Thread by @travisdon1981

Does the #Bible teach that there will be no #romantic #love or #future #children in the #Resurrection?

Um, #NO, and here is why.

To say that Jesus had many enemies during his earthly ministry is a huge understatement. Though some pharisees were friendly to him (John 3:1-21), most despised him, challenging him and even plotted to kill him (Matt 12:14). One of their main issues with Christ was his refusal to

follow their oral tradition (Matt 15:1-9, Mark 7:1-13). Indeed, Jesus criticized the Pharisees’ over this very tradition. He pointed out their real problem; making the oral law on par with scripture. They had basically added to the Word of God.
The Sadducees had the opposite

problem.
Like the Samaritans, they only held to the Torah, the 5 books of Moses. They did not recognize the rest of the Hebrew Bible as scripture. Along with this, they had several heretical views, such as believing there was no afterlife, that angels didn’t exist and that there

would be no future resurrection. This put them at odds with Jesus, who taught all three things were a reality.

One day, while Jesus was in Jerusalem, the Sadducees posed a question to Christ in Luke 20:27-33;

“Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to

Jesus with a question. “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. Now there were seven brothers. The first one married a woman and died childless.

The second and then the third married her, and in the same way the seven died, leaving no children. Finally, the woman died too. Now then, at the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”
The Sadducees tried to get Christ with a “gotcha” question

designed to make the idea of a future resurrection absurd. However, Jesus turned it around on them:

“Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the

dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection. But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord

‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

Jesus just laid the #Smackdown!

It’s funny that the text later states that “no one dared to ask him any more questions.” (verse 40).

Jesus destroyed their objections to both the afterlife and a future resurrection…but at the same time, he said something that is troubling to some.

In the future age, when the physical resurrection comes, there will be no marriage (the troubling part) as well as no more death

(the not so troubling part), for we will be like angels.

Why is that?

This is even more puzzling when some translations link both of these concepts together, such as the ESV’s rendering of Luke 20:35-36;

“but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the

resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”

Now, what does immortality have to do with marriage?

Well, if one studies ancient Jewish culture, the text becomes (at least at a first reading) far clearer.

You see, ancient Jews believed that angels didn’t marry. There was a reason for that; since they were immortal (both everlasting and indestructible), they didn’t have to

marry and procreate. There was also a belief that God now and again created new angels, thus they didn’t have to breed to increase their numbers (though not all Jews had the latter belief). Thus, if one follows this train of thought, Jesus is comparing this ageless, immortal

state of angels with the resurrected bodies of the future; in both cases, resurrected humans and angels are immortal, and thus don’t procreate.

Now, this is a puzzling idea, especially to modern readers who share a similar belief about the souls of those who have passed on.

I don’t know of anyone who believes that human spirits can procreate. Indeed, the ancients would have no doubt held this same view. And yet, according to this reading of the passage, this state of being will continue even after our bodies are resurrected in the future.

So…are we going to have a future heaven void of romance between men and women? Will pregnant women be as extinct as the dinosaurs? Will we no longer have the joy of seeing a newborn smile at us, of helping a new child walk for the first time, helping her or him ride a bike

for the first time or train them how to properly worship the Lord? Will we never see couples in loving bliss seeking the blessing of the Lord in heaven, or seeking his blessing for a new child?

This may see to be so, if we read the passage in this light.
However, there are some problems with this view:

1. Matthew and Mark’s records of this event paint a very different picture.

This is how Matthew 22:29-30 renders Jesus’ statement about how the resurrected would be like the angels:

“Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they

will be like the angels in heaven.”

Now let’s look at Mark 12:24-25’s rendering:

“Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels

in heaven.”

Notice something different?

Jesus doesn’t just say “angels”.
He says “angels in heaven.”

We have to remember that the Gospels were the testimonies of eyewitnesses, and often the testimonies of eyewitnesses will differ. This doesn’t make them wrong; its simply stating what happened from different vantage points. In order to better understand what really happened, you

need to compare their accounts.

For example, the plaque that was put on Jesus’ Cross is said to have had “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews” written on it, according to Matt 27:37. In Mark 15:26, the plaque reads “The King of the Jews”. In Luke 23:38, it states “This is the

King of the Jews”. In John 19:19, the plaque reads “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews”. At first, this sounds like a series of contradictions, but if you look very closely, you can actually combine them all to see what the original plaque reading was:

“This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”

Likewise, we can see these different renderings of Jesus’ statement about the resurrection to get an idea of what he had originally said, and 2 out of 3 times the Gospels record this event, angels “of heaven” is used.

