Here is a Spiritual Conundrum submitted to Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life by a reader named Deeply Wounded:
It’s me again. I came across this article by a man named Jack Wellman who appeals to the story to bluntly claim that there is no marriage or sex in Heaven.
He claims that it won’t be a thing because there won’t be need for procreation, that we’ll all be married to Jesus, etc. What he says rings hollow for me, because I have been just abandoned by my twin flame/soulmate. I looked at the comments, and there’s even a comment by Jack where he is completely dismissing one of your articles that I really love. Basically, Jack claimed that you “missed the point,” further wounding me. Jack claimed that we’ll basically spend time in eternal contemplation with God and there won’t be any sex allowed, and even spiritual castration. It inflicts me so much. I wish Jack and his friends knew how much they are hurting single people like me who long for true marriage love that is eternal and holy. Could you perhaps write an article in response to Jack’s afflicting, painful claims?
Hi Deeply Wounded,
Thanks for reaching out with your question. I am sorry you had to experience the loss of love. I am even more sorry that “Christian” writers such as Jack Wellman are doing the opposite of what Christ did for us. Christ said:
I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete. (John 15:11; see also John 16:24 and John 17:13)
When a supposedly Christian teaching causes pain, affliction, and sorrow for people of good heart, you can be sure that it is not the teaching of Christ or of true Christianity.
And indeed, the article by Jack Wellman contains many unbiblical and false statements that cause pain and suffering instead of the joy that Christ gives. The comments at the end of his article show that you are not the only one who has been wounded by Mr. Wellman’s false claims.
For the full version of why Mr. Wellman’s article is so mistaken, please see:
Didn’t Jesus Say There’s No Marriage in Heaven?
That article and its sequel go into great detail about Jesus’ statements on marriage. In this article, we will deal specifically with Mr. Wellman’s unbiblical statements about heaven, angels, sex, and marriage.
Does the Bible really say that?
Strange but true: traditional Christians who thump the Bible and insist that the Bible is the only source of Christian belief often don’t pay much attention to what the Bible actually says. Oh, they give big long strings of Bible verses. But if you actually read those verses, and read them carefully, you’ll find that most of them simply don’t say what the preacher claims they do.
What’s going on here?
Instead of paying attention to the Bible’s own words and reading things out of the Bible, these so-called Christians are reading things into the Bible to make it say whatever they happen to believe based on their church’s doctrines.
And quite often these “Christians” are just plain sloppy in their reading of the Bible. Their mind is already made up. They don’t want to be confused with the biblical facts.
What was the Sadducees question?
Mr. Wellman’s article “Will There Be Marriage And Sex In Heaven?” is no exception. The author gets it wrong in the very first sentence after the initial spate of questions that opens the article. He writes:
Jesus addressed this question when the Sadducees asked him about whether there will still be marriages in heaven and whether they will still be married.
(All quotations from Mr. Wellman’s article are exact copies of the original.)
But the Sadducees didn’t ask either of these questions. Here is Matthew 22:19–23, using the translation Mr. Wellman quotes in his article:
“Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her”
Notice that the Sadducees did not ask Jesus about whether there will still be marriages in heaven as Mr. Wellman says, nor did they ask him whether they will still be married. They asked which of the seven brothers the woman will be married to in the afterlife. And of course, it was a rhetorical question.
It is important to read the Bible carefully, and pay attention to exactly what it says.
The Sadducees weren’t interested in whether or not there was marriage in heaven. They weren’t interested in whether or not they would be married heaven. They didn’t even believe in heaven. So they would never ask these questions. Instead, they were creating a hypothetical situation involving the ancient law of levirate marriage in order to prove to Jesus that there was no resurrection, and no afterlife.
Mr. Wellman’s misreading of the Sadducees’ question shows that he has missed the point of the story. It isn’t about whether there is marriage in heaven. It’s about whether heaven exists in the first place.
If we don’t understand this very basic point about the story, we will misunderstand Jesus’ words in it just as Mr. Wellman—together with the vast bulk of traditional Christians—has misunderstood them.
When people fail to pay attention to exactly what the Bible says, they come to wrong conclusions about what the Bible means. The Bible is not loose or sloppy in its language. Every single word is there for a reason.
Are angels genderless?
Are we still male and female after death? Are angel sexless beings? On this question Mr. Wellman seems to be unclear. In some places he speaks as if we will still be male and female in the afterlife. In other places he denies it. For example, in two of his comments he writes:
There are neither male nor female in heaven.
Jesus said angels are neither male or female.
However, he provides no Bible passages to support these statements. That’s because there aren’t any. Jesus never said that angels are neither male nor female. And the Bible never says that there is neither male nor female in heaven. Once again, Mr. Wellman is reading things into the Bible rather than reading things out of it.
The Bible makes it clear that angels do indeed have gender.
When angels appear in the Bible, they are commonly called “men.” And when they are, the original Hebrew and Greek use the specific word for “a male.” The Old Testament uses the Hebrew word אִישׁ (‘iysh), “man.” The New Testament uses the Greek word ἀνήρ (anēr) “man” or the word νεανίσκος (neaniskos), “young man.” When it refers to angels, the Bible does not use Hebrew word אָדָם (‘āḏām) or the Greek word ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos), both of which mean “person” without reference to gender.
The people who saw angels in the Bible saw men, not some genderless being.
Here are some examples, taken from the article What is the Biblical Basis for Humans becoming Angels after they Die? (which I also invite you to read):
While I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen before in a vision, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice. (Daniel 9:21, italics added)
Here Gabriel, who is seen by Christians as an angel based on Luke 1:19, 26, is called a “man.”
The two angels (see Genesis 19:1, 15) who visited Lot in Genesis 19:1–29 are called “men” in Genesis 18:2, 16, 22; 19:10, 12, 16, and in several other verses in Genesis 18 & 19.
When an angel appeared to Manoah and his wife (Samson’s parents) in Judges 13, they identified him as a “man of God,” and both they and the narrator also refer to him as a “man”—although he is also clearly identified as an angel. Manoah even calls the angel “a man” when he talks to him (see Judges 13:11), and the angel does not correct him. This suggests that the angel had no problem thinking of himself as a man like Manoah.
In Zechariah’s vision of the horsemen in Zechariah 1:7–17, the lead horseman, who was “standing among the myrtle trees” is referred to both as a “man” and as an “angel.”
The angel(s) at Jesus’ empty tomb is(are) referred to as an angel in Matthew 28:2–7 and as two angels in John 20:11–13, but as a man in Mark 16:5–7 and two men in Luke 24:4–8.
No female angels appear in the Bible. But if there are male angels, certainly there are female angels as well. For people who believe what the Bible suggests, which is that angels are simply humans who have died and go to heaven, it should be abundantly clear that women are not going to become men in the afterlife, while men remain men. And even if angels were a separate creation (something the Bible never says), it would be completely unbalanced for God to create only male angels. It would not fit the pattern of God creating humans male and female, both in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26–27).
