Recently, on a Reformed email list, some pastors were trying to get around Jesus’s words that in the Resurrection, we will be like the angels, neither marrying nor being given in marriage. Some were questioning whether this was a “good” thing. Others wondered if His words meant that we will be like the angels in their lack of genitalia. Never one to really talk on email lists, I held my thoughts, and I thought I’d just log them here. The following relies heavily on Hank Hanegraff’s book “Resurrection.”
First off, we have to realize that sex isn’t something we do. We like to think of sex as an action. We like to think sex is the intermingling of genitals. We are like lost puzzle pieces until we get married and two bodies fit together. Finally! We are complete!
I think this way of thinking does a real disservice to single people. They just roam around the world as that puzzle piece that just doesn’t fit with another piece, family, or church. This really has to stop.
As much as I love marriage, it’s helped me appreciate singleness. As much as I love sex, it’s helped me realize I can live without it. Before I was married, I thought sex was this thing I had to do. Now I realize that I was believing a lie.
Sex isn’t something you do. It’s who you are. Peter Kreeft says it better than I can.
Suppose you saw a book with the title “The Sexual Life of a Nun.” You would probably assume it was a scurrilous, gossipy sort of story about tunnels connecting convents and monasteries, clandestine rendezvous behind the high altar, and masking a pregnancy as a tumor. but it is a perfectly proper title: all nuns have a sexual life. They are women, not men…In everything she does her essence plays a part, and her sex is as much a part of her essence as her age, her race, and her sense of humor.
As Hanegraff says, commenting on this passage, “A nun has sex because she is female, not because she had a fling.” We trivialize sex when we think of it as something we do instead of who we are.
Will there be sex in the Resurrection? Without a doubt, yes. However, it will be beyond our mere physical senses. It will be metaphysical. As wonderful as psychosomatic union is, it will be greater thing that we have in the Resurrection. It is but a pale shadow of what we have ahead. C.S. Lewis explains it wonderfully,
I think our present outlook might be like that of a small boy who, on being told that the sexual act was the highest bodily pleasure should immediately ask whether you ate chocolates at the same time. On receiving the answer “No,” he might regard the absence of chocolates as the chief characteristic of sexuality. In vain you wouldexplain the reason why lovers in their carnal raptures don’t bother about chocolates is that they have something better to think of. The boy knows chocolate: he does not know the positive thing that excludes it. We are in the same position. We know the sexual life; we do not know, except in glimpses, the other thing which, in Heaven, will leave no room for it.
May 26th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
Ooo, racy post, but good. I wish I was smart like you.
May 26th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
Rachel and I just had a conversation where she told me she didn’t want me to read books because I’d get smart, and I said “Heaven forbid that happen.” Her reply, “But then you’ll be BORING.”
May 27th, 2005 at 12:51 am
LOL, that’s why *I* don’t read books! Much knowledge brings much sorrow…or something.
May 27th, 2005 at 6:53 am
Just a quick “hi!” - you must have enjoyed the Regent College library …
May 27th, 2005 at 9:54 am
Ha. Not as much as the bookstore.
May 27th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
very well said!
May 28th, 2005 at 2:20 pm
I don’t mind the no-s.e.x. part so much as the idea that my relationship with my wife will be crowded out by relationships with other christians. That’s how I’ve sometimes heard it described. My “marriage” with my wife will cease, in some sense, which is the one thing I do worry about sometimes (insofar as I “worry” about heaven, which isn’t the right word, I guess). I just want to believe she and I will still be together - and specifically, we’ll be together in some way that is different from my “being together” with other people.
Funny. I had to respell s.e.x. so I could get this post to work.
May 29th, 2005 at 9:45 pm
Though single and never married, I’ve thought along similar lines to what I think Scott is saying. I “worry” that once we’re in heaven the one person who meant the most to me and was part of my life and mine alone everyday will act as if I’m just another of her friends, no more significant than anyone else in heaven. God will be the focus of those in heaven, but if there are times where the saints mingle and talk I’d be rather jealous if my wife spends most of her time talking to St. Peter and other people more than me.
