ said.

I am glad you found my explanation sensible and helpful with your confusion.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

June 22, 2019 at 8:43 pm

Eric Breaux

I realized shortly after my response to your answer that not understanding the power of God was refering to the resurrection, not marriage conditions. I’d also like to know why the poeople who heard Jesus answer were amazed and a priest said Jesus had spoken well. I understand the discussion was about the resurrection, but no one seemed to care about the part about marriage. I’m pretty sure Jews had as much sexual desire as other people, so would have been distraught instead of amazed if Jesus meant marriage itself and sexual pleasuse would end. But as much as I know, people had originally understood not marrying and being given in marriage to mean no more marriage, since you had to perform those customs to be married. The traditionalists say any other interpretation is an excuse to believe differently than, what to them, is the plain meaning because we have a worldly desire, and should care only about the relationship God wants with us for eternity. If the other interpretation was later than it’s false, because God explains things in scripture in an easily understood way even when translated because he wants the truth available so no one is fooled by false doctrine. Interpreting with the common context is the only way to not complicat anything.

July 26, 2019 at 6:32 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

The main point of the Sadducees was to deny the resurrection, so that was the main point of Christ’s answer. But their argument was all tied up with the problems caused by marriage in this life if one considered these arrangements as carrying over into the resurrection, so of course Christ had to deal with that. That is why He argued regarding the not marrying and giving in marriage.

Of course simple explanations are preferable if they are available and explain all the difficulties. But the problem is that truth is often complex and cannot be explained in a simple way. This is especially true when it comes to traditions. When one already has a good idea of traditional doctrine explaining a passage according to those traditions is easy. If a passage is based on truths that are contrary to tradition, then it might be a long and laborious process to explain those counter-traditional truths before being able to explain a passage according to them. This makes one’s explanation very long and complex, but that does not mean that it is wrong, just that it is different from what everyone already thinks and so is not easy to just plop into prior assumptions. In other words, error can often be exceedingly simple, and countering it with truth can be a very complex process. Of course error can be complex too. But simplicity is not a test for truth.

Of course people can always question the motives of those who believe differently than they do. But what does that matter? The truth is that which accords with the facts. It remains the same no matter what the motive is of the one who proclaims it.

Many truths were lost very early, the truth of salvation by grace rather than by works among them. Antiquity is no test for truth either. All beliefs, old or new, must be subject to God’s Word to see if they are true or false. If this was not the case, then we all ought to still be either Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, and the Reformation ought never to have happened.

Nathan

July 27, 2019 at 11:31 pm

ericbreaux

Do you know any evidence for the people who heard Jesus answer to the sadducees understanding him to be only refering to legal customs of marriage, not marriage and sexuality itself? It seems odd to me that the people would be amazed at his answer, and a rabbi telling Jesus he had spoken well, if part of Jesus answer was the elimination of the most passionate desire for anything he made. I would think Jesus audience had as much sexual desire as anyone else.

August 30, 2019 at 8:07 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

I think we need to look carefully at what Christ said and what He did not say. Most take His words as meaning that there is no marriage in the resurrection. But what He actually said is that they do not marry nor are given in marriage. These are things that human beings do. Yet Adam did not marry nor was he given in marriage, yet he was married to the Woman, later named Eve, as surely as anyone has ever been married.

Marrying and giving in marriage is used, along with eating and drinking, for conducting the normal business of life in Matthew 24:38. This was considered a business deal men entered into. I don’t know about evidence…this is just what is being described.

The reason the people were amazed was that the Lord took this question of the Sadducees, which they had probably often used to stump their opponents the Pharisees, and turned it completely back on them. They with their limited perspective were viewing the resurrection life as if it was just like this one. But the Lord knew better than this, and He exposed their ignorance. The people were probably used to the Pharisees accepting the Sadducees’ premise and trying to argue according to it. Maybe it would be the first man because he had been with her first, or the last because he had ended up with her. Or perhaps one of the other brothers who stood out as being most Godly. Yet ultimately all they could do is hem and haw and try to sound intelligent trying to answer an unanswerable question. The problem is that this was a hypothetical situation, and there is no such thing as hypothetical situations, only real ones. In a real situation, the Lord would be able to judge. In this hypothetical situation, set up without any real people in it, there could be no answer but that God has the power to judge what is best in all situations, and He would in this one too since He has all the relevant information.

It is true that Him merely answering, “She won’t be married to anyone because there is no marriage in the resurrection” would not have been nearly a brilliant enough answer to provoke the admiring response He received. There was far more to what the Lord said than this.

I agree that the Lord’s audience would have had sexual desire, as normal people do. The Sadducees wanted to believe in no resurrection at all, not in resurrection without marriage.

Thanks for writing! Keep studying the Word.

Nathan

April 2, 2020 at 1:24 pm

ericbreaux

I have lingering doubt that Jesus meant simply that no one will do any legal acts to be married, for the simple fact that if marriage itself was eliminated, that would also eliminate the sadducees supposed dilemma. I read somewhere that Jesus mention of not being able to die wasn’t a reason he said marrying and being given in marriage wouldn’t be done, simply that no one will marry and that no one will die, not that there’s a correlation with the two. There wouldn’t be a contradiction with the account of the first marriage then. Would Jesus audience have understood that Jesus didn’t mean elimination of sexual relationships, since marrying and being given in marriage had to be done to be married anyway?

May 15, 2020 at 11:18 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

I can’t necessarily do anything about your “lingering doubt.” Of course the Lord could eliminate the problem of who to marry someone to in the resurrection by eliminating marriage altogether. But how then would the Sadducees have demonstrated that they do not know the power of God? As I have explained, they were reserving for human beings the right to end a marriage by divorce, but acting like God has no power upon resurrecting a person to do anything about any marriage arrangements they made during their first life! This clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the power and authority of God. No human arrangement like a marriage contract is binding on Him if He chooses to annul it. Death ends all marriages, but even for those who happen to be alive (or even in the act of copulation!) when the resurrection comes, God can and does have the authority to bring their marriages to an end if He wants to do so. To act like He does not is silly. But that is what the Sadducees were doing! How does one demonstrate God’s power by saying, “God is so powerful that you are right, He couldn’t do anything about prior marriages if He tried to let marriage continue. But don’t worry, He’s eliminating it, so no problem!” No, that is accepting the idea that God is weak and of little authority. That is not what Christ’s answer was.

To say that not dying in the resurrection has nothing to do with the argument at hand is to make Christ bring in irrelevant information. We might get sidetracked on an issue into showing how much we know by listing extraneous facts, but I don’t believe God does this. The fact that they do not die anymore in resurrection is relevant to the argument, because it demonstrates one of the two ways God fixes this matter of multiple marriages. If God either makes or approves matches and men do not die anymore, then marriages should not end. That is His point. God is powerful enough to make marriages last forever. We are not.

The Lord’s audience would have had to think about His answer, just as we have to today. I suppose they had a better understanding of what they meant by “marrying and giving in marriage” than we do. But other than that, they needed to think about His answer. The Sadducees did not really think, at least not correctly, in making their argument, nor did their opponents (before Christ) really think in answering them. Accepting the premise that God could not annul marriages is not thinking! The Lord was stimulating them to realize just what it was they were saying.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

April 28, 2019 at 5:31 pm

Eric Breaux

But there’s still a complication with 1 Corinthians7:39 and Romans7:3. If there is no problem with a person remarrying if their spouse is dead, then any sexually intimate part of the relationship they had isn’t relevant to God it would seem, because they can have that with someone else now. So he doesn’t seem to think that kind of relationship is important to keep with someone, so won’t give anyone their ideal marriage partner in the renewed creation. This is consistent with the traditional interpretation of not marrying and being given in marriage after the final resurrection. Many people teach that God created marriage only as an allowance for reproduction so we don’t become extint, because he knew we would sin.
The reason why I interpret the crosswalk article I linked as teaching the conditions of Eden are a moot point is because she claims that God intended the conditions to be made better than what he originally made, regardless if Adam or Eve sinned, so marriage and sexual relationships being made at the beginning is not evidence that’s his eternal ideal.

June 19, 2019 at 8:26 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

I Corinthians 7:39. A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.

Romans 7:3. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.

I do not think your deductions follow at all logically. Why would the fact that one could remarry after a death mean that the sexually intimate part of the relationship was not relevant? The wife could not marry another while her husband was alive on penalty of death. That would seem to make the relationship and all parts of it, sexually intimate and otherwise, seem very relevant to God indeed. And how in the world does that mean He thinks that that kind of relationship is not relevant to keep? How would she keep it after her husband is dead? Should she keep her husband’s body around so she can pretend to still be married to it? Should she sleep on his grave and pretend she is in bed with him? Once one is dead there is no possibility of keeping a relationship with that person. He is dead. Only resurrection can reverse that.

I do not know anything about “ideal” marriage partners. I would be more concerned with God’s choice than I would be with “ideal.” All we human beings are fickle creatures with changing moods. My “ideal” partner in one mood might not be the same as my “ideal” partner in another mood. People are people, and none of us is perfect like God. He brought Eve to Adam and she fell to temptation and led him the same way, which was hardly “ideal.” He brought Rebecka to Isaac and she encouraged her son Jacob to swindle her husband. What we desire in the resurrection is to marry God’s choice for us. But to worry about “ideal” is just silly. Only God is “ideal.”

We will absolutely not marry and give in marriage after the resurrection. Christ made it clear that we will not. That is because marrying and giving in marriage is all about human arrangements leading to marriage. In the resurrection God will be in charge of all such things. There will be no choosing a partner, no making an arrangement. But that does not mean that there will be no marriages. Adam never married and Eve was never given in marriage, yet they were as married as any couple has ever been. That is how it will be in the resurrection.

Those who teach that God only created marriage for the purpose of reproduction simply lack faith in the record God gave us of the matter. God says why He gave us marriage. He did it because it was not good for Adam to be alone. He said nothing about reproduction being the purpose of it. Yes, after He had brought the two together He told Adam and Eve to reproduce. But that was secondary to the fact that Adam needed a partner. He needed to not be alone. It was not good for him to be alone. That is why God gave him Eve. To say anything else is to contradict what God Himself said.

I have already commented on the article and the foolishness of the claim that marriage between people somehow would threaten the perfection of our relationship with God. I do not believe this for a second. Again, I think this is simply lack of faith in what God said in the beginning: that it is not good for us to be alone. That is not suddenly going to reverse in the resurrection.

Nathan

June 22, 2019 at 6:25 pm

Eric Breaux

When I wrote ideal, I meant God’s ideal marriage partner for someone, not what type of person is ideal to us.

July 26, 2019 at 5:59 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

Be that as it may, we both know that God’s ideal would have been if human beings had not fallen in the first place. Since we are all fallen and sinful, there is not a one of us who even comes close to God’s ideal. God has children, hopefully including both of us, and He can graciously be involved in His children finding a partner from among themselves if He so desires. Yet I do not think He can give anyone His ideal partner from any one of Adam’s race living in this world at this time, since not a one of us lives up to His ideal for men and women. God cannot give an ideal partner from people who are not ideal. He has to give sinners saved by grace. This is not ideal, the sinners part anyway, but it is all He has to work with at this point.

Ultimately if we are looking for “God’s ideal” we are looking for a standard that will never be met in this life. You will never get an ideal partner, either in your eyes or in God’s. You will not be an ideal partner, either in your partner’s eyes or in God’s, so I guess it will in that sense be even. If God did give you an ideal partner, He would be cheating her because she would be stuck with you, and you are not ideal.

What you need is the strength and character to love the woman God graciously allows you to marry in spite of the ways that she is not ideal. Are you man of God enough to love her anyway? That is the question.

Nathan

July 27, 2019 at 11:17 pm

Eric Breaux

I typed about his ideal person for us in the renewed creation, not this mortal life. I agree with your response.

August 30, 2019 at 7:44 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

I do not know about ideal in the life to come. I suppose it may well be. But I would think that we would love so much more like Christ loves that we would still be far more worried about BEING the ideal partner than we would about HAVING the ideal partner. Yet I do like the idea of God being involved in and approving of all marriage unions. When His will shall be done in all marriages that will be a good thing, and I much look forward to it.

Nathan

October 8, 2019 at 4:04 am

Eric Breaux

The reason I wrote that it seems that God doesn’t care for people to keep a marriage relationship with someone and sexual intimacy is because I meant for eternity. No matter how much in love you are with the person you married and if you were more attracted to them than anyone else, that relationship is ended by death, so all those feelings and sexual intimacy was given just to be eliminated forever. When they’re resurrected, assuming one of them wouldn’t suffer for eternity, they can only be friends then without sinning. That most passionate desire is just for a representation of the relationship God wants with us according to most Christians, instead of for it’s own pleasure to be fulfilled the way he made it, which he’ll eliminate forever. They must think that the relationship Adam had with God before he made Eve wasn’t as good as what people will have with him when he remakes everything if they think That the one with God fulfills marriage and replaces sex eventually, but no other desire that isn’t nearly as passionate. Jesus taught his disciples that people choose permanent celibacy as a way of serving God.

November 15, 2019 at 8:02 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

Whether we like it or not, all marriages do end at death. Yet that does not mean that some marriages might not be reinstated in the resurrection. The idea that there is no marriage after resurrection I have argued much against in this post and the following comments. It does seem silly to me that some who were very Godly examples of love and union in their marriage partnerships in this life will not be allowed to be married to each other again in the life to come, not to mention not being allowed to be married to anyone at all. As you say, “just friends.” I do not see why Christianity seems to want this so much, but it seems a shame and just not right to me. But of course what it seems like to me is not important so much as what the Bible says. And I think that comes down on my side as well.

Since God is love it seems to me that falling more in love with Him will make us more capable of loving another human being passionately in marriage, not less. It seems to me better to look at it that God defines everything else, not that God crowds out everything else, in the life to come. There is no reason to suppose that intimacy with Him crowds out love for anyone else. Love naturally overflows.

I think I have already said that Jesus taught “permanent” (related to this life) celibacy as a way of serving God in the context of remaining celibate after a divorce, not just in general. Of course, also when one is not married righteousness calls on one to remain celibate until marriage, but that is not what you are calling “permanent.” The expected thing is that most people will get married eventually, and ought to. I think that most people will get married in the resurrection as well, and divorce should not be a problem then.

Thanks for writing, and keep studying the Word!

Nathan

November 15, 2019 at 10:27 pm

ericbreaux

I meant permanent for this life only. My reason for referring to Jesus statement about eunuchs was the same reason I mentioned Paul encouraging celibacy. It was because I wondered why God would say never getting married is a way of serving him, even though being without that was the only thing he said wasn’t good before creating it. Your answer to my comment about Paul might apply to Jesus too, even though he didn’t say it was circumstantial like Paul did.

January 3, 2020 at 8:28 pm

Precepts

ericbreaux,

Actually, I would say that Christ did make His statement circumstantial. He started out by saying in Matthew 19:11, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given.” Then He finishes it in verse 12, “He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” This at least puts the saying on a far less authoritative plain than an outright command. Yet I would note that there were plenty of women who could not possibly live in Christ’s day without being married. Their society was just not set up for single women. So not being able to accept it could be quite literal.

Note too that He talks about those who make themselves eunuchs. He commends such, but there is nothing remotely like a command here. And I would point out again that He says this in the context of divorce, and is a reply to His disciples’ interesting comment on His teaching about divorce. There is no indication here that a vow to not marry for the young and never married would be at all commendable, as some make it out to be. The assumption of Scripture is that God gave us marriage for our good.

Thanks for writing. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

April 2, 2020 at 2:52 am

ericbreaux

I think I should clarify the reason I wonder about the implications for remarriage being allowed if a spouse dies or is unfaithful. If people never sinned then everyone would be paired with a partner who’s desires are mutually fulfilled by the other perfectly, because being more attracted to someone else would be lusting then. But since there are circumstances that permit remarriage, then being attracted to other people isn’t a sin, you just can’t desire another person sexually at the same time as when you’re dating, betrothed, or married to someone already. How is that not evidence that God didn’t intend people to be partnered in marriage with a specific person for eternity, or being attracted to anyone else would be sin? That seems to be evidence consistent with the belief that God either 1. made marriage to reproduce so we wouldn’t become extinct, because he knew we’d sin. 2. Because it is a representation of Jesus redeeming our relationship with him, so marriage is fulfilled when God recreates everything. People love using Ephesians 5:32 to justify that interpretation. 3. Or he would have divorced everyone after there was no more room to multiply on Earth. And there are people who will suffer for eternity who would have other wise been paired with someone in paradise if we had never sinned. The fact that there are circumstances preventing people being paired who God originally intended to be together seems like evidence that marriage is expendable for eternity.

May 9, 2020 at 12:14 am

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

You seem to be assuming that every single person who is born has a member of the opposite sex born around the same time who is God’s ideal partner for that person, that He means them to be together, and that no one else is the right person. It is up to those people to find each other somehow, and then they are supposed to be married for all eternity.

This is a somewhat romantic concept, but I think you will have trouble finding Biblical evidence for it. I know that Eve was God’s choice for Adam because God created her for him and gave her to him. I know Rebekah was God’s choice for Isaac because God led Abraham’s servant to her and showed him that this was His choice. However, many other couples in the Bible do not seem to have been matched by God at all, but by their parents or by themselves. The vast majority of people make their own choice as to whom they marry, or else their family makes it for them. It is largely determined by age and circle of friends. You really do not have access to the vast majority of people in the world, and so the number of choices you have for a marriage partner are therefore somewhat limited.

Consider as well that generally when there is something that God wants you to do, He tells you what it is. He does not leave you to stumble along and try to figure it out on your own. If He really meant every person to find a specific other person, He would have given us some guidance on how to do this. Instead, He leaves the choice of marriage partners up to us. As Paul wrote in I Corinthians 7:39, “A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” This leaves it up to her wish. There is no indication that God has a singular choice that she must find.

Consider what Jehovah said to Hosea in Hosea 1:2. “When the Lord began to speak by Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea: ‘Go, take yourself a wife of harlotry And children of harlotry, For the land has committed great harlotry By departing from the Lord.’” He told him to marry a woman guilty of harlotry, probably of a religious kind, since most of their prostitution was part of pagan religion. He did not even tell him which one. Hosea found and married one, Gomer the daughter of Diblaim. This was Hosea’s choice per God’s directions. Can anyone possibly suggest Gomer was God’s perfect choice for Hosea? Yet he married her at God’s command!

It is possible, if Adam and Eve had not fallen, that God would have been involved in making the choice of marriage partners for all human young people. As it is, though, the choice is largely left up to individuals. I do think a believer in Christ ought to ask Him to offer help and guidance in making this important decision. But if He answers this prayer I do not think this means that God is helping you find the one, perfect partner for you, just helping you make a wise choice among the options that are open to you.

I think you are getting back to the idea of an “ideal partner” again that I already strongly argued against. I do not think there can possibly be an ideal partner for anyone since none of us is an ideal partner for anyone ourselves. How could there be an ideal partner among non-ideal people? None of us are ideal, and none of us will be ideal for anyone else. What God gives us to help us choose a good partner is wisdom, and what God gives us to help us be a good partner is love. The only way for two non-ideal people to form a good, Godly marriage is through love. Love covers over a multitude of sins, and since we are all sinners and all fall short, we all need love to overcome the non-ideal flaws of any partner we happen to marry, just as we need love from that partner to cover over our own flaws and non-ideal characteristics. We will never find an ideal partner. What we need to find is someone who knows and practices Godly love so that we might continue to be loved even when we prove ourselves to be not her ideal partner at all.

Even in the life to come when we are mature and made like Christ, I think it is love that will cement our eternal relationships together. Men and women are different, and as such do not always see eye-to-eye. Love, not perfection, is meant to be the glue to bring two different kinds of people together in perfect harmony. It is love that will make a marriage for eternity an everlasting joy, not the fact that a partner is absolutely perfect and meets our needs absolutely. You don’t need a goddess to worship; you need a partner to be your helpmeet. You have God to admire His perfection. You need a marriage partner to help each other in your mission in life to serve and honor Him.

God allows for remarriage simply because it is not good for man to be alone. Remarriage was not the plan, but sin and death messed up the plan long ago. Sin ends relationships in divorces and breakups and death ends relationships in widowhood or widowerhood. This leaves a person alone, which is still not good, and another partner is the solution. This does not threaten the idea that marriage is God’s plan to solve the problem of it being not good to be alone. It only threatens the idea that there is one, perfect partner for you out there somewhere that you have to find and no-one else will do.

In the life to come, God will be a part of every marriage that takes place. Those marriages will not start off wrong because of a wrong choice when God is involved in the choosing, and death will not interrupt those marriages because the resurrected will not be dying anymore. Therefore those choices will be the right ones and will be able to continue for eternity. Our choices and partnerships now are of necessity as brief and temporary as our short lives.

Those are my thoughts. I hope that helps.

Nathan

May 9, 2020 at 3:58 am

ericbreaux

All I meant was that it seems at times like God intended marriage to be for a temporary reason. Marriage is exclusive because the two are supposed to love each other emotionally and physically more than anyone else, but when one of them dies, it’s no longer wrong for the one living to be more attracted to someone. That’s why I wrote that it seems expendable if it’s replaceable. My concern wasn’t being with someone ideal to me, it was if the replaceability of marriage made it not important for eternity.

June 6, 2020 at 7:25 pm

Truth Don't Sleep

That sounds very interesting. I never knew there we’re other believers out there that would feel that way. I feel that way as well with wanting to stay here until I get married. Not to change the topic but I was thinking if you think if feeling that way would be selfish because many believers think it is?

July 1, 2020 at 7:47 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

God could hardly have intended marriage to be temporary until someone dies when it was not His intention that anyone would die at all. Remember it was sin that brought in death, and sin is by definition contrary to God’s will. God did not want us to sin. God did not want Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit. God did not want us all to die. Yet here we are. They did rebel, they did eat the fruit, and we do die. God gave them each other and marriage before they sinned and brought death and corruption into God’s order. If they had not rebelled against God, they would not have died, and there would have been nothing temporary about their union. This is part and parcel of my article above: neither will they die anymore being one of the reasons why marriage will be back to what God intended it to be in the resurrection.

Does it matter if someone is attracted more or less to someone they meet after they are widowed than they were to their original partner? I do not blame anyone for being more attracted to a living person than to a dead body. Do you think people should be held captive by a dead body? This makes no sense. Marriage was made for the living.

Death makes everything temporary in this life. Yet when they do not die anymore, that factor is taken out of it. Then, marriage is free to be what it was always intended to be. Until then, marriage is entered into by temporary people, and it is therefore temporary, just like we are.

Nathan

August 7, 2020 at 7:38 pm

Precepts

Truth Don’t Sleep,

It was hard to tell, because of how long this chain is, just what you were commenting on, but I think from what you said you were commenting on those people who say they do not want the rapture, or whatever they believe to be God’s next move, to happen just yet because they want to experience getting married and having a family first. There are definitely believers out there who feel that way and think that way, and I have talked to some of them who have readily admitted it to me. Yes, this is a thought that some out there have.

As far as it being selfish, I believe that the desire to find a marriage partner, as well as to be fruitful and multiply (with a marriage partner) are good, God-given desires. One is not selfish to feel them or to desire them, for these things are good things God wants us to long for.

The problem I have with this way of thinking is how far short it falls of understand just how great what God has coming in the future for us really is. When the Bible tells us that the “former things will not be remembered nor come to mind,” that does not mean that we will have faulty memories then and will have forgotten that this world and our lives in this world ever existed. The point is that no one then would ever look back with nostalgia, or commemorate fondly the days gone by, or wish they could go back. No, God’s future will be so glorious that nothing in this world, even the best of things, will ever make anyone look back and want to commemorate the way things used to be. “Remembering” Christmas is celebrating Christmas, not remembering that it exists. So in the future no one will “remember” this world. No one will celebrate it or wish it would come back. Everything then will be so glorious that no one, no matter how unusual in their thinking, will ever wish to go back. So there cannot be a single joy, pleasure, or thrill in this world that could possibly be worth holding off the life to come, even for a second. To think so is, frankly, silly. It might be selfish, but I am far more concerned that anyone is so poorly informed about the life to come that they would think this in the first place. God’s people know so little about what He has planned! We can only scratch the surface of understanding now, but under that surface is a wealth we cannot possibly imagine.

Then there is also the fact that I think it is a completely unnecessary idea, since I believe that marriage with childbearing (and sex, of course) will be a part of our next life. If God breaks into this world with His next move, you will not lose out on ever being able to get married or have a family. Instead, you will get to be married and have a family in a much better environment than this. You will be in your new, glorious body. You will have God aiding you and leading you to the right partner for you. You will have His help learning how to be a good partner, as will your spouse. You will have His help learning how to be a good parent, as will your spouse. God will not be silent, as He is today, but will be active in making your marriage and family everything they should be. Why would you want that to hold off so that you can experience an inferior, partially-broken marriage and family like all our marriages and families are today? There is no reason for this. The Christian world is selling people, including singles, short when they tell them that they have to experience marriage in this life or they never will. It is not just happily married people who think about not being able to be married in the next life who are being misinformed and hurt by this false teaching.

I pray that helps. Thanks for writing and for your interest.

Nathan

April 29, 2019 at 3:57 pm

Eric Breaux

I posted a comment after this one. Why is it gone. I put too much information in there to want to try to remember everything I wrote about to have to retype everything.

June 19, 2019 at 8:27 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

I filter all posts on my site so that I can prevent advertisements or inappropriate things from being posted. That means your comment will not appear until I okay it. I try to do so quickly, but it will not always instantly appear. Just be patient and your comment will be there when I see it and approve it.

Nathan

May 5, 2019 at 3:01 pm

Eric Breaux

Here’s another site making similar claims as Nancy Guthrie, though this author makes no mention of marriage, but contrasts what they believe are differences from the original creation and whats described in revelation. It’s still relevant since thie authors interpretation would debunk the belief that marriage and sex in Eden is evidence that it’s God’s eternal ideal. https://objectivechristianworldview.weebly.com/blog-posts/a-distinction-between-eden-and-the-new-earth-a-problem-for-young-earth-creationism I don’t know if there’s evidence that the differences in revelation from the original creation aren’t meant literally. And is there evidence that Isaiah means only the result of sin in this world won’t last or be remembered?

July 5, 2019 at 10:28 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

I seem to just be commenting on various articles at this point. This article is an old earth creationist arguing against a view of at least some young earth creationists. Without going into old or young earth creationism, I am not sure how this article is relevant to my arguments. I have examined the words of Christ and explained why they do not mean that there is no marriage relationship in the resurrection. I have also pointed out that God said that it was “not good” when Adam had no partner and His solution to it was to create Eve and the marital relationship. I have never, in this connection anyway, argued one way or the other whether the New Heavens and New Earth will be the same or better than Eden in the beginning. I have also never argued that marriage and sex in Eden is evidence that it’s God’s eternal ideal. I have argued that God said things were “not good” when Adam was alone and created the Woman to fix the situation. I see no reason why in the resurrection God would go from a “good” situation to a “not good” one. That was my argument. This article really has nothing to do with that.

Nathan

May 5, 2019 at 7:38 pm

Eric Breaux

I hope all my comments aren’t annoying foy you. This source claims the new heavens and earth aren’t a restoration of anything either, but a purely spiritual existence https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1353-will-heaven-be-on-earth

July 5, 2019 at 10:40 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

Once again we are running rather far afield from my viewpoint, are we not? The tired arguments of replacement theology attempting to explain away every Biblical reference to God’s long-promised kingdom on earth really do not interest me in this regard, nor is this the place where I would wish to answer them. I disagree fundamentally with the whole point of this article. The Bible teaches that God has a glorious future rule and reign over the earth, followed eventually by a glorious new earth to match with the glorious new heaven. The man who wrote this article simply doesn’t believe it. I have nothing else really to say to this. I have answered replacement theology in other articles where it is actually a relevant topic.

