Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those who were forced by circumstances to remain single all their lives might beg to differ with you. And that raises a second question: are those who failed at getting married in this life never to experience the joys of "two flesh becoming one" for eternity?
Someone speculates in a blog that there's a reason Jesus used "in the resurrection" instead of "in the next life" or "in the afterlife". Clearly, according to common belief, upon death we immediately enter into heaven to be with God and all the dearly departed. Perhaps before the resurrection we are busy getting paired up by God with our proper soulmates and entering into a married state and then "in the resurrection" we are all already married so there is no need for marriage by this time, thereby validating Jesus' words that "In the resurrection they do not marry".
Glad we are back on topic, but I doubt whether that works. If they are already married at resurrection so they don't need to be married (again) in heaven, to which of the former husbands will the woman be married?
You see, the sense is that marriage was permitted (never mind that he made woman to be man's companion and such partnership was never questioned until Paul, really suggested that it was better that people did not marry because the end days were coming and total purity was probably better.
This is what is behind the passage about marriage in the resurrection. whether this had been raised in debates or not, the answer was that in heaven at the resurrection there will be no need for marriage. By implication, no sex urges, like the angels.
There are answers to those questions from both the believing and unbelieving side. But it's not for me to tell you what they are. These matters are too deep and too fraught for a bod in the street like me to presume to give guidance. The individual has to work it out for themselves.
Christianity is based on Jesus, who he was, what he said and what he did. If he is not the Son of God and did not resurrect, then Christianity collapses. And the only record we have of what Jesus did, said and was is in the gospels. If enough doubt can be shed on them that we can say with some confidence :'This cannot be true'. then we are half way to seeing the case for Christianity collapsing.
I think people are beginning to realize thanks to the efforts of scholars like Bart Ehrman that the scriptures, particularly the gospels, while obviously flawed, sometimes to a stunning degree, nevertheless contain enough credibility and authenticity with regards to the most fundamental tenants of Christian faith to be relied on for our salvation--namely Jesus was a real person, the Son of God, He performed miracles, he was crucified for our sins, died, rose and ascended. Truthfully in the long run that's all we need get out of the gospels. The rest, as I said in another post, is just grist for debate like this particular verse. In my opinion, for reasons pointed out by myself and others, this business of marriage in the afterlife is NOT decided by just one verse that is grossly misunderstood/misinterpreted or even possibly been tampered with.
Also, I believe that there is enough evidence to suppose that Peter's "The restitution of all things" will include EVERYTHING that was in effect before the fall because God declared it all to be VERY GOOD and God does not just throw away or dispose of things that He declares to be VERY GOOD. That means in eternity we will not be in heaven, we will be on the new earth in a state similar to Adam and Eve. That would involve corporeal albeit glorified bodies that look exactly like Adam Eve's did before the fall, which likely were eternal until they sinned. It is like that ate from the Tree of Life to sustain their bodies because God did not forbid them to eat from it. They likely would have lived eternally having children in a "joined", not "married" relationship and they and their progeny would never have died if they had not sinned. I believe that the scriptures are pretty clear that that is the state we will return to. Fundies cannot wrap their brains around this concept. They have been programmed by their Fundamentalist Corporate Church leaders to blindly believe that we will be spirits sitting on clouds playing harps throughout eternity and so any suggestions that goes against the grain is automatically condemned as heresy without the slightest reasoning or thought process on their parts. Sad, but true.
People who wish to explore this topic further should check out the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg, an 18th century-mystic who wrote extensively on the state of marriage in the afterlife. It'd be easy to dismiss him as a crackpot were it not for the fact he knew about the Great Fire of Stockholm hours after started when news took 3-4 days to travel to where he was located when the fire broke out.
Quote:
On Saturday, July 19, 1759 a great and well-documented fire broke out in Stockholm, Sweden. In the high and increasing wind it spread very fast, consuming about 300 houses and making 2000 people homeless. When the fire broke out Swedenborg was at a dinner with friends in Gothenburg, about 400 km from Stockholm. He became agitated and told the party at six o'clock that there was a fire in Stockholm, that it had consumed his neighbor’s home and was threatening his own. Two hours later, he exclaimed with relief that the fire had stopped three doors from his home. In the excitement following his report, word even reached the ears of the provincial governor, who summoned Swedenborg that same evening and asked for a detailed recounting.
At that time, it took two to three days for news from Stockholm to reach Gothenburg by courier, so that is the shortest duration in which the news of the fire could reach Gothenburg. The first messenger from Stockholm with news of the fire was from the Board of Trade who arrived Monday evening. The second messenger was a royal courier, who arrived on Tuesday. Both of these reports confirmed every statement to the precise hour that Swedenborg first expressed the information. The accounts are fully described in Bergquist, pp. 312–313 and in Chapter 31 of The Swedenborg Epic.
