The fact Jesus was resurrected a MALE has no bearing on whether there will be “FEMALE” in heaven. It rather establishes, along with Moses and Elijah, with Jesus at the transfiguration scene, that lacking any other signal, we can at least settle that there will be “Male” in heaven.
All the rest is conjecture based upon how exegesis appeals to each.
I guess we will have beards in heaven too. Should make the neo-Calvinists happy, at least if there is craft beer too.
@Theo_Book, i think you are unaware that the word used for Resurrection is quite a general one.
It is the same word whether you are being raised from death at the End of Days,
or raised from a grave at the grim moment the Veil in the Holy of Holies is torn asunder,
or raised from a tomb, like Lazarus,
or when raising up from a chair,
or even when raising up from the ground.
Exact same word.
In any case, I certainly know that if Moses was taken from his un-found grave, that would not be a resurrection like the one expected at the End of Days.
But it, like the raising up of the dead from their burial places in Jerusalem, is the closest thing the Bible offers. So maybe it doesn’t deserve a quibble.
I’ll see if I can get you a citation you will like.
I am a linguist and I do not find it significant. Grammatical gender is only sometimes mapped onto biological realities, most of the time grammatical gender is arbitrary.
All the emissaries sent from heaven in Scripture appeared as men/males on earth. Making the logical leap that human maleness is somehow part of the core essence of all heavenly beings is uncalled for. The point of saying we will be like the angels in that passage is that angels don’t marry and in heaven we won’t marry either.
In Luke 20:36 it says “they will be like the angels” but the respect under consideration is not dying. Analogies don’t work like the transitive property of mathematics.
Plus you are doing something that violates rules of logic. Angels are referred to in various passages as “men.” But that doesn’t mean that the meaning of angelos is “men/male.” It means messenger. A teacher could be referred as “a man.” That doesn’t mean there is something inherently male about teachers.
No. Bodily functions are no longer necessary, so being like the angels is an ANE way of saying that we will be “like the mannequins,” or in modern terms, smooth like GI Joe and Barbie.
It is a little hard to wrap my head around. I mean, your body is the same except your genitals fall off? I have to think about that.
[quote=“Christy, post:24, topic:38596, full:true”]
I am a linguist and I do not find it significant. Grammatical gender is only sometimes mapped onto biological realities, most of the time grammatical gender is arbitrary. [/quote]
That sounds like it is right out of todays headlines. Boys who decide they are girls etc.
[quote=“Theo_Book, post:19, topic:38596”]
You may be right. Of course that would alter Jesus words “Ye shall be as the angels in heaven.” Angels being “EESH.”[/quote]
[quote=“Christy, post:24, topic:38596, full:true”]
All the emissaries sent from heaven in Scripture appeared as men/males on earth. Making the logical leap that human maleness is somehow part of the core essence of all heavenly beings is uncalled for. The point of saying we will be like the angels in that passage, is that angels don’t marry and in heaven we won’t marry either.[/quote]
A simple walk through the 11th chapter of Hebrews will show both men and women will “receive the promises;” but it still does not tell us how the resurrection will effect the raised bodies.
1 Cor 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
LOL!
Funny, Paul says you don’t have to be circumcised. And then this.
Totally different topic. Grammatical gender is a grammatical category, like tense, or aspect, or case. It has absolutely nothing to do with gender identity. There is nothing female about tables and heads in Spanish and nothing male about ovens and hands. Those objects didn’t “decide” to be their grammatical gender, it’s just how the language is.
True, but claiming that since angels in Scripture are men and we will be like the angels in heaven, therefore everyone will be men is not good logic.
That’s like saying since Jesus was a Jew, and we will be like Jesus in heaven, we will all be Jewish.
I assume you’ve read @Christy’s comments by now. Here is an example from Latin: the word for Sailor is “nauta”. This is declined as feminine. There doesn’t seem to be much sense to it … no doubt it goes way back to a time when the language was not yet written…
But do we say that we think it is significant that the Latin word for “sailor” is “female”.
The word for “spirit” in Latin is neuter, in Greek it is masculine; in Hebrew it is feminine.
Someone is going to have to re-work these Indo-European languages to be a little more consistent!
Well one does become a child of Abraham when one becomes a Christian…
Gal 3:27 “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
[quote=“Christy, post:25, topic:38596, full:true”]
[quote=“Theo_Book, post:19, topic:38596”]
Or it could simply reference a fact that there will be no marriages, like the angels, all will be single. I hadn’t really gone beyond the gender issue. Perhaps I will look at it again. Thanks![/quote]
In Luke 20:36 it says “they will be like the angels” but the respect under consideration is not dying. Analogies don’t work like the transitive property of mathematics.