Mr. Wellman’s statements on this subject are contrary to the Bible. Not only does the Bible never say that angels are neither male nor female, but it portrays angel visitors as being men, which implies that there are female angels as well. And if there are both male and female angels, then there are both male and female humans after death as well.
God did not create us male and female only to rip away our gender after death. To do so would be to destroy the person we are.
Will there be no sex in heaven?
Like most traditional Christians, Mr. Wellman thinks that there will be no sex in heaven. He writes:
Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven and there is no giving in marriage and no sex in marriage.
Let our focus be on Christ and not “dreading” there being no sex in heaven.
No records exists in Scripture where sex is mentioned to happen in heaven or angels having sex. Jesus said no marriage or sex in heaven and I believe Him.
There will be no sexual intercourse in heaven. The appetites and desires of this world will give way to higher and infinitely more gratifying delights in the world to come like being the presence of and service of God.
Once again, Mr. Wellman provides no Bible passages saying that there is no sex in heaven. That’s because there aren’t any. The most he can say is that Scripture never mentions sex in heaven. Does this mean that if Scripture never mentions deer, antelope, and buffalo in heaven, no cowboy can ever go to his eternal home on the range where the buffalo roam, and the deer and the antelope play?
Scripture does not provide a detailed list of everything that exists in heaven. Just because the Bible doesn’t mention sex in heaven, that doesn’t mean it can’t possibly exist in heaven.
Traditional Christians commonly think that there is something inherently worldly, unspiritual, and just a bit dirty about sex. The Bible says no such thing. In fact, the very first commandment God gives to the very first created humans in the Bible, before they ever committed any sin, was:
Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it. (Genesis 1:28)
And how do we humans “be fruitful and multiply?” By having sex!
Just three verses later, the Bible says:
God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. (Genesis 1:31)
This includes the male and female human beings whom God had just created, and whom God had just commanded to be fruitful and multiply.
Far from being inherently worldly, dirty, and sinful, sex is a very good part of the original creation of God.
Why, then, do traditional Christians balk at the idea of sex in heaven? Why are they so prudish, when God declared man, woman, and by implication sexual intercourse between them, to be very good? Why do they think it is so outlandish that male and female angels would have sex in heaven? There is no biblical basis for the traditional Christian squeamishness about sex. God is not a prude.
Further, there is a common idea in traditional Christianity that the only purpose of sex is reproduction. And yet, Christian ministers and churches commonly contradict themselves about this—as Mr. Wellman does in his article. Here is what he writes in his section titled, “No Need for Sex in Heaven”:
Sex was created by God to bond male and females together as one in a relationship that is like that of Christ and His Bride, the church. The church has become one with Christ. Sex is also made for procreation (having children) but it is a way of having two people, male and female, come together in the most intimate relationship possible. Two people become one in unity, family, and harmony and their DNA creates one child at a time (save for twins or more). This unique gift from God is designed only for those who have made lifetime commitments to one another. In Genesis 2:24 is says, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”
Mr. Wellman gives procreation as the second purpose of sex. His first statement and his greatest emphasis about the purpose of sex is that it is to bond males and females together in the closest and most intimate relationship possible, mirroring the relationship between Christ and the Church.
Why, then, does he think that in heaven, where no babies are born (something I happen to agree with him about), there is no need for sex? Just because the secondary purpose of sex—procreation—is no longer is needed, does that mean that the primary reason for sex is abolished?
Like other traditional Christians, Mr. Wellman thinks that our relationship with Christ will so far surpass our relationship with our spouse that we will no longer want sex and marriage in heaven. And yet, millions of fervent Christians here on earth who have a close and joyful relationship with Jesus Christ still find deep joy and satisfaction in their relationship with their husband or wife. Why should this change after death?
The idea that we as individuals are married to Christ is not biblical. The Bible says that the Church is Christ’s bride. It never says that individual Christians are Christ’s bride. (And what about men? Are they Christ’s bridegroom?)
God is not a polygamist. God is not married to every believer. Rather, God is married to all of us together, collectively, in the form of the Church. The Church is another name for God’s kingdom on earth. It consists of all people who love the Lord and follow the Lord’s commandments.
Just as there are many happily married couples in God’s church on earth, which is collectively married to Christ, so there will be many happily married couples in God’s kingdom in heaven.
And if sex was originally created by God as part of the “very good” relationship between man and woman, then there is no biblical reason to believe that there is no sex in heaven. There is every reason to believe that God will continue to bless married couples with the wonderful intimacy of sexual intercourse. For more on this, please see:
Once again, Mr. Wellman is reading things into the Bible that simply aren’t there. The Bible never says that angels don’t have sex. The Bible never says that there is no sex in heaven. And the Bible never says that individual Christians are married to Christ.
The Bible also never says that in heaven we will spend all of our time in rapturous contemplation of Christ. That idea is based on a narrow, literal, and unenlightened reading of part of John’s spiritual vision in the book of Revelation. But unpacking the real meaning of what John saw in that vision would take an entire article of its own.
For now, ask yourself this question: If angels spend all their time worshiping God, how could God send angels on missions to people on earth, as recorded many times in the Bible?
No, the Bible makes it clear that angels have jobs to do, just as we have jobs to do here on earth. Angels do not spend all of their time attending some eternal celestial worship service. God set aside one day each week for worshiping and contemplating God, not seven days.
Will there be no marriage in heaven?
Now we get to the main issue. Over and over again, Mr. Wellman claims that there is no marriage in heaven. Here are some examples taken from the article and from his comments at the end of it:
This means that there will be neither marriages of one to another or that they will procreate (have children). The angels also do not marry nor do they bear children.
Jesus said there is no marriage in heaven and there is no giving in marriage and no sex in marriage.
Jesus said we will be like the angels in heaven, who do not procreate, . . . . Thank you for your comment, but there is no marriage in heaven.
I read the reply, and besides a typo or so, but there will be no marriage in heaven for the resurrected, although their relationship will continue.
Obviously they have ignored what the Bible teaches that there will be no marriages in heaven.
Jesus said no marriage or sex in heaven and I believe Him. Married couples may still work together or be close in their relationship, but marriage as we know it, will not happen to the children of God after Jesus rules the earth and we are changed.
Jesus teaches here that marriage is a relationship to be enjoyed in this life, but it will not carry forward into the next life. While we do not lose our identity in heaven (Luke 16:23), we will not hold the same relationships that we do on earth. Our existence will be quite different from what we are used to here. The fact that there is no marriage in heaven implies at least two other things: 1) There will be no procreation in heaven; the number of the redeemed is set, and, with no death, there will be no need to propagate the race since believers will have eternal life. 2) There will be no sexual intercourse in heaven. The appetites and desires of this world will give way to higher and infinitely more gratifying delights in the world to come like being the presence of and service of God.
Here Mr. Wellman lets it slip that he thinks that married couples may still be close in their relationships. But he steadfastly denies that there will be marriage or sex in heaven.