Nathan

July 6, 2019 at 1:01 am

ericbreaux

The reason I believed it was relevant was because if the creation conditions that were stated to be good in Genesis were meant to be temporary, then it wouldn’t matter if marriage was part of that creation. His ideal for eternity would be different than the original creation, so wouldn’t necessitate marriage and sex to remain. That’s the same reason I posted about the article I most recently linked.
I didn’t mean to bring anything irrelevant to the discussion, I honestly thought the implications of that article were relevant, even though it wasnt specifically related to marriage relationships. I just tend to be extra analytical.

July 31, 2019 at 6:51 pm

Precepts

ericbreaux,

I do see what you mean. But it is hard for me to answer a point based wholly on replacement theology, which I do not believe. Perhaps you do believe it. But I do not, and I do not see it as useful to go point-by-point through why I disagree with replacement theology in talking about an article on marriage in the life to come. If you do not believe in replacement theology, then there is no argument here.

If we take the replacement theology out of it, we have pretty much eliminated the article. But if we just take what you said, the idea that maybe the good in Genesis was meant to be temporary and good in the eternal state might be different, I could speak to that. The problem with this idea is that the reverse must also be true. The oft-repeated formula of chapter 1, that God “saw that it was good” or that it was “very good” is reversed by God when He sees man being alone and says that it is “not good.” He then creates the Woman for Adam. Yet He never pronounces this as either “good” or “very good.” That was up to the Woman herself to determine, since she was now a free agent to either be good or not good by her own choice. Sadly, since she failed to stand up to Satan’s lies, God never got to pronounce “very good” over what He had created here. But that does not reverse the “not good” of man being alone.

Yet if we are to say that the “not good” of Genesis 2 is going to be reversed and become “good” because man will be so close to God he will not be alone, that raises a host of questions. For one, Adam had God with him in the garden. They walked together in the cool of the day. If the goal was always that Adam should be so close to God that that was sufficient, why did God not just work on that relationship right then rather than introducing the Woman as a sidetrack? You secondly also end up with God’s commendation of “very good” NEVER being pronounced over the creation of the Woman. If both womankind AND MARRIAGE are to be redeemed, then in that perfect state to come God can at last look at His creation of men, women, and marriage and pronounce the “very good” over it. But if that is never going to happen, then it would appear that the creation of the Woman to meet man’s need was actually a MISTAKE, one that was not “very good” and never will be. Making the woman as a partner for Adam was a mistake that God will reverse and go back to what He should have stuck with in the first place. Does this really sound right?

No, I am going to stick with God’s “not good” being correct, and His creation of the Woman being the proper solution, the right solution, and the solution both then and always. God makes no mistakes, and women and marriage were not a mistake, but the right solution. This will be proven and justified in the end, not disproven.

Nathan

July 31, 2019 at 9:28 pm

ericbreaux

Thank you for the thorough response. I agree with all the points you made, but you explain it in a way that makes even more sense than how I’ve been thinking of it. Were it not for the argument that Jesus meant marriage itself and sexuality would be eliminated or else the woman the sadducees asked about could still be one of the men’s wife for a different reason, loneliness being declared not good would settle everything for me. Skeptics claim of Jesus just meant legal customs of marriage, then that wouldn’t have answered the sadducees question. But I know Hebrew was a more contextual language than most others, so I have some confidence that because the sadducees were only interested in the custom of levirate marriage, that the other interpretation still works. There’s an entire book in scripture, song of songs, yhats all about the joy of a sexually intimate relationship. There isn’t any book dedicated to admiring the beauty of any of God’s other creations.

August 11, 2019 at 1:22 pm

ericbreaux

People claim that there being no sexual relations anymore wouldn’t be a waste of gender because it has other functions, like how it influences how we think, so would still affect how genders interact with each other. I dont believe that’s evidence sexual relationships dont need to remain, but I dont know what would contradict that claim. Having different functions is no rrason to eliminate any of them, or every function but one needs to remain and there’s no more reason for it to have other functions. It’s all part of what makes us the genders we are and some parts are used exclusively for reproduction, sexual pleasure and for the use of babies.

September 4, 2019 at 5:56 pm

Precepts

ericbreaux,

You are welcome for the thorough response. As far as what the Sadducees were interested in, remember that the whole point of the Sadducees was not to question marriage in the resurrection. They did not believe that there is any resurrection at all. They were trying to make resurrection look foolish, not marriage in the resurrection. The problem is they were assuming that resurrection life would look just like this one, and that decisions would be made in resurrection life much like they are made in this one. The fact is that men will not just be able to decide for themselves regarding marriage in the resurrection. All these things will be in the power of God, which the Sadducees knew nothing about.

Yes, the Song of Songs is about romantic love, although it is meant to picture the love and loyalty we are to have for God as well. Love between a man and a woman was meant to be a beautiful thing, as the Song pictures it. I do not believe God intends to dispense with that in the resurrection. That is simply not what Christ meant.

Glad we are thinking along the same lines on this. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

September 18, 2019 at 5:41 pm

Precepts

ericbreaux,

It is certainly true that gender goes beyond just sexual function to some far more basic level of what we are, how we think and react, how we process things, and so forth. However that says nothing one way or the other about whether sexual function would continue in the resurrection. I have heard some claim that we will be neuter beings without gender distinctions at all. This is just made up, but some are believing it.

As I have claimed before, God could very well have made Adam to self-propagate, as some creatures do, and He could have not made the gender differences He did. Instead, He chose to do things this way, and He thought it was better so. There is no reason for us to think that it was not good for Adam to be alone in the beginning, but it will be good for us to be alone without a marriage partner in the end. Gender male and female and sexuality was God’s idea. I do not think He made a mistake. The problems are all due to the corruption of sin degrading each gender in certain ways and disrupting their interactions with each other. The solution is to make us as God intended us to be in the first place, not to remove gender or marriage.

Remember that God’s first stated reason for making Eve for Adam was that it was not good for him to be alone. He needed a partner, and partnership was the first and primary reason. Having children was only a secondary offshoot of that, though that was also an important command. The partnership that God intended will certainly continue in the resurrection life to come. I see no reason to think that the sexual and child-producing aspects will not continue as well.

Thanks for your continued interest in this discussion.

Nathan

October 8, 2019 at 2:52 am

Eric Breaux

There’s 2 more articles I’d like to know what you think of. https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/columns/ad-fontes/5-surprising-things-that-the-bible-says-about-sex/ https://www.christianity.com/theology/god-s-original-plan-for-sexuality.html

November 1, 2019 at 6:03 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

Regarding the “5 Surprising Things That the Bible Says about Sex,” I would for the most part find this a very good article. The author seems to have a lot of Biblical knowledge and insight.

I liked most of what he had to say. The only caveat is that I do not think Paul was speaking of desire more people to be celibate just in a general way in I Corinthians 7. There are strong implications (like in verse 36) that this was in view of a TEMPORARY situation wherein unusual circumstances made it more desirable to be single than to be married. Paul’s words about widows are completely reversed just six or seven years later in I Timothy 5.

But that is relatively a small disagreement. Other than that, I really liked the article. Overall I would agree with his assessment that the idea of celibacy could use to be more honored in our society. For one thing, celibacy for the unmarried, which was once considered the norm, ought to be the norm for God’s people. One who is not married and who has been and continues as celibate has reason for pride in God’s work in maintaining him in this righteous condition. In Matthew 19:12, the Lord praises those who are divorced and who then make themselves eunuchs (remain celibate from then on) for the Kingdom of God’s sake. That said, I do not view lack of marriage as a gift God gives, though the ability to remain celibate if you are unmarried could be considered a gift.

Of course, he really didn’t get into sex in the life to come, but it would seem to follow naturally that what is set forth as so good for many now would be good in the resurrection as well, would it not?

As for the next article, it had some good things to say but not as many and not as well. It did say some good things, though. Of course I disagree with his conclusion, wherein he glibly mentioned Matthew 22:30 as indicating that sex will not exist in the resurrection. This after pointing out the importance of resurrection in redemption, showing that God redeems the bodily aspect. How does it make sense in this context not to redeem sex, not just in this life but in the resurrection life as well? He leaves good sense behind when he argues this way, but of course he is assuming the typical interpretation of the Matthew passage.

That is what I have to say about those two articles. Hope it helps.

Nathan

November 1, 2019 at 9:35 pm

ericbreaux

It does help. I’ve been wondering for a while how Paul wishing everyone was celibate could be consistent with loneliness explicitly being declared not good in Genesis, the reason for which Paul even quotes in Ephesians 5:31. I understand Paul stated it was circumstantial and his opinion, but people like to use Paul’s opinion of sex as evidence that sexual relationships aren’t needed for joy, so dont need to be eternal. They argue Jesus is also evidence for that, but if God had sexual desire it couldnt be self fulfilled by him because it would require someone he created, and would have a type of love for a woman that isn’t given to everyone equally, which isnt fair. But Jesus seemed to enjoy food so im not sure if that’s consistent logic for why God wouldn’t be sexual.
In the second article, I thought the author contradicted himself with his quote from Lewis Smedes and everything else written before the quote, then claiming Jesus answer to the sadducees proves sex will end. He was using sexuallity to simply mean having gender, but sexual passion and reproduction is what makes gender sexual. I wondered how some people don’t understand it that way.

December 6, 2019 at 8:21 pm

Precepts

ericbreaux,

I am glad my comments were helpful.

The difficulty with taking what Paul says in I Corinthians 7 is that he starts off the passage clearly saying that he is answering things they wrote him in a letter. Yet, since we do not have the letter they wrote, we have to gather what the question was from Paul’s answer. I think many do a poor job of attempting to do this. It was obviously a more complicated issue than most make it out to be.

At any rate, it is hardly right to use the method of interpretation many use: to put two passages they think disagree together in the ring to fight it out, make themselves the referee, and then declare the winner the passage you want to be believe and the loser the passage you do not. All God’s Word is truth, and this method of interpretation is fallacious and impertinent. I Corinthians 7 should not be set against every other passage in the Word of God that supports marriage as God’s plan for Adam’s race.

As far as Paul’s opinion, as long as Paul is speaking as God’s apostle by His inspiration it is God’s opinion as well. Though God’s opinion might not be the same as God’s injunction, we certainly ought to take it seriously, as it would obviously be the right opinion.

It would hardly have made sense for Christ to marry. Who exactly would “Mrs. God” have been? No human being is capable of that. Sexuality is not like just eating food; it is a sign of a marital covenant relationship between individuals on the basis of equality. Sex separated from marriage is sinful every time, and of course would not have been something the Lord would have considered. So then marriage. With whom would Jesus have been equal? No one. An elephant marrying an ant would be more appropriate. It is not like the humanity and Divinity of Christ are separable. If He married someone it would be God Who married her as well as Man. There is no situation where that would be appropriate.

You make a good point that passion and reproduction make gender sexual, but that gender exists without sexuality. Gender is not inherently sexual, as is shown by some who are born incapable of sex (for that matter, aren’t we all born incapable until a certain age?) and yet who express gender. Sexuality is an aspect of gender but not its only aspect. There is no Biblical reason for either gender or sexuality ending. But there is a reason I label this as marriage in the afterlife, not sexuality in the afterlife. There will be no sexuality in God’s future separate from marriage. Sexuality is supposed to be an expression of marriage. Sexuality separated from marriage was never God’s idea and never will be.

Thanks for writing. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

December 6, 2019 at 10:43 pm

ericbreaux

I wasn’t comparing marriage to eating, I only contrasted my logic for why God isn’t sexual with it. He doesn’t need food or he wouldn’t be self sufficient, but he ate even after his resurrection, so maybe there’s a different reason for God not being sexual than that it isn’t self fulfilling, was all I meant.

January 17, 2020 at 7:45 pm

Precepts

All right. I guess I have nothing more to add. Thanks for commenting.

October 8, 2019 at 3:15 am

Eric Breaux

I also want to know why if God said it’s not good to be alone, It teaches that singleness is preferable in 1 Corinthians 7:8, 32-35 and 38 and that marriage and sexuality is a distraction from serving God instead of worship when used how God made it.

November 8, 2019 at 6:39 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

I have not yet written out my teaching on I Corinthians 7, though I do have audio teaching on that passage if you go over to the audio portion of my website and look up I Corinthians.

There are two things we need to keep in mind about I Corinthians 7. One is that Paul is answering here a question he had received in a letter from the Corinthians, as is clear from verse 1. The problem is that we do not have the Corinthians’ letter, so we can only guess what the question could have been from the answer Paul gave it.

Second is that Paul’s words here bear throughout the mark of being temporary. This temporary situation is stated most plainly in verses 29-31, “29. But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, 30. those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, 31. and those who use this world as not misusing it. For the form of this world is passing away.” These words show that an upheaval was going on at this time. Paul’s words regarding marriage are related to a temporary situation.

Consider the implications of verse 36. If Paul’s point is a man is never going to marry his betrothed virgin, then why would her getting past the flower of her youth matter? She will be old, gray, and shriveled and still unmarried if this is about permanently not getting married. The only reason to worry about waiting too long is if you do intend the marriage to take place at some point but are temporarily delaying it. All Paul’s words here are “because of the present distress,” verse 26. They are not meant to be a permanent injunction against getting married.

Over and over marriage is promoted as both God’s gift to and God’s intention for mankind. Against all this I Corinthians 7 should not be thrown up as a trump card. I am opposed to the method of Biblical interpretation that throws two passages in the ring together to fight it out and then declares the passage the winner that the referee wants to see come out on top. This is not how the Bible should be interpreted. All the Bible’s promotion of marriage should not be pitted against I Corinthians 7. This chapter shows clearly that its statements about marriage are temporary only based on an unusual, crisis situation.

That Paul himself did not consider I Corinthians 7 to be permanent teaching can be clearly demonstrated by comparing I Corinthians 7:8-9 with Paul’s later statements I Timothy 5:14-15. In I Timothy, far from crediting remaining unmarried with allowing one to serve God without distraction, Paul credits it with turning some aside after Satan! Clearly the temporary situation that prevailed in Corinth when Paul wrote I Corinthians was not a consideration in Ephesus when he wrote I Timothy.

I pray that helps.

Nathan

November 8, 2019 at 10:15 pm

ericbreaux

It helps a lot. I rarely see mention of those texts about widows in 1 Timothy and forget they exist all the time.

December 24, 2019 at 3:27 am

Precepts

ericbreaux,

Great! Glad you found that explanation helpful. As I said, you can go to the audio portion of my website and hear me teach on I Corinthians 7 as well, if you are interested in more of what I have to say. I am setting forth that passage, not especially marriage in the next life, but still you might get something out of it on that passage.

Nathan

April 2, 2020 at 1:00 am

ericbreaux

Even though you explained this to me already, there’s things I’ve thought of since then that I don’t think you wrote about. In 1 Corinthians 7 32-35 Paul states that pleasing a spouse is a concern of the world that divides ones interests for serving God. But that’s not what marriage did before Adam and Eve sinned, or it would have been a bad thing. How is pleasing a spouse not a service to God to begin with, unless one does it by any sinful way, since that relationship is ordained by him? Paul doesn’t seem to think partaking of any other creation is a concern of the world that divides interest in God, but the only one stated to not be good to be without, and that produces the most joy, is the one that gets that treatment. Paul consistently seems to be claiming in 1 Corinthians 7 that the only reason someone should marry is if they lack self control for sexual fulfillment, but that it’s better to not be sexual or married to begin with, and in 1 Timothy 5:11-15. How does that not imply that when God said it’s not good to be alone, it wasn’t an eternal decree on what is ideal for creation, or Paul would be contradicting God by treating sexuality as a distraction?

May 8, 2020 at 10:36 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

I did not really talk through the entire matter of I Corinthians 7, as it is a long chapter and would take a while to teach on the whole thing. My full teaching is found in the audio portion of my website.

Paul’s words in verses 32-35 are related to the “present crisis.” There were multiple things the Corinthians were facing in the near future, one of which was coming persecution. They went from living like kings in I Corinthians to having suffered persecution in II Corinthians. When a persecution arises, a single person has much less to worry about than a married person. A single person can suffer, can be imprisoned, can be martyred, and have no extra worries or cares to be burdened about. A married man, however, knows he is leaving a wife and possibly children without a husband, a father, a protector if he is imprisoned or murdered. The same thing is true of a married woman. Being able to serve the Lord without distraction of worrying about the things of the world that a spouse or children need is important in a time of persecution. That is why Paul wanted them free of distraction, and one of the reasons he advised against marrying in the present crisis.

Far from saying that not being married allows one to serve the Lord without distraction, Paul in I Timothy 5:15 says that not getting married has caused some young widows to follow after Satan! He seems to have no idea that remaining unmarried is allowing these women to serve the Lord without distraction when they were living in a time without crisis. Quite the opposite. When usual circumstances prevail, it is better to be married.

Hope that helps.

Nathan

November 19, 2019 at 3:55 pm

Rezz

Eric Breaux, a philosophical and theological positive case for the continuation of relationships like romantic/erotic love and marital bonds has also been attempted at https://sites.google.com/site/rezfamilies/ , which also contains a repository of favorable quotes from various writters from the patristic age onwards.

January 3, 2020 at 8:30 pm

Precepts

Rezz,

Yes, we have spoken before about this article, which does teach much the same as I do in this article. Thanks for pointing it out to Eric Breaux.

Nathan

January 3, 2020 at 9:07 pm

Truth don't sleep

Hello Nathan. I found this article last year. I have read everything on this page from the comments and from the article itself. I have a question. Why do you think some Christians are so defensive on marriage not being present in the afterlife?

I myself am not married but do want to get married. I have this deep desire in me to be with my wife in eternity as well with the Lord Jesus. Many tend to believe that Jesus is all I should care about but we’re not robots. I have my own desires that the Lord wants me to complete and will give to me but others believers tend to steamroll these desires and cast them out. It truly makes me sad.

Truth

February 14, 2020 at 7:25 pm

Precepts

Truth don’t sleep,

I am glad you found the article, and enjoyed it.

I think some of the defensiveness comes from wanting to appear orthodox. The fact is that the most famous group that promotes marriage in the life to come is the Mormons. They combine this with many other questionable beliefs. Because of this, Christians of other persuasions are afraid, if they express any idea that there is marriage in the resurrection, that to speak of marriage in the next life will cause others to question their orthodoxy. Are they leaning toward Mormonism? Are they developing “cultic” beliefs?

This is particularly a concern with pastors. One must not appear to be going off the beaten path of orthodoxy, or one might find oneself out of a job. Thus the truth must take a back seat to fitting in as a good, upstanding member of one’s Christian club…I mean, denomination. One must be vehemently against heresy to keep one’s job. So suffering people who have lost a spouse or lonely singles must simply suck it up.

The reasons could be many and varied, however. Some might have chosen a disappointing partner (or more than one!) in this life and so feel like being unburdened from the desire would be preferable. Others might not trust that God would be a good matchmaker or give them someone they would find acceptable, and so prefer to think He would give them no one at all! I cannot cover all the reasons. But I think the desire to be orthodox and not “seem like” a cult is probably the biggest motivating factor here. Besides just simply misinterpreting the passages I talked about above, of course.

Thanks for the good question, though. I agree with you: it makes me sad. But we will keep talking about the truth, anyway.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

December 14, 2019 at 6:34 pm

ericbreaux

I wonder if eternal marriage is consistent with the command in Genesis to multiply and fill earth, since it states nothing about God planning to expand earth or make us able to live on other worlds so there would always be room for more beings. I know marriage isn’t simply for reproduction, but sexuality is needed for it and I’ve always hated the idea that there would eventually be no more new people and animals. I think by now, the number of animals, including insects, that have ever lived would make a bigger eath necessary to fit them all when creation is restored, so God likely doesn’t want to end reproduction. It’s part of the creation he declared to be very good, so should be necessary for creation to be complete for eternity.

January 17, 2020 at 7:59 pm

Precepts

ericbreaux,

I am afraid I have little to say about whether or not reproduction will continue for ever or not. Once one allows that marriage will continue, then this question becomes of more importance, I admit. At the same time, it does not seem to me very important for us to answer it. Surely God can deal with this as He sees fit.

You are right about the earth running out of room eventually, of course, though I am not sure the problem is yet as big as you make it out. All the people in the world could currently fit in just one medium-sized state of the United States without crowding each other. When you consider that certainly not all the people living today will be allowed to live when God redeems the earth, and certainly not all the people from the past will be raised and allowed to live on earth either, I think we are still a long ways off from having too many people for the earth.

Yet if we did outgrow the planet, I do think God could deal with that. One of my favorite Bible teachers likes to quote Isaiah 51:16, “And I have put My words in your mouth; I have covered you with the shadow of My hand, That I may plant the heavens, Lay the foundations of the earth, And say to Zion, ‘You are My people.’” He thought that that phrase “plant the heavens,” might mean that God will someday form into habitable planets the other planets in our solar system and “plant” them with human beings. That is an interesting idea. I think it would be quite easy for me to come up with a plausible, alternative explanation for that phrase, but it is certainly something worth thinking about.

Ultimately, while I think God could always find enough space, that is not the primary problem that would make me wonder if He will bring an end to reproduction someday. The primary problem, it seems to me, is that as long as you have new beings capable of loving and of choosing to love coming into being, you have the possibility of some of those beings rejecting God and choosing to act against Him. As long as you have rebellion there has to be death. And I do not believe death will last forever. So if there is no death anymore at some point in the future, then would it not also be true that there could be no birth anymore, either? It seems to me logically to point in that direction. But again since God has not said one way or the other, I would leave it as an open question. I just don’t think we know about that for sure. God will do the right thing when the time comes, though, we can be sure of that.

Thanks for writing. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

January 18, 2020 at 12:37 am

ericbreaux

God gave us reproduction before Adam and Eve sinned though. It can certainly continue with no one sinning. The only reason they were able to disobey was because God gave them a command to test their free will. In the restored creation, the saved will have every desire fulfilled perfectly like at the beginning but without a test, so there would be no motivation to sin. My concern with reproduction was because more beings to uniquely interact with gives creation more diversity to enjoy, and I would simply hate that to end. There are also many miscarriages, abortions and people and animals that died as babies. There are many animals that reproduce much more and much faster than humans. All of that would seem to necessitate a bigger earth and therefore leaves the option of it alway’s expanding to fit more beings. From what I understand, the damned will still be on the new earth, just suffering for eternity on it. It says in Revelation that some will be resurrected to eternal life and others to shame and everlasting contempt.

February 28, 2020 at 7:16 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

Yes, certainly reproduction was mentioned as a command before Adam and Eve sinned. Yet if Adam the “federal head,” had not sinned, the choice to serve God or not would have been left to the individual. This is how I see angels as being: each choosing as their own free agent whether to remain sinless or to rebel and join the wicked ones.

I think love by necessity has to be a choice. One who has no choice cannot love. The Bible also tells us that “without faith it is impossible to please God.” Yet faith also implies a choice, and as long as there is a choice, one could choose not to believe or have faith. I cannot see God creating beings whom He will never give a chance to please Him. That is why it seems to me as long as there are new members of Adam’s race being born, there would have to be a choice and the possibility of some not making the choice.

I agree that new unique beings provides more opportunities to interact and more diversity, which is beautiful. I do not say that will end. I am just not sure, and I am fine with not being sure. But as I have said, I am quite sure marriage will continue for all time, I am just not sure if reproduction will as well.

You have an interesting view of the damned, certainly not what most hold! I would point out that Hitler is shamed and held in contempt by many, though he is not currently alive and on earth. Shame and contempt can continue even after one has passed into death.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

December 18, 2019 at 1:36 am

ericbreaux

I hope you don’t mind me pasting an email response I received from creation ministries. I want to express this information because my response to Shawn Doyle is not getting accepted. I’ve tried numerous times.

Dear Eric.

Thanks for writing in. I take it you were referring to my article https://creation.com/physical-new-earth.

I don’t know what function gender will have in the new creation. I didn’t speculate. I simply affirmed that the distinction will exist in the new creation because it’s a physical fact that Jesus is a resurrected man—genitalia and all.

As to Luke 20:35 (and Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25), do you have any documentary evidence that “marry and are given in marriage” isn’t simply an idiom referring to marriage per se? That’s what it looks like, and that’s how the church has traditionally understood it. Indeed, Luke 20:35 is just such evidence that one would expect if marriage had a temporary function in God’s plans.

Indeed, how does Luke 20:35 function as a part of Jesus rebuttal to the Sadducees’ objection to the resurrection if He all he says is that marriage payments won’t be exchanged in the resurrection? That would be completely irrelevant to the Sadducees’ argument. Any meaning we attribute to this verse must make sense in context, and the context is that this is part of Jesus’ rebuttal to the Sadducees’ argument against the resurrection. In fact, it seems that if Jesus isn’t saying that marriage won’t exist in the resurrection in Luke 20:35, Jesus failed to rebut the Sadducees’ objection to the resurrection.

Indeed, if marriage exists in the resurrection, it seems to me that there was a simple answer to the Sadducees Jesus could’ve used: marriage ends at death. Everyone knows that marriage ends at death, since widows and widowers were free to remarry. The upshot is that the woman in the Sadducees’ parable wouldn’t be anyone’s wife in the resurrection. She would have to remarry (as would all the brothers). But what about those alive at the resurrection? Simple: the resurrection event/Jesus’ return would nullify their previous marriage. If they wanted the same spouse, they’d have to remarry in the resurrection. (This may seem radical, but it solves any issues that might arise concerning widows and widowers.)

Besides, Jesus is unmarried (in the literal Genesis 1–2 sense). Is His gender wasted if He remains unmarried? Indeed, is gender wasted in anyone who remains unmarried? Clearly not.

As to Genesis 1:28, isn’t there an implicit stopping point for our ‘multiplying’, i.e. when we fill the earth? At any rate, Genesis 1:28 doesn’t need to give any indication of stopping if God says later that it will stop. And that’s precisely what the church has traditionally understood Luke 20:35 to imply.

Moreover, in the eschaton, there will be myriads of people. Adam’s problem of being alone before Eve was made won’t be a problem for us in the eschaton!

Luke 20:35 does indeed teach that marriage will be done away with in the resurrection. There’s no way around this. It’s the only way Jesus response to the Sadducees makes any sense and succeeds. And since Jesus is God, He has the authority to update the situation concerning marriage even with respect to Genesis 1–2. Besides, we won’t be alone in the resurrection.

Kind regards,
Shaun Doyle
Creation Ministries International

This is my response to him.
The evidence it’s not referring to marriage itself is that marrying and being given in marriage are actions. Also the fact that God said it is not good to be alone then made Eve to eliminate that problem. Immediately after that it’s stated that for this reason shall peoeple be joined to a spouse to become one flesh. If gender stays so does the reason for marriage. Jesus repeated this statement when asked about divorse. Being without friends is not the loneliness God meant. Friendship doesn’t satisfy the same desire that a sexually intimate marriage does. That’s why a help meet for Adam was needed and why there being billions of people doesn’t make people proportionally less sexual. It’s stated numerous times in the bible that God will restore all of his creation. Marriage is something he made for nothing good to be missing and is not exempt.
Jesus answer is still relevant because their question was about the resurrection, not marrige. They assumed the laws established after humans sinned would be part of a creation restored to the conditions before those laws were needed. Adam and Eve were married with no one marrying or being given in marriage. Marriages end at death because you can’t do anything with a dead person. Paul specifically states that frees them from the law of marriage. That doesn’t forbid the living person from still wanting that type of relationship. If Jesus married anyone, he’d be showing a kind of favoritism, but God loves everyone equally. He’d have a desire that couldn’t be self fulfilled. He wants companionship because he relates to his other selves, none of which is in a sexual way. Reproduction and sexual attraction is all part of what makes us the genders we are. And there are parts used exclusively for reproduction: sperm and egg cells. There is no indication in Genesis that reproduction would ever stop if Earth is ever filled. God expands the universe, there’s no problem with doing the same to any planet or making us able to live on others. He wants more beings to love because his love is infinite. Song of Songs is entirely about the joy of marriage and sexual passion and has no indication that it’s useless without reproduction.
To do affirmatively claim Jesus answer to the sadducees prices marriage and sexual passion will end contradicts other verses. It’s also demented because that requires manipulating free will to not care about what most people have the greatest passion for of God’s creation.