It seems unlikely in the extreme that the many witnesses to Swedenborg’s distress during the fire, and his immediate report of it to the provincial governor would have left room for doubt in the public eye of Swedenborg’s report. Indeed, if Swedenborg had only received news of the fire by the normal methods there would have been no issue of psychic perception recorded for history. .
In a second fire anecdote, similar to the first one, but less cited, is the incident of the mill owner Bolander. Swedenborg warned him, again abruptly, of an incipient fire in one of his mills.
I personaly think that the gospels are so flawed that they have no credibility whatsoever. But that is another discussion. In relation to the topic, what would be your answer to the question of which of the men she was married to would the woman be joined with in heaven? And doesn't the fact that Jesus apparently disagrees with this view bother your?
This thread is running out of steam so I will say this in summation:
What Arequipa said is true: there is a great mystery at work here and for humans it is unfathomable. Only God knows how it all fits together. Jesus said that God will always give His children a loaf and yet most Christians get handed a stone. Jesus said our Father would give His children a fish and yet most of us get handed a serpent (if you're in a hellish marriage you know EXACTLY what that means). It appears that either Jesus was wrong, or the Bible has been mistranslated or added to, or God truly maintains a distance from His children until they die and enter into His presence. People, even atheists, who have NDE's say they were met by a Light that displayed the greatest love they could ever imagine. Go figure.
My own personal belief is that in this world God observes the law of natural before the laws of supernatural. Life, to me, is a giant game of craps. We roll the dice. A few lucky ones, Christian and non- come up boxcars. The rest of us come up snake-eyes (crap out in the parlance). That means that just as many good devout Christians get cancer, suffer horribly and die a gruesome death as non-believers; just as many good devout Christians who cry out to God in their loneliness for a mate die alone and unloved (actually probably more, judging from the stats I have been studying--non-Christians seem to have happier, healthier marriages than devout, God-fearing Christians. Again, go figure).
God set a natural cycle in motion at the fall of Adam. We all get the same chance, whether we're Buddhist Hindu, Moslem or, yes, Christian. I don't see Christians as a whole doing any better than anyone else in this world and in most cases I see them doing worse. Occasionally you hear a Christian exclaiming, "God cured me. Praise the Lord" but statistics show that just as many atheists have spontaneous remissions of disease. The point is that being Christian doesn't put you at an advantage in this world, and likely puts you at a greater disadvantage---think of all the dumb Christians who bought into the prosperity gospel who are now dirt-poor. Think if every Christian had a happy beautiful marriage for the world to see, then everyone would be flocking to Christianity, but for all the wrong reasons. God knows this and I believe this is why he makes the sun to shine on non-believers and the rain to fall on believers. It is part of God testing our faith and seeing if we will hang in there with Him for the long haul rather than dumping Him for this temporary life of pleasures when the going gets tough.
In the end He is glorified both ways. Praise be to God.
I just love being ignored. Tell me... was my post so logical that it simply couldn't be refuted or what?
Then the question stands - to which of the former husbands would the woman be married? If all bets were off and she could marry anyone she liked, Jesus should have said so. Instead, he said to the Sadducees - that is the context - that in the resurrection (and it makes no difference whether it was a resurrection to a new earthly life as the pharisees believed or a heavenly life as the Gentile Christians believed) there would be no marriage because everyone would be like the angels - the implication being that there would be no sex.
I don't know that we need to prove that Jesus never said that in the resurrection there is no marriage." I think that we need, instead, to understand His statement in the context in which He made it. I believe that the verse you mentioned is among the most universally misunderstood of any in the New Testament. At first glance, it does appear to be saying that marriage does not survive the grave. But for those willing to look a little deeper, there are some significant clues which imply that the truth is a bit more involved. Matthew, Mark and Luke all relate this same conversation, but with some slightly different details, so I'm quoting all three of them.
Matthew 22:23-31 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mark 12:18-25 “Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.”