However, if there is no marriage in heaven, then the heart and soul of a married couple’s relationship to one another will be ripped out. If marriage does not continue in heaven, then it is just empty words to say that our relationships can continue in heaven.
The fact is that neither Jesus nor anyone else in the Bible says that there is no marriage in heaven.
What Jesus does say is that people don’t get married in heaven.
Now, if you ask me whether I plan to get married in heaven, I will say “No.” Why? Because I’m already married! Married people don’t get married. That’s why Jesus’ statement that people neither marry nor are given in marriage in the resurrection doesn’t bother me at all.
However, I’ve already covered Jesus’ words about marriage in the resurrection in great detail in this article, and in its sequel:
Didn’t Jesus Say There’s No Marriage in Heaven?
My belief is that people who wish to be married will already be married by the time they move into their eternal homes in heaven, even if they were never able to get married on earth. There will be no need for them to marry and be given in marriage, because they’ll already be married.
Whether I’m right or wrong about that, the simple fact of the matter is that Jesus did not say angels aren’t married, and he did not say there is no marriage in heaven. The Bible doesn’t say that anywhere else, either.
Once again, Mr. Wellman is claiming the Bible says things that it simply doesn’t say.
God gives joy, not wounds
And so to Deeply Wounded and all the other good people who have been disheartened and wounded by false teachings such as the ones in Jack Wellman’s article, I say: Take heart! Heaven is much better than what these so-called Christians teach. They are teaching human doctrines, not the Word of God.
Yes, there will be marriage and sex in heaven. When God joins two people together in marriage, it is not temporary, but eternal, just like everything else God does. As it says in Ecclesiastes 3:14:
I know that everything God does will endure forever.
This article is a response to a spiritual conundrum submitted by a reader.
For further reading:
- How does Marriage Fit In with a Spiritual Life? Is There Marriage in Heaven?
- Who Are the Angels and How Do They Live?
- Didn’t Jesus Say There’s No Marriage in Heaven?
- Marriage in the Resurrection: The Deeper Meaning
- Marriage in Heaven: A Response to Randy Alcorn and John Piper
- Marriage in Heaven: A Response to Tom Wenig
- Is There Sex in Heaven?
So the way I understand it is that people get married in the World of Spirits (either their spouse from earth or one found there), before entering Heaven itself. Is that correct?
I do tend to think that for people who die as adults, and who are not already married to their true partner on this earth, weddings will likely take place in the world of spirits, after which, at some point, the couple will go together to their permanent home in heaven. This would happen after the second stage after death is well underway, when people’s true inner selves come out. (In the first stage, people still wear the social masks that they had put on here on earth.) However, this is just my thought based on general knowledge of how the spiritual world and the human mind work. To my knowledge, Swedenborg never says that this is what happens.
In fact, Swedenborg does describe a wedding in heaven in Marriage Love #19–22. He also mentions weddings in heaven in a chapter about Marriages in Heaven in Heaven and Hell (#366–386). He does say in that chapter that weddings in heaven shouldn’t really be called weddings but unions of mind. That is in #382b, which I quote in the sequel to the article about Jesus’ words on marriage in heaven:
Marriage in the Resurrection: The Deeper Meaning
So although I wish it were as simple as to say that weddings take place in the world of spirits, not in heaven, the reality isn’t so simple. I suspect that weddings in heaven are commonly between people who grew up in heaven from childhood. And my understanding is that they don’t settle into their permanent home in heaven until after they have gotten married. Before that they may live with their angel parents, or in some other arrangement, but it’s when they become a married couple that they become a complete angel and begin their own lives in heaven, having “left father and mother” and being united to their wife or husband as one.
However, as I point out in the linked article, really, they are already married in spirit before the wedding ever takes place. That’s because it’s the character they have built that makes them into the husband or wife of their future partner in marriage. For people who grow up on earth, this takes place on earth, not in heaven, so that the inner marriage has already happened before their death and resurrection. In the afterlife they simply complete the union that was built inwardly here on earth.
Even for people who grow up from childhood in heaven, their basic character is set here on earth, and only develops to its full potential as they grow up in heaven. So in a sense, even they are “married” in their spirit here on earth, because our earth life is where the basic outlines of our character are formed.
It would be convenient in talking to traditional Christians if we could neatly say that there are no weddings in heaven. But that’s just not how it works. Besides, Jesus didn’t say they are neither married nor given in marriage in heaven, but in the resurrection, which would include the world of spirits. No matter which way you slice it, an overly literal reading of Jesus’ words in the Bible will lead to wrong ideas. That’s why both Jesus and Paul warned us against literalism.
For those reading in, here is an article that explains the world of spirits and our three stages after death:
What Happens To Us When We Die?
Oh, and I should add that for people who are already married to their eternal partner here on earth, there is no need to get married in the world of spirits or in heaven because they are already married. These couples simply continue their married life in the spiritual world.
I think female angels do appear in the Bible. One time, but once is enough for me. In Zechariah, it says there were two women with wings, like the wings of a stork, and they carried an evil woman in a basket away.
Hi Deeply Wounded,
Thanks for pointing out the winged women who appear in Zechariah 5:5–11. It’s a fascinating passage!
When Zechariah had that vision, he was speaking with an angel. However, the women in the vision are not identified as angels, nor were they actual women. They were simply figures in a vision, which is clearly meant to be taken metaphorically, not literally.
Still, these winged women do give a suggestion of female heavenly figures, even if they aren’t actually presented as angels.
I’m sorry. I forwarded the email to Jack. But I’m not going to give his email address. I am a man of good principles.
Forwarded what email?
The spiritual conundrum of response to Jack Wellman that appeared in my inbox.
Okay. Most likely he’s not going to change his mind. He’s too invested in the old unbiblical beliefs about sex and marriage. But you can always try.
Another thing, are you counteracting unbiblical ideas or are you teaching Satanic doctrines? Jack Wellman won’t allow links to your site on his site. He read much of your content. He says your site has so many errors and calls it heresy. But when you and I have a common enemy, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Is the enemy of God’s enemy God’s friend?
On your last question, in response to John telling him about a man who was not one of their followers casting out demons in Jesus’ name, Jesus said, “Whoever is not against us is for us” (see Mark 9:38–41).
As for your other questions, you’ll have to make up your own mind. Read the Bible for yourself. See for yourself who is following what the Bible says, and who is not. Don’t pay attention to what people say the Bible says, no matter how big a crowd of people is saying it. Pay attention to what the Bible itself says.
My article above shows very thoroughly that the one article by Jack Wellman that I have read claims that the Bible says many things that it simply doesn’t say. Based on that, and on my general experience reading evangelical Christian websites, I have no doubt that the rest of Mr. Wellman’s articles will be the same.