January 24, 2020 at 11:46 pm

Precepts

Eric,

Since your conversation with Shaun appears to be over, I cannot offer you advice for continuing it at this point. However, this is how I would have answered Shaun.

I am glad he recognizes that gender will still serve a function in the resurrection. That much is good.

I am not entirely in disagreement with the idea that “marry and given in marriage” is an idiom for marriage. Well, yes, it is. But it emphasizes the business aspect of marriage, which was very much how they viewed marriage at the time. For example, in Matthew 24:38, eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage are used for carrying out the usual business of life. The point of “marrying and giving in marriage” is that it is men who are doing it. Men are arranging their own affairs when they marry and are given in marriage.

The reason the simple answer Shaun suggests doesn’t work is that it does not deal with what was at the real heart of the Sadducees’ mistake: the fact that they believed that men could make decisions that would later be binding on God. To say, as he suggests, that marriage ends at death so they are free to be married to whom they will when resurrected, while that would have been true, leaves in place what really was their primary and worst mistaken idea: that if death did not intervene, God would have no power to nullify a marriage that men had created. Yet they reserved the right to nullify marriages through divorce that they did not grant to God! How incredibly insulting to God’s power was that? This is why Christ chided them for neither knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. Yet if He had answered as Shaun suggested, it would have left unchallenged their idea that their marriage arrangements are binding on God.

I don’t think gender is wasted on someone who is not married, so I do not disagree with Shaun about this.

I am not sure whether or not “multiplying” will stop. But I do not think the two go together. God gave Eve to Adam to be a helpmeet, THEN He commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. The multiplication could stop and yet the helpmeet aspect continue. That said, I am not sure that the multiplication will stop. I don’t know one way or the other.

The “being alone” is on a deeper level than just having a buddy. God was with Adam, but He still thought Adam needed a helpmeet beyond just giving Adam the ability to have children. He could have let Adam self-replicate. But that was not His plan. He formed marriage to be a special relationship for human beings, one that corrected the one “not good” thing about His creation. I do not believe He is going to rescind it just because there are now a lot of people.

As I have explained above, he is missing the sense of Christ’s statement. It is that they were missing the authority of God, which trumps the marrying and giving in marriage of men.

I hope that helps others think about it anyway, even if Shaun is done with the issue.

Nathan

January 25, 2020 at 3:02 pm

ericbreaux

So many Christians don’t understand that the sadducees argument assumed that any laws God made would continue, even though they were commanded for circumstances dependent on sin. If they meant simply having other spouses after the former died, that wouldn’t require the woman they asked about to stay married to any of them, so that context can’t be the existence of marriage but the method. The levitate law made marriage to a brother mandatory but polygamy is a sin, so they thought not being married to anyone that a law from God requires is sin so if she stayed married to them or not, they’d all be sinning either way, so God resurrecting all dead beings forever contradicts his will. They also didn’t understand that if there is no eternity for all beings then it makes no difference what anyone had, because there needs to be a future for there to be any benefit to what we experience. Without eternity life is an automatic waste that will not be remembered and hope a deception. Jesus response could only make sense if he’s referring to legal customs only, because he mentions no more death as a reason it will end, but death isn’t a reason for God creating marriage. So many Christians have been so satisfied simply with there being no disappointments for eternity that they think that could happen even if God eliminates anything he made for our joy. That would make irrelevant what anyone hopes for besides having a sinless relationship with God, because he could make conditions that make us not care about anything he made with what he might replace it with, and most of our passions would be expendable. They teach the opposite of What God means for hope because they selfishly think that because they don’t care about any of those things, no one else should either.

March 6, 2020 at 6:35 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

As I have explained before, the Sadducees’ mistake was assuming that the decisions and arrangements men make are binding on God. If a man has made a marriage contract, then even God cannot break that contract. On the contrary, God can and will make null and void any human contracts He wishes. This includes all marriage contracts. God is not bound by any human decisions about who should marry whom.

And one more important point: God makes it clear that death nullifies all marriage contracts. Everyone is raised from the dead single. That does not mean they stay single, but they are able to be married again, even to people they never were married to in their former lives.

Nathan

December 18, 2019 at 1:39 am

ericbreaux

There were a few typos. Prices is supossed to be prooves and “do” in the first sentence of my last paragraph is supossed to be so.

December 19, 2019 at 1:48 am

ericbreaux

I had to post my response to him directly from the contacts option on their site, and in two parts because they limit you to 1000 spaces. Id like to post our exchange because I think its important for anyone who happens on this site to know what the arguments are, to be better informed. I hope you font mind.

Dear Eric,
Thanks for your response.

As I said previously, it doesn’t matter that there is no indication in Genesis of marriage ending; Luke 20:35 and parallels make it clear that marriage will end. Jesus’ argument against the Sadducees makes no sense otherwise. And abolishing an institution no longer needed has precedent in the Bible. For instance, the Mosaic sacrificial system was abolished when Christ fulfilled its purpose by being the perfect sacrifice (Hebrews 10:8-9). Marriage will have served its purpose when we reach eternity; it was meant to produce a family of the redeemed (Did God create man to be an eternal companion for His son Jesus Christ?). As such, marriage will be abolished. I suspect that it will also be abolished for the more practical reason that it avoids precisely the sorts of scenariosthe Sadducees used to object to the resurrection.

What of sexual desire and procreation? Technically, Luke 20:35 and parallels only talk about marriage ending; they don’t mention sex or procreation. Nonetheless, given that sex and procreation are bundled up with marriage in Genesis 1-2, it’s intuitive to infer that sex and procreation will end along with marriage. Moreover, Jesus says we will be like the holy angels, which may imply that we won’t have sex (for procreation or any other reason), either. This is also the traditional view of the church.

Nor does this contradict other passages that affirm the goodness of marriage, sex, and sexual desire. The Law is good, but that doesn’t mean God’s people would always be under the Law (cf. Romans 7:1-6). As such, affirming the goodness of marriage, sex, and sexual desire doesn’t require us to believe that they will continue forever.

But will taking away our sexual desire destroy our free will? I don’t even see how that’s possible. Since when is the power to want sex a necessary component of human freedom? Some people alive today don’t want sex. At any rate, while there is continuity between our bodies now and our bodies in the resurrection, Paul also implies that there will be some discontinuity (1 Corinthians 15:42-44). The discontinuities include: perfect health, deathlessness, impeccability, and (per Luke 20:35) fitness for a life without marriage. If that includes a life without sex, then it will clearly include a life without sexual desire. But since our desires will be impacted in other ways by the transformation (e.g. we will no longer have any sinful desires), changing our bodies so that we no longer desire sex is not a problem.

Kind regards,
Shaun Doyle

Me: Luke 20:35 is about a law, not marriage. Your interpretation contradicts the reason for marriage stated In Genesis: because we were made male and female, later quoted by Jesus when asked about divorce. Eternity cant make it useless. It was made for its own joy and pleasure.
The difference with the sacrificial laws and marriage is that marriage was part of God’s sinless creation. Mosaic law was because of sin and Jesus fulfilled what those laws were for. He does not fulfill what marriage is for. Jesus contrast with Angels was with mortality and immortality, not sexuality.
There is no indication by being told to fill earth that there would eventually be no more room. People not wanting sex is no reason to take that away from people who do want to keep it.
Sin is trying to fulfill a desire in a way different than how God wants. It is not the same thing as having a desire wanting to be fulfilled to begin with. Our differences Will be restoration to Genesis 2 conditions, such were sexual.

The word such in that last sentence, was supposed to be the word which when I emailed him. I’ve had to use my phone for internet.

January 31, 2020 at 8:13 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

You have correctly identified Shaun’s problem: that he has confounded God’s stated purpose in creating marriage, given in Genesis 2:18, with God’s command to them in Genesis 1:28 regarding multiplying. The command is what man’s mission was to be on the earth. It was not the purpose for marriage.

Then, he concludes that marriage was only to produce a family of the redeemed, and when this is done marriage will be done. But that is wrong, since that was not the purpose for marriage. The purpose was it was not good for man to be alone without a partner. The creation of the partner made this not good situation good. The only way this purpose could “end” is if we ceased to be men. But that is purely unbiblical. Sentimental fools talk about us becoming angels or something in the future. The Bible indicates no such fantasy, but insists we will be men and men always, just resurrected men.

However, I would say you would have been better served if YOU had been more careful about stating the reason God gave marriage yourself. It was, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” It was not “because we were made male and female,” which isn’t much of a reason. Eve was not yet made, female or otherwise, when God decided to institute marriage.

His suggestion that marriage might also be eliminated because it avoids the kind of scenario the Sadducees suggested shows that he falls under Christ’s condemnation of them: that he does not know the Scripture nor the power of God. How silly, when the Lord Himself scoffed at the folly of this! There is no real desire in the church to examine Christ’s statement and learn what He meant by the profound statements He made here. There is just the desire to support the traditional view of the church, as he says, without really considering just why the Lord said what He said.

Sex might have been made for joy and pleasure along with procreation. Yet marriage was made for help and companionship, according to Genesis 2:18. Sex is a physical manifestation of marriage. Marriage is the most important thing. An elderly couple 100 years old probably don’t have working parts anymore to have sex. Yet many such couples walk hand in hand and indicate great love and closeness. Marriage is the most important thing, not sex. Sex is just an aspect of a greater thing.

I agree that his analogy to sacrificial laws and marriage is incorrect because sacrifices were given because of sin, whereas marriage was given before sin because God said it was needed and things were “not good” without it. Moreover, he appears to be unaware (as many people are) that a careful reading of the prophetic passages in many books of the Bible, like Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation, make it clear that the sacrifices are only done because the temple is destroyed. When it is restored in the kingdom to come, the sacrificial system will be restored along with it. Yet that is not to say that I think sacrifices will continue for all eternity; in the new heavens and new earth they will probably be gone for good, the temple also being gone for good then.

He shows an incorrect understanding of Hebrews 10:8-9. The reason God did not desire sacrifices and offerings is because David had committed adultery and murder. There was no sacrifice for those things in the law. The only sacrifice sufficient to take those away was the blood of Christ. But to spread this out and say that God will never desire sacrifices and offerings again is twisting the passage. They continued for a thousand years after David said that, and God wanted them, clearly.

He assumes he knows the holy angels do not have sex and marriage. This flies in the face of Genesis 6:1-4, which tells us that the angels cohabited with human woman and had children with them. Clearly these angels were capable of having sex, which implies that God created both male and female angels and gave them marriage as well. Some have imagined that Satan altered these angels in order to be able to have sex, but this idea is silly and needs no real refutation. Jude 6 refutes it, though, when it tells us they left their proper domain when they came to earth and took human women. This was an improper domain. What was the proper one? Angelic women, obviously.

I do not see that taking away marriage takes away our free will. Adam was not without free will until Eve was created and then suddenly he had it. I think you have gotten a bit on a rabbit trail with this one.

The discontinuities between our current bodies and lives and our lives in the future are largely discontinuities due to the fact that our lives and bodies right now are marked by sin. A discontinuity in being sexual and marriageable beings, however, would be a discontinuity with the way God made us to be prior to sin. He is arguing against God’s assessment that it was “not good” before we had marriage partners by pointing out that the results of sin are not good and going to be taken away! But did God sin when He made sex and marriage, then? Or did He make a mistake? Of course our eternal bodies will not be the same as they are now. But marriage was God’s invention that preceded the fall. Mortality, unhealthiness, and so forth are results of the fall. He mixes in a creation of God with the corruption of the fall and makes them parallel! This is foolish.

Thanks for the chance to comment on the conversation.

Nathan

January 31, 2020 at 11:45 pm

ericbreaux

My reason for writing that being made male and female is the reason for marriage is because it explicitly states that in Genesis 2; Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. I understood that as simply being the reason why it’s not good to be alone as well. In Matthew 10 4-5, when Jesus was asked about divorce he responds saying, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? Adam knew something was missing before Eve was made. That’s why he didn’t choose any of the animals to be his helper. He just hadn’t discovered what was needed to fulfill his desire. I’m not arguing he was sexual before Eve was made but that that passion is what he discovered was needed after they met. People who don’t care for sex or marriage still have the choice to care, but if the choice is eliminated from those who don’t want to be without it, that’s no longer the same thing. And I didn’t mean to make it seem like sexual intimacy is more important than any other part of a marriage, but that is what makes it unique from friendship. I think all parts of how God intended marriage to be are equally important.

February 1, 2020 at 12:00 am

ericbreaux

I forgot to specify that I know the Genesis text doesn’t explicitly say the reason is us being male and female. I was simply referring to it explicitly stating what the reason is. It was directly after the account of Adam and Eves first meeting and Jesus emphasizes that us being made male and female is the reason right before quoting it, so that’s why I wrote that.

February 1, 2020 at 12:35 am

ericbreaux

What I mean by sexual intimacy isn’t simply having sex but every expression of sexual attraction with the person one is married to: kissing, sleeping together while holding one another, holding hands for a romantic reason and other acts meant to be reserved with one person.

March 23, 2020 at 6:36 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

The Lord Jesus does quote the verse from Genesis 1 about God making them male and female just before quoting the verse from Genesis 2 about men joining together with their wives and being one flesh. But that does not mean that He is saying that God first made them male and female, then said to Himself, “Wow, I’ve got two genders here. What should I do with that? Might as well make marriage.” No, the statement in Genesis 2 is that He made planned marriage before making the Woman because it was not good for Adam to be alone, and it would be good if he had a helper fitting for him.

Whenever Christ quotes Scripture, He assumes that His hearers are familiar not just with the verses He is quoting, but also with the context all around them. That was generally true of the Jews in His day, since they were all trained in the Old Testament Scriptures. The problem is when we, who largely only know the New Testament Scriptures, read the same quotations, and then put them in the context of our ignorance of the Old Testament and don’t get what they are talking about. Christ expected His hearers to know the reason God was talking about in Genesis without having to quote it. He did not expect us to think that God carelessly made them male and female first without a plan, and then decided on a marriage partnership.

You are reading a bit of a Sunday school story in here that is not actually in the text. There is not the slightest indication that Adam was longing for or looking for a partner in the animals God brought to him. Adam seems to have been perfectly happy with just the animals, him, and God, rather like a preteen who has no desire for marriage. It was God Who looked and saw that Adam needed a partner. Adam was naming the animals, not looking for a partner. It was God Who had that idea.

I see what you mean. You can define sexual intimacy as intimacy between the sexes, not just the sex act. That is very true. Yes, you are right. That is very important and very special, also beyond just the sex act. Really these things do all go together and are part of a whole. I think we are in agreement here.

Thanks for writing. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

March 23, 2020 at 9:36 pm

ericbreaux

What I meant by referring to Jesus quoting Genesis 2 is that us being made male and female is the reason for marriage because that’s a relationship God planned for us since the start, and two genders are needed for it. The reason for having two genders is for a sexual relationship. I didn’t imply that it was an afterthought. I must not have explained it as well as I thought, but we agree on the reason God made marriage. I didn’t imply Adam was anticipating a partner either, just that by seeing the pairs of animal types he named he would realize by seeing they all had mates that he also needed one. That’s why he realized none of them were suitable for him. I’m noticing I have sub par communication skills.

May 1, 2020 at 11:35 pm

Precepts

ericbreaux,

I agree that the reason God created Adam a partner of the opposite gender was to create the marriage relationship, with its sexual component included, of course. I see now what you were saying.

Again, we have no indication in the passage that Adam realized that none of the animals were suitable partners for him. That is because we don’t have any indication in the passage that Adam wanted a partner. The statement is that God noticed that it was not good for Adam to be alone, and so in context the obviously conclusion is it was God who determined that none of the animals were a helper comparable to him. We don’t have the slightest indication that Adam even realized his need for a partner, until he was given one. This was God’s idea from the start. Which is a big argument against the idea that God will ever eliminate marriage partnerships. It was not that Adam was lonely and asked God for a partner, as if it was his idea and God would rather have not. It was God’s idea, and His choice for what was best. It is disagreeing with Him to claim that not having marriage would be better.

We are maybe missing each other’s points. I think we are both in agreement on the basic issue, however.

Nathan

December 19, 2019 at 12:38 pm

ericbreaux

It’s incredible that he doesn’t understand that having a passionate desire just eliminated is manipulating free will, simply because other people don’t have the same passion. The difference with his stubborn proposal is they aren’t forced to not care. The cause of losing that desire, if not by choice, still contradicts free will, so it is a problem if a bodily change doesn’t allow us to keep a desire we want.

February 7, 2020 at 7:17 pm

Precepts

I don’t know if I would take the free will angle, but it is not reasonable nor right to compare wicked desires, which God will of course eliminate in the resurrection life, with God-given desires, which are right and which God will fulfill in the resurrection life. Are there any other examples of desires which God gave and sanctioned that He will for some reason eliminate in the resurrection? I do not believe so. And I don’t believe He will do that in the resurrection to marriage either. He gave that desire, said it was good, and will fulfill it in the resurrection. To say He will not is to imply He made a mistake, which is not correct.

Nathan

December 20, 2019 at 12:03 am

ericbreaux

Dear Eric,
All these arguments founder on the fact that Luke 20:35 and parallels are an explicit statement that there will be no more marriage in the resurrection. Otherwise, it makes no sense as an argument against the Sadducees. Marriage is an institution, not a fact of nature. God can change it, if He wants. Desires will be different in the resurrection; they will be sinless and fit for that age (sexual desire per se falls into the latter category, not the former). There is no contradiction.
Kind regards,
Shaun Doyle
Creation Ministries International

Hi Eric,

This will be my last response on this topic. We’re just repeating ourselves, now.

You have not proven your case with regard to Luke 20:35 and parallels. You’ve provided no documentary evidence for your interpretation of the crucial phrase. And the Greek words literally refer to marriage, not to the bride price/dowry that customarily accompanied the marrying process.

Most importantly, though, the Sadducees’ objection is not answered if marriage still exists in the resurrection. Their question was: “Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?” (Luke 20:33) If she were married in the resurrection, in response to them Jesus should’ve identified whom she would be married to. Instead, He just says ‘they will neither marry nor be given in marriage”. He doesn’t identify whom the woman would be married to. As such, the phrase ‘marrying and being given in marriage’ must be understood as an idiom referring to the institution of marriage per se. It cannot refer just to customs related to making a marriage, or merely the process of making a marriage (as if Jesus were merely saying that there will be no more marriages made in the resurrection, but the ones that exist now will persist into that era). Why? Under all these ways of reading the phrase, the Sadducees’ question remains unanswered: who will the woman be married to in the resurrection? Therefore, Jesus is saying that since marriage will be abolished in the resurrection, the woman in the Sadducees’ question wouldn’t be married to anyone. His argument fails to address the Sadducees’ question if this is not what He means. Thus, Jesus clearly teaches that marriage will be abolished in the resurrection.

This renders your point about Genesis 1-2 moot. Marriage is a legal institution, not a fact of nature. God can thus change it, or even do away with it, even though it was an institution He set up before the Fall. That is why there is no contradiction between the traditional reading of Luke 20:35 and parallels and Genesis 1. A change in situation does not amount to a contradiction.

As to sexual desire, humans can still be humans without sexual desire and activity (though I do think the gender binary is intrinsic to human nature). The resurrection body isn’t merely the old body renewed, but is also transformed to be suitable to the eternal state. And note that doesn’t mean sexual desire now is sinful! It just means it doesn’t fit in the resurrection age.

Anyway, that’s the last of what I have to say. Feel free to have the last word, if you wish.
Kind regards,
Shaun Doyle

Me: There is a contradiction. God already explicitly stated in Genesis 2 that for this reason shall people leave their parents and be one flesh with a spouse, refering to us having gender. Jesus repeats this when asked about divorce. He affirms the opposite of what you claim he does. The law is not the reason for marriage. Jesus answer to the sadducees is about legal actions, the context of which is what the Greek words were used for. You have to infer the opposite. Jesus wouldn’t need to say she would be married to any of those men. Those laws have no relevance in a sinless, deathless world, but durring those conditions is when God made marriage. That’s the conditions that sin ruined and that God will restore in the resurrection. Joining Adam and Eve together was not a legal institution. There will be no difference from the desires he gave us before sin, including sexual. What sin did is the only thing that will change. Sexual desire and reproduction is all part of what makes us the genders we are. Sperm and egg cells and wombs are used exclusively for reproduction. I never claimed not being srxual makes someone less human. It’s a manipulation of free will, because it eliminates the ability to have that desire, whether someone wants to keep it or not. Your arguments are only believable by selective reading instead of accounting for all relevant verses to understand each individual one. You have no evidence and have simply ignored all of the texts I mentioned contradicting your opinions. What you teach is unbiblical utilitarian dogma.

February 7, 2020 at 7:41 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

I have already explained multiple times why Jesus did answer the Sadducees’ question, not by saying that marriage will be eliminated in the resurrection, but by pointing out to them that their argument reckoned completely without the authority of God. They were assuming that the decisions human beings had made to marry and give in marriage would be binding on God in the resurrection. We human beings often don’t even make them binding on ourselves, as can be seen by the many divorces that take place. And yet, poor, weak God, He doesn’t even have the power to unbind marriages that we have! No wonder Christ told the Sadducees that they didn’t know the Scriptures nor the power of God. Yet Shaun’s contention, that if Christ wasn’t saying that marriage is eliminated in the resurrection He didn’t answer their argument, actually accepts the same, foolish premise of the Sadducees: that God would be powerless to undo human decisions unless He sweeps the problem away by eliminating sex and marriage altogether! This is just silly.

Your free will argument seems like a dead end to me. Are there not many things God will take away from men, sinful things, without giving them a choice about it? God can certainly take things away. Our free will is not unlimited. It is affected by many things, many of which we cannot help. God does not give us free will, for example, when it comes to the laws of physics. They will act on us, like it or not. Free will has its limitations. I am not saying God could not take away gender if He wished. But since He came up with the idea in the first place and said it was good, I do not believe He will do so. His argument to the Sadducees Shaun has simply not understood.

You seem to have been a bit unfair to Shaun here. I do not think he simply ignored all of the texts you mentioned as contradicting his opinions. He looks to me to have tried to answer your arguments as best he could, using his view of Scripture. You would have been better off answering his arguments with better ones than characterizing his arguments as “unbiblical utilitarian dogma.”

Nathan

February 7, 2020 at 10:57 pm

ericbreaux

Free will doesn’t necessitate desire for sin, because it is a way of fulfilling a desire different than how God wants it done. God made everything he did that we experience to be joyful. Get rid of any of those things and that puts a greater limit on what people can hope for in the future. Altering physics would be tampering with Gods better way for us to live. I do think my last statement to Shaun was more emotional than necessary. I did that because he seemed very dogmatic to me about taking away something people love simply because he doesn’t care about it. That attitude makes me furious. I wrote that he was ignoring evidence because he was making up arguments found nowhere in the Bible to justify his interpretation of a verse in isolation from the rest. That seemed like proof texting to me, which I understand to be the same thing as ignoring contrary evidence, even if he did try to explain the other verses I argued with. I wasn’t sure how else I could explain anything until I realized I wasn’t specific enough with my explanation of the Pharisees argument. It wasn’t until my final remark that I realized he thought I was implying the woman would still be married to one of the men if marriage remains. He did mention that they weren’t referring to simply paying a dowry to marry the woman, and In my first email to him I wrote that to marry in the Sadducee context meant that custom. I think there was some miscommunication on my part.

March 23, 2020 at 7:25 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

I agree that God will take away the choice to sin at some point, but eventually the goal is to change us so that the desire to sin is not there at all. The choices God gives us will be free and bountiful, like His plentiful provision for every kind of tree good for food in the Garden of Eden, when He could have just put one kind of bland-tasting fruit there and called it good. The choices He gives us will overflow with His bounty and will be full of joy and satisfaction for all. Our choices will be limited by our Godly characters, but in the things God gives us to enjoy we will have great bounty. But I do not believe God will take away any of the good things He gave for us to enjoy. And I quite agree, that includes taking away the joy of marriage. This is something God gave us. I don’t know about taking away free will, but it would certainly be taking away part of the bountiful goodness He gave us if He took this away from us. I really don’t see God ever doing that.

I understand, my friend. It is hard not to get emotional when arguing with someone who just won’t see it. I struggle with that at times myself.

Yes, what Shaun was not getting is that he was accepting the Sadducees’ premise that the woman would be married to all seven men in the resurrection and that God would be helpless to change that. The Sadducees wanted to conclude from that the idea that there can’t be another life after this one. Shaun wanted to conclude from that the idea that there can’t be marriage in the life after this one. But he was accepting the same, flawed premise that shows such ignorance of the power of God.

Thanks again for writing. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

December 20, 2019 at 12:37 am

ericbreaux

The law of levitate marriage that the sadducees asked Jesus about is only needed if death occurs. She’s only required to marry the other men by that law. Get rid of that law and her reason for marrying them goes away. “Who’s wife will she be?” is still answered. It does not necessitate marriage itself end simply because it ends marriage to any specific person. He’s arguing a false dilema.

January 8, 2020 at 1:29 am

ericbreaux

I realized another contradiction Shaun claimed. He claimed both that God can change his mind about what’s good, but also that not being good to alone is resolved by there simply being more friends of the same race. If that’s true then it’s still not good to be alone, even by Shauns own logic. And if God does change his standard for good and bad, then it wouldn’t matter anyway if there’s billions or trillions of human friends, because it could, according to Shaun, be good to be alone in the future. The most significant contradiction, though, is that completing humanity with both genders is stated immediately after Adam and Eves first meeting to be the reason for marriage. Reproduction or anything else can’t be a reason. Animals reproduce without marriage: what makes marriage unique is the sexual intimacy. It’s purpose is itself: it has to exist to be fulfilled. God is not male and female, so Jesus being single is a moot point.

February 28, 2020 at 7:03 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

The rabbis thought that Adam as originally created was capable of self-replication. This makes sense. If that was not the case, then the decision not to leave Adam alone but to create Eve was more playacting or a pantomime than anything else, since the creation of a male without the corresponding female was not just “not good,” but an outright mistake if He was not already planning to create Eve afterwards. The word that is translated “rib” in most Bibles is usually translated something along the lines of a “side,” and what God took out of Adam was probably the female “side,” not a rib at all.

Self-replication, which does happen in nature among some lower orders of animals, would have been sufficient if God thought friendship was good enough for man to “not be alone.” God did not think offspring was good enough, and He was there present in the garden walking with Adam in the cool of the day, and He did not seem to think that was enough either. Clearly He thought marriage was good and not having it was not good even with a relationship with Him there and available for Adam. No matter how you slice it, to argue as Shaun does comes back to God having been mistaken when He created marriage, and having to “fix” His mistake in resurrection life.

To argue about Jesus being single is silly. Jesus was fully God as well as fully man, and who is sufficient to be “Mrs. God”? Women are made to be a help appropriate for the man, an equal partner, and yet no woman could possibly be an equal partner for Christ. Christ being single says nothing about our being single in the future.

Thanks for the further thoughts.

