How are we as Christians to interpret Matthew 22:23:32 In heaven there will be no marriage

Faith & Science Conversation
,
81

I prefer the comparison with a womb. Few plants ever leave the greenhouse but all leave the womb. I also think the restrictions of our physical existence is much like the restrictions of womb – a needed protection while we develop and ready ourselves for a more vast reality.

Ahhh, I see. I see little difference in that from the nonexistence believed in by the atheists. Neither of these frighten me personally. But I think they are just too good to be true – an easy escape which lacks justice. I believe in the promise of eternal life in a parent-child relationship with an infinite God where there is no end to what He has to give and no end to what we can receive from Him. That is less peaceful and even worrisome because it means there is no escape from the consequences of what we choose and do.

82

Unlike some others in this thread, I do believe that Jesus was talking about the nature of the afterlife.

What is the nature of the afterlife? It is based on the resurrection of Jesus and his bodily nature - a cosmic body according to Saint Paul. (91 Corinthians 15).

In regard to “no marriage in the afterlife”, let me design a multiple-choice question, to which others may respond by inserting more choices.

There is no marriage in the afterlife because:

  1. There will be free love. (Yeah man, free love.)
  2. Union will take place by means of a “mind-meld”. (Spock knew it all along.)
  3. All of the above.
  4. None of the above.

Seriously though, sexuality and marriage exist primarily for the reproduction of the species and the raising of offspring in a secure relationship. If there is no death, who needs to procreate? Furthermore, the desire to procreate comes from the biological imperatives that come part and parcel of our material bodies. If we have “cosmic” bodies in the afterlife, who knows what they will drive us to do, or not do.

1 Like
83

John 4:24 God is spirit
Hebrews 1:14 The angels are ministering spirits
1 Cor 15:44 sown a physical body raised a spiritual body

It is the same Greek word in all three cases… (though one is singular: pneuma, one is plural: pneumata, one is adjective: pneumatikon). So Paul says our resurrection (like Jesus) is a bodily resurrection but to a spiritual body – body of the same stuff of heaven, like God and the angels – very real and very powerful, more rather than less than what we have now.

1 Cor 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven.

84

I believe the first word refers to becoming pregnant. The ancient Hebrews did not have our same concept of what conception was (like our idea of “the moment of conception”), but they understood men impregnated women and a child grew inside. They thought of it in terms of planting a seed that grew in the fertile soil of the womb and used lots of plant metaphors to talk about reproduction and descendents (seed, branch, root, etc.)

The second word is usually used to mean “gave birth to” but can be used in passive forms like “was born to him.”

On Bible hub you can click on the word and see all the occurences of that particular form and related forms.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/3-16.htm

I also have heard people talk about how the verbs in the verse could refer to the whole endeavor of raising a family, but that sounds like a stretch to me personally. I think it’s often coming from inerrantists who don’t really want the narrative to be offering an ancient explanation for why women have pain in childbirth. They have some presumptions about how the curse needs to be understood to fit with their theology and approach to Scripture.

1 Like
85

@adamjedgar , I know it’s a busy time, but I see you have been active with other threads. I’m looking forward to your answers to the questions I repeated and added in this post:

1 Like
86

Kendel…you have not correctly selected NIV in your biblehub translation when referencing pain in childbirth.

I reference the correct Bible Hub translation again. its very clear it says "I will make your pains in childbirth very severe (and just to help put perspective on it…i have also include a heap of other translations of the text.

People who focus on nitpicking always get their doctrines wrong. You have to look at the overall context of these kinds of passages with other references in the bible where comparisons are made with childbirth and pains. When one makes these kinds of comparisons, it is very clear that after the fall, the pain of childbirth was a significant factor in the consequences applied to mankind as a result of disobedience and sin. The world changed, we changed…lost of things became a painful process. The mere fact that the ground would produce weeds and tares should be enough to help one understand the point of what sin meant for childbirth from that day forward.

See all the references to Genesis 3:6 below (its pretty obvious what the universal meaning is to be honest. Only those who don’t believe in YEC would have issue with my doctrine and that is because they cannot accept that prior to the fall of man, there was no death in this world. That is biblical, but not if you refuse to read what Moses wrote literally because you cannot accept that humanism and its interpretation of science is wrong here)

New International Version
To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

New Living Translation
Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”

English Standard Version
To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

Berean Standard Bible
To the woman He said: “I will sharply increase your pain in childbirth; in pain you will bring forth children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

King James Bible
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

New King James Version
To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”

New American Standard Bible
To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall deliver children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”

NASB 1995
To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”

NASB 1977
To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”

Amplified Bible
To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth; In pain you will give birth to children; Yet your desire and longing will be for your husband, And he will rule [with authority] over you and be responsible for you.”