If you claim that the Bible says something, you have to be able to quote passages in the Bible that say it. But the Bible doesn’t say any of the things that Catholics and Protestants have made into the key doctrines of their churches. See this piece, and the articles linked from it:
“Christian Beliefs” that the Bible Doesn’t Teach
I allow links to sites that disagree with my beliefs because I am confident in what I say here, confident in its biblical basis, and confident that thoughtful people of good heart will be able to make up their own mind where the truth lies. Sites such as Jack Wellman’s can thrive only by closing people’s minds off from other points of view. Falsity thrives in the darkness.
I may as well betray you because you seem heretical. Yes, you make some good points.
It’s not like Judas betraying Jesus though.
I love you, because God wants us to love all people.
Once again, you’ll have to make up your own mind what to believe. Pray to the Lord to open your eyes. Then read the Bible for yourself, and see what it says.
Don’t just read a few verses here and there. Read all four Gospels one by one. That is where the Lord himself gives us the words of life. Then read the rest of the New Testament with the understanding that the Apostles were following the Lord and his words, and not the other way around. Paul’s letters must be read in the light of Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, not the other way around.
If you are willing to trust the Lord first, then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
Would it be possible to choose the wrong marriage partner? If my girlfriend breaks up with me or my wife divorces me, and cuts off all communication with me and blocks me on Facebook, will I be reunited with her as a couple in heaven?
Will divorced couples be married again in heaven if neither partner is remarried?
It would be very rare for couples who broke up, including divorced couples, to reunite as married partners after death. People break up for a reason. Usually it’s because they don’t belong together. In some rare instances people break up or get divorced and then realize that they really do love each other and belong together. But in the vast majority of cases, people who break up or get divorced never get back together.
That’s how it will be after death, also. Most likely, if you remain single here on earth until you die, you will find a new partner in heaven, who will be your eternal wife or husband. It’s very unlikely that you will get back together with someone you were temporarily together with here on earth.
If You’ve been Married More than Once, Which One will you be With in the Afterlife?
Can you Fall in Love in Heaven if you Haven’t Found Someone on Earth?
Lee I am 57 and never married. I seem to be having a hard time finding love through marriage. So if I never marry on earth I can get married in heaven?
Thanks for stopping by, and for your comment and question. The short answer is Yes! For the long answer, please see this article:
Can you Fall in Love in Heaven if you Haven’t Found Someone on Earth?
Maybe you should do “Marriage in heaven, a response to Sam Storms”
Sam Storms has a book called “Tough Topics” with the chapter “Will there be sex in heaven?”
Does the chapter in his book have any points that I haven’t already addressed in the above article and in my other articles about sex and marriage in heaven?
Thanks for the link.
The author, Sam Storms, is certainly more biblically literate and more sophisticated than the author of the article I responded to in the above post.
Unfortunately, after beautifully setting himself up to say that husbands and wives will indeed be married and have sex in heaven, he ruins his whole build-up by falling into the same trap that other so-called Christians fall into. It is the trap of misreading and misinterpreting Jesus’ words about marriage in the resurrection due to a physical-minded view of marriage, and therefore denying that there is sex or marriage in heaven.
I wonder what his wife thinks about his assurance that the two of them will indeed be anatomically male and female, and have all the same male and female thoughts and feelings, but they will no longer be married and no longer enjoy sexual intimacy with one another because there will be some fuzzy and undefined “greater thing” there that they will “enjoy even more.”
At any rate, I don’t see anything new in his article that I haven’t already responded to in other articles here. See especially this one, which critiques articles by two similarly thoughtful and similarly mistaken “Christian” preachers:
Marriage in Heaven: A Response to Randy Alcorn and John Piper
If, after reading it, there is still something you wanted me to respond to that’s not covered there, please let me know.
https://genderlovesexuality.wordpress.com/2021/09/10/why-doesnt-everyone-have-soulmate/ Why not comment on it? That’s my blog.
You raise a lot of issues and questions in that post. I agree with some of where you’re going with it, and disagree with other parts. Was there something in particular you wanted to discuss?
About your last paragraph, usually if a girl cuts off communication with her boyfriend, that means she doesn’t want to be with him anymore. And usually there are reasons for that. If it’s not working for her on earth, it’s probably not going to work for her in the spiritual world either. And unlike on earth, in the spiritual world no one is pushed into a relationship they don’t want to be in.
If your girlfriend breaks up with you, it’s best to move forward and leave that relationship in the past.
Unfortunately, that’s not always the case.
Why doesn’t God just transmit a message “I’m sorry for everything I’ve done” to her and force her to let it into her mind or whatever? Does she not want to know I’m sorry?
Most likely it’s just plain too late with her. Take the lessons learned into the next relationship, and don’t make the same mistakes again.
Why can’t it become like the mistakes never happened? Why can’t I do it over again?
Because life doesn’t work that way. Time just keeps going forward. You can do it over again in your next relationship, ideally wiser from the experience of the previous one.
You know what, if the guy never had a relationship with her, she wouldn’t be the only one for him. Does this mean she was not the right one for me to begin with? I’m just coming up with scenarios. I never actually married or even gone out on a date.
I’m not sure I understand what you are saying.
If she broke up with me and cut off all communication with me, does that mean she wasn’t the right one to begin with? The right one would never do such a thing. Ever!
I would pray for her, praying that God would bring her back. If I can’t apologize, why wouldn’t God do it for me?
I’m sure that in heaven, every girl will be accepting and forgiving. Just because she didn’t forgive me on Earth doesn’t mean she won’t in heaven.
Our hearts will be transformed in heaven. I think it’s a sin to not unblock someone to see if they have changed.
No, it’s not a sin to block someone whom you don’t want to be in contact with anymore. In fact, sometimes it’s the best thing to do, and the right thing to do. Some people are toxic. Some relationships are toxic. Sometimes the best thing to do is to “shake the dust off your feet,” to use Jesus’ expression.
Further, if it didn’t work out here on earth, it’s highly unlikely to work out in the spiritual world either. For all practical purposes, yes, if a former girlfriend or boyfriend blocks you and goes no-contact, that was never the right one in the first place.
But the other side of the coin is that if they had valid reasons to block you and go no-contact, then you need to look in the mirror and look into your own soul, see what needs changing in your character and attitudes, and do the hard work of making those changes in yourself. Otherwise the same thing is likely to repeat itself in the next relationship.
As for apologies, they’re good and all, but in some cases it’s too little, too late, and the apology will do more harm than good. In these cases, you just need to keep on walking forward, and leave it behind you. No good will come from dwelling on the past, and remaining stuck in previous relationships that no longer exist.
Did everyone sin from the beginning? Is there a literal Devil?
But if I change character and attitudes, why doesn’t that get her back?
An ideal girl would unblock me after three months to see if I’ve changed, right? That’s what I would do, right? Unblock a cyberbully or troll after a few months to see if he or she has changed.
I would suggest not worrying about “an ideal girl,” and instead worry about making yourself into an ideal man. It’s not your job to decide how the other person should act, and what the other person should do. Your job is to get your own house and your own character and your own words and actions into order. The very fact that you want to say how she should act in order to be “an ideal girl” would be enough for most girls/women to avoid you. These days, most women want a partner, not a boss. See:
What Do Women Really Want?