Nathan

December 20, 2019 at 3:13 pm

ericbreaux

I’m not satisfied with how I explained some of the evidence to Saun, but I’ve typed this information that explains some of them more coherently. I’d like to share it. Hopefully it has no typos that I missed.
In Luke 20:36 Jesus states one of the reasons for not marrying and being given in marriage is because the righteous resurrected can’t die anymore but will be like the angels in heaven. The contrast to angels is not about sexual desire, he’s contrasting mortality with immortality. Marry meant the male proposing for the woman to be his wife and beeing given in marriage meant the father giving her to the proposer, because she didn’t get a choice. It is actions done to be married, not marriage itself. Adam and Eve were married without marrying or being given in marriage. The sadducees assumed the laws made after human sin would still exist when creation is restored to the conditions when those laws weren’t needed. Marriage remaining does not contradict Jesus answer, because it was about levirate marriage only. Without that law she is not required to marry any of those men. That does not forbid her from being married to a different man, It’s a false dilema. Would any of the people who heard Jesus answer been amazed at it if he meant sexual feelings and relationships would be eliminated? I’m pretty sure Jews had as much sexual desire as most other people, so would have felt despair if that was the context.
At the beginning God said for us to be fruitful and multiply with no indication it was to ever stop. It is stated nowhere in the bible that there would eventually be no more room to fill. There would need to be a bigger earth to fit all animals, including insects, and people that have ever lived by the time of the resurrection. God expands the entire universe, doing the same to any planet shouldn’t conflict with his plans. Being alone was the one thing God said during the original creation that is not good, made Eve to complete humanity and said for this reason shall people be united with a spouse to become one flesh. Jesus repeats this in Mattew 19:4-5 and Mark 10:6-7 and Paul does in Ephesians 5:31. If gender remains, the reason for marriage does. The interpretation of Jesus answer to the sadducees as meaning no one will be married would make us being male and female no longer the reason for marriage, and contradicts those texts, as well as the promise to restore all creation, because one of the creations would then be missing. God can’t change his mind about what’s not good if he is the same forever. After God created marriage he declared everything very good because there was no longer anything missing required to make anything better. The conditions of the original creation don’t need improving. Many Christians have claimed that something unspecified by the bible would be needed to make life better forever and also make sexuality useless, ignoring the fact that marriage was something needed for creation to not be missing anything good. It’s contradictory and more akin to Buddhism than Christianity. If having something better is a reason to eliminate sex, it’s a reason to eliminate everything God made, and we should all just feel Gods presence, getting joy from that and never being with anyone else or doing anything else for eternity.
If simply having a sinless relationship with God makes marriage unnecessary, then God would have had no reason to create gender and sex, because God and Adam already had the kind of relationship people will have with him in the renewed creation, before Eve was made. If God eliminated sexuality then the features that distinguish the genders faces and body shapes for sexual attraction, and parts used for sexual pleasure and reproduction would all be wasted. Gender having other functions is no reason to get rid of any of them. The human female figure is shaped the way it is to fit babies during birth, and sperm, egg cells and wombs are used only for reproduction. They’re all part of what makes us the genders we are and God doesn’t create anything expendable. keeping a libido is justified.
If people interpret Jesus answer to the sadducees as claiming no one will be married anymore, then we can’t ever be married to Jesus either. God is described as a husband to his people in parts of Hosea, Jeremiah and Ezekiel and that wasn’t meant to replace marriage. They are different types of relationships that fulfill different desires. If marriage is a representation of Jesus redemption, then sin would have been necessary, so Jesus would have a reason to found church. God is not going to create something that requires what he hates.
If you are made unable to care about something you’re passionate about, regardless if you want to keep that drsire, its manipulation of free will. There being people who dont care for it does not make it free will for those who want to keep it to have no choice but to not care about it. Thats a false equivalency. There being no disappointments isn’t teaching that the restored creation will automatically be satisfying even if he eliminates what produced the most pleasure of it. God created specific things to fulfill specific desires for creation to be complete, and teaches he will restore everything. There’s a whole book devoted to the joy of sexual passion: Song of Songs, and has no indication that marriage is useless without reproduction. There isn’t a bible book entirely about the joy of any other creation. Heaven isn’t the final destination, it’s the renewed earth. The only thing that needs elimination is what sin did, because there was nothing wrong with anything God made.

January 3, 2020 at 5:56 pm

Truth Don't Sleep

I agree with everything you said right there. I have a question though. Why do you think so many believers are so cruel to those who desire to be with their mates in Eternity?

Eternity is a long time and no number can really catch up to what is actually being presented their. Many people that tend to say that their is no marriage either say that it is because we are either 1) neuter beings or 2) we’re not gonna desire it.

There have been many times when I have heard about this that it makes me feel depressed. I have never been married or been in a Christ centered relationship. And it’s frustrating. Being single sometimes is not fun! And these believers that attack the idea that there is is no marriage in the afterlife always tend to use straw man arguments m it’s frustrating and it makes me feel broken sometimes.

January 3, 2020 at 11:12 pm

ericbreaux

My best guess is that they interpereted the teaching that the new creation will have no suffering to mean that even if God eliminates what produces the most joy of it, we’ll still love it. They might not actually think about the consequence of no one having that for the rest of eternity because they use a lazy faith, not faith from evidence of what God has shown. The problem with their philosophy is that the enire reason for recreating is to restore what sin ruined. God made everything in genesis that we experience for joy, so that would all need to still be a part of creation. That’s why God didn’t declare everything very good until he made everything recorded in Genesis 1 and 2. The more prudish Christians remind me of atheists who argue that God and eternal life don’t need to exist for hope and a moral standard because they’re fine believing they don’t exist, but still hope and believe in a moral standard. People have a strange ability to think only half about something, because they make excuses to ignore the implications for everyone if it’s true.

January 3, 2020 at 11:20 pm

ericbreaux

I don’t believe that every Christian will be with someone that they were married to who was mutually in love, because there could have been someone else who they might have had an even better relationship with, who they did get martied to or who they never knew about. But marriage itself I refuse to believe will end. It causes too much existential dread when I consider loosing the most passionate desire for any of what God made.

January 9, 2020 at 12:34 am

ericbreaux

Somethings I forgot to mention is that those types of people are exceedingly ignorant to believe that our desires being fulfilled involves eliminating any of them. That’s the opposite of fulfillment. A desire has to exist to be fulfilled. They have this idea that because other people don’t care for it by choice, that taking it away from those who want to keep it is not manipulating free will. That’s false equivalence and many of the people who don’t care still have that desire, but it’s dormant because other things were affecting their mood. You have to be a special kind of arrogant to think that because you don’t care, no one else should either. By that logic, eliminating any desire except for being with God is fine and there’s no reason for him to restore the rest of creation. It’s demented and ignores the statement that it’s not good to be alone, that marriage was made to eliminate that problem and that after Adam and Eve’s first meeting it states for this reason shall people be one flesh with a spouse, not for this reason shall people have friends. They’re so easily satisfied simply by the promise of being completely satisfied that they don’t want to think about how God does it, so then makes what God made that we want irrelevant, and have weaponised what is supposed to be hope. Having something that makes us not care about our most passionate desires anymore is no different than buddhism.

January 9, 2020 at 2:58 am

Truth Don't Sleep

You’re completely right! That’s my desire for eternity. Yes I do love God more than anything but having a relationship with your spouse is important. Many of those that are ignorant also tend to say that, “oh we’re not gonna need that. We’re not gonna need marriage or sex”. But how come we have food? We’re not gonna starve right? We’re immortal. We won’t have thirst or hunger right? It’s completely ridiculous and illogical to have the type of mindset that marriage is something that seems to be bad for eternity. God called his creation “very good”. Why would he take it away? Doesn’t he love watching his children be fruitful and multiply? It makes no sense. That Matthew verse (Mtt. 22:30) has bothered me a lot and not only me but other people as well. It’s no coincidence that so many other brothers and sisters in Christ often feel depressed about this sort of topic. Those poor widows and single Christian’s! It’s sad to see that some parts of the body of Christ have become very unsympathetic and don’t seem to care for what other people desire. These are people that are your family but they tend to not act like it. It brings tears and frustration to me. But God knows how I feel. I just hope that marriage isn’t done away with.

February 14, 2020 at 7:07 pm

Precepts

Truth Don’t Sleep and Eric Breaux,

If I can weigh in on this, I don’t think most people truly think much at all about the implications of their beliefs. And I don’t know if there is any topic about which this is truer than regarding the life to come in resurrection. The way people talk about the resurrection, you would think they only care about the first few hours. Seeing dead loved ones again and seeing Jesus is about as far as their thinking goes. It sounds more like a final reunion than the start of eternity. Then, they seem to think there will be about thirty people in the resurrection, and that Jesus Christ will personally be hanging out with each one of them; instead of millions and billions of people and very few of them actually privileged to be constantly in His presence. There seems to be very little deep reflection about that life. They seem to have little concept of it as a real life, as if it was some shadowy half-existence that they don’t really trust in as a real existence like this one.

So it should not surprise us that they have not thought through the implications of not being able to marry. I do not think it is out of a desire to be cruel. I think it is just that they don’t really think about it. Plus, many do feel that this is the only way to interpret Matthew 22:23-33, etc. They would claim they are being faithful to Scripture, not purposefully being cruel.

I agree it can be quite depressing to think that there would be no marriage in the life to come, not just for those who have lost loved ones, but also for those who have not found a loving partner in this life and think that means they never will. I do not think this is necessary, because this is not really the teaching of the Bible. God already fixed the situation that was “not good” by creating marriage. He is not going to change His mind and go back to “not good” again.

Thanks for writing, both of you.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

February 21, 2020 at 8:00 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

Certainly in saying that there is marriage in the resurrection I am not saying that everyone will be married to someone they were married to before. Some people never do form a Godly marriage. God is under no obligation to repeat a mistake. God will set up marriage as He sees fit. One might marry someone one never met before, or someone who lived at a different time completely, or in a different culture. We have a much larger field to choose from in resurrection, but a much longer time to make a choice, and a great God to help us find a choice that pleases Him.

My friend, you need to calm down! Consider that it is God Who is in charge of our future lives. Even if every single other thing we believe about that life is wrong, the fact that God is the One Who is in charge of it should be enough to tell us that, whatever it is like, it will be wonderful. We can trust Him. There is no need for existential dread, no matter what the resurrection life will be like, or if there is marriage there or not.

Nathan

March 10, 2020 at 1:27 am

ericbreaux

It seems odd to me that you would mention God not being able to change his standard for what is and isn’t good, then wrote that no matter what eternal life will be like, we’ll love it, even without the only thing God said wasn’t good to be without. He would be changing his standard then, and that would make irrelevant what he made for our joy. The entire point of restoration is to make everything good again that sin ruined, or else creation is missing something. Whatever we have for eternity has to be no less than what God made in Genesis.

April 17, 2020 at 7:48 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

You are missing my point. The reason I was telling you to relax is because you need to trust God. God really and truly is trustworthy. He really and truly has our best interests at heart. That is what Eve did not believe when she at the fruit. That is what Adam did not believe when he ate the fruit. Yet they were both wrong. Eating the fruit always was a calamity. Going God’s way always was best. They should have trusted God, even if they didn’t understand His plan. Adam should have trusted God even if Eve did eat the fruit and was going to die. God’s way is always the best way.

My point is that you are acting like only if you figure out what God’s plan for the future is and only if it actually seems good to you can you relax and look forward to God’s future plan. If, by any chance, you are wrong and what seems like is best to you is not God’s future plan, then you have great cause to be worried and anxious. But there is no need for that at all. There is nothing that you can be as sure about as that God really is good, that God really is gracious, that God really is loving, that God really does have our best interests at heart, and that God really will do what is best for those who love and trust Him.

Our job in coming to God’s Word is to find out what His glorious and wonderful plan is so that we can know what is coming and rejoice in it. I try in every way I can to find out what God’s glorious future plan is going to be. I have found what I believe are many wonderful and often staggering truths about it. One of those truths is the truth that we are going to be married in our resurrection lives, only God is going to be in charge of the marriages that exist. That is wonderful, and is a great part of that plan. I am very happy that I know it. It gives me great satisfaction to know it. But it does not give me nearly as much satisfaction as knowing that God loves me, that He has my best interests at heart, that He knows what is best for me, and that He will do what is best for me in my future. Knowing how much God loves me is far, far more satisfying than any one particular detail about His future plans for me. I trust in those future plans completely because I trust Him completely. I look forward to those future plans with great anticipation and without any anxiety because I know and trust Him. I don’t sit around worrying or fretting that I might be wrong about some detail of His plans for me, and if I am maybe they will be terrible and I will hate them. No. That would just be silly. If I am wrong about any detail of God’s future plans, it is because they are actually better than I thought they would be. I have no doubt or anxiety about this at all. I trust God implicitly.

That is my point. You need to look at Jesus Christ on the cross and realize that that is how much the God Who made you loves you: enough to die a painful, God-forsaken death in your place. You need to look at His wonders in creation and realize that that is how intelligent and creative God is: He knows everything inside and out so much better than we do. Then, you need to put these together and trust that God’s future is something you can absolutely count on as a believer. There are no doubts to have about it. As long as you are right about Him, there is no need to worry about whether or not you are right about His plans. Whether you are right or whether you are wrong, they will be so wonderful that you cannot even grasp it now. You can trust in that. You don’t need to worry about being wrong about anything, as long as you are right about Him.

I hope you see what I am talking about, because this really is a key truth, more important than whether or not we are married in the afterlife.

Nathan

January 6, 2020 at 12:21 am

Truth Don't Sleep

I have some more notes that I can give you:

Hebrews 13:8-8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Putting that verse into action and applying it all throughout the Bible, since He is the same forever means that, since He is the One Who created all things (Colossians 1:16) and in Him we have redemption (Colossians 1:14) we must ask redemption from what? Redemption means to be bought back (the price was the blood of a righteous man, the Second Adam was the only One who could do it); what were we bought back from? From sin and the curse and being cut off from God the Father and so forth. So we were delivered out of the Kingdom of Darkness (Colossians 1:13), and if you are delivered out of something, then you are delivered INTO something, and the Scripture says into the Kingdom of His dear Son.

SO, we were redeemed BACK to our original state, which was sinless and free of the curse, and in place of the curse, we had the Blessing of the Lord. (Genesis 1:28) – it was the first thing God ever said to mankind and it set the stage for us to have everything and be just like Him on the Earth. Now why did Jesus redeem us BACK to our original state? Because He is the same yesterday, today and forever. His ORIGINAL WILL was the Garden of Eden.

He said, this is what pleases Me, Man to be with Woman, married, in the Garden of Eden, under My Blessing (for in the beginning it is written that The BLESSED ONE blessed them, SAYING – and incidentally, the word bless literally means “empowered to prosper” for anyone who has not heard – which settles the issue of whether God wants you prosperous (along with numerous other Scriptures like Psalm 35:27 that the Lord DELIGHTS, or HAS PLEASURE in the prosperity of His servant)). They had direct fellowship with God, seeing Him; no hindrances, no blockages (and yet, God thought it good that in this perfect place where they get to be in His presence SEEING Him, they were married (and of course, would have enjoyed marital priveleges)).

So we’ve been redeemed BACK to this. I hope this is clear. You have been REDEEMED BACK to the ORIGINAL plan of God for all mankind, which was the Garden of Eden under the Blessing (and of course His favor (grace), which is present with the Blessing (the Blessing empowers you to prosper, the Favor (Grace) of God brings you the opportunities to prosper, and both are put into action or consequently deactivated the same way: your mouth (Proverbs 18:21 and Deuteronomy 30:19)).

SO, now BEING redeemed BACK to the ORIGINAL plan of God for all mankind, we WILL see on the New Earth what we see in Eden.

It’s the same sort of answer for healing; some choose to believe that despite no expiration date in the Scriptures anywhere, they think healing has somehow passed away (and the devil is laughing it up as he puts sickness and disease on God’s children and they thinking that God cannot/will not heal them go to the world for solutions and endure suffering the same as the world and then endure the shame of having to try to defend God saying something about how God sometimes heals, sometimes doesn’t or you never know what He’s going to do…). BUT the reality is, if Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever, then someone is lying, and it’s not God!

For healing to pass away, Jesus would have to cease to exist! In Exodus 15:26 He says He is the Lord who heals you. This is old covenant; and why did they go through all the sacrifices for healings then if God didn’t heal? Then Jesus comes walking in the fulness of the Blessing of the Lord with the anointing on and in Him with the Spirit of God inside Him and He demonstrates God’s will for healing – never turning one person away for any reason (notice He heals everyone BEFORE He has forgiven all sins on the cross). And He left us saying that we would do ALL the same things He has done and even greater. And I have healed people of cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, conjunctivitis, abdominal strains, knee injuries, torn ACLs, spinal injuries, and all sorts of ailments and sicknesses, and yet not I, but the Spirit of Jesus in me, He did the works (just the same as Jesus said did I not heal ten? and then explains that while He did those things, it was the Spirit of the Father in Him that did the works). And so healing has not and will not ever pass away.

February 21, 2020 at 8:20 pm

Precepts

Truth Don’t Sleep,

I somewhat follow your argument about the Garden of Eden, and agree with it, at least to a certain extent. God did indeed set up Eden as He desired it to be, and He is not going to allow sin and death to counteract His plan permanently. He will get us back to where He intended us to be with Eden in the first place. That will include marriage, which was part of His original plan, not part of His concession for sin.

That said, you have brought up other topics which really have nothing to do with marriage in the resurrection life to come. I am reluctant to start into discussions of topics on threads that are supposed to be about something else…it distracts the thread from what it is supposed to be about.

That said, I do want to comment on your use of Hebrews 13:8. The point of Jesus Christ being the same yesterday, today, and forever is that His essential character and nature are always the same. He is the standard of righteousness and the infinite God. He has nowhere to grow and no way to improve, since He is already the best there is or could be. Thus, He does not change. His essential nature and character are already perfection, and for this reason He stays ever and always the same.

That said, it is a mistake to apply this statement regarding His essential character and nature to His works and ways. His works and ways with humanity (Adam’s race) have to do with certain plans and purposes He has for us. In order to move these things forward, it is necessary for Him to move from one part of the plan to the next, from one stage in His purpose to the following stage. When He does this, He naturally must change some things that were formerly true.

For example, when God first created Adam and his wife, His commands to them were simple: leave your father and mother and cleave to your wife, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, have dominion over the earth, and do not eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Yet it would not be right at all for me to say, this is the way God did it then, and since Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, that must be the way He is doing it now. I could never eat any kind of fruit in my life, just to be on the safe side, and yet I would still die. And I could be fruitful and multiply and seek to have dominion over animals, and yet break many other commands of God He gave later. Am I free to commit witchcraft because God never gave Adam and Eve commands about it? No! These commands came later, they were a change in God’s works and ways, but that did not change the fact that Jesus Christ is the same always.

The same is true of the animal sacrifices and other laws of the Old Testament. We would be in trouble if these are necessary, since the temple and priesthood necessary for them are gone. Yet we are not in trouble. These are not God’s rule for today. God’s works and ways have changed, and what is needed now is faith in the record God gave of His Son Jesus Christ, both Who He is and what He did to secure our salvation. This is a change, but it was not a change to God’s essential nature and character, which is still the same as it always was. It is just a change to His works and ways, which have always been changing throughout His work with Adam’s race.

That is about all I am going to say on that on this thread. This thread is about marriage in the next life.

Nathan

February 7, 2020 at 7:50 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

It seems to be out of order in the way you posted it, but it seems like this is what you originally wrote to Shaun? You make some good arguments, though I don’t agree with everything you say. The Sadducees’ argument was not just about Levirite marriage. That just gave them a good excuse for an example. Their point was that there must not be a resurrection with problems like this that it would create. Therefore, they suggest that the only way to eliminate the problem is by sweeping resurrection away altogether. People like Shaun argue that they are wrong about resurrection, but marriage in the resurrection is the problem, so marriage will be swept away altogether. He is making the same error, just applied to a different thing. God is not only able to raise the dead, He is also able to fix the messy sexual situations human beings have created. None of our bad choices are binding on Him. He does not have to eliminate marriage. Instead, He can and will fix it. That is the power of God that Shaun is missing.

Nathan

February 7, 2020 at 11:14 pm

ericbreaux

I wrote only some of these arguments to him originally because I didn’t want to type multiple 1000 space emails. Some of them were explained a little differently too. This is a text I wrote more than a year ago that I save on a private Facebook album just for this topic on YouTube videos and other articles. I’ve revised it numerous times and have done so even after posting it here. I understand they didn’t mean only levitate marriage. I only write it like that because it’s only with that custom that they even had an argument to make. There was no other law obligating a woman to marry a man regardless of if she was in love with him.

February 21, 2020 at 10:55 pm

Truth Don't Sleep

I’m responding here because I can’t respond on the response you gave me. I just wanted to say that what I originally put there is just from my notes. I’m not trying to change the topic in anyway.

February 21, 2020 at 10:58 pm

Truth Don't Sleep

I know I asked this question to Eric but I wanna hear your thoughts. What do you think about people saying that we won’t desire marriage or sex in the afterlife?

Truth don’t sleep

March 23, 2020 at 8:15 pm

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

The law of a brother marrying his brother’s widow did give them an excellent illustration to try to make their point. Of course, any woman who married another man (or six other men in succession) after her first husband died might do as well. But I think they wanted to get the extra fact that the law required her to marry the other six brothers into their argument. If the law required her to marry them, how could that law be ignored in the resurrection? It was a way of upping the punch of their argument, in their minds.

Thanks for writing.

Nathan

April 3, 2020 at 7:25 pm

Precepts

Truth Don’t Sleep,

I understand that you were not trying to change the topic. I was not chiding you. I was just explaining that I didn’t want to get into a discussion of that idea because I felt it would lead to a rabbit trail. Most people who might be following this thread are interested in marriage in the afterlife, not necessarily other topics. So I was explaining why I was not going to talk about that. It is fine that you brought it up, though.

As for your question, those people don’t actually know anything about not desiring marriage in the next life. They are just guessing and making something up, since the Bible never says any such thing. If you asked them their justification for saying that, they would doubtless point to Matthew 22, Mark 12, and Luke 20, and would say that if there is no marriage then of course we will not desire it. To me this implies that marriage and sex are something bad, for surely if they were good and God took them away, we might be good and yet still desire them. Those wicked desires we have will be taken away, but why would a good, God-given desire be taken away? My belief is that all good desires will find their fulfillment in the life to come, not be taken away.

I think if someone said that to me I would ask them, “Are you saying that the desire for marriage and sex is wrong?” Because I can certainly demonstrate from Scripture that it is not. But if it is not, why would God take that desire away? It is surely only the wrong and sinful desires that God will take away.

I hope that helps. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

April 5, 2020 at 12:35 am

Truth Don't Sleep

(Response to your new response)

Thanks for demonstrating Grace. I understand what you are saying. It just baffles me completely how some other Christians tend to say that there is no marriage in the afterlife. I have seen many other Christian’s say that on YouTube. I’m glad that there’s loyal wives and husband’s that still want to be in the arms of their lives ones when they are with the Lord. I just tend to wish that I knew for sure that there was marriage in heaven. The denial from other Christian’s really messed with my faith. The first time I found out about this topic it hurt me a lot. I love God with all my heart but I am in a position in my life where I truly desire companionship and love. People want to love and be loved and that’s is the truth. I want that and I really pray every night that God is able to have me be with my wife in eternity

Truth don’t sleep

May 22, 2020 at 8:00 pm

Precepts

Truth Don’t Sleep,

I do try to show grace in my responses. Sometimes I succeed better than others.

As I have said several times, I don’t think there is one answer as to why people wish to believe that there is no marriage in the eternal (aionios) life to come. One reason is the strong adherence to the Platonic view of man. The idea Plato had is that what is wrong with man all has to do with the body and the physical. He thought that we were once free intelligences who through some accident became trapped in physical bodies. Death is a very desirable event, because at that point we are freed from the physical bodies that hold us back, and from then on we will be unencumbered and able to ponder the universe as free spirits. This idea denies the Bible’s truth: that God made man out of the dust of the ground (the soil) in the beginning, and that our problems are NOT from the fact that we are physical, as God made us to be, but from the fact that sin came into the world through Adam. There is nothing wrong with our physical bodies that getting rid of sin and getting a new, glorious body like Christ’s glorious body will not fix.

Yet the early church, growing up under the shadow of Platonism that was so common in the world at that time, adopted many of his ideas; some by accident, some by design. Many in the church still look at our future as necessarily the opposite of physical and material. There must be no time, there must be no space, there must be no physical reality as we know it, or it is not the perfection they think we must have. Since marriage is tied up with sexuality and the physical, it makes sense that people with this viewpoint would desire to promote the idea that marriage must pass away and not be a part of our future. But it is far better to expunge Plato’s godless viewpoints and adopt the view of Scripture. God’s redemption of us involves giving us new, glorious bodies without sin, not a new existence without a physical body. As physical bodies we will enjoy the good things God gave for physical beings to enjoy, only without sin to lead to greed and selfishness. Marriage will be among these things.

I understand being upset by the idea that God would not have marriage for us in the life to come. I have known single people who wanted God to let this world continue until they got married, because they were afraid if He started to fulfill prophecy they would be caught off to heaven and never get to experience marriage! I understand this, but my answer is that the life to come is always going to be better than anything in this life, and that marriage in that life will be better as well. There is no reason to hope that God waits a second longer, other than bowing to His will that He do things in His Own time.

Thanks for writing. Hope I was able to give you some insights.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

April 2, 2020 at 1:36 pm

ericbreaux

The prophecy in Isaiah is claimed to be only about the millennium, because it states that people who die at 100 will be considered cursed, but people can still die so this isn’t about eternal life yet. The mention of descendants couldn’t be evidence that people will be married and sexual forever then. But that should still contradict Jesus answer to the sadducees meaning no one will be married or sexual anymore after the resurrection, because the Isaiah prophecy is still about the resurrection, it’s just specifying the first phase of it. It mentions in the Bible that there will be two resurrections and that those resurrected the first time won’t suffer for eternity. Do you know any evidence that Isaiah contradicts the popular interpretation of Jesus answer to the sadducees.

May 16, 2020 at 1:30 am

Precepts

Eric Breaux,

I don’t remember talking about Isaiah 65 before. Isaiah is clearly talking about the kingdom of God on earth. As for those who die at 100 years old, however, that would not be those who are resurrected, but rather those who are born in the kingdom and thus have yet to make their own choices as to whether to serve God or not. In the glorious conditions of the kingdom most will choose to serve Him, so death will be unusual. So much so, that a hundred year old is thought to be a child.

I don’t think those mentioned are evidence for or against people having children in the resurrection. Could not the people dying at a hundred possibly be the children of resurrected people?

The book of Revelation mentions a “first” resurrection, but this should properly be translated the “former” resurrection. There are two resurrections that take place in the day of the LORD, which is what Revelation is all about. Yet there is another resurrection that takes place before the day of the LORD. Paul talks about three orders of resurrection in I Corinthians 15:23-24: Christ the firstfruits (or The Anointed Firstfruits), then those who are Christ’s at His coming, then the end. Those last two are in the day of the LORD, but the first is before it. The first is not referring to Christ’s own resurrection, for Christ is not a company of people who are raised because Christ rose (that is ridiculous), which is what Paul is listing. This is a third company, taking place before the other two.

I do not believe one could offer “proof” that a skeptic would accept. People do a pretty good job of explaining away things they don’t want to believe. But one great promise is that of Isaiah 54:1, “‘Sing, O barren, You who have not borne! Break forth into singing, and cry aloud, You who have not labored with child! For more are the children of the desolate Than the children of the married woman,’ says the Lord.” One would have real trouble explaining how this could possibly be if this is not referring to barren women rising from the dead with perfect bodies and then having children. But one who wants to wiggle out of it can always find a way to do so. God’s wonderful promises are always made out to be “spiritual,” which somehow is supposed to be “better,” though how exactly that is better is usually not explained. You are just not “spiritually minded” if you don’t get how a “spiritual fulfillment” is better than a real fulfillment. Yet I would say that this is an empty promise if there are no children in the resurrection.

Hope that helps. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

February 1, 2021 at 11:53 pm

Precepts

I received the following comments on this post:

I’m 32, married, (also a Christian) and live in Hungary, Europe. I’ve found your article on Marriage in the Afterlife. I’ve read it with great interest as I have been struggling with the idea of not having marriage in Heaven. By the way, I believe that the “afterlife” consists of 2 phases. One is where you get to when you die, and the other is the New Earth. I found that as in English, so in Hungarian, these places used in common speech interchangeably, which they are not, sometimes making talking about these issues confusing, but I digress. What I’m talking about is the New Earth.