Christian Standard Bible
He said to the woman: I will intensify your labor pains; you will bear children with painful effort. Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will rule over you.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
He said to the woman: I will intensify your labor pains; you will bear children in anguish. Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will rule over you.

American Standard Version
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And he said to the woman, “I shall increase and multiply your diseases and your pregnancies; in sorrow you will bear children, and unto your husband you will turn, and he will be authorized over you.”

Brenton Septuagint Translation
And to the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pains and thy groanings; in pain thou shalt bring forth children, and thy submission shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Contemporary English Version
Then the LORD God said to the woman, “You will suffer terribly when you give birth. But you will still desire your husband, and he will rule over you.”

Douay-Rheims Bible
To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

Good News Translation
And he said to the woman, “I will increase your trouble in pregnancy and your pain in giving birth. In spite of this, you will still have desire for your husband, yet you will be subject to him.”

International Standard Version
He told the woman, "I’ll greatly increase the pain of your labor during childbirth. It will be painful for you to bear children, “since your trust is turning toward your husband, and he will dominate you.”

JPS Tanakh 1917
Unto the woman He said: ‘I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.’

Literal Standard Version
To the woman He said, “Multiplying I multiply your sorrow and your conception; you will bear children in sorrow, and your desire [is] toward your Man [[or husband]], and He [[or he]] will rule over you.”

New American Bible
To the woman he said: I will intensify your toil in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.

NET Bible
To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your labor pains; with pain you will give birth to children. You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.”

New Revised Standard Version
To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

New Heart English Bible
And to the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you will bring forth children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

World English Bible
To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. In pain you will bring forth children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

Young’s Literal Translation
Unto the woman He said, ‘Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband is thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.’

87

Actually, I correctly selected the printed NIV on my desk. The version I’d been using since I was in elementary school.
Is there a YEC-approved NIV I need to prefer? I now use the ESV as that’s what my conservative, nearly all YEC church switched to about 10 years ago.

Maybe. I neither know nor care.
YEC cut its wrists and bled out right there in front of me in 1983 or 1984, when Henry Morris falsely, straw-manly characterized evolution teleologically. I wasn’t looking for YEC, and when it found me, I could tell it was lying. I was done before I began. It could have been a mormon or JW missionary on my front porch. I politely shut that door, until they came knocking again with a vengence.

Nitpicking is an interesting term to apply to me. Always tricky to make points about detailed things without pointing to details of all kinds.

Fortunately for me, I am someone who forgets details nearly as quickly as they have helped me put together a broader picture which may or may not be accurate. I am reminded constantly by others who are exquisitely detail-oriented, that details really matter quite a lot.

In my own undetailed fashion, I’ve referred largely to simple, biblical truths in Hebrews, which you haven’t addressed:

And finally, in spite of your confessed revulsion for Mormonism, you have not explained how your belief in procreation in heaven is supported biblically. I have never heard of this idea as part of any Christian doctrine, even from the most patriarchal, male-dominated churches I’m familiar with. Only from Mormons. If that is the case, not even other YECs accept your “doctrine.”
In order to support this view, you need to do more than try to convince me that the fate you illustrate for me is desirable in some way.
The entire proof, no skipping steps.

3 Likes
88

YEC, while not an insurmountable obstacle to salvation, seems to have acquired a culture of intolerance, lack of charity and spite that is second to none. Obviously not a complete hindrance as so many good Christians come out of that background. It seems that while nonYEC can extend grace to those still in the grips of that mindset, the opposite is rare if it exists at all. It is hard to see what there is to recommend a theology which does not support a state of grace in the lives of those who embrace it.

3 Likes
89

Well, generalizations are dangerous, as I have friends who are YEC, ID, and progressive old earth creationists who give me grace, though some admittedly consider evolutionists as being at the outskirts of the village. As in any group, however, the most strident and outspoken voices do tend to be among the rigid cancel culture practitioners.