Sometimes there is just too much damage in a relationship, and it is never going to get fixed. This is a hard-learned life lesson. Once a relationship has been burnt out too badly, there may be a rebuilding, but it will be with someone else, not with you.
Personally, when someone has been toxic enough to me that I’ve had to block them, for the most part I don’t ever unblock them. Maybe they’ve changed. Most likely they haven’t. It’s not my job to follow up on it. That’s God’s job. People have to learn the hard way that they can’t treat people like that. There is plenty of aggravation in my life without inviting known toxic people back into it. “Shake the dust off your feet.”
If people’s words and actions cost them the permanent loss of friendships and relationships, that’s part of the learning experience. Sometimes it takes a big hammer to get through our thick skulls and get us to stop being such jerks to other people.
As for your initial questions, no, everybody didn’t sin from the beginning. And there’s no such thing as original sin. But everyone does sin. It’s not all because of Adam. The Bible doesn’t say that. It says that sin entered into the world through Adam, and that now all have sinned. Not Adam sinned in all people. That’s not biblical.
There is also no literal devil who is a fallen angel. See:
Is there Really a Devil? Why??
You’re right. But why can’t a girlfriend love me like God or mother does? That she would care about me as much as Mom or God does? That just a God will never stop loving me and neither will Mom, why can’t the same be true for my significant other?
As far as intensity of love, a partner in marriage will ideally fall somewhere between God and your mother. But the type of love and relationship is quite different.
In psychological language, our relationship with God, and with our parents, is a parent-child relationship, while marriage is ideally a peer-to-peer relationship. Another way of saying this is that our relationship with God, and with our parents, is an inherently unequal relationship, whereas our relationship with our wife or husband is meant to be an equal relationship.
Historically this has most often not been the case in actual marriages. That’s because historically marriage has not been marriage as we increasingly think of it today. In the past—and for many people still today—marriage was more of a business, social, and legal arrangement. Today we are moving toward real, spiritual marriage, which is a relationship of two equal partners held together by inner connections of mind and heart.
God loves us no matter who we are, and no matter whether we are good or evil (see Matthew 5:44–45). Like God, a good mother loves her children no matter what their personality is, and no matter whether they are good or bad. A good mother will grieve when her child goes bad, but will still love her child.
That’s because parent-child relationships are not equal relationships. God, and good parents, stand above their children in love, experience, wisdom, and so on. They love their children regardless of whether that love is returned. If their love is returned, they feel great joy. But they will continue to love their children even if it is a one-way relationship. Further, even if their love is returned, the love returned is not the same as the love given. It is the love of a child for a parent, which is quite different from the love of a parent for a child.
A real, spiritual marriage relationship is very different. It is a relationship between two equal partners. This means that the love and understanding flow equally in both directions. Neither one is above the other. Both walk together side-by-side in the relationship. This means that both must be of good, thoughtful, and loving character, or the relationship will not work. If one or the other partner goes bad, the relationship cannot work, and will come to an end.
This is why real marriage depends upon our engaging in the process of spiritual rebirth that Jesus talks about in John 3:1-8. If we remain in our natural state of being rather self-centered, we may have temporary earthly relationships, but we can never be part of a real spiritual and eternal marriage, because we are incapable of truly loving our partner in marriage. No matter how much they may love us, that marriage cannot work, and will end in breakup, either here on earth or in the afterlife.
So yes, it is possible for a girlfriend, or more likely a wife, to love you even more than your mother loves you, and to love you forever as God loves you. But this will depend upon your doing the work of making yourself into a man who can love a woman in that way as well.
I’m not asking you to comment on it.
You would say that the second question has an obvious answer. And I love to capitalize the word “force” with three explanation points after it.
The last one is particularly interesting. Ever heard of Pygmalion? That’s not how God does things though, not even according to Swedenborg.
I’ve already stated my views on this. No need to repeat it all. And custom-made wives don’t work in reality, as the famous GBS Pygmalion play suggests. The Stepford Wives story is a tragedy, not a comedy.
Never heard of “Stepford Wives.” Also I meant “exclamation points,” not “explanation points.” What about girls being insensitive to their ex’s wounded souls and broken hearts?
Girls don’t have a corner on the market of “being insensitive to their ex’s wounded souls and broken hearts.” If anything, guys are even worse about this.
Dealing with the pain of broken relationships is as old as humanity itself. It’s not a ex’s job to heal your wounds. You have to do that work yourself, and move on with your life.
What about considering the girls’ biology and what wires them to break up? That’s in the blog post I linked you to. Would you say that we have to overcome our biology? Anything else?
Once again, as Christians, it’s not our job to analyze and correct the other person. It’s our job to analyze and correct ourselves.
We all, both male and female, have our biology. All too often it is at war with our spirit, just as Paul said in his first century language. The flesh sometimes overrides the spirit. But the spirit must become the master, and not the servant. That is the work we must do and path we must walk if we wish to be born again and become Christian as Jesus taught.
Certainly girls/women have biology. But they’re not “wired” to do things, as if they have no choice. That is a MGTOW dogma that is dehumanizing. Girls/women are human beings, not animals. They make choices just as boys/men do. Sometimes they make good choices, sometimes they make bad choices, just like boys and men. But these are their choices, made with the free will that God gave both men and women from the beginning.
It is not the job of boys and men to override the choices that girls and women make. God has given us all free will and freedom of choice. We must respect others’ choices for their own lives, even if we don’t like those choices.
Your job is not to determine how girls should think and what girls should do. Your job is to direct your own words and actions along a good path. In relation to girls, that means directing your words and actions along a respectful path—one that sees girls as just as human as you are.
Never heard of MGTOW.
It must be infecting the culture. I have an article about it at the link.
Eugenics may be able to modify people’s physical attributes, but it cannot modify our spiritual attributes. That requires doing the work of being born again spiritually.
Another thing: In heaven, no more “No-contact and No more blocking… except for those in hell.”
It is wrong to go no-contact for the rest of your life. A girl should forgive and unblock her ex 70 times 7. Matthew 18:21-22. No, that Bible verse doesn’t literally mean you should forgive 490 times and that’s it.
A girl should accept that her ex boyfriend can change. I believe that a person as wicked as Jezebel can become as godly as Josiah in a split second, in a blink of an eye. Isn’t that what happened with the King of Nineveh in the book of Jonah and Saul of Tarsus in the New Testament? Was the book of Jonah literal?
I strongly urge you to drop your insistence that girls/women should not block their exes. This sort of attitude is where gender-based violence comes from.
In heaven, people are free not to associate with whomever they do not want to associate with. People who try force someone else to associate with them against their will are the ones who will be in hell.
Stop. Just stop.
What am I thinking?
What about the thing about Jonah and the New Testament? Did the King of Nineveh and Saul of Tarsus turn from bad to good in the blink of an eye? Can a person change from as wicked as Jezebel to as godly as Josiah in a split second?