You know, the fascinating thing about your article is that I’ve come to the same conclusions as you did without really reading others opinions about it, just from the Bible and by thinking hard. No marriage (and this always includes sex) in the NE was like a ditch in an otherwise perfectly smooth road. It is our ETERNAL destination after all, shouldn’t we try to figure out how it is? So…Great food? Check. Drinks? You bet! Fun activities? Sure! Worship? All the time. Friendships? More than ever! Marriage? No, what are you talking about, are you crazy…etc. etc.

So I was like “What? Why is that an exception?” And this thought that there is no marriage and sex in the NE is such a widespread idea, that you’re completely alone with it. It comes as a cold shower out of nowhere, and to add insult to injury, you will be labelled “unbiblical” in a blink of an eye. So much for “not judging” huh?

So I decided that “you know what, this is important for me, I’ll go my own way and see what I can find.” And, I went through much of the same thought patterns as you did, so I basically agree with everything you said, with two minor exceptions. I thought that I would share those with you, see what you think. I think they might be of some value to you. My goal is not to criticize you, but to make the argument even stronger.

(My written argument is 14 pages long, and I would gladly share it with you, unfortunately it is in Hungarian. You don’t speak Hungarian, do you? 😀 )

But before that. I’ve read through most of the comments, which was a ridiculous amount, and the patience and thoroughness that you answered all the comments is amazing. I mean brother…much respect!

1. So one of the things I think somewhat weakens your argument is the highly speculative part about the sexual life of angels. I think there is no need to go down that route. Although it is quite curious why did Jesus even mention the angels if His point was just that there is no marriage in Heaven whatsoever. Maybe he was “trolling” the Sadducees, because as far as I know, they not only denied the resurrection of the dead, they denied the existence of angels as well. So in a sense Jesus was rubbing salt in the wound by not only admonishing them because they underestimated God’s power, but corrected them on their views of angels as well.

Also, isn’t there a hidden assumption in the question of the Sadducees, that implies that a resurrection (should it be possible) would have marriages? They just thought that the hypothetical example they came up with (giggling during it, I picture) about the 7 times widowed girl would make marriage in the resurrection nonsensical, therefore -in their heads- the resurrection was nonsensical.

Also it is rather strange that nobody asked a follow up question about the angels in that context. Why? I think either because it was clear what Jesus meant by that, and we have kind of lost that context since then, or maybe they were busy applying cold water on their proverbial burns that Jesus caused and they were in no mood of another smartass question.

Either way, I think the most straightforward reading is that the angels are immortal, so are the resurrected people, and this fits perfectly into the context. So both reasons for a remarriage is void in the resurrection. Namely, divorce, which is because human sin (called “hardness of heart” when the Pharisees ask Jesus why did Moses allow divorce) and getting widowed, because of death. Which is also a result of human sin by the way. In the resurrection, no human sin, no death, no need to remarry.

So basically I would argue that there are two kinds of marriage in the Bible. One, orchestrated by God solely, like Adam and Eve, and another, a toned down “B” version, commanded by Moses, to mitigate the damage of the Fall somewhat. So Jesus does abolish marriage in the resurrection, but only this secondary, “business arrangement” kind. The original plan is still intact.

Therefore, there is no need to speculate about the interpersonal relationships of angels. 🙂

2. The other thing is…are you familiar with Molinism, and Middle Knowledge? I’m sorry if you have written extensively on it on your blog, I haven’t read anything else just yet. Apart from many things, it is a genius way to harmonize Divine Providence and Libertarian Free Will. Basically, humans have true free will, but God arranges the world around them in such a way, that they FREELY choose what He wishes for them to choose. This is unlike the Calvinist version of Compatibilist Free Will, where your choices are actually determined by God. In Molinism, your choices are free, because they are undetermined. Yet, you still freely do what God had in mind.

So in my argument I utilize this in the following way: in the NE we have libertarian free will, so we can choose our next spouse however we want, without the taint of sin. On the other hand, God created for us someone, who is perfect for us (much like Adam had Eve) and through His Middle Knowledge God arranges us in such a way, that we would meet the one He picked for us, and since the other is perfect for us, we would want to be with them naturally. And we would be married to them without a ceremony, just like when Eve came to be, she was already the wife of Adam somehow.
Therefore, we still have our freedom, and also God chooses our spouse, having our cake and eating it too, which is always nice. 🙂

Also, I think it is very possible that our future spouse is our current spouse, but not necessarily.

So these were my thoughts, what do you think? Does it make any sense?

Also, I REALLY wonder why are Christians so against marriage in the afterlife? We don’t seem to have any issues with having food, drinks, music, singing, and so on in the afterlife, but when it comes to marriage, we’re like seeing a ghost. Is it possible that we are indeed seeing a ghost? The ghost of Augustine that is. Or the ghost of Plato maybe?

Sure, we have what Jesus said to the Sadducees, but we usually don’t make a doctrine out of single verses, or at least we shouldn’t. Even so, what He said isn’t that clear cut as others make it to be. So what is going on? What do you think?

I hope you are well, and thanks for reading Nathan. God bless!

I am pleased to meet you, and glad to hear that you are reading in Hungary! I am living in Minnesota in the United States, if you had not figured that out. I am 46 years old. I was probably pretty close to 32, if not younger than that, when I first wrote this article, however. 🙂

My views of the “afterlife” (I would prefer to call it the resurrection life, but called it the afterlife for the sake of an interesting title) may be a bit more complex than yours, but that is beside the point for what you wanted to talk about. I certainly agree that there is a difference between heaven as it exists now and the New Earth, and there is no Biblical reason for confounding them. It is only when everything is interpreted in the light of tradition that such ideas become prominent. If we would interpret the Bible by the Bible this would not be the case. As far as when marriage in the afterlife would take place, it could be immediately after resurrection, or any time thereafter.

I agree that it is primarily about marriage in the resurrection life, not about sex, although sex comes along with that. I think any child with parents who have a close, loving relationship probably looks at that at some point and thinks, “I would like to have that someday when I am grown up,” even though that child is far too young to even grasp sex. It is the relationship that is the primary thing, and the sex is a physical expression of this kind of special relationship. I think both were created by God, both are very good, and both are destined to continue.

You make an interesting case. All the good things in the life to come, and yet marriage is left out. Why? I believe that God’s goal is to redeem the good things He made for us back to what He intended for them, not to eliminate them because sin broke them. That is one reason I believe in a physical existence in the life to come, aside of course from the fact that I think the Bible teaches it. Marriage, being something God made for our good in the beginning, I would expect to be redeemed, not eliminated. It certainly would be an exception to everything else. And why? No satisfying reason that anyone can give that I have ever seen.

Yes, any time one has a viewpoint different from the norm it is judged as unbiblical. It is an easy way of disposing of it. Yet the reality is that the Bible has some stubborn facts that are not so easily dismissed. It is easier to tip your hat to the idea of being Biblical than it is to actually be Biblical.

No, I don’t speak Hungarian, so I will have to take your summary as you have given it to me. 🙂 Like most Americans, I am really not good in any language but English. I studied Spanish once upon a time, but have let it slip. My studies in other languages nowadays are mostly in ancient Greek and Hebrew, neither of which is very practical in modern day communication, just in Bible study.

Thanks for your kudos on my patient answers. I agree that some of these were trying.

1. The reason I went down the “highly speculative” route of talking about the sexual life of angels is that this is used by many as a proof that Christ means there is no marriage in the resurrection when He says that “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.” The contention is that angels are neuter beings who have no sexual life, and that therefore He cannot mean anything but that we will be the same way. This is certainly highly speculative, and when we consider that the “sons of God” had children with the “daughters of Adam” in Genesis 6:4, we find it is not only speculative, it is wrong. Angels are not neuter beings. I guess I don’t view this as speculative, just a fact. But perhaps you disagree with me, which is why you don’t like me using the argument. Well, that is fine. We all have to make up our own minds about such things.

As for why the Lord mentioned the angels, I believe it is because they do the will of the Father in heaven and obey His commands. When men no longer marry or give in marriage but instead pair up as God commands them to, then they will be like the angels, who always obey Him in the same way. Including in whom they marry. But there I go into something highly speculative again. 🙂

Certainly the Lord was throwing the existence of angels in the faces of the Sadducees. He did not back down from Biblical truth just because some doubted it.

The “not dying anymore” can only be tied to the angels in Luke 20, as it is not mentioned in the other two passages. Even in Luke, I would say that both are tied to the angels, not just the not dying. But the not dying is not mentioned in Mark and Matthew, just that they will not marry or give in marriage, but will be as the angels. These statements are connected, not two separate things. They do not marry and give in marriage, but act only as God commands, even as the angels do now.

2. I had not previously heard of Molinism and Middle Knowledge. This is highly interesting, and was worth my time looking into. I am not quite willing to say I agree with it, but it certainly presents some interesting concepts. Nevertheless, I am not going to apply it to the matter of marriage in resurrection life. Christ’s statement seems to be that men will marry as God commands, not as they arrange. God does not lead them to marry whom He will by arranging things so that they will make the same choice He does. Rather, He commands and they obey, as the angels do. I think it will be the pleasure of all men to obey God in the future, and will not be a burden. All will be more than happy to live with God’s choice, and will trust Him to make the right choice. The reason most in our society of today do not like the idea of arranged marriages is we do not trust our parents to make that choice for us. (Our trust in our own ability to make that choice seems often highly misplaced, however, but we seem to ignore that fact.) But if one had absolute confidence in one’s parents, there would be no reason to dislike arranged marriages then, right? I do not think anyone should necessarily have absolute trust in one’s parents, but in God, yes. His ability to make a good decision versus my ability to make a good decision are not even comparable. He is better at it than I am by a staggering margin. So why would I have any reason not to trust His choice? In this case, it is the trust that is freely given and freely accepted, not the choice of marriage partners. Is not trusting someone else to make a decision for you an act of free will?

I agree that it is possible that a current spouse could be the same as a future spouse, but not necessarily. God has no requirement to accept or reject our decisions, but can do either one as He wills.

I hopefully made clear what I thought made sense already. 🙂

Good joke about Augustine or Plato. I think in the US there is a fear of appearing to be “like the Mormons,” who believe that God created the universe by having sex, and make sex and marriage a key part of the life to come. If I say I believe in marriage in resurrection, I am likely to get classed with the Mormons. But I don’t know how much presence Mormonism has in Hungary. After this, I think it is the idea, the ghost of Plato, as you say, that everything in the life to come must be non-physical. “Heaven is a spiritual place,” and such garble. Marriage, especially with its physical element, would seem to force scrapping that precious idea. Then, there is the prevalent idea that “the church is the bride of Christ,” and that is made to be counter to any idea that we would have any other “marriage” relationship in the resurrection. But this seems silly to me, making an illustration necessitate the giving up of the reality it is based on! Not to mention the phrase “bride of Christ” does not appear in Scripture anyway.

That is all I can speculate as to why. Also, just the desire not to be different from what is commonly thought. I am certainly seeing that in this coronavirus situation. The common idea must be the one everyone expresses, out of fear more than anything else. So I think it is with many Biblical ideas that are popular. Expressing any other idea is just too frightening because we know what the consequences would be. Religious circles are often far more vicious in rejecting unpopular ideas than even the secular world is.

I am well, and pray you are as well. Thanks for writing, and for your good thoughts. I also enjoyed reading up on Molinism.

Thanks again for reading.

Best regards to you as well. Keep studying the Word!

February 15, 2021 at 2:39 am

Jason

In regards to the “power of God” referenced in Matthew 22, you mentioned in the comments (don’t know if it was stated in the main article) that it’s about how the Sadducees doubted God had the ability to redo marriage arrangements made by humans. This definitely makes sense, but I’m confused on how you came to that conclusion. I used to think that “power of God” meant that God would have finally destroyed death after the resurrection and thus the Sadducees question was pointless since Levirate marriage wouldn’t be needed anymore. I guess I’m just having trouble seeing how “power of God” in this passage is specifically talking about God’s ability to redo legal/marriage arrangements. Thanks for the help

March 18, 2021 at 8:17 pm

Precepts

Jason,

I understand your confusion. Here is how I come to that conclusion. The argument that the Sadducees were making was that there must not be a resurrection of the dead. Christ’s response to this is that they clearly demonstrated that they did not know the Scriptures, nor the power of God. Now the Sadducees believed that there is no resurrection, in spite of the fact that the Scriptures state that there is a resurrection. Those who research the Sadducees think that this is because they only acknowledged the books of Moses and none of the rest of the Old Testament, and they claimed that the five books of Moses do not teach resurrection. Christ showed them that they were wrong, and that resurrection is clearly implied in those books.

Yet what about them not knowing the power of God? The conclusion of most people, I think, is that He meant they didn’t know that God is powerful enough to raise the dead, and that is why they didn’t think He could do it. However, I think this would not have been an entirely wise or fair argument for Christ to make. Does not the very fact that they claimed that resurrection was not in what they thought of as Scripture prove that, if it was, they would have believed God was powerful enough to do it? Just because I don’t believe that God will do some things, it does not follow that I think God is not powerful enough to do those things.

For example, there are some people who believe that, after death, we turn into angels, or that children do when they die, or some such thing. Now I do not believe this at all. I do not believe that human beings ever turn into angels. The Bible never teaches any such thing, and it is childish and confusion to think so. Yet just because I do not believe God will turn us into angels, that does not mean that I do not think God is powerful enough to do it, and that if I realized how powerful God is, I would know that He is going to turn us into angels. No. My not believing this has nothing to do with my estimate of God’s power. God is certainly powerful enough to turn us all into angels if He wished. The question is not one of power, but one of revelation. God has said He is going to raise men from the dead in perfect bodies like Christ’s glorious body. He has never said He is going to turn us into angels. I do believe God is powerful enough to do this; but I do not believe that He is ever going to.

In the same way, it would have been unfair, or at least not a good argument, for Christ to claim the Sadducees did not believe God is powerful enough to raise the dead. Just the fact that they did not believe God is going to raise the dead did not prove that they did not believe God is powerful enough to do it. It just proved they didn’t believe He has said He is going to do it. Christ would have had to prove the problem was they didn’t believe He is powerful enough to do so. This Christ never proved, nor set about to prove.

Yet the fact is that the Sadducees had most clearly demonstrated by their very words and the very argument they had just made that they did not believe God is powerful enough to do something. That is, they proved by their argument that they did not believe that God is powerful enough to end and nullify a marriage arrangement that men had made. If they had believed He was powerful enough to do that, they never would have argued that a woman who was married to multiple husbands proves that God cannot raise the dead. Christ did not have to prove that they did not know the power of God regarding this; they had proven it themselves by their own words! Christ’s simple answer to their false assumption of God’s impotence is that God will make the marriage arrangements in the resurrection Himself, and this will no longer be up to human beings to arrange for themselves. This showed the power God does have, and that their argument based on God’s impotence was false.

As for the idea that God would have destroyed death after the resurrection so that Levirate marriage wouldn’t have been needed anymore, that wouldn’t have related to the argument of the Sadducees in any way. Their argument was not that people could still die after the resurrection; their idea was that God is not going to raise people from the dead at all. The woman in their example was already married to seven husbands when she died. The fact that neither she nor the seven husbands would die after the resurrection would only guarantee that the problem would continue for all eternity. It would not solve it. It was not here that they did not see the power of God. It was in the fact that they thought God would be bound by all seven of those marriage arrangements, and could not do anything about it if He raises the dead. Of course He could; He could end either six or all seven of the marriages. Yet they didn’t think He has power to do that.

Thanks for writing, and for the question. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

February 19, 2021 at 9:17 pm

Joseph

I wouldn’t mind reading that 14 page argument in Hungarian! Even if I had to put it through Google translate for a rough translation.

March 25, 2021 at 8:43 pm

Precepts

Joseph,

I’ll pass that on to our Hungarian friend!

Nathan

May 16, 2021 at 9:53 pm

WorldQuestioner

In heaven, will we “know our wives” as Cain did? Did Adam even “marry” (Gameo)? Was Eve “given in marriage” (I don’t know what the Greek phrase is)? Did Cain marry Gameo either?
Wouldn’t it make sense that death terminates the current marriage, and the person is married to a different, better partner?
Would God assign marriages in heaven like assigning roommates, considering Hall’s marriage theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall%27s_marriage_theorem)?

June 3, 2021 at 4:52 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

The idea of knowing your wife regarding Cain is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. The idea is basically to know in an experiential way. I believe that marriage in all its best aspects, including sexual intercourse, will be present in resurrection life, as I have expressed in these articles.

“Given in marriage” is not a phrase in Greek, but a single word. In Matthew 22:30, it is ekgamizo, literally to “out-give in marriage,” meaning to give (a daughter) out in marriage. In Mark 12:25, it is merely gamizo, to give in marriage. In Luke 20:34-35, it is ekgamisko, which is just a different form of the word in Matthew.

No, Adam did not marry, nor was Eve given in marriage. Instead, God created Eve for Adam and brought the two together. Cain, however, doubtless married one of his sisters (the only women available), and she was probably given to him in the usual way, or whatever form that took in those very early days.

It is more than sense that death terminates marriage. The Bible says so in I Corinthians 7:39, “A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” This confirms that our marriages last only until death, and then they are dissolved. A person who rises from the dead rises single, and would need to marry again to be married. As for being married to a new person, that would depend on God at that point. Why would God have someone besides Sarah for Abraham, or someone besides Joseph for Mary? And yet there are certainly some marriages, like Abigail and Nabal, that were poor matches and we cannot imagine they would be renewed. I would expect these things to be at God’s discretion.

I read Hall’s marriage theorem at your suggestion, and it is interesting. It certainly makes sense that there is a certain subset of individuals with which a certain individual could have a happy marriage. Some have the romantic idea of only one perfect person in the world for each person, but that seems unlikely, since none of us meets every person in the world. All of us has to choose a partner out of the subset of people who are our friends and acquaintances. Under other circumstances with a different circle of acquaintances, like if one’s parents moved to a different place at a critical age, or if one chose a different college to attend, and so forth, can completely change whom one is likely to marry. One assumes that one chooses, from the subset of people one knows, a person with whom one hopefully will be happy. Yet one assumes, if the subset of one’s friends and acquaintances was different, a different choice, equally good, might be made. God might occasionally step in to bring two people together, but one has to assume that even God does not choose to do this with people on opposite ends of the globe with no means of accessing each other. There are limitations by age as well.

Since God means two people who marry to become a permanent one-flesh union, one would assume He would do so with more forethought than assigning roommates. Once we bring God into the picture and leave Him totally able to act on His own volition, He could certainly choose a single person. Once God had made a choice, that would settle the matter. Once God chose Rebekah for Isaac, no one else would have done, whether he would have gotten along with her or not. God’s choice would be the last word on what was right. However, one would have to question if God will indeed make an out-of-the-blue choice like that, or if He will allow people some freedom to contribute to the choice. As I said, some very good marriages in this life I would think that God would reinstate. That would mean their choice had something to do with His. It could also be so with completely new couples as well. In this case, God would be giving His blessing, not His out-of-the-blue choice. Yet we do not know for sure how this would work. For that matter, why would it need to work the same way every time? God’s way of bringing two people together in His perfect world could be as unique as individuals, yet always right. That would be the big difference with this life: in this life, sometimes there are bad and tragic choices. In that one, with God to oversee, every match He approves of would be right.

I hope this helps you think about it.

Nathan

June 3, 2021 at 5:12 pm

WorldQuestioner

Ever heard of Luluwa, Azura, and Awan? Some suggest that each son of Adam and Eve (including Cain) was born with a twin sister to be his wife. Did God originally intend for every boy to be born with a twin sister? Did God originally intend for every birth to be a twin brother and sister birth? No single birth, no identical twins, but twin brother-and-sister birth? Sounds strange to me.

Sent from my iPad

June 10, 2021 at 8:07 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

I had not heard of Luluwa, Azura, and Awan, so I looked into it. It appears to me that this is one of those many Jewish traditions that has no basis in the Biblical text. It is probably derived from a desire to explain where the wives of Cain, Abel, and Seth came from. The answer most certainly must be that their wives came from their sisters. Yet that does not mean we can know their names or anything else about them at this point. One certainly does not have to be exactly the same age as one’s wife, and doubtless this was the case with these ancient men.

In The Companion Bible, Bullinger argues that when Eve says, at Cain’s birth in Genesis 4:1, “I have acquired a man from the Lord,” this should rather be translated, “I have acquired a man, even Jehovah,” Hebrew ‘ish ‘eth Jehovah. She had heard the promise of her seed in Genesis 3:15, had realized that this meant Jehovah Himself was to be born of her, and assumed that Cain must be that promised Child. When Abel was born, however, his name means “Emptiness,” and it seems that, having given birth to another man and realizing that they could not both be Jehovah, she realized that in fact she had given birth to two quite natural children, as all the animals do, and that Cain was not Jehovah at all. At this point, she decided the promise was all a lie, emptiness, and so her name for Abel. Yet this whole scenario makes no sense if Cain was born with a twin sister. Surely Eve would have known that she could not have given birth to a male and a female Jehovah.

The Bible does talk about twins. If Cain or Abel were a twin, it could have said so, but it did not. The fact is that Adam and Eve’s first two children were boys. After that, girls must have come, no doubt. Both Cain and Abel (if he married) must have had wives from their younger sisters. But there is no Biblical indication that men were meant to have boy-girl twins as all their children, and these twins were meant to marry. The first we read of twins that we can tell (though doubtless there were some before that time) were Jacob and Esau. I do not recall the Bible ever stating clearly a brother-sister pair of twins.

Those are my thoughts regarding the matter, anyway. Thanks for writing with the interesting question.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

June 25, 2021 at 7:57 pm

WorldQuestioner

Have you seen https://leewoof.org/2015/08/31/can-you-fall-in-love-in-heaven-if-you-havent-found-someone-on-earth/

What do you think of Lee Woofenden? What do you think of Emmanuel Swedenborg? I don’t trust him. His teachings don’t seem Biblical. He gives alternate interpretations of the Bible or something like that. But take a look at that post anyway, and look at Lee’s similar posts.

Sent from my iPad

July 1, 2021 at 9:21 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

No, I had not seen any of Lee Woofenden’s work before. He bases his conclusions, at least in this article, not on a study of the Bible, but on the work of Emmanuel Swedenborg. As for Swedenborg, it is my belief we live in a day when God has fallen silent, giving us no direct light and tying us down to His written Word, the Bible. Anyone who claims to have revelations from God or from His angels is a false teacher not to be listened to. Swedenborg apparently had some interesting ideas, but ultimately he was misguided. One major error was his view of the apostle Paul. Paul was God’s messenger, inspired by God and attested to by Him in His Own Word. The fact that Swedenborg criticized and belittled him shows that he was a false teacher. The false always is at enmity with the true.

It appears that Lee Woofenden has some other articles that focus more on the issue from the Scriptural perspective. He does try to deal with Christ saying that men do not marry in the resurrection, and he makes some good points. As for the article you mentioned, I am not willing to say so confidently that God has a partner chosen and prepared from birth for every individual. God has not said so, and I do not think such an assertion can confidently be made. Most people make their decisions themselves, not waiting for God to make them. If God joins men together in the kingdom of God, then that will be a case where He makes a choice. Short of that, I do not think we have to struggle to find just that one, and if we miss that person we are stuck without what God intended. God would have us all choose a Godly partner. He does not want us looking for some magical “one.” If my “one” dies young, that does not mean I’m stuck.

That said, I of course do agree that God might well put widows back with their husbands, and that those who never found a partner in this life He might well give a partner then. Galatians 4:27 says, “For it is written:
“Rejoice, O barren,
You who do not bear!
Break forth and shout,
You who are not in labor!
For the desolate has many more children
Than she who has a husband.”

The word “desolate” is the same word for the wilderness or “solitary place” where no one lives. Here the solitary, we might say the old maids, who live in the resurrection will end up, through the ages, having more children than a woman who has a husband in this life and yet who is not privileged to live in that kingdom. It is not that God gives her children while still solitary; He gives her a husband and then children through him. This is a big proof verse for what I contend.

Thanks for writing with the thoughts. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

September 19, 2021 at 11:08 pm

WorldQuestioner

One of my blog posts here: https://genderlovesexuality.wordpress.com/2021/09/10/why-doesnt-everyone-have-soulmate/

Sent from my iPad

September 29, 2021 at 8:56 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

Since you linked this on my website, I will comment both there and here.

Regarding your question about God giving everyone a soulmate. I would answer this that things are far more complicated than this. The idea of a “soulmate” would seem to be someone who matches and complements you perfectly. This is a high ideal, but I do not think it is impossible. However, I would say that it is not just being given a soulmate, but it is being someone else’s soulmate yourself, and then having another person be a soulmate to you. A soulmate is never going to be something that happens automatically. It is going to be something that people grow into over time with effort, care, and most of all agape-type love. The desire would be for everyone to grow to become someone’s soulmate and someone else grow to become his. But there is more to it than just being handed it.

As far as why doesn’t everyone have a soulmate, this is easily answered. Everyone does not have a soulmate partially because there are many people who are personally incapable of being a soulmate to anyone else. People who are selfish and self-centered are incapable of being a soulmate to another person. To be a soulmate, one has to be a loving, giving, other-oriented type of person. A person who is selfish and self-centered is going to consider a “soulmate” someone who fulfills all his selfish desires. He is going to have no concern at all as to whether or not he fulfills hers. If he did receive the “soulmate” he selfishly desired, she would certainly be cheated because she did not receive a soulmate at all. So selfishness makes it impossible for everyone to have a soulmate, since it makes many people incapable of ever being a soulmate. The lack of soulmates is greatly exacerbated by sin in the world. Only by love overcoming sin and selfishness can anyone be a soulmate to someone else in this world. In a sinless, unfallen world, soulmates would be much more common and easily attained.

I have already answered in my post the idea of no marriage in the life to come. I believe there will be marriage in the resurrection. God said that it was not good for man to be alone, and I think that will be equally true with resurrected man. There will be marriage then.

I agree that ideally all people should be in pairs of male and female.

The idea of every boy being born with a twin sister and them being destined to be married from birth is an interesting one. It would require a sinless environment with no genetic defects to make marriages of close relatives deleterious. Yet this idea does not seem to be the way God set it up. Everyone is not born with a twin, and I see no indication in the Bible that this was ever the way it was or ever the way God intended it to be. The first twins we see in the Bible are two boys. If God wanted it this way, then no doubt everyone would be a twin with someone of the opposite gender. Since that is not the case, that is clearly not the plan. Also, while it seems romantic in an odd way, the idea of being literally born to be married to one, certain person, that would not automatically make that person your “soulmate.” Some twins are very close, and some are not close at all. Just being a twin doesn’t make you a soulmate.

Romantic kissing without marriage does seem “wrong” to me. A kiss of friendship or greeting, a “holy kiss” like the Scriptures talk about, would seem to be appropriate without marriage, though we don’t tend to do that in our society other than with relatives. Some cultures do, and there is nothing wrong with that. Yet the point of a romantic kiss is sexual attraction, and sexual attraction without marriage and sex to fulfill it would seem about the same as hunger without food to fulfill it. Why would God give a desire that was incapable of being fulfilled? This makes no sense. I believe that there will be both marriage and romantic kissing in resurrection life. But marriage was meant to make two one. That would still be true of marriage in the resurrection. There is no reason for rules to be different. The rules are good and right, and will remain so.

I disagree that sex and marriage are all about offspring. Yes, offspring are a big part of it, but if you go back to why God gave us marriage in the first place, it was about partnership, not about offspring. There could be offspring without marriage. God could have made Adam to self-propagate, like some (generally lower order) animals do. Yet God wanted man to have a fitting partner. That was what marriage was created for, and really what it is “all about.” Offspring is an important sidelight to that, but it was not the main reason for it.

God could certainly assign marriage partners, though I would not liken it to college roommates, since there is no lifetime commitment in college roommates like there is supposed to be with marriage! God chose a wife for Adam and for Isaac. He could certainly do the same for everyone in the resurrection.