Luke 20:27-36: “Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”
I would also post the entire text of John 17, because it is very important to an accurate understanding of these passages on marriage, but I don't want to clutter my post up with any more scriptures than I already have. Interested readers may, however, wish to review that chapter themselves. Anyway, here are my thoughts on the subject:
1. We need, as always, to be aware of who Jesus’ audience was. In this instance, He was speaking to the Sadducees. What do we know about the Sadducees? First of all, they didn’t believe in a resurrection at all. In asking a question of this sort, do you honestly think they were looking for the truth? Or do you think that, as on many other occasions, they were simply trying to stump Jesus by asking a question that would cause Him to have to contradict something He’d previously taught. (It's also likely that the subject of marriages enduring beyond the grave had been mentioned before. At least this question seems to be hinting that it had.) At any rate, it’s entirely logical to assume that Jesus, knowing their hearts as perfectly as He did, would have given them an answer that, while entirely honest, would pertain to them specifically. In teaching a truly receptive audience, His answer would likely have reflected His concern with their genuine interest in knowing.
2. John 17 (which I referred to earlier) makes frequent use of the phrases “of the world” and “not of the world.” These phrases are, in fact, used so many times that it’s almost impossible to brush them off as inconsequential. In the prayer recorded in this chapter, Jesus made a clear distinction between His followers, in other words, those individuals who, like Him, were “not of this world,” and those who rejected Him, thereby falling into the group who were “of the world.”
In Luke’s account of this event, Jesus once again uses the phrase, “ofthe world.” Jesus was telling the Sadducees, who were obviously “children ofthe world” what they could expect in the next life. Because they were not His followers, they would not receive the blessings of eternal marriage, but would instead be as angels. Jesus did not explain to them the blessings that the children “not ofthis world” would receive. Why should He have done? They would have believed Him to exactly the same extent that they believed they would be resurrected.
3. Looking at Mark’s account, we see another important indication of what Jesus really meant. Here, Jesus is recorded as having said, “Ye know not the power of God.” What on earth could He have meant by that? The power of God to do what – un-marry someone? In the context of His statement, He could only have meant that the Sadducees did not understand that God has the power to unite a husband and wife forever. Without such power, death would certainly end the marriage covenant, but with it, the covenant is eternal. Jesus gave Peter the keys to bind in heaven that which he would bind on earth. Having that authority, he would be able to exercise the power of God to make the marriage relationship endure. We know from the Old Testament that “whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever.” When Peter received the keys to the kingdom of God, he received the power of God to do something that would have eternal significance. A marriage performed by someone not holding that power would endure only under one or the other partner died.
4. Finally, it is significant that Jesus never did say that no one would bemarried in Heaven. He merely said that no one would getmarried in Heaven. There is a difference between these two things. The Greek word translated as “marry” is “gamosin,” the third-person form of the verb “gameo,” which means “to enter into the marriage state or to get married.” The term “gamizonai” (“giving in marriage”) is another way of saying the same thing. But, He never used the word, “gemesas,” (as is found in 1 Corinthians 7:33) to describe “a married person.” He never said that there will be no married individuals in Heaven; He only said that marriages won’t be performed there. And I believe this to be the case.
(I know, I know... It's just the LDS perspective. Consider the source. )
I apologize, katzpur. Somehow your post got by me and I have not been here recently as the thread went off on a gigantic digression is is usually the case. I will make a lengthy answer when I get back. I am going out now for the day.
Originally Posted by Katzpur
I don't know that we need to prove that Jesus never said that in the resurrection there is no marriage." I think that we need, instead, to understand His statement in the context in which He made it. I believe that the verse you mentioned is among the most universally misunderstood of any in the New Testament. At first glance, it does appear to be saying that marriage does not survive the grave. But for those willing to look a little deeper, there are some significant clues which imply that the truth is a bit more involved. Matthew, Mark and Luke all relate this same conversation, but with some slightly different details, so I'm quoting all three of them.
Matthew 22:23-31 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mark 12:18-25 “Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.”
Luke 20:27-36: “Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.”
I would also post the entire text of John 17, because it is very important to an accurate understanding of these passages on marriage, but I don't want to clutter my post up with any more scriptures than I already have. Interested readers may, however, wish to review that chapter themselves. Anyway, here are my thoughts on the subject:
1. We need, as always, to be aware of who Jesus’ audience was. In this instance, He was speaking to the Sadducees. What do we know about the Sadducees? First of all, they didn’t believe in a resurrection at all. In asking a question of this sort, do you honestly think they were looking for the truth? Or do you think that, as on many other occasions, they were simply trying to stump Jesus by asking a question that would cause Him to have to contradict something He’d previously taught. (It's also likely that the subject of marriages enduring beyond the grave had been mentioned before. At least this question seems to be hinting that it had.) At any rate, it’s entirely logical to assume that Jesus, knowing their hearts as perfectly as He did, would have given them an answer that, while entirely honest, would pertain to them specifically. In teaching a truly receptive audience, His answer would likely have reflected His concern with their genuine interest in knowing.