Plus you are doing something that violates rules of logic. Angels are referred to in various passages as “men.” But that doesn’t mean that the meaning of angelos is “men/male.” It means messenger. A teacher could be referred as “a man.” That doesn’t mean there is something inherently male about teachers.[/quote]
There were 3 teachers in my wife’s family, and she and I have a Daughter and two Grandkids all of whom are teaching. And none of them recognize that a teacher could be referred to as “a man” just by use of the term “teacher.”
I never said "the meaning of angelos is “men/male.” I said all angels are male.
[quote=“gbrooks9, post:32, topic:38596, full:true”]
I assume you’ve read @Christy’s comments by now. Here is an example from Latin: the word for Sailor is “nauta”. This is declined as feminine. There doesn’t seem to be much sense to it … no doubt it goes way back to a time when the language was not yet written…
But do we say that we think it is significant that the Latin word for is “female”.
The word for “spirit” in Latin is neuter, in Greek it is masculine; in Hebrew it is feminine.[/quote]
Greek “spirit” (pneuma) is neutral. Perhaps you are referencing the Greek “familiar spirit” (eggastrimuqos) which is Masculine, and means “ventriloquist” or "familiar spirit of such a person.
Did I replicate the gender assignment out of order? If my original source was correct, then
Greek spirit being neuter, and Hebrew spirit being feminine, would mean the Roman word was masculine.
The point would be the same; if the original author didn’t muck things up.
I guess I’m going to have to breakout my lexicons. The weakest ink is stronger than the strongest memory!
SHEESH! That is a lot of words (I didn’t want to quote your pages of the study of EESH). I think you looking way too far into this brother.
sheesh-used to express disappointment, annoyance, or surprise Sheesh Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
I think the point of marriage is how we can on earth have a glimpse of God and show the love of God to others. When in heaven, or as the angels, they don’t need glimpses of God, God is there! So there will be no need for marriage.
I think that is all Jesus meant when He said that.
Well SHEESH!
One of the problems I have with ‘spirit-only’ in heaven, is because God says there will be a new heaven and a new earth. It suggests that we will have access to both in our new circumstances. Why bother with earth, if we don’t have the attributes that are useful on earth–the ability to taste, touch, etc.
In addition, I Corinthians 15 speaks of the afterlife.
35-40 answers the question:
What Kind of Body Will We Have?
35 But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? What kind of body will they have?” 36 Foolish person! When you sow a seed, it must die in the ground before it can live and grow. 37 And when you sow it, it does not have the same “body” it will have later. What you sow is only a bare seed, maybe wheat or something else. 38 But God gives it a body that he has planned for it, and God gives each kind of seed its own body. 39 All things made of flesh are not the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds have another, and fish have another. 40 Also there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. But the beauty of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the beauty of the earthly bodies is another.
Paul speaks of a body…and a body that is to our earthly body as a plant is to a seed. That doesn’t seem like it was lacking a body.
I believe that heaven is going to be greater than earth. To suggest that there is no sexual activity or physical-status, doesn’t reflect the angels, either.
Genesis 6 speaks of the Sons of God (we understand these to be angels) saw the daughters of men and had sexual relations with them and they had children, who became great warriors and the stuff legends were made of.
We, therefore, know that angels can have sexual relations with humans. Wouldn’t the women have been freaking out if they encountered only spirits in their union? Wouldn’t that have been mentioned?
In addition, the author of Hebrews instructs us to be kind to strangers because some people have entertained angels without realizing it. Who would entertain something ghostly? Angels can have bodies. Bodies may be different and able to walk through walls as Jesus did with his disciples, but they clearly had bodies–human bodies.
Like others have alluded, a marriage was part of the sinful aspect of our lives. We needed to ‘make things legal’ --which was really about property and ownership. I submit it was more for the protection of women under the law, but in heaven, we won’t have those kinds of selfish desires and marriage won’t be necessary. We will be able to love as God wants us to.
There may be an interesting kind of “dualism” in play here too. If one were to ask whether or not angels are immediately recognized as such, there is the passage you reference that would answer that negatively – they must blend in with the rest of us pretty well! And yet there are other passage in which people are terrified and have to be pacified with the reassurance: “fear not!”
There is much interesting here to ponder. But lately I’ve become more convinced that the “New heaven and new earth” future is more in line with the overall trajectory of scripture than the disembodied “float away” imagery is. Yet there isn’t enough support to justify much dogmatism on these points either.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.