Is there Marriage & Sex in Heaven and the New Earth?

[Rollo Tamasi]

A rabbi?

Hi agape. I can't speak for you, but I have found that many people think that since Jews rejected Jesus that they don't know anything.
Is it really such a foreign thought that ancient rabbis could interpret their own language better than modern day gentile scholars?

 

[iLOVE]

No, that is not at all biblical.


As to the OP, no, there is no marriage or sex in the new heaven and new earth.

Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. Ephesians 1:4

So how is this not biblical?

 

[Agape]

Can we really conclude that "sons of God" means "angels" and that they had sexual relations with women? I can't. Not on the strength of simple assertion alone, and especially not when Jesus contradicts that conclusion (as others have posted) in Mark 12:25.

Who married the "daughters of men" to produce the 'mighty men' (gibbowr)? Simple answer: the sons of God; the "ben 'elohiym". When we look at the Scripture in Genesis we see that sons of God saw daughters of Adam (who were 'fair'), they took them as wives and some "mighty men" were the offspring. No need to introduce strange theories that contradict what Jesus clearly explained about angels and heaven there.

But who are the "ben 'elohiym"?
That same phrase is also in Job 1:6 (http://biblos.com/job/1-6.htm) and it clearly means angels.

The author of the article I quoted tried to examine three main interpretations, that I found in my NKJV Study Bible as well. The most likely interpretation of "sons of God" (view 1 shown in blue) is that sons of God were fallen angels. It is possible that these angels left their proper domain (Jude 6) and whose sin led to divine judgment (2 Peter 2:4).

While it is true that the Bible clearly teaches that angels do not marry (Mark 12:25), it does not say that they don't sin (Jude 6, 2Pe 2:4)! Peter clearly says that God did not spare angels who sinned. Therefore, it may be that fallen angels assumed human form and married human women.

Something bothers me though. Genesis 6: 5-7 does not support the interpretation that an angelic interaction with humanity is what caused God to send the flood.

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man (Gen 6:5)
The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth (Gen 6:6)
So the Lord said, "I will destroy man" (Gen 6:7)

 

[Guest]

Hi agape. I can't speak for you, but I have found that many people think that since Jews rejected Jesus that they don't know anything.
Is it really such a foreign thought that ancient rabbis could interpret their own language better than modern day gentile scholars?

We should not discredit the fact that John the Baptist and the prophets of Jesus called Jesus Rabbi. ;)

 

[Sparkey]

I'm not involved with, nor do I associate with the Kaballah cult religion. Not trying to say that you are or do, but that's where this idea started from - I have no problem challenging it and would be very slow to accept the idea that angles mated with women as biblical truth. In fact, "very slow" does not describe my reaction because I outright reject it.

But who are the "ben 'elohiym"?
That same phrase is also in Job 1:6 (http://biblos.com/job/1-6.htm) and it clearly means angels.

I think "sons of God" ultimately means "those whom are created by God". Jesus called himself "the son of man" - because he lowered Himself beneath the position of the angels and was clothed in flesh. He now sits at the right hand of God and is the firstborn Son of God. We are given power to become sons of God (John 1:12-13) which [are] born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Sons of God (humans)
Hebrew

• Gen 6:2 "ben elohiym" sons of God
• Job 1:6 "ben elohiym" sons of God

Greek

• John 1:12 " teknon theos" sons of God
• Rom 8:19 "huios theos" offspring of men
• Philippians 2:15 "" teknon theos" sons of God

Angels
Hebrew

• Gen 19:1 "mal'ak" messenger, representative
• Gen 32:1 "mal'ak" messenger, representative
• Psa 103:20 "mal'ak" messenger, representative

Greek

• Mat 22:30 "aggelos theos" an angel, a messenger from God
• Rom 8:38 "aggelos" an angel

Satan (Fallen Angel) also was Lucifer
Hebrew

• 1Ch 21:1 "Satan" adversary
• Job 2:1 "satan" adversary

Greek

• Mark 1:13 "Satanas" the prince of evil spirits
• Luk 10:18 "Satanas" the inveterate adversary of God and Christ

No......... ben elohiym are humans that believe in Jesus Christ. [EDIT by Sparrowhawke] If the term can refer to angels (I can't see why not?) then it still can not refer to fallen angels. Some men were called "sons of their father, the Devil" in John 8:44 because of their nature.

 

[Agape]

I'm not involved with, nor do I associate with the Kaballah cult religion. Not trying to say that you are or do, but that's where this idea started from

source?

 

[Agape]

The view that the sons of God were angels is very ancient. In the first century A.D., Flavius Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews (1:3:1) held the position that angels co-habited with women. Later authors such as Philo of Alexandria (early first century A.D.) also held this position as did many rabbinical authorities. The Genesis Apocryphon, among the Dead Sea Scrolls, states this angelic interpretation.

Furthermore, many Christian interpreters also took this position. These include: Justin, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Ambrose.

source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=724

 

[Sparkey]

source?

I'm no expert on false, esoteric Jewish mysticism. My point was that the term "sons of God" refers to those whose nature is from God (as opposed to fallen angels).