Was the book of Jonah literal?
The story in the book of Jonah fairly cries out that it was carefully composed to convey a moral lesson. The fact that in the New Testament Jesus draws a lesson from the story of Jonah does not demonstrate that Jonah was an actual historical person any more than someone today drawing lessons from the story of Luke Skywalker demonstrates that Luke Skywalker was an actual historical person. These are stories illustrating the human condition. It is irrelevant whether they ever took place historically.
According to the story of Jonah, the change in the king of Nineveh was not instantaneous:
Jonah went a day’s walk into the city before people started noticing. Then the people proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth (a sign of mourning and repentance). Only then did the king of Nineveh himself take notice, and take action.
Paul’s point of conversion was instantaneous because he had an encounter with Christ. But it took some time before he received his sight back and was accepted into the nascent Christian community. Even then, it could be argued that Paul himself only changed direction. He still did whatever he did with the same type of ardent zeal that he had shown before his conversion. Further, given how much Paul talks about himself in his letters, I doubt he ever overcame his big ego. And yet, as flawed a person as he was, God still used him to accomplish much good work.
Even when the change in a person’s life seems instantaneous, there has been a pathway leading to it, and there is a pathway leading forward from the point of change as well. An alcoholic goes through a long downward slide before realizing that his or her life has become unmanageable. Only when she or he hits bottom will there be a decision to turn around and do the hard work of becoming sober. Without the downward pathway that led to it, the point of conversion would not come.
Imagine yourself driving through a long, dark tunnel under a mountain range. Suddenly you reach the end of the tunnel, and everything is bright again! Yes, there is a single point in time when the drive goes from dark to light. But if you had not kept driving through the tunnel, you would never have gotten to the light at the other end.
That’s how it is with our conversion from spiritual darkness to light. We may experience it as a sudden conversion, but in fact our life has been moving toward that point of conversion for many years.
Nor are we instantly changed from sinner to saint. If we were to stop driving as soon as we got out of the tunnel, we’d be stuck on some remote mountainous pass. We would never reach our destination. After our conversion, we must still do the work and travel the path of becoming a righteous person instead of a sinner. That path stretches out ahead of us as long as our life continues. If we are still alive and breathing on this earth, God still has work for us to do.
What do you think of https://genderlovesexuality.wordpress.com/2022/01/02/breaking-up-with-a-good-man-is-wrong/ and
You might disagree with some of the former like “women should always…” and I forgot to include Matthew 18:21-22. Of course, we can’t make anyone do anything. We honor and respect her choices. Like if it’s not her choice to come back. It’s called free will.
What do you think of a woman saying “Lord, forgive my husband/boyfriend, for he knows not what he’s doing”?
Honestly, I disagree with just about everything you say in both articles.
Mutual consent is the basis of real marriage. If either partner at any time decides not to be in the relationship, that relationship is over. The other one must simply accept it and move on, as difficult and painful as that may be.
Romantic and marital relationships must be fully mutual. Dragging someone back into a relationship that they don’t want to be in is a recipe for disaster.
Blocking another person is not a sin. Deciding not to have contact with a person is not a sin. We are free, thank God, to associate with the people we want to associate with, and not to associate with the people we don’t want to associate with. On this earth sometimes we are unavoidably brought together with people we want nothing to do with. In the spiritual world that will no longer be the case.
Once again, I strongly urge you to drop your insistence that women who have broken up with a husband or boyfriend must later unblock him. This is wrong. If she broke up with him she has her reasons, even if he may not understand or accept those reasons. It is his job to accept her decision, and move on.
If the man really cared about her, he would respect her wishes and leave her alone. His very insistence that she unblock him and give him another chance shows that he cares much more about himself and his own feelings than he does about her and her feelings. That in itself is sufficient reason for her to continue blocking him.
You are just plain wrong about this. You need to get over it.
As for eugenics and making people young again, from a spiritual point of view this would be a giant backward step.
We are designed to live on this earth for a relatively brief period, and then live for the rest of eternity in the spiritual world. Staying in this world a century or more beyond our traditional “threescore years and ten” would not be a good thing any more than staying in the womb for a year or a decade would be a good thing.
Of course, curing diseases and making people healthier during their lifetime on earth is a good thing. But trying to extend human life far beyond its current number of decades is another matter entirely.
Living several centuries in this world would only mean living a smaller, narrower, and more limited existence for several more centuries before finally moving on to our real home in heaven, where life is far brighter, freer, and more expansive than it is here.
I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy.
If the guy can’t apologize to the girl, why doesn’t God do it for him? Because she doesn’t want him to? What if she would accept him back if she knew he was sorry? She doesn’t know even if the guy wants her to? Then why doesn’t God let her know? How could she not want to know?
I would unblock a person after a few months or years to see if he/her changed. But that’s my choice. It’s not other people’s choices.
The guy just needs to accept that she is gone, and move on. That relationship is irreparably broken. It will not be fixed, no matter how much he apologizes. If he can’t accept that she doesn’t want to be with him anymore, that’s his problem, not hers. Not respecting her choice is itself disrespecting her. That is the very reason why he cannot be with her anymore. He needs to fix his own attitudes, and then find another love that he will actually show respect to.
Or find a love that will be more accepting and forgiving.
See https://wqcontroversialthoughts.wordpress.com/2022/01/02/hurting-the-innocent-is-always-wrong/. There may be a few all-caps. Is the language violent?
Yes, at all costs, avoid engaging in any self-examination and repentance. And get the same results in the next relationship.
The post you linked reads as if we’re still living in ancient Israel, and the New Testament doesn’t yet exist.
If God was evil and I had to choose between being godly and perishing in hell for eternity, and being wicked and evil and prospering forever in Heaven… I would recommend people choose the first. Isn’t it wonderful that we don’t have to? That we can be godly and reign forever in heaven?
Imagine hypothetical scenarios of what God could be. We are lucky to have a God that is not some dark, evil, malicious Lord.
Yes, it is a very good thing that we have the God we do, and not one of the darker gods that the human mind can think up.
What do you think of https://wqcontroversialthoughts.wordpress.com/2021/12/22/conversation-with-the-devil-and-conversation-between-the-damned-and-god/?
I agree with the general idea that if the damned were released from hell, they would just re-offend and land right back down there. As your post says, they have made their choice. And they’re not going to change that choice. They love evil rather than good. That is part of their settled character.
And that is precisely why they themselves do not wish to leave hell. In hell they can engage in at least some of their favorite evil behavior. In heaven that is not possible.
For an evil spirit, the atmosphere of mutual love and kindness that reigns in heaven feels like unbearable torture. Ironically, devils experience far more torture if they make it into heaven than they do in their own homes in hell. That’s because they are in a state of opposition to the love of God and the neighbor that reigns in heaven. Any evil spirit that does enter heaven will quickly throw him- or herself back down into hell to avoid that torture and pain. In hell, things may not be great, but at least evil spirits can breathe easy there in an atmosphere that is congenial to their motives and character.