Now, if Jesus was simply trying to get the idea over that resurrected humans will be ageless and thus neither marry nor have children, why not just compare the future resurrected bodies with the souls in the afterlife that would one day inhabit them? Aren’t human souls, like the

future resurrected bodies, immortal and indestructible? Sounds like it would have been an easy flow of thought. True, the Sadducees didn’t believe in the immortality of the soul, but they didn’t believe in angels either, and Jesus still used them to drive his point home.

Also, if Jesus was simply trying to get the idea over that resurrected humans will be ageless and thus neither marry nor have children, why didn’t he just use “angels” and be done with it? Why use “angels in heaven? After all, fallen angels are likewise immortal, and they don’t

therefore marry and or are given into marriage, right?

Actually…wrong.

Keep reading.

2. Sometimes, cultural norms of the time don't fully agree with the Bible.

Studying the cultural and historical background of the Bible is a must, if you want to understand it more fully. In order to understand the word, you need to understand the world it was written in.

Sometimes, cultural beliefs of the time can fill in the gaps when it comes to understanding scripture. It’s also serves as a good learning tool when the culture and the Bible it was written in differ. For example, the creation account of Genesis is FAR, FAR different from

creation accounts of the ancient near east, most of which involve battles and or duels. In the Babylonian creation myth, for example, Marduk, the chief god, engages the great sea dragon #Tiamat in a duel reminiscent of David and Goliath. Like David, Marduk slays his much larger

foe. Afterwards, he uses her corpse to create the universe. However, God is not only the only God in Genesis, not only is he creating without fighting a sea monster, he indeed makes sea monsters, who are peaceful parts of his creation, not his rivals (Genesis 1:21).

Likewise, while Jews in Jesus’ day believed that Hell, aka the Lake of Fire, was located inside Hades (the abode of the dead, see Josephus’ Discourse on Hades), the Book of Revelation says that Hades will one day be thrown into the Lake of Fire (Rev 20:14), implying that its

not located inside Hades (if it was, the passage would make about as much sense as saying that someone will be thrown into their own stomach!).

Likewise, we need to always be able to spot where the culture of the time and the Bible differ, which can deeply enrich our understanding of the word of God.

And we’re about to see where they differ again:

Um, you better sit down…

2. Some angels were believed by human culture to have married women and had children by them!

In Genesis 6:1-4, it records the story of how the “Sons of God” and “Daughters of Men” married and produced Nephilim, giant sons who became warriors of renown (Numbers 13:33 indicates that they were indeed vast, and ancient linguistic evidence also indicates this).

Now, some have tried to pass off the “Sons of God” as either descendants of Seth (a Son of Adam and Eve, born after the murder of Abel) who went after Cainite women (Descended from Cain. The “Daughters of Men”), or great kings who had the hots for peasant women. However, there is

one GIANT problem with this.

How can righteous people marrying wicked people (Sethite men and Cainite women) or kings marrying peasants…produce only giant offspring? How could such unions have a tendency to sire mighty heroes of old? Doesn’t make sense, unless we imagine that the Sethites and Cainites, or

the kings and peasant women, were from different species, and thus gave rise to hybrids who had gigantism (like what happens when lions and tigers breed, producing enormous Ligers).

However, this story makes a lot more sense if the Sons of God were actually…angels.

Indeed, while some humans have been labeled “Son of God (Adam, see Luke 3:38), the exact Hebrew phrase “Bene Elohim” (which is translated in Genesis as “Sons of God”) is never used for humans in

the Bible. It is only used for angels. Indeed, this was not only the oldest Jewish interpretation of the passage, it’s the consensus view among Christian theologians today. This interpretation was prevalent in the ancient world, and found its way into the New Testament. 2 Peter

2:4-6 speaks of God judging angels who sinned, then the flood, then the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which fits chronologically with the way the stories of the Sons of God, the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah appear in the scriptures. Indeed, both judgments of the Sons of God and

Noah were usually linked together in the ancient world, because they were both found in Genesis 6. In Jude 6-7, it speaks first of angels who “did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling”, and then “in a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the

surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.” This is linking the sin of Sodom to that of the angels; a sexual sin. This is also an unusual parallel; in Genesis 6, angels seek to have sex with humans, while in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, humans

(the people of Sodom) unwittingly seek to have sex with angels (Gen 19:1-5). This is reinforced by the fact that Jude quotes the book of Enoch (an extra-biblical book that deals heavily with the subject of the sons of god and the giant Nephilim) in verses 14-15. Thus, ancient

Hebrews recognized that fallen angels had indeed married and bred with mortal women. No one knows how this occurred (perhaps the angels possessed human men and then married human women, but we don’t know for sure), but they recognized that it happened.