The topic of this thread is "Marriage & Sex in Heaven and the New Earth" - not esoteric beliefs.

 

[Sparkey]

Something bothers me though. Genesis 6: 5-7 does not support the interpretation that an angelic interaction with humanity is what caused God to send the flood.

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man (Gen 6:5)
The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth (Gen 6:6)
So the Lord said, "I will destroy man" (Gen 6:7)

Same thing bothers me. I don't believe that the Flood was sent to correct men who were born tainted by angelic sin. I think that the sin of mankind stands on its own. I find zero biblical evidence that the flood had anything to do with angels, nor do I believe in a "half race" (if you can call it that) formed from unheard of sexual relations.

 

[Agape]

I'm not involved with, nor do I associate with the Kaballah cult religion. Not trying to say that you are or do, but that's where this idea started from

I'm no expert on false, esoteric Jewish mysticism. My point was that the term "sons of God" refers to those whose nature is from God (as opposed to fallen angels).

The topic of this thread is "Marriage & Sex in Heaven and the New Earth" - not esoteric beliefs.

I am not interested in esoteric beliefs either. You indicated that this is where this idea came from and wanted a source simply because Josephus held that position in the first century A.D. whereas this Kaballah cult developed between the 6th and 13th centuries.

I am sure that if someone told you that what you believe comes from a cult religion you'd want evidence of that because no christian wants to have anything to do with Satan.

 

[Sparkey]

Oh, I see where you are coming from. I looked at Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 while trying to follow what you are saying.

But if mighty men were created by the sexual union of fallen angels and the fair daughters of men (they weren't) - and if somebody wants to justify the belief that "sons of God" means "fallen angels" - then why is Satan excluded from their group in the book of Job?

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Something more like, "the sons of God, of whom Satan is chief (or even included)" even though it sounds, as my children would say, "wrong" would force me to see their point, but that's not was was said at all. So if "sons of God" does not include Satan, or fallen angels, then the conclusion that they must be that part of the group who had sex with pretty (fair) daughters of men is simply false. Sons of God means those who share their nature with The Father in heaven, not those who oppose Him.

As far as the discussion about what Jesus said regarding angels and sexuality - it is the only place in the bible that deals both clearly with the issue. The discussion was about a different false belief - the Sadducee thought there would be no Resurrection and proposed the dilemma. As if to say, "If there even is such a thing as a resurrection, what about the Law of Moses that directs us to marry our brothers widow? What would happen?" "Whose wife would she be?"

Jesus addressed the main point saying that there wasn't sexual relations in heaven like there was on earth - and they had made a mistake because of two things - One, they didn't know the Scripture and two, they didn't understand the Power of God. They also misunderstood the purpose of God, supposing that God was a god of the dead. We are being created in order to be with Him; to be united with Christ (our Bridegroom). This is the Biblical mystery that Paul talks about, not a false, mystical, ancient Hebrew belief about angels.

The church isn't going to have sex in heaven. After the resurrection, the risen will not marry nor be given in marriage. They (hopefully we) will be like the angels (in this manner).

 

[Sparkey]

I am not interested in esoteric beliefs either. You indicated that this is where this idea came from and wanted a source simply because Josephus held that position in the first century A.D. whereas this Kaballah cult developed between the 6th and 13th centuries.

I am sure that if someone told you that what you believe comes from a cult religion you'd want evidence of that because no christian wants to have anything to do with Satan.

I stand corrected. I should not have used the technical term "Kaballah" for ancient, false, Hebrew beliefs because that is not what those false teachers called themselves. The type of reasoning I used there should fall on it's own because it is an ad hominem fallacy. You are right to correct me on it. Pardon me, but kindly read what I was trying to say (but didn't say sufficiently well in order to get my point across).

 

[Free]

We must remember our spirits was once with God in Heaven before He sent us into time. Also our spirits were all unmarried in heaven.

No, that is not at all biblical.

Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes. Ephesians 1:4

So how is this not biblical?

There is nothing in the entirety of Scripture to suggest that we existed as spirit beings with God prior to our existence, our being born, on Earth, never mind existing outside of time. That is an attribute of God alone.

 

[iLOVE]

There is nothing in the entirety of Scripture to suggest that we existed as spirit beings with God prior to our existence, our being born, on Earth, never mind existing outside of time. That is an attribute of God alone.

This is a classic example how two Christian Believers see the same scripture and disagree about God's word. One Believer see's the promise and the other Believer see's the problem. However Believers must fully accept other believers with whom they disagree without trying to change them! This demands freedom of conscience as the basis of fellowship, not an imposed uniformity. Believers are all in process. They must give the Spirit time to work and mold each into maturity, but even in maturity, they will not all agree.

 

[Free]

This is a classic example how two Christian Believers see the same scripture and disagree about God's word. One Believer see's the promise and the other Believer see's the problem. However Believers must fully accept other believers with whom they disagree without trying to change them! This demands freedom of conscience as the basis of fellowship, not an imposed uniformity. Believers are all in process. They must give the Spirit time to work and mold each into maturity, but even in maturity, they will not all agree.