The picture of hell as a place of eternal torture for the wicked is more metaphorical than literal. For more on this, please see:
Is There Really a Hell? What is it Like?
Evil spirits in some parts of hell do experience torture, but it is not continual and unending, and it is at the hands of their fellow evil spirits, not at the hands of God or some supreme Devil. The Devil is not some individual fallen angel (this is not biblical), but a personification of hell as a whole. See:
Is there Really a Devil? Why??
And finally, evil spirits are not stuck in hell because God won’t forgive them. Jesus taught us to forgive those who offend us not seven times, but seventy times seven times (Matthew 18:21–22). And he tells us to love our enemies,
The Psalm says:
If people are stuck in hell, it is not because God refuses to forgive them, but because they themselves refuse to accept God’s love. To accept God’s love is to love one’s fellow human beings also. But the evil spirits in hell have chosen to love only themselves and their own status, power, and possessions. God does not turn God’s back on them; they turn their back on God. God does not condemn them to hell. They condemn themselves to hell.
It is God’s mercy, not any lack of forgiveness on God’s part, that provides a bed in hell for those who have chosen evil, for whom even a single second in heaven is excruciating torture.
How could anyone possibly choose a sinking ship over a lifeboat?
It’s not a smart choice. But that doesn’t seem to deter the people who make that choice.
Well, hell is a sinking ship. heaven is a lifeboat. What if someone didn’t like heaven but chose it because at least they don’t hate it as much as they hate hell?
People choose heaven or hell based on whether they have chosen selfishness or selflessness. The rest is just acting out what they’ve already chosen inside. No person who has a good heart will not like heaven, because heaven will be “the best of all possible worlds” for that particular person. No person of bad heart will like heaven, because everything in heaven is contrary to what they love.
What do you think of https://wqextremeconcepts.wordpress.com/2022/01/22/biopunk-vs-real-life-machines
I doubt we’ll actually improve the human species through bioengineering. Our physiology has developed over millions of years to adapt it to our environment here on earth. Are we really going to improve it by monkeying around with it within a few decades, or even a few centuries? But I’m sure we’ll try anyway. Then we’ll find out.
I actually think of deleting the post.
As for no one being pushed into a relationship they don’t want to be in… How is a guy’s desire to be with a girl not as important as her desire for privacy? After all, “How would you like to be dumped by someone you love so much?” But to her… “I handle breakups much better than guys” but the guy’s response would be “how would you like to be a man who’s dumped by a girl he loves so much?” But she would say “I don’t know! Because I’m not a man. Never have been, and never will be.” But I say that a girl that dumps her partner and breaks his heart and wounds his soul will be Karma-reincarnated into a man that has been dumped. That’s talking like a Hindu.
The bottom line is, every love relationship must be mutual. The moment it is not mutual that relationship is over, regardless of whether it is the guy or the girl who does not love the other one anymore. You can kick against that reality all you want. But if it’s not mutual, it simply won’t work. At that point, it’s best just to accept reality and move on.
This is really disappointing response from GotQuestions to my question:
Considering Matthew 22:30, will our relationships with the same or opposite gender be enhanced or lessened? Will God not put sex and romance in heaven, but select the best of Earth’s sex and romance to be in heaven and particularly (but not only) avoid the animal drive, self-centeredness, and lust aspects of eros? Please give a new answer. Please assign or otherwise give a long answer if possible. I’ve already read answers to “will there be marriage in heaven” and “will there be sex in heaven” and they don’t answer my questions. If the Bible is silent like on “We sincerely apologize, but we were unable…” then give the most likely answer.
Answered by: Steffan
Thank you so much for reaching out to Got Questions! Yes, accordingly to scripture there will be no sex or romantic intimacy (Eros) of any kind in Heaven. Both of the articles you have mentioned explain this clearly as well so if they do not answer your question, I may still be a bit confused on what you are asking specifically. To Reiterate, while there is much pleasure to be found in sexual intimacy, it’s main purpose is indeed for procreation. When Jesus says “they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” this confirms there will be no procreation or sex as both were only intended for married couples. But will this lessen our relationships? Absolutely not! I think we seriously misunderstand Heaven when we assume there is nothing better than sex. The same God who created sex also gave us this promise about Heaven “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Corinth. 2:9). This is basically God’s way of saying that “Enhanced” would be a great understatement.
So we can definitely expect something far beyond sexual intimacy when we get to Heaven but to go on would be pure speculation as this point so I will need to avoid a long answer here. If there is something else more specific you are looking for, please feel free to follow up with another question.
Thank you and God bless
What did you expect? You know what they believe. Why would they say anything different?
I dealt with the vague promises of “something better than sex in heaven” in my response to John Piper in this article:
Marriage in Heaven: A Response to Randy Alcorn and John Piper
Also, if Matthew 22:30 says we won’t “get” married, doesn’t that defeat the point of the response to what the Sadducees said, which concerned couples that were already married in Earthly life? The Sadducees wouldn’t be in error if Matthew 22:30 only meant we don’t GET married.
The Sadducees weren’t asking about marriage at all. They were using the law of levirate marriage to create a hypothetical situation to prove that there is no resurrection, and no heaven. As covered in the above article, traditional Christians err right off the bat when they think that the question is about marriage in heaven.
Jesus was not saying they were wrong about marriage in heaven. He was saying they were wrong about there being no resurrection. And generally, that they were wrong because they were not following the Scriptures in their thinking.
What about Matthew 24:38? Doesn’t that mean that people “married” and were “given in marriage” before the flood and before the Law of Moses existed?
Yes. Why wouldn’t they? The Law of Moses doesn’t have a corner on marrying and being given in marriage.
Did you say you’re going to write a response to my post? I added a link to one of your articles on my blog post. Did you get any notification about pingback or trackback. I might make a few more edits.
No, I’m planning to write a response to another article on marriage in heaven linked in a question submitted by a reader.
I only occasionally approve pingbacks. They’re just links. They don’t move the discussion here forward. You already linked your post in one of your comments here.
And what is that article on marriage?
I meant, I added on my blog post, a link to one of your articles.
It’s another article by a traditional Christian saying that there’s no marriage in heaven. This one is even more blatant in misquoting Jesus’ words about not getting married in the resurrection.
Can you give a link to that article? What’s the title of that article? I linked my blog post to multiple articles on marriage and sexuality in heaven and I don’t even know which one you are referring and going to respond to.
When I respond to it there will be a link in the post.
I have now posted my response to that article here:
Marriage in Heaven: A Response to Tom Wenig
I don’t know that my blog even linked to that?
The link didn’t come from your blog.
I mean, my blog didn’t even link to Tom Wenig (afterdeathsite.com). Do you think he will receive a pingback and/or trackback?
Right. The link to his article came from a spiritual conundrum submitted to me by a reader of this blog.
I don’t know if he’ll receive a pingback.