May 31st, 2005 at 12:19 pm
Except that we’re not supposed to even be able to know selfish jealousy in that sense, and her “mingling” will be completely sinless, just as yours will be. Isn’t that type of thing unfathomable???? I have no idea what any of that will be like, much less not being one with my wife only (except for being one in Christ - to add that bit of pietism). I think, Rick, that your Lewis quote was VERY neat to contemplate. Adrienne and I talked about it a good bit of our trip to Little Rock. Thanks!
Oh, and it’s timely considering our frequent dealings with these Mormon missionaries who gave us a video called “Families Together Forever.”
May 31st, 2005 at 6:35 pm
It’s thinking along these lines, though, that makes me wonder if we understand Christ’s response to the Saducee. The Saducee, after all, didn’t believe in the resurrection, and his question was probably not a genuine one. I suspect he was trying to trap Christ by presenting him with some sort of seemingly logical impossibility involving a woman with multiple husbands. I figure that Christ is clearly indicting the Saducee when he tells him that the REsurrection is only for the living, which I take means the Saducee is dead or will not enter that world and so the question is sort of a moot point. But I also wonder if there is something lost, culturally, in even the first part of Christ’s discussion about the new heavens and the new earth and how matrimony fits there. My tendency, at this point, is to hold out some hope that the unique oneness that a married couple has will exist in heaven. Like I said, the s.e.x. part isn’t so much the biggest deal as that I hope Paige and me will still live together, sleep together, hold hands, laugh together. And furthermore, all of the intimacy we share there will have some continuity with romantic love experienced here. My hope, in other words, is that romantic love will exist in heaven between married couples, even though I recognize the problem this creates when a woman has multiple spouses due to deaths.
May 31st, 2005 at 6:48 pm
Well, in eternity, now matter how much time you spend with other people, you’ll still have an infinite amount of time to spend with the person who was once your spouse.
June 1st, 2005 at 11:53 am
I don’t know what list you speak of, nor the pastors, but honestly your words are hardly charitable in presenting them as “trying to get around Jesus’ words” and I doubt that they were debating whether Christ said something “good”, obviously no one will argue that.
But to consider whether Christ’s words can be taken literally here, something that shouldn’t be taken for granted considering, as Scott mentions above, the audience. Christ hardly ever gave straight answers to the Pharisees, so it’s a legitimate question as to whether or not there is no s*xual act in heaven.
I don’t go one way or the other on the question, but I don’t think your post satisfies the inquiry. For one, your word game over what “s*x” means only works in English. What the debate is over isn’t, will we have gender in heaven, but whether there will be coitus there.
Your defense of singlehood is admirable, but, I think, not necessary when you understand that they are part of the flesh, the body, of the Church and we are made one flesh with Christ. What I’m concerned with is your degredation of s*x (not the gender, but the act), because the fundemental metaphor for Christianity is a s*xual one. It is important to remember that this cannot be individualized, but is true for the church as a whole.
To believe that we are in the new heavens and new earth now presumes that there will be similarities between the world as it is now and its glorified state. We don’t know how this will look, but we do know that it will be better than how it is now, as your CS Lewis quote aptly explains.
One quick question: where do we get the knowledge that angels have no genetalia?
Jim Jordan made an interesting comment the other week when he was here; he was discussing the Hebraic system of brothers as protectors of their sisters, both in choosing their husbands and protecting their purity, showing also that the highest status a wife can have is that of sister (consider the Song and sister language throughout Genesis). His remark was this is a clue to our relationships in Glory.
June 1st, 2005 at 11:54 am
Also, please inform your filter that my content was not questionable.
June 1st, 2005 at 8:49 pm
True, in a way, though at any given point in time, I can only be in one place with one person or group of persons. So even in heaven, there’ll be some scarcity dimension to my time. While I want to see everyone, I still like the idea that I’m spending most of time during the waking hours with Paige and the kids.
Also to echo Remy - where do we learn the angels don’t have genitalia? Jesus seems to assume that, in the way he asks it, but that’s the only place with which I’m familar that addresses it. Are there extra-biblical talks about the private lives and parts of angels that he might be referring to?
June 1st, 2005 at 8:53 pm
That previous paragraph was a response to Joel’s statement that in heaven, no matter how much time I spend with others, I’ll still have an infinite amount of time to spend with my wife. The HTML didn’t take, for some reason. I also was intending to say that it’s not so much the quantity time of time that I was referring to, but the quality of the time spent with one’s spouse. Is heaven a collevitist type of place where all people are valued equally and without preference, or will their be unique valued friendships, romantic love with one’s spouse, etc.? That’s mainly what I was wondering about.