2 Likes
90

there is very good reason for this…mostly in society, we move from less advanced to more advanced way of life. Convenience seems to correlate with modernism.Unfortunately, so does corruption.

So, fundamentalists (or those who tend to lean a bit that way at least) recognise that liberalism goes along with the tendency to explain away important traditions. When it comes to religious belief, that paves the way for interpretations of the scriptures that in all honesty are wrong!

You cannot explain away the reading of the 10 commandments for example. They are very specific in wording (thou shalt not kill, not commit adultery, honour thy father and mother, keep the seventh day holy).

When we look at other biblical guidance, as an example… it is pretty obvious what sexual immorality in the Bible is referring to. One cannot really explain that away…consequently, most of those who do not live their love life according to the bible model leave any kind of religious faith. They know what they are doing is wrong (despite liberalists attempting to tell them otherwise).

So when the more conservative leaning individuals get on these forums, we (as I am somewhat conservative) tend to demand adhearance to the old ways when it comes to biblical theology. That should come as no surprise as the latter parts of the bible reflect the old testament on this. For example, the Book of Revelation directly addresses this issue when it says that God will spew luke warm out of his mouth. Being neither hot nor cold is unacceptable! That is talking directly about commitment to biblical theology and doctrine. Its pretty simple to figure out where one should align on such things…look at the old testament examples of what immorality is! Jesus didn’t change any of that.

When Jesus said “it is finished” on the Cross, he was not throwing away Gods eternal moral law (10 commandments). He was talking about the fulfillment of the sacrificial system in the sanctuary. The metaphor (if you like) that the sacrifice of sheep and goats pointed to had now been achieved. Man was saved by a perfect lamb as outlined in Genesis 3. It had nothing to do with throwing out adhearance to the law. Revelation makes this very clear when it defines the patience of the saints…“those who keep the commandments AND have the faith of Jesus” (its both)

Back to the O.P…
i do lend some credibility to the idea that no marriage in heaven is a population control thing. Trouble is, I vagely recall somewhere where the bible makes reference to children being born in heaven (or on the new earth).

Perhaps I remember incorrectly…however if my memory is right, then that seems to be a rather contradictory statement if there will be no marriage. Especially given God has specifically told us that sex outside of marriage is evil. So I would argue bearing children outside of marriage in heaven would be hugely problematic theology(again that is if my memory serves me correctly…i might be mistaken. I will search for this text I thought I read recently)

UPDATE…found it.

Isaiah 65:17-25

17 For behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.f
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I create;
for I will create Jerusalem to be a joy
and its people to be a delight.
19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem
and take delight in My people.
The sounds of weeping and crying
will no longer be heard in her.
20 No longer will a nursing infant live but a few days,
or an old man fail to live out his years.
For the youth will die at a hundred years,
and he who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.
21 They will build houses and dwell in them;
they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 No longer will they build houses for others to inhabit,
nor plant for others to eat.
For as is the lifetime of a tree,
so will be the days of My people,
and My chosen ones will fully enjoy
the work of their hands.
23 They will not labor in vain
or bear children doomed to disaster;
for they will be a people blessed by the LORD—
they and their descendants with them.
24 Even before they call, I will answer,
and while they are still speaking, I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but the food of the serpentg will be dust.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all My holy mountain,”

1 Like
91

I’ve never considered those verses in that context. It seems Isaiah is talking about a new creation, but perhaps something a little different that we see the New Jeruselem. In these verses, he states a youth that dies before 100 will be considered accursed, and old men still die. So, death still reigns, and youths still die? Somehow, I think something else is going on here.

3 Likes
92

It is interesting.
To shed some light on what Isaiah is referring to…the bibles often title this passage in Isaiah 65 “A New Heavens and A New Earth”.

It is also usually cross-referenced in Bible concordances with Revelation 21. When John wrote Revelation 21, he was clearly quoting Isaiah 65 in describing what he saw in his vision.

1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth,a for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

I don’t think anything else is going on in Isaiah 65 (or Revelation 21). When things appear to get somewhat contradictory with other biblical passages, such as Jesus stating the the Sadducees “don’t you know there will be no giving in marriage in heaven”, we then need to go looking at other bible texts to try to understand why Jesus said this to the Sadducees.