I deleted your comment with the copy and paste from the other site. See our comments policy, point 6. Their answer to your questions makes the same mistakes in reading the Bible as all the other traditional “Christian” sites, starting with the incorrect statement that Jesus said there’s no marriage in heaven. On this, see my latest article: Marriage in Heaven: A Response to Tom Wenig.
All of the other links in your post are to articles about marriage in heaven. Why didn’t you link to one of my articles on that subject? Such as: Didn’t Jesus Say There’s No Marriage in Heaven?
Because I view you as unreliable and heretical.
Ah. Then why are you talking to me?
Because I am having a discussion with you. And I’m curious about what you would say.
In verse 34, which reads “Children of this world marry and are given in marriage”, is contrasted with the angels who are not married. The word that is translated “world” is αἰῶνος (aion). Aion or aeon, which can be interpreted as time spent in the world (κόσμος). However, the wordin the Greek for world (κόσμος) does not appear there.
Aion is a word that can also mean “eternal” or eternity, taken from its original meaning in Hebrew ‘Olam. What do you think about those christians who had a more Jewish understanding of the scriptures?.
They believed we were still married in the resurrection. With this Jewish understanding, words like aion, would still have their Hebrew meaning of “Eternal” (Olam).
Later translators, after the Hellenization of Christianity, choose a translation of “age” having aion defined as a limited time. In the Gospel of John when Aion is used in connection with Life, we find the preferred translation is “Eternal Life”, with clear celestial implications for those in the next life or world to come, not life in this world of mortality.
Thanks for stopping by, and for your comment.
First, just to be clear, Jesus does not say that angels aren’t married. In Luke 20:34–35 he says:
Notice that he speaks of the act of getting married (the man) and being given in marriage (the woman), not the state of being married. He doesn’t say they aren’t married, but that they don’t get married. These two are not the same thing.
He then moves on to a new topic in verse 36:
Here he is no longer talking about marriage, but about death. The people worthy of the resurrection, he says, can no longer die, because they are like angels, and are children of God. The comparison is not to angels who are not married—something the Bible never says—but to angels who can never die.
And in that same verse he quickly moves on to yet a third topic, that of bearing children. Those worthy of the resurrection, like angels, are children of God. In other words, in the resurrection, and among the angels, there are no human or angelic parents and children, because all in that realm are children of God.
Matthew and Mark have shorter versions in which this isn’t so clear. Those versions could easily be misread as Jesus saying that angels don’t get married and/or aren’t married. But the fuller version in Luke expands upon what Jesus means in his comparison to angels: that angels do not die, and they do not have parent-child relationships with one another.
This is important because the Sadducees’ elaborate story that leads up to their question involves not only marriage, but childbearing and death as well. Jesus responded to their entire narration, not only to their closing rhetorical question about which one of the seven brothers the woman will be married to in the resurrection. It’s just that Jesus responds in such marvelously compact fashion that readers who breeze through his words, and especially readers who are looking to “prove” a particular doctrine (such as “there is no marriage in heaven”), will miss most of his meaning.
If, as Christians believe, Jesus was God in the flesh, then we must pay very careful attention to every word he says. We must presume that he had abilities far beyond ours to convey great meaning in every word, phrase, and sentence he spoke. And we must let him teach us, rather than using his words to “prove” whatever we happen to believe. (Please understand, I am not directing this at you, but at so-called “Christians” who have departed very far from the teachings of Jesus Christ. See: The Christian Church is Not Christian.)
Jesus never says that people aren’t married after death. And he doesn’t say anything about the marital status of angels. See:
Didn’t Jesus Say There’s No Marriage in Heaven?
Now on to the substance of your interesting comment. I must admit that I’m not quite sure what you’re driving at. But I’ll respond to as much as I do understand.
About the Hebrew word olam and the Greek word aion, they both have similar ranges of meaning. They can be anything from an individual’s lifetime to the current era or age to eternity, either from the past or into the future.
People who are not students of language commonly think that each word in the Bible has one meaning, and that it means the same thing everywhere. But that’s just not how language works. No matter what language it is, most words have multiple meanings, as you can see simply by looking in a standard dictionary of that language. Most of the time there is no confusion among the different meanings of a word because the context shows which meaning the author or speaker intends.
In the case of olam and aion, they can mean “age” or they can mean “eternity.” The context makes it clear enough which one is meant, or if another less common meaning is intended.
In Luke 20:34, the context makes it clear that Jesus is using it in the sense of “age.” He is speaking about the people in this time period, and also, by extension, in this world. (“World” in older Bible translations often means “age” or “era,” not “planet” or “realm.” But that meaning of the word “world” is now mostly archaic, which is why newer Bible translations don’t use it anymore.)
In short, I don’t think there is any unusual meaning in Jesus’ use of the word aion in Luke 20:34. He is talking about the people of the culture and era that existed in his time and region.
On your next point, it’s easy to forget that most of the people mentioned in the Gospels, and the Gospel writers themselves, were Jewish. Jesus himself was Jewish. Christianity didn’t exist yet. We therefore must read the Gospels through a Jewish lens, or we will misunderstand what they are saying.
A prime example is what Jesus and the Gospels say about marriage. Later on, Christianity turned against marriage, and began to consider celibacy to be a state superior to marriage. But that is entirely foreign to the Gospels. (See, for example: Didn’t Jesus Say it’s Better to be Celibate than Married?) Jews both then and now consider marriage to be the ideal state, and the state for which God created us. Jesus also made it clear elsewhere that he viewed marriage as a relationship established and blessed by God. (See the above-linked article and its sequel for more on this.) If he then contradicted himself and said that God doesn’t like marriage that much, and does away with it in the afterlife, that would be very strange.
But he says no such thing. Instead, he says that what the worldly Jews of his day thought of as “marriage” does not exist in the afterlife, because their idea of marriage is all about children, personal property, inheritance, and death, none of which exist in the afterlife. Their legalistic “marriage” does not exist in the spiritual world because there is no need for it. But marriage as God originally intended it continues to exist. Once again, this is covered more fully in my two main articles about marriage in the resurrection.
To sum up, Christians who don’t read the Bible through a Jewish lens will miss and misinterpret much of its meaning. That’s not to say that Christians should be Jews. Rather, it is to say that Christianity was originally founded on Judaism, and the New Testament cannot be properly understood without understanding its roots in ancient Jewish culture and religion.
And marriage was a fundamental part of Jewish culture and religion.
Back to olam and aion, once again, it is not wrong to translate them “age” or “era” in some places, and “eternity” in others. These words were used both ways, and the context tells us which one is meant.
If there was something else you wanted to suggest, or were asking about, please feel free to continue the conversation.
You make a really good point here about interpreting the bible through a first century Jewish lens, rather than to read our own time and culture into it. The ancient world was vastly different then the world we are living in today.
Yes. It is a common error to read the Bible as if it were written in our time and culture rather than in the time and culture in which it was actually written. This has led to all sorts of misinterpretations and misunderstandings of what the Bible is saying.