June 3rd, 2005 at 7:33 pm
Remy,
First, I wasn’t trying to be uncharitable. My use of “getting around Jesus’s words” was only to say that they interpreted the passage in a certain way and they were trying to get around their own interpretation.
Second, about angel genitalia, I was only referring to their thoughts, not my own. I haven’t really thought too much on the subject.
As far as coitus in the Resurrection, I don’t know. And I do think it’s legitimate to ask the question. However, I haven’t seen any great argument for it; the arguments against are better, but only because ignorance falls their way.
However, I think the question really misses the mark when it comes to whether or not God is good in this regard.
Finally, I didn’t know I had a filter. Questionable content is always welcome
Thanks for your post, and I’ll try to get to the other stuff when I have time. As it is, I’ve only hit the comp for a little bit about twice a week.
June 5th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
Remy,
Charitably or not, you assert that Rick’s “word game over what ’s*x’ means only works in English.” At the risk of seeming pedantic, I don’t see Rick employing a “word game,” nor do I think any “word game” whatsoever is involved. Consulting any English dictionary confirms that “s*x” first means something physiological; only secondarily (or quinarily) does it mean “s*xual intercourse.” In fact, when most people say things like “gender-segregated” (ahem), what they should technically say is “s*x-segretated.”
“Gender” is about s*xual identity, which can be very subjective, hence the ever increasing number of genders. Several years ago,
But in English, “s*x” is first and foremost about physiology, and that’s no “word game.”
June 5th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
Remy,
On further relection, I see that there was no risk involved - my comment *was* pedantic. You conceded that the “word game” does work in English. My only point is that I don’t think Rick is employing a play on the word; he’s using the word correctly.
June 5th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
My old literature professor used to talk about the possibility of a variety of genders, which while distinct from biology, was not completely divorced from it. I think it was his marxist background which led him to think that having simply two genders was the work of a patriarchical culture which broke the world into binaries in order to oppress a class. I have always just dismissed the whole debate over gender, as a result, as it seemed to me primarily politically motivated. That being said, I see the point Rick’s making, but I guess I still think it’s obvious that X is talking more than merely identity here.
June 9th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
I imagine that in the resurrection relationships with others will be even more qualitatively differentiated than they are now. One’s relationship with one’s onetime spouse (or spouses, in light of things like second marriages) will be qualitatively different and likely of higher value.
But having an infinite amount of time will change things some, don’t you think? Isn’t at least part of the desire to cling to our loved ones at present due to the limited amount of time we have to spend with them?
June 9th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
I don’t know if an infinite amount of time necessarily would change things, but you could be right. I don’t really have a sense of how time functions in eternity, but I suppose it’s like here, only with no end. As such, you’re still going to allocate your time, and I wouldn’t be surprised if even in heaven some people are introverted and prefer staying inside with their loved ones while others are enjoying themselves socially. While I’m sure I’ll have many many relationships, and new ones at that, I could also imagine that this differs for each person depending on personality and their social connectedness. I guess what I’m saying is that even with infinite time, it doesn’t completely get rid of the scarcity of time since at any given point in time you can only be in one place. So, every minute or hour or day I’m with someone else are minutes and hours and days I can’t spend with my wife. I’m not sure what the importance of that is, if any, though.
December 23rd, 2005 at 6:46 pm
Okay…. why do people insist on taking the Bible so literally word for word? Maybe people have never realized that we live in a much different culture. Well, Jesus never says anything about no marriage in heaven. He was speaking about the Mosaic Law and the question of inheritance. This law is the Law of the Levirate/brother-in-law, which was for the raising up of children to produce an heir for the deceased husband. What Jesus DID SAY is that there is no more death, for people will be deathless like the angels and sinless like the angels. He was not speaking of sacramental/covenantal marriage as such. Come on, why do people not see this?
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Interesting read.. Perhaps it will just be like the Garden of eden again. Heaven 2 genders, all will love the Lord with all our heart, soul, spirit and mind. Love everyone else as ourselves.. what is thought and discussed would probably not be the same as where we are in this world today.
God bless all.