Now I haven’t studied this at length yet, but perhaps the reason Jesus seemed at odds with Isaiah’s prophecy when He [Jesus] had a go at the Sadduccees about marriage in heaven, was because their version of marriage was probably so twisted and, given that sect of the Jewish leadership were so very legalistic (they were the “lawmen” of the leadership), they used it as some corrupt form of self-elevation in order to promote certain individuals as being more adequate for salvation than others. Perhaps they saw earthly marriage as a right to salvation? What we do known is that the question they put to him was clearly one of attempted entrapment so the underlying meaning of the question is the issue and it probably wasn’t really about marriage directly…it was probably something related to cultural traditions and bylaws!

1 Like
93

Yes, when passages do not fit there is reason to suspect that the interpretation is not fully correct.

I place the description in Isaiah to a time before the final judgement and new Jerusalem. If the timing would be after the judgement, it would mean that life continues as today - reproduction, growth, dead.

What would be a possible timing? The kingdom described in Revelation as the 1000-year long time of peace is the most probable candidate.

1 Like
94

One thing that is seldom noted is that the new Jerusalem is told to be the bride, the wife of the Lamb (Revelation 21:9). In the previous chapters, the bride is described as a woman. In chapter 19, the bride (woman) has prepared herself, in chapter 21 the bride (city) descends from the heaven. This indicates that the description of the new Jerusalem is as much symbolic as the description of the woman.

Does it also mean that Revelation is speaking about the (true) church when it tells about the new Jerusalem? This is a matter of interpretation but it is possible. At least the symbolic description means that the new Jerusalem is not necessarily a floating city descending from heaven on earth after the judgement.

95

There is no doubt that symbolism plays an important function in a lot (perhaps most) of the writings of the book of Revelation. Having said that, the symbolism actually has meaning that points to a physical consequence/outcome.

For example, we know that in the book of Daniel (which Revelation is a sister book of), talks extensively about future prophecies for kingdoms after the time of Nebuchadnezzar. It uses a lot of symbolism in order to define Babylon and also those kingdoms that are to follow.

Babylon = Lion and head of Gold
Medo Persia = Bear and breast of silver
Greece = Leopard and thighs of Bronze
Rome = Awful Beast and Legs of Iron

My point is, just because something in the Bible is written in symbolic language, that does not mean that what it describes are not literal events/outcomes. Also, when the bible talks in prophetic time (ie 1 day is as 1,000 years), it provides rather detailed explanation on how and when we are to apply that principle. The Day/year principle does not fit the creation story in any way shape of form. Now obviously i am an SDA and this immediately raises the issue of our interpretation of the doctrine of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary and 1844. I am not wanting to go down that pathway as its offtopic, however, its difficult not to use this as an example of the 1 day = 1,000 year prophetic timeline.
Another example of symbolism was the warning Jesus gave about the future destruction of Jerusalem. I am not sure if you recall, however, the scholarly claim is that not a single Christian died in that seige. All of the Christians remembered Jesus warning to flee and they took it very literally. When they saw the Roman armies surrounding the city that is what they did. As soon as the opportunity to flee presented itself (when the armies mysteriously withdraw for no apparent reason), the Christians in the city all fled. Those who did not flee perished in the siege that followed the return of the Roman army soon after.

96

Glad you agree.

97

I’m still waiting to hear back on these items.

3 Likes
98

Which scholarly claim?

1 Like
99

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and a high school Biology / AP Biology teacher.

This is an excellent question. In our Church, we build meetinghouses or chapels, but we also build temples. We also believe that marriages can endure for eternity. In temples, these eternal marriages, or “sealing ordinances,” are performed.

However, our ancestors who didn’t have the opportunity to receive the sealing ordinance can only receive this ordinance when a living member of the Church enters the temple and performs that ordinance vicariously-- or in place of-- deceased loved ones. We believe those deceased ancestors still have the opportunity to accept or reject that eternal marriage.

I know you asked for biblical references. We revere and study the Bible; however, we study other books of scripture also: the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. (I’m hopeful that BioLogos accepts commentary from other religious texts, including those from all religions.)

If I may, let me share something from Doctrine & Covenants, which is mostly a compilation of additional revelations to the prophet Joseph Smith. This addresses some of your questions about angels and marriage. Happy to engage further on this topic, but I’ll leave it to these verses from D&C 132:15-16 & 18-19:

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life … and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

100

Here is some light reading about what we believe as Latter-day Saints (“Mormons”) about the eternal nature of the family.

A list of supporting Bible and other scriptures can be found at the end of the document.