Eros and agape are both essential elements in a marriage, but they are certainly not two sides of the same coin. We are called on to have agape love for one another, but we are certainly not called on to have eros for one another. God showed agape love for us on the cross, but He did not show eros for us. God loves us all with agape love, but not with eros love. These two things are not two sides of the same coin. They are not even two sides of the same coin in marriage. Eros can and often does happen without any agape at all. Agape can and does often happen without any eros at all. Both ought to be present in a marriage for the marriage to be healthy and functioning. But since agape love is greater than faith and hope, it is obviously far superior to eros, which is not at all superior to faith and hope.

Yin and yang are concepts in eastern “spirituality,” and are not Biblical concepts at all. The Bible knows of no yin and yang. Neither eros and agape nor physical and spiritual are yin and yang. Yin and yang assume the equivalency of good and evil. The Bible presents God as all good, and evil as rebellion against Him and His laws. Evil is always opposed to good, and is far, far inferior to it. Evil is worthless. Good is of inestimable value, being a characteristic of God. If a person is largely evil but still retains small portions of good, then that good is the only value in him. The evil in him has no value at all. There is no yin and yang.

Since everyone obviously doesn’t have an opposite gender twin, and even those who do are seldom if ever twin flames and soulmates, then the answer to this question is clearly no, they cannot.

One of the sad outcomes of our system of choosing marriage partners is this matter of relationships ending in breakups. We were made to have partners and be partners, but we were not made for breaking up. Breaking up is painful, and can be devastating. That said, it is something that is necessary when a couple is mismatched, or else when one or both of a couple is unready for commitment and marriage, at least to each other. If a girl breaks up with her boyfriend and cuts off all communication with him, then that relationship is over for this life. While it would be hoped that both are believers and, if so, they will be reunited and have a relationship as brother and sister restored in resurrection life, yet that is a far cry from saying they will be restored as a couple in the resurrection.

The whole point of Christ’s argument with the Sadducees is that they were assuming that God is bound by our marriage relationships. He is helpless before our decisions, and must abide by them, no matter what. This in spite of the fact that the Sadducees and the religious leaders in general well knew and recognized the ability of human beings to get divorced. So humans could end their marital relationships, but God cannot! This is a weak and ridiculous picture of God. Of course God can end marital relationships that men have set up. Well, if this is true of marital relationships, of course it is true of dating relationships. If I was in a loving relationship with a woman and, as far as I could tell, heading toward marriage with her, and then she died, I might have good cause to suppose that God might someday, when we are both raised from the dead, restore the relationship that never had the chance to reach its desired end. On the other hand, if a girl in a final and decided manner ended a relationship, I have no particular reason to suppose that God would bring that relationship back in the resurrection. As hurtful as it might be to the rejected young man after it happens, there is a very good chance that both she and he will move on, find another person, and form a new relationship. Are these new relationships to be destroyed in the resurrection in order for the aborted dating relationship to be preferred?

Ultimately, relationships in the life to come will be completely under God’s control. He will not be obligated by any of the choices or arrangements we made at all. He will be able to do as He chooses. He could restore any relationship a person had, or He could not restore any of them and create a completely new one with a person you had never met before. It is all up to Him. That is the point of my article about marriage in the resurrection. That is all up to God. He is not bound by any of our decisions. Certainly he is not bound by a couple’s decision to date, a decision that one of them later reverses.

I am sorry if you have had a relationship break up in a heartrending manner. All I can say is that, if you are a believer, you should trust God to have better things for you in the future, in His good time. Trust in Him. Meanwhile, work on becoming the kind of person who is capable of being a soulmate to a nice, Godly woman of good character and high moral values. You need to be able to be a soulmate in order to find one.

I pray this is helpful.

Nathan

October 23, 2021 at 12:00 am

WorldQuestioner

There’s another blog post of mine https://genderlovesexuality.wordpress.com/2021/10/22/my-thoughts-about-sexuality-and-marriage-in-heaven/

Sent from my iPad

August 25, 2022 at 8:16 pm

WorldQuestioner

I actually think of deleting the post you’re commenting on.

Sent from my iPad

January 4, 2024 at 9:01 pm

World Questioner

I regret and feel heartwrenched for saying that thing about every birth being a twin brother/sister birth, and the twin sister to be the twin brother’s wife. I also regret and feel heartwrenched when I say things like for everything to be in the public domain; No copyright.

November 22, 2021 at 8:36 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

I looked at your blog post. Clearly I haven’t convinced you on this, but I appreciate your linking my article.

I would indeed argue that marriage, once intended as a glorious thing and now in many ways marred and decreased, will be restored to how God intended it to be in the resurrection. This will include sex, companionship, procreation, and everything else that goes along with marriage today.

But I think you already know my perspective. 🙂

Nathan

November 3, 2022 at 8:10 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

Well, of course, we can all change our minds. Delete your post if you no longer agree with it!

Nathan

March 22, 2023 at 9:00 pm

WorldQuestioner

My blog was very difficult to navigate. That explains part of why it got so few views and visitors and no citations. And as a tip that some other WordPress user gave to me, I changed the theme and added a search bar, a list of categories, and an archive (posts by month), to name a few. Your blog has a list of categories. Wouldn’t it receive more views, visitors, and citations if it also had a search bar, “recent posts,” “popular posts,” an archive “posts by month”, “recent comments”?

March 26, 2023 at 10:15 pm

WorldQuestioner

Maybe the search bar should be on top of the categories list, and not at the bottom of the page.

May 17, 2023 at 6:33 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

This is not really to do with marriage in the afterlife, and might be a better conversation for my “About” section.

I will admit that the format I use for this blog is an old one. In fact, it has been retired, and I am only grandfathered in. I have considered that a newer format might benefit my blog. My self-imposed heavy workload has prevented me from updating my format more than anything. But one of these days I should do as you suggest and make my blog more easy to search and navigate. I do have a search bar, though, and I do have a list of categories. I don’t think the nature of my blog favors an archive by month rather than by topic. A “most popular” option might be a good idea, though people seem to find their way to my most popular articles without help.

Nathan

April 3, 2024 at 5:28 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

We all go through various stages and toss around various ideas. Some of them are perhaps valuable and on the pathway to finding truths; others are not so valuable and are more missteps on the way to better understanding. It is certainly true that, during the early history of Adam’s race, there was no choice but for siblings to marry, especially in the first generation when there were no other people. It was an interesting speculation to think about if it could have always stayed that way. Indeed, without sin and death and the introduction of bad genes, marrying close kin would not have become so damaging as it is today. In that context, the marrying of siblings could have gone on. Yet I do doubt that God ever intended for that to be a rule, standard, or what was typical. And as I said, there is no evidence that people were always meant to be twins. Certainly there is nothing in how genetics work that would make every child be a twin and every set of twins be opposite gender. It seems to me a dead end speculation.

It certainly is no longer appropriate for siblings to marry. From that sense I can understand your heartwrench. But don’t beat yourself up too badly about it; we all can have some crazy ideas as we first begin to try to think about and grasp God’s works and ways in the Scripture. As we get better versed, we can dismiss the more unlikely and inappropriate ones faster.

I don’t know quite what to say about your comments on copyright. I think people who work hard to produce a volume of work deserve some rights to their intellectual property, and to be able to make money off that without other people stealing it. Public domain on everything would not be appropriate. But some things ought to be public, most definitely.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

April 3, 2024 at 5:36 pm

World Questioner

The truth that there is much more to work than just the money is a good topic for another post.

April 13, 2024 at 12:10 am

World Questioner

My heart hurts from giving th

April 13, 2024 at 2:53 pm

World Questioner

My heart hurts from what I’ve said. It has brought me pain to say the thing that I do not even want to say again, I’ll just say “twin” to give you an idea what it is. That’s what my regret is like.

April 13, 2024 at 4:21 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

There is more to work than the money, yes. But at the same time, we do need money to live in this world system the way it works. Money is how we reward labor. The Bible makes clear every laborer deserves the reward of his own labor. To take that reward away from him is theft.

Nathan

April 13, 2024 at 4:24 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

It would appear, then, that God is convicting you about something in your mind and heart when you made that suggestion about twins that should not have been there. That is between you and God. I would remind you that all our sins are forgiven in the blood of Christ when we believe the record God gave of His Son and when we are identified with Him. Our job then is to walk worthy of what He has done for us, and to cast sin, which Christ already defeated for us, out of our lives. Give this sin over to the Savior and receive the forgiveness He offers. Then, live in a more worthy way in the future. That is what God is leading us to when He convicts our hearts.

Nathan

October 20, 2021 at 5:18 pm

WorldQuestioner

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/matthew/22-30.html – quote “In the resurrection form of existence, sexual relationships will be different from what they are now. Jesus was speaking of the resurrection life, not a particular resurrection event, as is clear from the Greek preposition en (“in,” Matthew 22:30, not “at,” NIV). Marriage relationships as we now know them will not exist after our resurrection. Jesus’ reference to the angels was an additional correction of their theology since the Sadducees also denied the existence of angels (Acts 23:8).”

November 4, 2021 at 8:50 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

You are referring to the commentary of Dr. Thomas Constable. Dr. Constable calls it “the resurrection form of existence.” The Bible does not really speak of a different “form of existence,” whatever that might mean. Rather, Paul makes it clear in I Corinthians 15 that the difference in the resurrection is the kind of body one is raised with. One is raised with a different body into a different kind of world, a world ordered the way God intends it to be. But I don’t know anything about a different “form of existence,” and I don’t think Dr. Constable does, either.

He is certainly vague in saying that “sexual relationships will be different than they are now.” This does not really say anything unless one is willing to specify just how they are different. He is correct, however, in saying that the Lord Jesus is referring to the resurrection life the way it will be lived, not just the event of rising from the dead.

I have certainly expressed my disagreement already with the idea that “marriage relationships as we now know them will not exist after our resurrection.” The Lord talks about how marriages are arranged (marrying and giving in marriage), and not about marriage relationships as we know them. And yes, the Sadducees denied the angels, which the Lord affirms exist.

He further goes on to say (quite rightly) that there is no warrant for supposing that we will not remember our former lives in the life to come. One could argue that, if one cannot remember his former life, then it is not even really true to say that he is the same man. In many ways, we are our memories. There is no word that the woman could not remember her former husbands. He is also right that there is no word in the Bible that we will become angels, and that certainly was not his point. If we are resurrected as angels, then we are no longer men, and it is not mankind that is resurrected.

He ends with the quote from Carson: “The greatness of the changes at the Resurrection (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:44; Philippians 3:21; 1 John 3:1-2) will doubtless make the wife of even seven brothers (Matthew 22:24-27) capable of loving all and the object of the love of all-as a good mother today loves all her children and is loved by them.” [Note: Carson, “Matthew,” pp.461-62.]

Dr. Constable might think Carson’s quote profound, but I do not find it so. Carson plays off the fact that, in English, the word “love” is very vague and non-specific. Therefore he can say things about “love” without making it at all clear just what he means. He implies that the wife, in this life, can only love one of the husbands, or at least only one at once. I would guess that many widows of good men have continued to “love” in their hearts the spouse they lost, even after marrying another man. In that case, she would “love” both men and be capable of “loving” both men. Yet as far as being married to and having sexual relations, she is only “loving” the one currently alive. So if the woman in this life could only “love” one of the husbands at a time, we are clearly talking about “love” as in marital and sexual love. Yet then, Carson says that the Resurrection will doubtless make the wife of even seven brothers capable of loving all and the object of the love of all. Well, again, if we are assuming she was not capable of loving all at once, but only one at a time, we are obviously talking about current, marital love with physical, sexual love included. Surely he is not suggesting that she instantly stopped having any loving feelings toward all of her deceased husbands the instant she married the next one? Yet is he then saying that the Resurrection will make her capable of having sex with and having intimate, married love with all seven brothers at once? I doubt it very much! Because he then compares it to a mother loving all of her children and being loved by them…but except in the grossest of perversions a mother does not “love” all her children in the intimate, physical way of a wife with her husband! So you see how the issue is clouded by Carson when he passes freely from one definition of love to another without acknowledging having done so.

When one actually defines the kind of “love” being referred to, it is clear that Carson’s words are just so much hand-waving, and really are saying nothing. As I said, anyone who loves a deceased spouse and yet who has remarried and also loves a current spouse could tell Carson that his claim that in this life one can only “love” one person and is not capable of “loving” more is foolishness. Carson is speaking nonsense. His words are not profound at all, whatever Constable thought of them.

Thanks for writing and for the commentary.

Nathan

November 7, 2021 at 10:04 pm

WorldQuestioner

Also, Luke 20:35-36 says “Those who are considered worthy to attain to in that age and to the resurrection” (English Standard Version). What Bible version do you prefer.
Luke 20:34-36 is more clear than Matthew 22:30 and Mark 12:25.
See also Matthew 24:38 which means people married and given in marriage before the flood, long before the Law of Moses was given.

February 4, 2022 at 10:11 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

I have no strong preference on Bible version, since they are all translations. Some are strong in one passage, but then they will be weak in another. I will often use the King James Version in teaching, sometimes because I am teaching people who prefer that version, and sometimes because I like to use the excellent Companion Bible, which is only in that version. I will also use the New King James Version, because I like the translation and it has more modern language than the KJV. I have used the (older) NIV version as well in teaching, but not in quite a few years. But I have read many other versions, and refer to them. I have read the ESV; it is a pretty good version.

Of course, to be married in the resurrection, one has to attain to it first. We attain to that resurrection by performing the work of God that Jesus Christ calls out in John 6:29: believing in Him Whom God sent (that is, in Jesus Christ Himself). Whoever believes in Him has eonian life. Once one has that life, then one neither marries nor is given in marriage, but is like the angels, doing as commanded by the Father in all things, including in marriage. It will not be up to us to arrange marriages; God will be overseeing that for us.

I agree that marrying and giving in marriage was not begun by the law. Not sure that that is a super profound point. Marriages clearly existed long before the law, from the time Adam and Eve became husband and wife. Adam never married, by the way, and Eve was never given in marriage, and yet they were a true husband and a true wife.

Nathan

January 8, 2023 at 2:24 am

WorldQuestioner

What about the Complete Jewish Bible, the Tree of Life Version, and the Names of God version? See 2 Corinthians 5:21 in these versions. They say “be a sin offering for us” instead of “sin for us.” The Greek Hamartia is translated from a Hebrew word that could mean either “sin” or “sin offering.” One of those three versions even say ”fully share in his righteousness” instead of “become his righteousness.

Sent from my iPad

January 18, 2023 at 8:06 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

You are getting rather far afield from the topic of marriage in resurrection life, which I hate to do, since many read this thread and that is what they are interested in. I will just say that I haven’t read the three versions you mention. I started a policy some years back of reading through the Bible in new versions rather than my same, old, familiar versions, but I fell off from that recently, not buying any new versions the next time I started through. You are giving me incentive to buy the versions you mentioned and check them out.

As for II Corinthians 5:21, I agree that the precedent from Hebrew is that the same word can mean both sin and sin offering. That said, to me the contrast between Christ becoming our sin and us becoming God’s righteousness makes much more sense than Christ becoming a sin offering and us becoming righteousness. Yet it certainly is true He became a sin offering. No doubt about that. I don’t see any justification in the Greek for translating it “fully share in His righteousness.” This is interpretation, not translation.

Nathan

November 6, 2021 at 7:43 pm

Jason

If we no longer sin and still have free will, it would follow that our children in heaven would also be born like that and forever remain that way. How do you address the argument that there can’t be procreation in heaven because people born there will “automatically” love God and if they can’t choose/have the ability to deny him then it’s not a real relationship. In other words, they’re being forced to love God like a robot and can’t choose to sin so it’s not real love. God has to “test” our hearts first in order for a real relationship to take place. A few rebuttals I’ve thought of so far:

– Not knowing this answer isn’t evidence to completely rule out procreation
in heaven, especially given all the other logical/biblical evidence that
marriage and procreation WILL continue. Just because we don’t know
how it works doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen.

– Is there anything actually wrong about God allowing people to be born
and forever remain sinless? Isn’t it better to make more image bearers
who will glorify, reflect, and worship God? Wouldn’t that be something
good? Or is it really better for new children and families to cease existing
in heaven?

– Most Christians believe that aborted babies, very young children,
severely mentally disabled people, etc. who die will be in heaven so we
already believe there will be those who are granted eternal life and never
made a conscious decision to reject God.

– Angels were sinless free will beings who came to existence in the direct
presence of God in a perfect heaven. Many angels are still in perfect
fellowship with God so a being that can truly love/worship God while
never falling away from him is a valid concept. The same can apply to
those who will be born in eternity.

– To say that we can’t create new life because sin can’t exist anymore is
like saying you will never have a foot injury because you’ll cut off your
leg. The cure is almost worse than the disease. Are we saying the growth
of humanity and sin is a package deal? Aka, children and families are
dependent on the existence of sin and cannot exist on its own? This
doesn’t make sense because God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and
multiply when they were sinless. I doubt God would have required sin as
a prerequisite for obeying that command.

– Maybe a perfect world where people can be born and never die couldn’t
happen without our current world first existing.

– Verses like Jer 23:3, Jer. 32:39, Eze 36:10-11, 37, Isaiah 65:17-25,
Isaiah 60:22, Isaiah 61:9, and others like it all hint at procreation in the
coming world

– Genesis 3:16 part of the curse was increased pain in childbirth. This
means removing the curse = removing the pain in childbirth, not
removing childbirth itself.

This is a hard question to answer because it touches on subjects like “how do we define free will”, predestination, is original sin true, the problem of evil, etc. We have to first clear up those before addressing the subject of children in heaven. It also leads to other questions: “Why didn’t God just create people who would never sin from the start”, “Earth would run out of room for people”, ” Why does God create someone he knows will go to hell”, etc. Curious to hear your thoughts. Thanks!

November 6, 2021 at 9:13 pm

WorldQuestioner

“If we no longer sin and still have free will, it would follow that our children in heaven would also be born like that and forever remain that way. How do you address the argument that there can’t be procreation in heaven because people born there will “automatically” love God and if they can’t choose/have the ability to deny him then it’s not a real relationship. In other words, they’re being forced to love God like a robot and can’t choose to sin so it’s not real love. God has to “test” our hearts first in order for a real relationship to take place.” Well, sin nature isn’t free will any more than being “born righteous” is. With sin nature, we are forced to sin. We weren’t tested. Being born a sinner is as forced to sin as being born righteous is forced righteous. We couldn’t control the fact that we sinned from the beginning. We never had control over our sin nature. Being born to sin isn’t any more fair than being born to do what’s right. Inheriting sin nature is no more fair than inheriting righteous nature. Inheriting righteous nature is as fair as inheriting sin nature.

Sent from my iPad

January 28, 2022 at 8:57 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

I do not think you have really answered this difficulty. Having a “sin nature” does not force one to sin. For example, suppose I have an opportunity to commit adultery with a married woman, but I choose not to do so. I still am a sinner by nature, at least apart from Christ, but I used my free choice not to sin in this case. This can spread out to all my sin. I am not forced to lie; I am not forced to be unreasonable; I am not forced to be unkind, etc. In every case when I sin, there are others who have been in the same situation and have chosen not to sin. I can not say that I am not responsible for the sins I commit. The same thing would have to be applicable to being righteous by nature. For example, Adam was righteous by nature. Yet he had a choice whether or not to eat the forbidden fruit, and he chose to eat it. Being righteous by nature was countermanded by the fact that he had free choice. If he had chosen to reject the forbidden fruit and obey God, that would have been in line with his righteousness, but it would have been a choice, not something he was forced to do.

The fact that love needs to be a choice does not stop just because one has a righteous nature. Just because one is not born a sinner does not mean that one will love automatically without it needing to be a choice. The same thing is true regarding faith: without faith it is impossible to please God. That means faith must be possible for all. But in order to have faith, one also has to be able to not have faith. This is a difficulty if we are to postulate a world where new individuals are born, and yet there is no sin and there are no sinners.

Nathan

April 17, 2023 at 7:21 pm

WorldQuestioner

No, we aren’t forced to do any particular sin. We are just forced to sin one way or another. We can’t help our sin nature. We can’t help that we sin one way or another. We are born sinners. We sin from birth.

But if we willfully sin even though we are born sinners, that would mean that if born righteous, we willfully do what’s right. But we are not born righteous, but would be if we were born after our parents are redeemed.

Elect-holy angels are permanently righteous, right? Michael and Gabriel are sealed in their righteous state. Yet don’t they willfully do what’s right?

Sent from my iPad

July 5, 2023 at 7:22 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

What we have no choice about is the fact that we are born sinners. The problem is not just what we do; it is what we are. When we believe in Jesus Christ, old things pass away, and all these become new. We are no longer slaves to sin. Paul sets this forth in Romans 6. 14. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Sin does not have dominion over us. We are no longer forced to do it because we are under its power. He goes on to argue, “18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21 What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” We are not slaves of sin any longer, but of righteousness. We are no longer what we were. We ought to yield ourselves to righteousness and deny sin a place in our lives. We are now set free from its power, and therefore can no longer claim to be forced to do anything.

I do not believe any of us has reached the place where we no longer sin. As John says in I John 1:8, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” But having been set free from the dominion of sin, I do not think we can any longer claim that we sin because we are forced to do it and have no choice. If we cannot say we are forced to any one sin, then how can we claim that we are forced to do any sin? The sad fact is that we choose sin because, in that moment, that is our preference. Ephesians 2 has been poorly translated, as if it were speaking of us before we were saved. However, I do not believe that the words are at all past tense here. It is describing the believer when he sins. It says, “3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” We at times all fulfill the wrong desires of our flesh and our minds, just like the children of wrath who surround us. God makes us alive in Christ even while we are in the midst of sinning. But those sins are done by someone who is dead to sin. We do not have the excuse of having had no choice.

Yes, one who was born righteous would still have to will to be righteous. It would come naturally to him, but he could face an Adam-and-Eve situation wherein he would have to make a choice. Eventually, though, one becomes set in character. We see this in what we think of as older people: they become more set in their ways than younger people are. Yet really, compared to the lifespans before the flood, those “older people” are children. How much more set in one’s ways would one be after eight hundred years, rather than eighty? Those who exercise themselves in doing righteousness will get to the point where doing it has the whole force of their being behind it. They are set in the way of righteousness, and will not turn from it. We can start to develop such a settled character today, though I don’t think we live long enough to fully realize it. We also need our new, redeemed bodies.

Angels have sinned, so those who do not sin have had to will not to somewhere along the way. Many of the oldest ones have probably become so settled in righteousness that there is not much question but that they will remain as they are. But I do not think all angels are the same age. As far as their always doing what is right, I would compare it to what is said of Joseph’s brothers in Genesis 37:4, “But when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, they hated him and could not speak peaceably to him.” It was not that his brothers didn’t know or were incapable of speaking peaceable words. It was that their nature or character was such that they couldn’t do such a thing to Joseph because of their jealousy and hatred. In the same way, I do not think Michael and Gabriel have a nature that is capable of turning away from God at this point. It is not that they don’t have a choice, but that their very nature drives them to the only choice they are capable of making considering their character.

Thanks for the interesting discussion, though it is getting far afield from marriage in resurrection life. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

November 7, 2021 at 10:24 pm

WorldQuestioner

Also, the Jeremiah verses 23:3 and 32:39 are only about the Jews returning to Palestine, and have nothing to do with the resurrection. Ezekiel 36:10-11 and 36:37 might only be about Jews when they were alive. Isaiah 60:22 is not about having children, but that nations that were small on this Earth will have already grow big before being in heaven, or the nations were small on the Earth because they were only composed of living people. Isaiah 61:9 doesn’t have to do with the resurrection or heaven. Isaiah 61 doesn’t seem to mention heaven or resurrection. Most likely it’s just the return of Israel.

February 4, 2022 at 10:34 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

I have to agree with Jason on this one. The verses he mentions talk about the future Israel in the kingdom of God. That this Israel will include Israel down through the ages raised from the dead is made clear in passages like Ezekiel 37:1-14. The vision of the valley of dry bones in verses 1-10 is interpreted in verses 11-14. The whole house of Israel had been taken into captivity, and told that it would last for seventy years. If, say, you were fifty when you went into captivity, you could add 50+70 and get a number that you were very unlikely to attain. You realized that you would never get back to the land, never get back to God’s promises. Thus Israel in the captivity were thinking they were cut off and without hope.

God explained to them that they were not without hope because He was going to bring them out of their graves and bring them back to the land of Israel. By resurrection they were going to return to the land. The great, future return of Israel to the land is not just made up of those Israelites who happen to be lucky enough to be living at the time. it includes all those Israelites who had died down through the ages, whom God raises from their graves and brings back to their land.

All the passages in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel that Jason references should be read in light of this reality. If we realize that the return to Israel is largely the return of resurrected individuals, then the fact that they are multiplying and increasing in the land indicates the procreation of resurrected people.

Jeremiah 23:3 includes those in the graves of Ezekiel 37. They will be fruitful and increase.

Jeremiah 32:39 again does not just mean the Jews who happen to be living when God begins His earthly kingdom. No such heart has been given to Israel at any point in the past. This is a great future event, and it will take place after the regathering of Israel spoken of in Ezekiel 37 and so forth.

In Ezekiel 36:10, “all the house of Israel, all of it” cannot be “all the house of Israel, all of it” if it doesn’t include all the house of Israel. It has to include men like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve tribal patriarchs. It has to include Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, Joshua, Jephthah and Samson, David and Solomon, Sarah and Ruth, and all the great Israelites from down through the ages. There is no “all the house of Israel” without all the house of Israel being there, raised from the dead. If these “bear young,” they do so as resurrected individuals. The same in verse 37.

Your comments on Isaiah 60:22 might work if that verse is taken out of its context. But consider that the topic is the Holy City of Zion, verse 14. It is Jerusalem that will be increasing, and in Jerusalem that a small one shall become a strong nation. This is not speaking of small nations of Gentiles becoming big ones.

Again, the context of Isaiah 61:9 is Zion, verse 3. The restored city and nation will have “offspring,” though many of those inhabiting Zion will be resurrected individuals. Again Jason is quite right; these verses hint at procreation for resurrected Israelites.

Nathan

February 13, 2023 at 2:49 am

WorldQuestioner

Are Isaiah 60:22 and 61:9 about the Millennium or the New Earth? Does Isaiah 65:17-25 refer to the same as Revelation 21:1?

Sent from my iPad

April 3, 2024 at 5:42 pm

World Questioner

Also, the original Masoretic and Greek texts weren’t divided into chapters, verses, or sections. That’s a post-King James addition I think. They didn’t have subtitles/headers or whatever you call them. So don’t just look at what’s in the chapter or section for the context. You might have to look before the chapter or header/subtitle. Right?

March 23, 2023 at 9:09 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

I believe that Isaiah 60:22 is talking about the kingdom of God on this earth, not the new earth. But here we are getting into one of my rather unique perspectives, which is beyond the scope of this article and comments thread. I believe that there is actually a premillennial kingdom of God on earth, wherein God takes control of the nations of this earth and governs them through the Lord Jesus Christ seated in heaven, preceding His return to earth for His thousand-year reign. As I said, that is beyond the topic of this thread, but you can read some of why I think this in my “Bins for Bible Prophecies” series, which is found here:

https://precepts.wordpress.com/category/bins-for-bible-prophecies/

Certainly repairing old ruins and rebuilding ruined cities, Isaiah 61:4, is referring to something that happens on this earth, not the new earth. So I would believe that Isaiah 61:9 is something that happens on this earth as well.

I do not believe Isaiah 65:17-25 all refers to the new heavens and new earth, but just verse 17. Yes, that would be the same new earth as Revelation 21:1. But Isaiah says nothing more about it, and returns to the topic of God’s kingdom on this earth in verse 18. Death and Hades will have been destroyed in the lake of fire before the new earth is made according to Revelation 20:14. Therefore, no one in the new earth will die. Yet Isaiah 65:20 speaks of sinners dying and being cursed. No sinners or dying people shall be found in the new heavens and the new earth. The only statement Isaiah makes about the new heavens and new earth is in verse 17, and then he immediately returns to the topic of God’s kingdom on this earth in verse 18.