A classic example? Not really. We shouldn't necessarily try to change people but we are commanded to correct where there is error in belief and doctrine, especially serious errors such as believing we existed prior to our birth. Ephesians 1:4 in no way even implies such an idea.

 

[Agape]

I stand corrected. I should not have used the technical term "Kaballah" for ancient, false, Hebrew beliefs because that is not what those false teachers called themselves. The type of reasoning I used there should fall on it's own because it is an ad hominem fallacy. You are right to correct me on it. Pardon me, but kindly read what I was trying to say (but didn't say sufficiently well in order to get my point across).

That's not what I meant either. It has nothing to do with semantics but christian principles. If I know that what I believe comes from Satan, I want evidence because I don't want to have anything to do with him.
My Study Bible is my spiritual food, I love it and cannot live without it. Now, if I find out that commentaries come from false teachers, I would not want to use it again. I've walked away from false teachers several times, I can do that again.

Oh, I see where you are coming from. I looked at Job 1:6 and Job 2:1 while trying to follow what you are saying.
- then why is Satan excluded from their group in the book of Job?

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Here is what I said

But who are the "ben 'elohiym"?
That same phrase is also in Job 1:6 (http://biblos.com/job/1-6.htm) and it clearly means angels.

In Job 1:6 "ben 'elohiym" clearly means angels. I mentioned that to explain one of the reasons why one interpretation among the three main ones was likely correct.

In the book of Job Satan is shown as talking to God and Job 1:6 says that he came also among angels. I don't understand why you are saying that Satan is excluded? "Came also among the sons of God" does not mean excluded from their group.

Then, I have one last question regarding your interpretation of "men of God". Did they offend God or not in Genesis 6?

I will not comment on the rest of your post (regarding the phrase "men of God") for reasons explained earlier. It just bothers me to see how the context of Genesis 6 did not actually support the interpretation that an angelic interaction with humanity is what caused the flood. Resolving that contradiction is my priority and will study Genesis 6 more deeply as soon as I am done with my current Bible study.

God bless.

 

[Guest]

I might be grasping at straws here but what the heck, just some ideas to ponder. Is it that false to think that God has surprises for us that he doesn't want us to know about, we are talking about eternity here. I just wanna make sure we haven't missed anything. ;)

1. Matthew 6:10 - Thy will be done in earth as it is in Heaven
2. Psalm 16:11 states pleasure(s) plural
3. Does sexuality in the Song of Solomon in Bible refer to earth and not Heaven?
4. Would Adam and Eve had sex if there was no fall?
5. Is there wine in Heaven, if so why not physical sex?
6. If there's no physical sex between partners, will there be heavenly sex/spiritual sex?
7. Does God have surprises for us in Heaven and the New Earth/any scriptures supporting this?

 

[Sparkey]

I will not comment on the rest of your post (regarding the phrase "men of God") for reasons explained earlier. It just bothers me to see how the context of Genesis 6 did not actually support the interpretation that an angelic interaction with humanity is what caused the flood. Resolving that contradiction is my priority and will study Genesis 6 more deeply as soon as I am done with my current Bible study.

God bless.

That's okay, I have no problem waiting on the Lord for an answer either. Glad to discuss this with you at a later time after your current study is concluded. Actually, I'm a grandpa attending college and need to get back to my studies as well. Feel free to PM me.

Parting quote for you to think about regarding sex in heaven? Sure, glad you asked:

"No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"

 

[Sparkey]

I might be grasping at straws here but what the heck, just some ideas to ponder. Is it that false to think that God has surprises for us that he doesn't want us to know about, we are talking about eternity here. I just wanna make sure we haven't missed anything. ;)

1. Matthew 6:10 - Thy will be done in earth as it is in Heaven
2. Psalm 16:11 states pleasure(s) plural
3. Does sexuality in the Song of Solomon in Bible refer to earth and not Heaven?
4. Would Adam and Eve had sex if there was no fall?
5. Is there wine in Heaven, if so why not physical sex?
6. If there's no physical sex between partners, will there be heavenly sex/spiritual sex?
7. Does God have surprises for us in Heaven and the New Earth/any scriptures supporting this?

Greetings, urk!
I think what you said there is exactly right, well except for the "He doesn't want us to know about it" part.

Now, here we are, separated from the plan of God by something as unbeatable as Death - while joined to the plan for us by our faith in Jesus and we're asking what's on the other side. "I mean what exactly??" Well, we know that Death won't separate us from the love of God and that it only appears that way for now - but when we die, we will be raised and Death's victory has been swallowed up - but like children at the table, who are just tall enough to see all the good stuff to eat and all the shiny utensils, but not tall enough to reach it - we want it NOW...

Probably the best I can say is "it has to be good because God is good."
I might go out on a limb and say something like "The Goodness of heaven, compares to what we see today as the goodness of Jesus compares to any sinner" -- There is no comparison!

But I'm right there with you, jumping up at the table and trying to grab onto the heavenliest - but then I read what I should be doing: Building the Church. Letting "her" grow. The Bridegroom is coming. She (His Bride) is listening even now, and I suspect, because you are a believer, you are part of this.

 

[John 8:32]

Genesis 6:1-4

Luk 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.