And yet…they also believed that angels, due to being immortal…didn’t marry or breed

This is a cognitive disconnect in ancient Jewish culture, and it was not unique in this regard. The Declaration of Independence states “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”. And yet…men in power in America denied chattel slaves those very rights, denied that they were indeed equal. Likewise, there are many people who condemn domestic violence and believe that those guilty of it

should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and yet there are many within that group that, when seeing domestic violence across the street, will shrug it off saying “It’s none of my business.” Likewise, like pro-life folks, pro-choice individuals think it is alright for

anyone who doesn’t have kids to condemn child abuse, and also okay for someone who doesn’t have a pet to condemn animal abuse. But if a pro-life guy condemns abortion, pro-choice advocates may say “If you can’t get pregnant you don’t have a say!” (I’ve seen some say this about

pro-life women who are infertile). Those same pro-choice individuals have no problem, however, with pro-choice men having their say on the subject. These conflicting beliefs among ancient Jews reflects a similar cultural contradiction. The only way to reconcile the two is to say

that angels can procreate with humans and not with each other (possible, but there is no evidence that ancient Jews thought this way), or that the angels in Genesis 6 were doing aberrant behavior (which is true, but it still doesn’t change the fact that they did marry and indeed

procreated, passing on something unnatural to their offspring).

Given this, is it any wonder why Jesus clarified, saying “angels in heaven”?

And since he did so, it may indicate that something more than immortality-thus-no-procreation idea was at play here.

BTW: you better sit down again...

3. Angels do have a sexual side.

This is a no-brainer. How can we say otherwise, when angels in Genesis 6 had the hots for human women? In order to have feelings of lust and attraction to human women implies that they already had the capability to have such sexual feelings. Remember, it wasn’t their attraction

to women that got them into hot water; it was the illicit unions that followed, which were a violation of the natural order (the same reason why God condemns bestiality (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Deuteronomy 27:21). Indeed, while most depictions of angels are male, two were

depicted as #female (Zechariah 5:9).

If they have sexual feelings, then why can’t resurrected humans?

Folks, heaven is going to be beyond perfect. Even if men and women didn’t have romantic feelings for each other again, even if we didn’t enjoy a newborn child ever again, we would be with the King of Creation for all eternity, breathing his essence, bathing in his light,

discovering more and more about his nature and mysterious reality. But the fact is, there is NO (repeat: NO)evidence that we won’t have the same feelings for each other in the future age, NO evidence that men and women will lose the love that they have for each other when they

rise into the heavens, NO evidence that married couples who have passed on won’t embrace in heaven with the force of their earthly bond. Indeed, perhaps we will have newborns when the new age comes. Perhaps God will now and again create new humans, just as some ancient Jews

believed that he now and again created new angels. Perhaps he’ll have women get pregnant with them and have them. Perhaps we will hold new sons and daughters in our arms, be there for them when they say their first words, teaching them how to ride a bike, teaching them the ways

of God. Perhaps a new ceremony will replace marriage, even.

Why not?

“The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament” by Craig S Keener, 106, 168-69, 217, 245, 728-29, 754
“Archeological Study Bible” (NIV), 215, 1529, 1533, 1600
“Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible” (NIV), 1656-57, 1716, 1790-91, 2191, 2213-15.
“ESV Study Bible”, 1869-70

“The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary; The Five Books of Moses” by Robert Alter, 25
“Nelson’s Super Value Series: Josephus: the Complete Works”, Translated by William Whiston, A.M., 974-76.
google.com/books/edition/…
(Above from “Knowing the Facts About Angels” by John

Ankerberg and John Weldon.)
“Origins: The Ancient Impact and Modern Implications of Genesis 1-11” by Paul Copan and Douglas Jacoby, 146-49

@threadreaderapp unroll