Thanks for the good questions. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

January 7, 2022 at 10:24 pm

Precepts

Jason,

How long the production of children will continue is a separate issue, I believe, from the question of marriage in the resurrection life. The purpose for which God gave marriage was a partnership, so man would not be alone. Procreation was a secondary issue. Marriage continues to be very good and beneficial, even after childbearing years are over. That all married couples could come to an end of the possibility of childbearing and yet still remain as married couples seems to me to be obvious. Whether or not the production of children will ever cease, of course, can be debated, but it does not really affect the continuance of marriage, in my opinion.

I do believe that love has to be voluntary and, therefore, has to be a choice. To be able to choose, one also has to be able not to choose, and that implies being able to choose not to love God. To not love God is clearly sin, so the possibility of sin has to continue as long as there are new beings coming into existence who will be capable of loving God, as far as I can see. Any who were born without the capability of not choosing what was right would also be born without the capability of truly choosing what was right and choosing to love.

I think we often put the cart before the horse. We are told by the Bible much about the immediate truth of the resurrection, the kingdom of God, and the thousand-year reign of Christ. What we are told of the new heavens and the new earth beyond that is, all in all, very little. I have enough trouble truly grasping what is immediately to come. I believe that what is immediately to come includes both marriage and the production of new children. Once we get to the new heavens and new earth, all sin is supposed to have passed out of the picture, and no sinner is supposed to enter there. (Whether or not there might still be sinful beings elsewhere in the universe we cannot tell.) I do not see anything that would tell me one way or the other whether or not the production of children will continue at that time. All the statements that speak of the production of children seem to me to speak of conditions in the present heaven and earth. Of course, that doesn’t mean there isn’t the production of children then. But since we have so little information about it, it is left open to speculation.

Since I believe that we are and always will be “man,” it will always be true what God said of man, that it is not good for him to be alone. Therefore, that leads me to the belief that marriage will continue for all eternity, not just in the immediate future of the kingdom, but also to the new heavens and new earth. Yet there is nothing about man that says he has to be fruitful and multiply. That could stop, and man would still be man. We would just have a total number of man that would never increase or decrease, now that death is off the scene. This could happen. Or it could be that man will continue to increase for all eternity. This is all speculation.

I say that I have enough trouble learning from the Bible what God teaches about the immediate future of His plans, the resurrection and the kingdom of God. People ask questions about what we will be doing “a million billion years from now.” I don’t even know for sure what things will be like a thousand years after the resurrection. What is the point of talking about a million billion years, as if anyone could even conceive of that length of time? As for the immediate future, I know resurrected man will be marrying and having children. Let the inconceivably remote future reveal itself as we move on through the plans of God and actually start to get close to it.

As for your ideas, I agree that not knowing for sure how it would work does not prove that the production of children must end.

I know of nothing wrong with God allowing people to be born and forever remain sinless. My problem is allowing them to be born and never have any choice whether or not to love God. No choice means no love. I do not see God desiring people who are not capable of loving Him back.

I do believe that aborted babies, those who die in infancy, etc., will live again, but I think their place will be in the kingdom of God on earth. There is a test at the end of that kingdom, and then they can choose whether or not to continue to obey God or whether to rebel. They are not allowed to automatically live forever without a choice.

Angels were sinless beings, and some of them chose to continue to serve God and remain sinless. Others chose to rebel and fell. Yet this shows they all had a choice. Man is born fallen and can choose to receive God’s redemption. Angels are born/created sinless, and can choose to follow Satan’s rebellion. One does not have to fall in order to have a choice. Adam could have chosen to not fall, and then he would have remained sinless. But that would have been a real choice, and he would have loved God by choosing that. Angels who choose to love God and never fall nevertheless had free choice and do truly love.

I am not sure about the foot thing. I say we cannot create new people who are incapable of loving, and loving is always a choice. If a choice could be made without the result being some sinning, then that would be fine. I am just not sure if that is possible.

I don’t think this world had to fall. That was the choice of Adam. It was not a necessity. If it was a necessity, then he never really had a choice.

I certainly do think that the Bible implies that there will be the production of children by resurrected people.

I agree that the curse on childbirth is the problem that needs to be removed, not childbirth.

God could not create people without the possibility of sinning, because that would mean also creating people without the possibility of loving. Love must be a choice, and therefore hatred also has to be a choice. Righteousness has to be a choice, and therefore wickedness has to be a choice. This is simply the nature of things.

I think God could easily create new places for people to live if earth ran out of room.

I don’t think God creates anyone He knows will go to hell. This alone raises a plethora of other issues, though.

Whew. I think that takes care of your long list. Hope you found my thoughts valuable.

Nathan

March 15, 2022 at 5:24 am

Jason

Nathan, thanks for your answer a while back to my question about childbirth and free will in eternity. Your answers led me to consider things I hadn’t thought of before and to do more research. I want to follow up on some of your comments:

– “I do believe that aborted babies, those who die in infancy, etc., will live again, but I think their place will be in the kingdom of God on earth…They are not allowed to automatically live forever without a choice”:
What about Hebrews 9:27? There are a few exceptions (i.e. Lazarus), but the standard is for people to die once and be judged. If all the aborted babies, kids, mentally disbaled, etc. since the beginning of time (which is A LOT of people) are resurrected into mortal bodies to die a second time that would seem to contradict the verse. That would be a lot of exceptions. Those in the first resurrection will be given immortal bodies (1 Cor. 15:42-56), always be with God (1 Thess. 4:15-17) and not suffer the second death (Rev. 20:5-6). The Bible doesn’t make an exception that some who are part of the first resurrection will receive a mortal body and possibly go to hell. Based on these descriptions if you take part in the first resurrection then you are already deemed worthy of eternal life. And what about the pregnant women, infants, kids at the end of the millennial reign when the second resurrection takes place? It’s the start of eternity right afterwards. Given the above it seems like there indeed will be a significant number of people in the kingdom who aren’t ever given the chance and/or ability to sin. Unless we say that we can’t actually be sure if (all) aborted babies do get resurrected/go to heaven, which isn’t an unreasonable position to take. Michael Heiser has an article series on original sin and makes a case at the end that all aborted babies, young kids, etc. will be resurrected into glory https://drmsh.com/romans-512/. Mike Winger lays out the case that all aborted children will definitely be in heaven in 2 youtube videos (can’t seem to post the links): “Do Babies Go to Heaven? A Biblical Examination (The Mark Series pt 35)” and “Infant Salvation Causes These Theological Riddles The Mark Series pt 36”

– In Lev. 26:9, Deut. 7:12-14, 28:1-11, and 30:1-10 children are directly promised as blessings of obedience. We will never disobey God after the resurrection so why would these rewards be taken away? It’d also be strange for Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah (referring to the verses from my original post) in their message of calling Israel to repentance, to proclaim that a great reward of returning back to God is only a temporary one. It’s like telling a kid they can play outside after they finish homework but next month they can’t play outside even if they do finish homework. The prophets and their audience didn’t have any reason to interpret childbirth as being only temporary. Glorified believers still having their blessings removed is highly at odds with the idea of heaven as our eternal hope/reward. It almost makes more sense just to say that childbirth won’t exist at all for resurrected believers then to say it will exist but will then be taken away after a short time.

– https://www.amazon.com/God-Reforms-Hearts-Rethinking-Problem/dp/1683594975/ref=pd_lpo_1?pd_rd_i=1683594975&psc=1 is a good book on this subject. The author writes from a Calvinist perspective which I don’t entirely agree with, but he makes a good case that our relationship with God isn’t meaningful only if we have the ability to equally love or hate him. One of the main ideas is that human to human love is a bit different from human to God love. I cannot guarantee another person’s love without resorting to coercive force, but that doesn’t mean God is also limited in this way. God has the power to change our nature and orient our hearts/minds toward him to guarantee an authentic relationship without trampling on our personhood. It is from this changed nature that we freely choose to worship him in accordance to our genuine desires. The author lists various verses that back up this idea. An analogy from the book: assume a father is not threatened into loving his child and is free from physical mechanisms that forces him to exhibit love behavior (i.e. a computer chip implanted in the brain). “…if [the father’s] internal telos were so strong that he simply could not bring himself to say “no” to loving his daughter, then is his love rendered null and void? We cannot easily dismiss such love as inauthentic…It is not beyond doubt that a father’s love is inauthentic if his inner telos make it impossible for him to refrain from loving his daughter.” Various logical and philosophical arguments are used to back up this idea. I also realized the Bible never explicitly says that to truly love God one must have the ability to sin. To assume any love resulting from divine action on our hearts cannot count as authentic because love requires the freedom to resist begs the question by assuming the freedom to resist as a necessary condition of true love.

I have some more thoughts but I’ll stop here for now. Where I stand currently is that I don’t know exactly how childbirth on New Earth will work, just that it will work somehow. Based on God’s goodness and power I trust he won’t just do away with something so beautiful. The philosophical and logical problems of God doing away with one of the best blessings we know are more significant in my opinion than the problems we have with figuring out how free will and love will work in eternity. Especially if we can already establish that childbirth will exist for resurrected believers and that a desire/ability to sin is not necessarily required for loving God. If God created us with a desire then he will fulfill that desire. God “mind wiping” us to suddenly not want or derive joy from children (otherwise we’ll suffer from unmet desires for all eternity) isn’t fulfilling that desire.

April 8, 2022 at 8:57 pm

Precepts

Jason,

You are welcome for my answer, and glad it got you thinking in new ways.

We are getting to the point in our discussion where multiple side issues are arising that are not directly related just to children being born for all eternity or not. You have quoted Hebrews 9:27, which reads in the NKJV, “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.” I agree with what you say, that there are a few exceptions, but that this is stated as the general rule for humanity. Some, like those who happen to be alive when the resurrection takes place, will be exceptions to it, but even then, they had an appointment with death like everyone else; it is just that their appointment was broken, whereas with others it was not.

Yet I think to understand my viewpoint of this verse, we would have to discuss coming to a Biblical understanding of the word “judgment.” I find that most Christians have never bothered to come to an understanding of this word the way God uses it. For example, many people have the mistaken idea that God’s judgment is the same as God punishing people. They will say things like, “God’s terrible judgments.” What they don’t really understand is that, Biblically, that is like saying that God has terrible judgment, like you would say about a woman who keeps picking bad men over and over again. God’s judgment is not His punishment. Just a simple reading of the first ten occurrences of the word judgment in the Bible should dispel this foolish idea. Then, the other idea is that God’s judgment is when He takes all people and decides if they are going to heaven or hell and then sends them there. While deciding people’s eternal fate is part of God’s judgment, there is much more to it than that. Yet for some, these two are all the thoughts they can come up with regarding God’s judgment.

When God judges, it is much life if you were to ask me for my judgment on an issue. You would be asking me for my viewpoint on the issue, what I think is right and what I think is wrong regarding it, and how I would deal with the matter if I had power to set things up the way I want them to be. That is much like judgment, though real judgment is not just positing opinions. True judgment is done by those who have the power and authority to determine what the order should be and then to set things in order according to that determination. One with no authority in a matter cannot judge the matter. It is more than an opinion; it moves from that to a policy to enforcement.

When God judges every single person, He will be determining what is proper and right to do with that person. For some, they may have righteousness credited to their account, and they may therefore be granted eternal or Greek aionios life. Others may be judged as wicked in God’s sight. These will receive the death which is the wages of sin. Yet for some who have never had the chance to live beyond the womb, this judgment will act to determine what is right to be done for them. We can only speculate what this judgment will be, and since none of us have the authority to cause our speculations to become reality, none of us can say for certain what the outcome of that judgment will be. Yet that judgment will be to determine what should become of those who never had the chance to be either righteous or wicked. I believe what is done will be fair and right.

I do not believe God’s judgment will be to give the blessings of God’s servants to those who never chose to be His servants at all. Even the landowner who paid those who worked only an hour in his fields the same as those who had worked all day, did not pay those who had never been hired at all. Yet equally unjust is the idea of punishing those who never did any wrong. Would that not be as if God agreed with the tragedy that ended their lives before they had begun in the first place? Yet God’s judgment is capable of more than either of these two extremes, neither of which recommends itself as justice. God is bound by His Own nature to always do what is right. He is not bound, however, by the arbitrary idea many have that there are only two possible choices and one or the other must be completely decided the instant of death. This is neither Biblical nor just.

Now we are also moving into the doctrine of the resurrections, their order and significance. That is a complex topic. You have revealed that you believe I Corinthians 15:42-56, I Thessalonians 4:15-17, and Revelation 20:5-6 are all talking about the same resurrection. I do not believe that is the case. The “first resurrection” of Revelation would be better translated the “former resurrection,” the first of two. The context of Revelation is that the entire book takes place in the “day of the Lord,” Revelation 1:10. There are two resurrections in the day of the Lord, and Revelation 20:5-6 speaks of the former of the two. However, there is a third resurrection that takes place before the day of the Lord ever begins. That is the resurrection set forth in I Corinthians 15:50-56. I Corinthians focuses on the experience of believers in Jesus Christ who are raised at that resurrection. There might well be others who will be raised in the same company of whom the statements of that passage are not true.

As for all being resurrected, the statement of Revelation 20:12, “And I saw the dead, small and great,” is enough to show us that all the dead (small and great, a figure of speech meaning “every last one of them”) are going to be raised. If I am wrong and they are not raised earlier, all those who died in the womb or in infancy must certainly be raised here, when all those who had not been raised earlier will be raised.

You cannot take the blessings promised to Israel for obedience from Leviticus and Deuteronomy and extend them out to all peoples at all times. God entered a special relationship with Israel that He did not and does not have with any other nation on earth. (Deuteronomy 4:7-8, “what nation is there?”) They did not just have blessings promised for obedience, but terrible and blood-curdling punishments promised for disobedience. These things should be kept in the context of Israel’s special, national relationship with God, and the conditions under which they entered the land. Today, there are plenty of good, Godly couples who have no children, and plenty of immoral, promiscuous, and God-ignoring or even hating folks who pop out babies like there is no tomorrow. Just because God promised one people at one time that they would be given children as a blessing for obedience does not mean that He has to make the some promise to all people covering all time. Note as well that the blessing of children does not have to mean you are currently popping them out. My grandfather is dead, but he has children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, and will continue to have them, as many of us believe in Jesus Christ. If Grandpa never has another child, he still will have the blessing of children throughout all eternity. I suppose if the producing of children comes to an end, there is some generation that will have to be the last one and have no children. But they will be the exception; all other generations will have children. God could take care of them with other blessings.

I don’t see why having children for a time and then not having them anymore doesn’t make sense. Most people have children over anywhere from a one (if they have an only child) to a maybe twenty year period, and then they stop. This is a much shorter period than their entire lifespan, and most people live their lives far longer not having children than they do having them. Does this make their child-bearing years not make sense? Childbearing is a phase of marriage in this life. There is no reason to think it cannot be a phase in the next. Again, though, I have no specific teaching on this. I only have pointed out that the having of children throughout all eternity raises some issues and difficulties. I do not know if this means we will not have children for all eternity or not. God in the Bible generally has not dealt with “all eternity,” but only with the few thousand years coming up.

I have basic, fundamental disagreements with the Calvinist viewpoint, including its idea that God changes people to save them entirely against their will, and merely because He picks one and not another. To me this is an entirely unbiblical and erroneous doctrine. The idea that people can love God without a choice matches with the Calvinist philosophy that people are saved without a choice. I reject Calvinist theology altogether. That said, I do admit that you are right that the Bible never states that love requires the freedom to choose. Yet the Bible acts in complete harmony with this idea when God places a choice before our first parents. One must ask the philosophical question, “Why did God put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden in the first place? Why didn’t He just leave it out, and man could have gone on serving Him forever?” This question begs an answer. I think I would completely reject the answer of the Calvinists.

You are making quite the logical jump here! You are assuming that, having had children, one can never be satisfied with the number he has, but must always desire more and more and more. Why should this be the case? Does God “mind wipe” a 70-year-old to not want or derive joy from having children anymore? I think most 70-year-olds do not want to have children, nor do they think it would be very joyful to do so. I do not think the reason is that they have been mind-wiped. One could cease desiring to have children for other reasons than being mind-wiped!

Thanks for speculating about these things with me. I think the important point is we both agree that there is going to be marriage in the life to come. I think we both also agree that there will be the bearing of children in the life to come. Whether or not the bearing of children must continue throughout all eternity or not we do not entirely agree on. That is really a rather minor point, all things considered.

Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

April 3, 2024 at 5:40 pm

World Questioner

The Bible never mentions a separate creation of angels. Check out http://leewoof.org/2015/04/16/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-humans-becoming-angels-after-they-die/, but be cautious when looking at Lee Woofenden’s site and Off The Left Eye YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/@offTheLeftEye), because they are both Swedenborgian, and teach some things that you could call unorthodox.

April 9, 2022 at 10:18 pm

Jason

Hebrews 9:27: Whatever God’s judgment is, if it results in them dying a second time before facing final eternal judgment then it still contradicts the point of people only being destined to die once. It’s true we can’t know everything about how God judges, but there’s no biblical evidence that this judgment will include anything besides eternal life/hell or that there’s multiple other possibilities we’ve never heard about. This appeal to mystery is a big stretch. “He is not bound, however, by the arbitrary idea many have that there are only two possible choices and one or the other must be completely decided the instant of death.” The Bible only presents two possible choices. It’s more consistent to speculate on whether all/some go to heaven/hell and why/how God does this vs. speculating an unknown third, fourth, fifth, etc. option that we can’t really support the existence of. All aborted babies going to heaven does create unanswered questions, but I believe there’s enough biblical evidence that points in that direction so I know it will work somehow even though I don’t understand everything now. Of course, part of this belief is the result of my view on other side issues like hell and the resurrections. Which leads to my next point.

Could you briefly summarize your beliefs on the 3 resurrections? Like a quick what/when/who of each of them, if you don’t mind. I’m not looking to debate the evidence of it right now, just curious what you believe. I’m discussing this topic with someone else who also has different views from me. Didn’t realize this topic was so varied.

Let me elaborate on my “mind wipe” comment. When I say this I’m not just referring to procreating biological children. I’m also referring to the general joy of living in a world where children exist and interacting with the particular personalities, character, and behaviors of children and those much younger than us. Even If I don’t want any more biological children that doesn’t mean I want children in general to stop existing. Things like the sound of children’s laughter at a park, saying hi to the neighborhood kids on their bikes every now and then, your friends’ kids, young relatives, grandchildren, etc. Enjoying works of art/media that include child characters, raising families, parent/child relationship, etc. Multigenerational communities of infants, kids, pre-teens, teens, young adults, and adults (vs. only adults) that continually form on a perfect Earth. The bonds we have with our children as we remember raising them from a baby to adult, watching them grow. Even fondly reminiscing about our own childhood. I don’t think any sane person would see the love of those things as just a phase of life. And deriving joy from these things means we will want to make it happen in reality. But if we’re not allowed to then God has to make us apathetic towards them or make those feelings something we no longer understand (this is especially true for that “last generation” you mentioned who will never have children). The forced removal of these good desires has serious implications on the character of God, our human relationships, and the joys of eternity. Unless you know of a way where we can think positively about those things and also not feel bad about not actually having them.

The loss of such an awesome creation is pretty depressing. I don’t think it’s a minor point. I’ll post more questions/thoughts in the future. You’re one of the few people I know who believes marriage will not be done away with and who also actively responds to comments, so I appreciate that. Not many places where these ideas and their implications can be discussed unfortunately.

May 11, 2022 at 7:38 pm

Precepts

Jason,

I don’t know that I meant to imply that there are more than two options. When you boil it all down, that is correct, and there are two, large, general categories. What I was disagreeing with was more the idea that the final decision as to whether one is in the life category or the death and destruction category is always determined at the instant of death. This seems to me an arbitrary idea that does not come from any direct statement of Scripture. Just because it is appointed unto men once to die and after this the judgment does not mean that the judgment must determine one’s ultimate fate at the instant of death. What if there is not enough information yet to make that determination? Surely there is not enough information in the case of one who dies in infancy or in the womb.

I would argue that the appointment to die once is a current reality, but that does not mean it will be that way forever. For example, we both are agreeing that it is at least potentially true that men will be born in the new heavens and new earth. But can we both agree that it will not be appointed for those men to die once and after this the judgment? If so, when exactly does that appointment end? Matthew 13:41-43 tells us that at the Lord Jesus’ second coming, His messengers remove all things that would cause offense and everyone who does wickedness from His kingdom. That would lead to there being no sin in Christ’s thousand year reign on earth. But if there is no sin, it would seem to go along with that that there will also be no death. Those who live then will have no appointment to die once either. It all depends on when we think this principle of one death and then judgment will come to an end. I believe when God’s kingdom starts, it will interrupt and bring to an end that appointment with death for all who are allowed to remain alive at that time. Therefore, there is no necessity for anyone raised to live in God’s kingdom to die before coming into final judgment at the end of it.

Well, my views on the resurrection are again a sidetrack from our main issue. There are other places on this website where I talk about these things in detail. To summarize, I believe I Corinthians 15:23-24 sets forth three great orders of resurrection to come. The first is called Christ the firstfruits. A careful reading of the passage will reveal that this is an order of resurrection that takes place so that all in Christ will be made alive. While I firmly believe in Christ’s resurrection, I do not believe that Christ personally could be described as an order of resurrection that takes place in Himself. Therefore, this is the first order of resurrection, Christ’s firstfruits, His righteous who will be resurrected into His kingdom. The second order is described as those who are Christ’s at His coming or parousia, the start of the thousand years. These are largely made up of those who were faithful to death during the persecutions of the tribulation period. This is the first resurrection of Revelation. Finally there is the resurrection at the end, which takes place as Revelation calls it at the Great White Throne. The wicked are raised at this resurrection, and relegated to the second death, the lake of fire.

The joy of having and raising children is indeed a wonderful thing. I do not deny that it would be a loss to lose it. Yet I certainly believe that God could offer us other joys if this one comes to an end. I do not know these things for sure. If God does decide we should have children unendingly, then He will take care of the problems. But if He decides that is not the case, it will only be because He has other things for us, probably even better. I cannot grasp all that is coming, by a long shot. I am willing to just wait and see.

Generally, good desires are removed by being fulfilled. For example, desiring to fall in love with a member of the opposite sex is fulfilled when that happens. If we assume, however, wanting children is an ongoing desire that is renewed every time a child grows up, it nevertheless could be fulfilled in other ways. Perhaps God will bring an end to new humans on earth, but maybe He will start other creations where new beings come into existence, and maybe He would allow us to be involved in teaching and training them for the future. I am not saying this is the case, but just that we do not know nearly enough about God’s future to say that things must be one way and one way only.

For now, I certainly do think we will start out in the resurrection having children. Otherwise, the prophecy of Isaiah 54:1 would never come true, “‘Sing, O barren, You who have not borne! Break forth into singing, and cry aloud, You who have not labored with child! For more are the children of the desolate Than the children of the married woman,’ says the Lord.” I believe this is because the desolate will have children in the resurrection, and that, over many centuries, she will have many more children than any one woman ever had in this life. It is enough for me to know that we will have children in the resurrection. I am willing to let whether or not we will continue to do that for all time go until the far-off day when it becomes important.

I do appreciate discussing these things with you as well! Thanks for writing and thinking.

Nathan

May 29, 2022 at 4:22 am

Jason

Thanks for expanding on your answers. I have another question. In https://precepts.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/marriage-in-the-afterlife/#comment-9665 you said the blessings of fruitful wombs promised to Israel in Leviticus and Deuteronomy don’t extend to all believers at all times. Why not?

– Aren’t we all part of Israel now? You don’t have to be of a certain bloodline in order to follow his commands. The blessings that he promised along with obeying are meant for anyone who chooses to be grafted in. God never attaches when/where you’re born as a condition to receiving rewards. It’s always our obedience and faith that’s the only condition. I don’t see how the verses say these blessings are only a “limited time offer” for those lucky enough to be born at a certain time.

– To be consistent we would have to say that the other promises like prospering the works of our hands, cattle, produce of ground (Deut. 30:9) also don’t apply to us. But Isaiah 65:21-22 indicates they do apply. There’s also peace in the land and God dwelling with man (Lev. 26:6-12, which is referenced in 2 Corinthians 6:16 and other passages) which obviously do apply. What makes children the only reward that’s excluded? Throughout the Bible there is a precedent of God associating the blessings of fruitful wombs with his favor and obedience to his law. Since God does not change, why, in a place where everyone has perfect obedience, would he think it’s no longer good to offer this promise?

– All the passages in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel (mentioned in comments above) and Deut. 30 are about us regathered into the land via the resurrection. The promises of children in those verses apply to all resurrected believers, as we both agree. This mirrors the pronouncement of rewards the first time Israel was preparing to enter the land. For example in Jeremiah 32:40-42 the disasters and “good that I am promising them” are referring to Lev. 26 and Deut. 28-30 where the blessings and curses are first listed out. If all believers are included in the second time Israel is reentering, then by default we’re included in the promises given in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Some see this promise fulfilled now in this life but all will experience these promises fulfilled in the next life. How can the new covenant not include a blessing promised in the old covenant if it’s a better covenant (Hebrews 8:6)? This would imply that it’s ultimately better if children didn’t exist in the world, which is a questionable viewpoint.

July 14, 2022 at 6:19 pm

Precepts

Jason,

We are getting to a point now where we are discussing theology that only loosely relates to whether or not there is marriage in the life to come. (I admit it does relate, but, as I said, only loosely.) Therefore, I would prefer not to continue this discussion on this thread, which is dedicated to discussing whether or not there is marriage after the resurrection. I know this has been a very popular article and thread, often read and commented on, and some people subscribe to the thread just to hear the latest we are discussing on the issue, without actually paying much or any attention to the rest of my website. Therefore, I would like to keep this thread focused on task.

I would ask that we start a new article discussing these issues. I will post it as a new article on my blog site, and if you will read that article (which will start with your comments and then present my answer) and comment there on this issue, I would appreciate it. Of course, feel free to continue commenting on marriage in the afterlife on this article and comments thread, as usual.

Thanks,
Nathan

July 31, 2022 at 6:09 pm

Jason

Did you already post the new article? I can’t find it

July 31, 2022 at 9:07 pm

Precepts

Jason,

I have been working on it, but it is turning out to be a rather long article. I will let you know when it is completed, and give you a link to it.

Nathan

August 4, 2022 at 6:46 pm

Precepts

Jason,

I have finished my article dealing with the questions you raised in the reply above. You can read it here:

Promises to Israel

Feel free to read and post a reply.

Thanks for writing!

Nathan

July 3, 2022 at 11:54 pm

Nait S

Wouldn’t Isaiah 54:1 mean that these children are not children of the womb but spiritual children that they lead to in Jesus?

Wouldn’t Isaiah 56:4-5 mean that there will not be childbearing in heaven since the eunuchs will be given a name and place better than sons and daughters?

In 1 Corinthians 7:27-31, it says that a married man should live as if he were not married because the manner of this world will pass away. If you live as if you are not married, that means no sexual intercourse since unmarried people are not allowed to have sexual intercourse. Wouldn’t this mean that sexual intercourse won’t be in heaven?

When it says that our seeds will remain in Isaiah 66:22, isn’t that referring to the believers being the seeds of Abraham as mentioned in Galatians 3:29 rather than the physical reproduction of new people.

If Jesus said that people neither marry nor are given in marriage, doesn’t that mean the woman who the Sadducees were talking about would not marry any of her former husbands nor anyone else in heaven?

And when Jesus said “neither can they die anymore” wouldn’t that mean there would be no marriage because sexual intercourse is not needed since reproduction is not needed because no one will die and there is no need to reproduce?

Wouldn’t Ephesians 5:31-33 mean that sexual intercourse in marriage was created from the beginning as a symbol of Jesus’s relationship to the believers, which means that it was never meant to be permanent even from the beginning? If Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life instead, maybe God would have ended all marriages and reproduction once the earth was fully populated?