2. John 17 (which I referred to earlier) makes frequent use of the phrases “of the world” and “not of the world.” These phrases are, in fact, used so many times that it’s almost impossible to brush them off as inconsequential. In the prayer recorded in this chapter, Jesus made a clear distinction between His followers, in other words, those individuals who, like Him, were “not of this world,” and those who rejected Him, thereby falling into the group who were “of the world.”
In Luke’s account of this event, Jesus once again uses the phrase, “of the world.” Jesus was telling the Sadducees, who were obviously “children of the world” what they could expect in the next life. Because they were not His followers, they would not receive the blessings of eternal marriage, but would instead be as angels. Jesus did not explain to them the blessings that the children “not of this world” would receive. Why should He have done? They would have believed Him to exactly the same extent that they believed they would be resurrected.
3. Looking at Mark’s account, we see another important indication of what Jesus really meant. Here, Jesus is recorded as having said, “Ye know not the power of God.” What on earth could He have meant by that? The power of God to do what – un-marry someone? In the context of His statement, He could only have meant that the Sadducees did not understand that God has the power to unite a husband and wife forever. Without such power, death would certainly end the marriage covenant, but with it, the covenant is eternal. Jesus gave Peter the keys to bind in heaven that which he would bind on earth. Having that authority, he would be able to exercise the power of God to make the marriage relationship endure. We know from the Old Testament that “whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever.” When Peter received the keys to the kingdom of God, he received the power of God to do something that would have eternal significance. A marriage performed by someone not holding that power would endure only under one or the other partner died.
4. Finally, it is significant that Jesus never did say that no one would be married in Heaven. He merely said that no one would get married in Heaven. There is a difference between these two things. The Greek word translated as “marry” is “gamosin,” the third-person form of the verb “gameo,” which means “to enter into the marriage state or to get married.” The term “gamizonai” (“giving in marriage”) is another way of saying the same thing. But, He never used the word, “gemesas,” (as is found in 1 Corinthians 7:33) to describe “a married person.” He never said that there will be no married individuals in Heaven; He only said that marriages won’t be performed there. And I believe this to be the case.
(I know, I know... It's just the LDS perspective. Consider the source. )
Let's look at someone's perspective of this thorny issue:
Quote:
Dual intercourse would mean something more specific than universal charity. It would be special communion with the sexually complementary; something a man can have only with a woman and a woman only with a man. We are made complete by such union. The souls in heaven must still take on the aspects of male and female to make spiritual merging and the ecstasy of merging with another compatible soul joyful and glorious
There is no marriage in heaven just like Jesus told us, it just makes no sense.
The relationship need not be confined to one in Heaven, monogamy is for earthly union.
I think there must be some special ``kindred souls'' in Heaven that we are designed to feel a special sexual/ heavenly love for. That would be the Heavenly solution to the earthly riddle of why in the world John falls for Mary, of all people, and not for Jane, and why romantic lovers feel their love is fated, "in the stars'', “made in Heaven''.
No mere animal drive explains it. No animal falls in love, writes profound romantic poetry, or sees sex as a symbol of the ultimate meaning of life, sexuality is a foretaste of that self-giving, that losing and finding the self in another being.. That is what we long for; that is why we tremble to stand outside ourselves in the other, to give our whole selves, body and soul: because we are images of God who like us is a sexual being.
We love the other sex because God loves us.
We can endure and rejoice in the of eternal spiritual sexual union with any soul mate we desire in the afterlife..
I am sure in heaven we who have not found our real soul mate while on earth, will find this special being in the afterlife.
This person's thoughts answers a lot of questions about why Jesus says there is no marriage in the resurrection. But Jesus doesn't say we won't have soulmates, or a special person we love more deeply than our other companions. Fundamentalists make the leap in logic that if there's no marriage, then there's no romance and that's just plain wrong. The two are not connected. Fundamentalists then assume that since there is no marriage there's no need for romance; we will all love each other like brothers and sisters. Nowhere does Jesus imply this. Fundamentalists then go even further and state as if they have Biblical authority on their side (just this single verse (HA!) Matt.22:30 and corresponding verses in Mark and Luke) that if there's no marriage and therefore no romantic love, then it stands to reason there's no gender; we'll all be androgenous--neutered beings wandering around heaven for all eternity looking for our lost identities, since it is our gender as men and women that defines our identities. Where they get this stuff I have no idea, except it must come from centuries-old legends concocted by scribes out of the Dark Ages. Jesus was 100% male after His resurrection and Paul says we will be like Him. That must mean men will still be men in heaven and women, women. Again, all this nonsense of no romance, no sex gender, everyone agape loving is just pure fundamentalist claptrap that has absolutely no proof in scripture.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