September 8, 2022 at 11:27 pm

Precepts

Nait S,

Your explanation of Isaiah 54:1 is not what it means. This is referring to the kingdom of God, when Israel’s “descendants will inherit the nations,
And make the desolate cities inhabited,” verse 3. At this time, the woman who was barren and therefore desolate in the sad conditions of this world will bring forth more children than even the most prolific mother did in Israel’s past. In the context of nations and cities, it is certainly physical inheritance of the land and therefore physical production of children that is meant. No, what you say is not what this verse would mean. There is no word of leading people to faith here. This is talking about children.

Isaiah 56:4-5. For thus says the Lord:
“To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths,
And choose what pleases Me,
And hold fast My covenant,
5. Even to them I will give in My house
And within My walls a place and a name
Better than that of sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
That shall not be cut off.

I do not believe this passage says one way or the other whether or not eunuchs will be given a body with functioning reproductive powers and allowed to have children in the resurrection. It seems to me this is something that clearly will happen, for a resurrection body would not be perfect if it did not have all its power restored, but this passage is not really dealing with that. Usually, a man in Israel would hope for a lasting legacy from the children he would produce. A man who was made a eunuch, like for example Daniel and his friends when they were taken as captives to Babylon, would have no such legacy to hope for. Yet the Lord here promises them a different legacy if they serve Him faithfully: a place and name (reputation) in His temple better than a legacy of sons and daughters. The fact is that a legacy of serving God is better than a legacy of children, for godless fools can have children, but little good will it do them in the end! So the Lord promises the eunuchs the better legacy of being one of those who served and pleased Him.

This legacy would, of course, be open to all who would please and serve Him. He specially holds it out to eunuchs here, those who have no hope of a legacy of children, as being a great consolation for them. But that is not to say that others who did the same thing would not receive the same honor. The point is that this legacy is irrespective of whether or not one had children, and is as open to a eunuch as anyone else. I do not believe not being a eunuch and having children would cut one off from this legacy, and neither do I believe that a eunuch receiving a perfect, resurrection body that will be capable of having children like everyone else will cut him off from this legacy. That doesn’t really make sense. So no, I do not believe what you say is what this means.

I Corinthians 7:27-31. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28. But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.

29. But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, 30. those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, 31. and those who use this world as not misusing it. For the form of this world is passing away.

You need to be far more careful in your reading. Paul is in this section answering a question he received in a letter from the Corinthians, I Corinthians 7:1. This makes it difficult, as we do not have their letter or their question, and so have to try to guess from Paul’s answer what the question must have been. Yet one thing is clear: it did not have anything to do with resurrection life. In verse 26, Paul said, “I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress.” Paul’s advice was related to a present situation in the world of Corinth of nearly two thousand years ago. It had nothing to do with heaven. Paul was telling people in this world to live as though they did not have a wife.

So while you are correct that to live as though you had no marriage partner would mean no sex, since that is the only proper Biblical context for having sex, Paul was talking about them doing that in their present situation, not “in heaven.” Heaven does not come into the passage at all. So no, that is not what that means.

Isaiah 66:22. “For as the new heavens and the new earth
Which I will make shall remain before Me,” says the Lord,
“So shall your descendants and your name remain.”

First of all, the context reveals clearly that this passage is talking about Israel in general, and Jerusalem in particular. This is made clear in verse 8 (Zion), verse 10 (Jerusalem), and verse 20 (Jerusalem). This has particularly to do with the glorious regathering and return to the land of God’s people Israel. The point is that Israel’s descendants who were scattered outside the land are returned. They will come back, the nations leading them as if they were an offering to the Lord.

Galatians 3:29. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This verse is talking about the same thing as He says in Romans 9:6-7. “But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called.’” The fact is that just because one is physically descended from the man Israel, that does not mean one is part of God’s Israel. Paul is revealing that only those Israelites who come to God by faith in Jesus Christ are the true seed to whom God will fulfill the promises. But this does not mean I am Abraham’s seed if I have faith.

What you are suggesting is rather like if I would talk about being a real American. “You need to love your country. You need to be willing to sacrifice for your country. You need to be ready to die for your country, if need be. Only then are you a real American,” I might say. But suppose a citizen of Ukraine heard me say this. He might say to himself, “I love my country. I am willing to sacrifice for my country. I am even willing to die for my country if need be. That must mean I’m a real American!” But he would be wrong. Of course, one has to be an actual, physical American first before one can claim to be the “real American” I described. The same thing is true of being part of the true Israel. One needs to actually be an Israelite first. I am not an Israelite, nor are most of the believers in Jesus Christ I know. Therefore, we are not Abraham’s seed and heirs of the promises made to his seed.

So no, Isaiah 66:22 is talking about the descendants of Israel remaining in the land and never being scattered from it again. It has nothing to do with someone like me who is not a descendant of Israel.

No, the Lord didn’t mean that the woman who the Sadducees were talking about would not marry any of her former husbands nor anyone else in heaven. I discussed this passage and what it means above, and am not about to repeat it. But it does not mean this.

No, when the Lord said “neither can they die anymore,” He meant they can’t die anymore. He didn’t mean there will be no marriage because sexual intercourse is not needed since reproduction is not needed because no one will die and there is no need to reproduce. Marriage was not given for the purpose of reproduction. It was given for the purpose of companionship, because it was not good for Adam to be alone. Reproduction was a secondary aspect commanded after the fact. There being no need for reproduction would not negate the primary cause for marriage. As far as that goes, Adam and Eve were not dying, so according to your logic they didn’t need reproduction either. Reproduction is not just for the purpose of replacing dead people. If that were the case, then why resurrection, since those people were replaced?

I explained above that death is one thing that ends marriage, and that will no longer be a factor in resurrection. Therefore, one could be married and never have a need to get married again. This problem of death ending all marriages would be dealt with.

Ephesians 5:31-33. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33. Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

My friend, I would like to say in all kindness that you really need to practice paying attention to what you are reading and what it is actually saying, and not constantly be reading other things into it that are not there. The Lord is not talking here about the purpose for sexual intercourse. The context of the portion is how a man should treat his wife. The quotation talks about the purpose for the man leaving his father and mother and joining with his wife, not the purpose for sexual intercourse. As far as the symbolism, Paul says he has been using the relationship of a man with his wife as a symbol of Christ’s relationship with the ekklesia (church). But that is just how Paul has been using it in this passage. This does not mean that marriage was created from the beginning just to be a symbol of “Jesus’s relationship to the believers.” You are making a huge leap of logic there.

God tells us in Genesis why He instituted marriage. That is the context and topic of Genesis 2. To go to Ephesians 3 and then imagine another purpose for marriage, when the topic of that passage is not the reason God made marriage, is not the right way to go about finding the truth. The reason God instituted marriage is that He states that it is not good for man to be alone, and this situation could be corrected by providing him a help fitting for him. For this to be “never meant to be permanent even from the beginning,” one would have to demonstrate that God had a plan to change the fundamental nature of man so that it would now be good for him to be alone. This would be far outside the scope of Ephesians 5, and would, I believe, be completely untrue. Man is what God made him to be, and God made him to be in relationship with a fitting partner, the woman.

You are also assuming that the reason God made marriage is for reproduction, but that is not what God says in Genesis. Since marriage was not for the purpose of reproduction, then ending it when the earth is fully populated, whatever that means, would not make sense. The earth being fully populated would not change the fundamental nature of man so that it would now be good for him not to have a fitting partner.

I guess the bottom line is that my answer to all your questions is “no.” Marriage was instituted by God as an important necessity in light of the nature of man whom He created. None of these passages you set forth suggest that the nature of man will change, or that the necessity for partnership based on man’s nature will end. Marriage is God’s plan for humanity, and there is no Biblical reason to think it will not continue after man is raised from the dead.

Nathan

September 19, 2022 at 9:22 pm

Nait S

Hi Nathan,

Romans 9:6-7 is talking about just because you are physically a Jew, it does not mean you are automatically going to heaven because of it. You have to be saved by Jesus in order to go to heaven and it is the people who are saved, gentile or Jews, that are the seeds of Abraham. That’s why Galatians 3:29 says that we have to belong to Christ. To belong to Christ, you must be saved by him, having repented of your sins and believing that he died and rose again for you sins.

Just because marital intercourse and childbearing were originally instituted in the Garden of Eden, it does not mean that it will be in heaven just because it was originally in Eden. There are also other things that will not be in heaven even though they were originally created:

1) The sea will not be in heaven (Revelation 21:1) even though it was created originally (Genesis 1:10).

2) We will be fully clothed in heaven (Revelation 3:5, 3:18, 4:4) even though we were originally naked before sin entered (Genesis 2:25).

So even if God designated Adam and Eve to be a married couple so that Adam would not be alone, Jesus (God) already said that people in heaven do not marry each other.

Sexual intercourse is what distinguishes marriage from other relationships, so no marriage means no sexual intercourse. It is this earthly marriage that is referred to in Ephesians 5:31-33 which is explained as a symbol of our relationship with Jesus in heaven. No, we will not have sexual intercourse with Jesus, because sexual intercourse is only the symbol. But it represents the intimate union that we will have with him for eternity.

The symbols only point to Jesus. That’s why there are no temples in heaven (Revelation 21:22) because the earthly temples are pointing to Jesus. That’s why there are no sacrifices anymore because animal sacrifices were pointing to Jesus (Hebrews 7:27).

Earthly marriage is also only a symbol of Jesus, so it will not be needed or desired in heaven. That’s why Jesus said that we do not marry nor are we given in marriage in heaven. And he said this without making any disctinction between Levirate or non-Levirate marriage. The notion that Levirate marriage was what Jesus was referring to was made up by a Swedenborgian cultist pastor named Lee Woofenden, a false teacher who denies the trinity and the physical fire and eternity of hell, but that is another topic.

Nait S

March 26, 2023 at 10:22 pm

WorldQuestioner

Physical fire and eternity of hell seems unreciprocal, doesn’t it?

Maybe “eye for an eye” only applies to justice done by humans. But eternal conscious torment of hell still seems unreciprocal.

Sent from my iPad

November 10, 2022 at 9:24 pm

Precepts

Nait S,

Romans 9:6-7 argues that God can limit the fulfillment of His promises. Though He promised Abraham that in him all nations of the earth will be blessed, He went on to say that in Isaac his seed would be called. That meant that both Ishmael and the six sons of Keturah, though they were all technically Abraham’s seed, were not a part of that promise. Paul’s conclusion is that, just because you are descended from Isaac and Israel, that does not mean that God must fulfill His promises to Israel to you. Just like His promises to Abraham’s seed were then limited to just Isaac, so His promises to Israel can and are limited to those in Israel who are “in Christ.” God had limited the promise before, and He is able to limit the promise again. Not all who are physically descended from Israel, then, need enjoy the fulfillment of the promises, any more than Ishmael and Keturah’s sons.

Romans 9:6-7, however, certainly does not say that the people who are saved, Gentile or Jews, are the “seeds (sic) of Abraham.” Paul’s argument here is all about people being cut out. It is not about people being added in. That does not come until Romans 11, and the wild olive graft.

I think we would both be in agreement that faith in Christ is necessary to be saved.

I am fully aware of the fact that not everything that was true in the Garden of Eden before the fall will be true in the new heavens and new earth. May I point out to you again, my friend, that you are having trouble seeing what is in front of you when you are reading. Revelation 21:1 introduces “a new heaven and a new earth.” Everything after this statement appears to be about the new earth, not the new heaven. Verse 2 tells about the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven, quite obviously meaning to the new earth. The lack of a sea, then, would clearly apply to the earth, not heaven. Not to mention that the language of Revelation 21 and 22 is highly figurative. No agreement exists among Christians (and perhaps no agreement is possible) as to whether the “sea” here is literal, or figurative for something else. The “sea” certainly can be used figuratively.

While Revelation 4:4 is about the elders in heaven, Revelation 3:5 and 18 is about the “overcomers” on earth during the tribulation period. These are said to live and reign with Christ during the thousand years of His personal presence on earth in Revelation 20:4. This “clothing,” then, would be during that time, and not in heaven, as you claim.

Just because one can prove that not everything in the new earth will be the same as it was before the fall, that does not prove that marriage will not be the same. As I pointed out to you above (and you made no attempt to answer), God declared in Genesis 2 regarding a basic fact about the nature of man: that it was not good for man to be alone. His solution to this undesirable state was the create a helper fitting for him. As I pointed out, it would either require a fundamental change in the nature of man to make it good for him to be alone, or else God admitting that He made a mistake (!), in order for this to change in the resurrection. There is nothing inherent in the nature of man that he must have a sea, or that he must not have clothing. Your arguments are irrelevant to this fact.

Jesus did not say that people in heaven do not marry each other. I argued this in my article above, which you apparently ignored. May I say in all kindness once again, my friend, that you really need to pay more attention to what you are reading. Jesus Christ was talking about marriage in the resurrection. The only time He used the word “heaven” in Matthew 22 was to say that the angels of God are “in heaven.” The same thing is true of Mark 12. In Luke 20, He didn’t use the word “heaven” in the argument at all, but only earlier in the chapter when He was talking about where John’s baptism came from. The point of the passage is about resurrection, not heaven.

I already pointed out to you that Ephesians 5 never says that marriage is a symbol of our relationship with Jesus in heaven. You simply read that into the passage, without trying at all to really read the passage for what it is saying and understand it. You have still not done this.

My friend, of course there is a temple in heaven. It is mentioned most prominently in the book of Revelation, the very book you turned to in order to try to prove it is not there! But the temple in heaven in mentioned in Revelation 11:19, Revelation 14:17, and Revelation 16:17. Your method of searching the Bible to find a proof text for what you believe and then stopping your studies there is really not serving you in good stead. You need to learn to search a bit more thoroughly before making confident statements.

There are no animal sacrifices anymore because the temple on earth was destroyed. Since the temple will clearly be built again in the future (see Revelation 11, for example), I would be a bit more careful before making such confident statements about that, either.

What a lot of things you know about heaven, my friend! One would think you were overflowing with passages proving your point. But your only real point is the passage I was discussing in this article, and you have largely just ignored my points.

While the subject of Lee Woofenden has come up on this comments thread, I had never heard of him before this, and he had nothing to do with the writing of my article above. Nor, you will note, does my argument have anything to do with this only being about Levirate marriage. No, the Lord’s arguments were about the power of God, which the Sadducees were belittling by claiming that God would have no power to dissolve marriage bonds men had forged, and about the resurrection, which the Lord claimed is proven by Scripture.

I am sure it is very horrifying that Lee Woofenden does not believe in the trinity and the physical fire and eternity of hell, but as you say, that is really not the subject of this comments thread. I certainly am no supporter of Swedenborgian ideas. Swedenborg thought Paul was a false teacher, and I view Paul as the greatest New Testament teacher of all (with the exception of Christ Himself, of course). So I certainly have no great liking for Swedenborgian ideas. But if you think to horrify me with this information about Lee Woofenden, think again. I don’t really care what Lee Woofenden thinks. I do care about what the Bible says. And the Bible never says what you claim it says.

Isaiah states most clearly in Isaiah 54:1, “‘Sing, O barren, You who have not borne! Break forth into singing, and cry aloud, You who have not labored with child! For more are the children of the desolate Than the children of the married woman,’ says the Lord.” Isaiah here reveals that the barren woman will have children, and more than the most prolific mothers of today. While he does not say resurrection specifically, if that is not what he means, when else would this be? If you like, you might find Isaiah one who denies the trinity and the physical fire and eternity of hell. I just find him a prophet who teaches the truth.

Nathan

March 16, 2023 at 1:21 am

WorldQuestioner

Nate S, why is there no sea in Heaven? Why did God create a sea in the first place? Does that mean no snorkeling, tide pools, etc.? Would the sea have been eternal had the fall of sin had not occurred? Could there still be large lakes?

Could mouth-to-mouth kisses exist without marriage? It would not have to lead to sex. Could there still be special relationships, even if not marriage? Couldn’t guys have excitement for girls without leading to sex?
On Earth, a man should only sleep with his wife in the same bed, and no one else, not even siblings or mother.
Could a man sleep in the same bed with a woman in Heaven? I mean literally, sleeping in the same bed at the same time, not intercourse or sexual touch.
Is there a limit as to what God can restore? Let Nait S answer that.
Did part of God’s original plan fail?
Why doesn’t God just make heaven what it would have been if the fall of sin had not occurred?

March 16, 2023 at 1:22 am

WorldQuestioner

Nathan,

Lee Woofenden is a false teacher. I’m not falling for any more false teachers. If I mentioned his other claims I might be off-topic.

April 6, 2023 at 9:59 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

I know you were talking to Nait S, not me. I think we are in agreement that Nait S is not correct in his viewpoint. I do not think kisses without sex or sleeping in bed without sex is necessary in the resurrection, since I think both marriage and sex will be present in the resurrection. The Bible seems to indicate that, at least among the typical, poor Israelite, a family only had one bed, and both the parents and children slept in it, Luke 11:7. Therefore does that mean the parents had sex while the children were with them in bed? That seems very undesirable to us, but might just have been the way things were to them. I would not recommend it in our society.

As for Lee Woofenden, I certainly would not suggest believing false teachers. He apparently is an Swedenborgian, and as I said I do not agree with that. Yet if I refused to believe anything that someone who also holds other, objectionable ideas happens to hold, I don’t think I could end up believing anything. It doesn’t matter to me if Lee Woofenden or anyone else agrees with me about marriage in the resurrection. I think the Bible teaches it, and so I believe it. If someone chooses to agree with me about this one thing and yet disagrees with me about many others, that’s fine with me. He is free to do so. But I don’t know if Lee Woofenden really agrees with me. He seems perhaps to have backed off on this position anyway.

Nathan

May 31, 2023 at 6:26 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

My reply to Nait S regarding Lee Woofenden not believing in the physical fire and eternity of hell, “I am sure it is very horrifying,” was meant rather tongue-in-cheek. Not, again, that I support Swedenborg’s teachings. But Nait S seems to be interested in “guilt by association” and making this idea be all about Lee Woofenden and what he believes, rather than about the issue as it stands and what the Bible says about it.

You bring up a great point that it does not seem to be truly reciprocal for God to torment people for all eternity for sins committed in the short life we live in this world. Yet as I said to Nait S (and I was not being tongue-in-cheek), that is not the topic of this thread. I have dealt with this issue in my “Fate of the Wicked” category. That would be a better place to discuss this. You can find it here:

https://precepts.wordpress.com/category/fate-of-the-wicked/

Thanks for the comment!
Nathan

July 25, 2022 at 5:51 pm

WorldQuestioner

I believe that Heaven will go beyond sex!
Ever heard people ask “How far is too far?” Sex is the farthest a couple can go on Earth. Maybe Heaven will go even farther than sex!

October 20, 2022 at 8:07 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

Now you are just speculating totally! Of course, one can do that, but it has no solid basis or foundation. I will content myself with supporting the truth that marriage and sex will continue in the resurrection life to come. Our love, including for a marriage partner, will be far greater then than it is now, as we come to know as we are known. For now, that is far enough for me. 🙂

Nathan

November 26, 2022 at 12:46 am

Nait S

Malachi 2:15 says the purpose of marriage is to bring Godly offspring which means sexual intercourse is involved.

So when Jesus said men and women do not marry or remain married in heaven, it means no sexual intercourse and no childbearing.

December 7, 2022 at 8:50 pm

Precepts

Nait S,

What a lot of places you turn to in order to find the purpose of marriage, besides the place where God instituted marriage and told us why He did it! Why is it that God’s plain statements in this regard, made in Genesis 2, are so unacceptable to you? The fact is that you approach the question “why did God institute marriage?” with the answer: “to produce children” already the one you have decided must be true. Then, you look to the Bible to find a place that supports your predetermined answer. Since the place the Bible actually tells us why God instituted marriage does not fit the answer you have already decided must be right, you ransack the rest of the Bible to try to find some passage you can latch on to that will make it appear that the answer you have already chosen is correct. This is not the way to approach Bible study, my friend, or the way to truly learn from what God has said.

Malachi 2:15 reads:
But did He not make them one,
Having a remnant of the Spirit?
And why one?
He seeks godly offspring.
Therefore take heed to your spirit,
And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.

The context reveals that this passage is not so much about marriage, as it is about divorce, as reading on to the following verse clearly shows.

16. “For the Lord God of Israel says
That He hates divorce,
For it covers one’s garment with violence,”
Says the Lord of hosts.
“Therefore take heed to your spirit,
That you do not deal treacherously.”

The point of Malachi 2:15 is not why marriage was instituted, but why God made only one partner for Adam. When the LORD God noticed the problem, “It is not good that man should be alone;” He proposed the solution, “I will make him a helper comparable to him.” Why “a helper” and not “some helpers”? Why only two genders? Or, with only two genders, why not two, three, or four wives for Adam? Why only one? Malachi tells us why one: because He seeks Godly offspring. This applies to polygamy, but it also certainly applies to divorce, as Malachi applies it. For a man to abandon the wife of his youth and her children will tend to lead to their moral degradation. There is no hard and fast rule, of course. Children of intact families can go bad, and children of broken families can follow the narrow path. Yet the fact is that a healthy, intact family is the best incubator for Godly offspring, and that is why the Lord God tells us here He chose to give Adam one partner. Anything that disrupts that, whether it be polygamy or divorce, circumvents that intention.

May I ask you, Nait, if God instituted marriage and sexual intercourse because He sought Godly offspring, how would Him not instituting marriage and sex have led to ungodly offspring? How would ungodly offspring have been produced by no marriage and no sex?

My friend, you are once again showing your sloppy disregard for what is actually stated in Scripture. Christ said nothing about not remaining married in the resurrection. He was talking about marrying and giving in marriage. Giving in marriage does not mean remaining married.

Nathan

March 16, 2023 at 1:23 am

WorldQuestioner

What about a step up from marriage and sexuality?

March 16, 2023 at 1:27 am

WorldQuestioner

The Bible does not mean what you claims he means in the second last paragraph. Godly offspring was his intention, but sometimes the marriage can lead to ungodly offspring which is not his intention. And the Bible doesn’t mean that ungodly offspring would result if there was no marraige; it only means no offspring would result, godly or ungodly.
It wouldn’t be fair if only those who got married on Earth would continue to be married, because that mean that those who missed marriage on Earth (such as disabled people) wouldn’t get a chance. They’d be left out. I’m sure God is all-powerful that he would be able to compensate for what people missed on Earth, like children and grandchildren.

April 6, 2023 at 10:08 pm

Precepts

WorldQuestioner,

I do not think marriage and sexuality needs a step up. What is needed is people who are sinless participating in it. Both men and women are fallen. This affected both the male and the female in various ways, some of them related to the perspective and weaknesses of each respective sex. These things are not as they should be. When we are cleansed and given our new, sinless bodies, we will see masculinity and femininity purified and acting as they ought to act and being as they were meant to be. We will also see people who learn to love with God-type, agape love that sacrifices oneself for the one loved. This is all that will be needed to give marriage a step up. No other step up is necessary.

The point I was trying to make to Nait S is that his claims about this verse make no sense. I believe God meant that He made Adam ONE partner rather than MANY partners because He sought a Godly seed. A family unit of one man who is their father and one woman who is their mother is the best, safest, most secure incubator for mature, well-adjusted children. It does not guarantee it in this fallen world, of course. But it makes it much more likely than any other situation. Divorce destroys the situation God created in seeking to produce a Godly seed. Children of divorce are less likely to be Godly. They could be, of course, but they are less likely. That is the point of that verse in Malachi. Yet Nait S was trying to twist that to say that the verse means that God made marriage to produce children and for no other reason. He refuses to believe God’s plain and simple statements revealing why He created marriage given in Genesis 2 when He actually created it.

Thanks for writing. Keep studying the Word!

Nathan

March 5, 2023 at 9:28 pm

Jason

Hi Nathan. Awhile ago you said in https://precepts.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/marriage-in-the-afterlife/#comment-9501 “If we realize that the return to Israel is largely the return of resurrected individuals, then the fact that they are multiplying and increasing in the land indicates the procreation of resurrected people”

Some people say the prophecy of returning to the land is fulfilled in stages over time. The return from Babylonian captivity and the formation of 1948 Israel were partial fulfillments with the final stage/ultimate fulfillment being after the second coming. Thus, the blessings of procreation have already been met during this age and in the next age there will be no marriage and procreation. How would you respond to this? To me it seems like these prophecies are fulfilled all at once. Either it is or isn’t and can’t be “kind of fulfilled”. Though I’m not sure how to defend that exactly.

March 30, 2023 at 8:54 pm

Precepts

Jason,

People can claim whatever they like if they don’t bother to look for Biblical justification for their claims. Yet when we look at the actual prophecies of Scripture, they do not support a partial fulfillment of Israel returning to the land. Ezekiel 37:1-14, for example, which I referenced in the comment you mentioned above, presents a picture of God bringing “the whole house of Israel” out of their graves to return them to their land. There can be no partial fulfillment of the whole house of Israel being brought out of their graves. Either they are brought out of their graves or they are not. There was no bringing out of graves at the return from the Babylonian captivity. Those who died in Babylon, stayed in Babylon. And there certainly was no bringing out of graves in 1948. Only living Jews were involved in that.

More great prophecies of Israel’s return can be found in many other places. For example, Hosea 2:14-23 and Ezekiel 20:33-44. These passages present no picture that could possibly fit with a partial fulfillment. Either these passages are fulfilled as written, or they are the merest fiction and imagination of the prophet who wrote them. The return talked about is not by some action of the United Nations, or by the grace of a certain king of Babylon. This return is by the power of the LORD. He starts it, He continues it, and He finishes it. Nothing but His power will bring about the final, ultimate return. Nothing remotely like this has yet taken place.

I agree with you that these prophecies must be fulfilled all at once. How would God partially raise someone from the grave? Can we expect disembodied limbs to go floating into Israel while the rest remain in the graves? Of course that is ludicrous. Has any of Israel been brought under the bond of the covenant? Has He met with any of them in the wilderness face to face in order to bring them back into the land? These are events that will happen and cannot happen partially. Though many claim it did, the 1948 return fulfilled nothing actually predicted in Scripture. If that is not true true, then point to the passage. No one can actually do so.

Thanks for writing. Keep studying the Word!
Nathan

December 4, 2023 at 9:58 pm

World Questioner

What do you think of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbq2kVu2vF8 (Is There Companionship In Heaven & Marriage On The New Earth?!) and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmS6bGAMhM (Eternal Companionship is FOREVER!! Heavenly Places!! Portal Of God!!) by Prophets Among Us? The channel makes claims of the pre-existence of souls. The uploader calls himself Moses Ben David, and claims to have been Raphael before coming to Earth. Isn’t Raphael also the name of a non-canonical angel from the Book of Tobit? I asked the so-called Moses Ben David if he is Mormon or a Latter-Day Saint, but he denies it.

February 1, 2024 at 11:43 pm

Precepts

World Questioner,

In the first video you linked, he quoted a passage that is speaking of wisdom, that it was with God before He made the earth, and uses that to claim that all humans preexisted before they were born. This is a foolish misuse and twisting of Scripture. We are not the same thing as wisdom. The Bible teaches no such thing as our preexistence.

He also uses a dream to support his ideas about an eternal companion. It is important for us today not to rely on dreams and visions, but on the Word of God. The only book that mentions dreams in the New Testament is the gospel of Matthew, which is the gospel presenting Christ as King of Israel, and is especially associated with Israel. Today, our instructions are given in Colossians 2:18-19.

18. Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19. and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.

We need to hold fast to the head, Christ, and not to dreams and visions, or even imagined former angels. It is the Word of God that reveals truth to us today, not prophets among us.

That said, I think the Word of God teaches consistently with marriage in resurrection life. The idea that there is no marriage in resurrection life seems to come out of Platonic ideas adapted to Christianity in the early church. It is inconsistent with the Bible’s actual teaching.

Thanks for writing.

Nathan

Marriage in the Afterlife

Links

Scripture Index (pdf)

Categories

239 comments

Leave a reply to Collin Cook Cancel reply

Marriage in the Afterlife

Share this:

Related

Links

Scripture Index (pdf)

Categories

239 comments

Leave a reply to Collin Cook Cancel reply