Nostr Web Client

I appreciate your original thinking, nostr:npub1cxp3l03x20mkzezzr4takm8w8zuva7xwvacmcewp97z58hjt8xls3mexlq, and I once also came up with this interpretation and shared it with another young Christian who seemed to agree, but I have since come to see it differently.

In context, the Saduccees had asked Jesus about whose wife this woman who had been married to seven different brothers would be in the resurrection:

> In the resurrection, then, whose wife will she be of the seven? For they all had married her.” Jesus answered them, “You are mistaken, because you don’t know the Scriptures or the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven.

Matthew 22:28–30 (CSB)

Under your view, I would think Jesus would have said that all of the brothers would be married to her (assuming they all make it to the new world), am I right? Instead, Jesus' answer seems to imply that she wouldn't be married to any of the brothers because there won't be any marriage (perhaps other than that of Christ and His Bride, the Church). And if there is no marriage between the children of the resurrection, I can't imagine there would be fornication or adultery among them either!

Saying that the children of the resurrection will be like the angels of God is interesting and mysterious. I remember in the movie Dogma an angel there was portrayed as having no genitalia. I would think we humans would retain our sex and presumably our organs thereto, but I also note that the Bible always appears to portray angels as looking exclusively like men (and they also don't have wings or look like fat little babies). And they are called the "Sons of God". If there are no female angels there is probably no means or need for angels to reproduce. And they certainly wouldn't be engaged in a big homosexual orgy in heaven!

Anyway, just adding my thoughts to the discussion.

> However, as it is written:

“No eye has seen,

no ear has heard,

no mind has conceived

what God has prepared for those who love Him”

1 Corinthians 2:9 (NIV)

Duncan Cary Palmer 1y ago

Thanks for entering the discussion, Brother!🙏🏻😁 I appreciate your participation.

Since you have appealed to Jesus' observation here about angels, I have a few questions for you about them.🤔❓

Do you know that angel is a Greek word, not English? Please read this:

https://peakd.com/life/@creatr/the-curmudgeon-s-bible-the-word-angel

Before reading, did you know there were *at least* three kinds?

Where did the artistic notion of "genderless angels" come from; Scripture, or human tradition?

If you think the idea is scriptural, can you cite the Scriptures it comes from? And if angels are *only* men, does that mean Christians all become men in heaven?

Genesis six seems to indicate that the heavenly beings called "Sons of God" are quite capable of copulating with humans and bringing forth progeny...

Why would you consider gender to be the particular angel characteristic Jesus was alluding to, and not rather, for example, immortality, or four faces, or wings? All of which Scripture actually does describe certain celestial beings as having?

You've said "Jesus' answer seems to imply that she wouldn't be married to any," but wouldn't it be just as likely to imply that theSadducee's "only one husband in the resurrection" assumption was faulty?

In Scripture, are men with multiple wives ever called fornicators or adulterers within the boundary of their marriages?

I'm just pointing out that most of the ideas you mention seem to be more traditional than biblical or cultural.

By the way, why do people always quote 1 Corinthians 2:9 without the very next verse? Oh, maybe because verse 10 says:

"...these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit."🤣

Seriously, I very much appreciate your reading my story, and hope you might find the opportunity to read and comment on the rest of the series.🙏🏻😁🫂💜😆

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Marakesh 𓅦 1y ago

Hi Brother, I did read your article about the different kinds of "angels" and it's good, thanks for sharing! I'm glad it didn't consist of you saying that cherubim and seraphim are also angels...

The notion of "genderless angels", artistic or otherwise likely comes from the fact that

> Scripture universally refers to angels with male names (Luke 1:19, 26; Jude 9; Revelation 12:7) and with male pronouns (Daniel 9:21-22). When they appear, they are referred to as men. Compare Genesis 18:2, 16, 22 to Genesis 19:1. Also, Luke 24:4, 23 refers to two angels as men.

> No angels are referred to as women or with feminine names. There are no angels appearing as females in the Bible. This means that we should not understand these two women in Zechariah 5:9 to be female angels. It would be inconsistent with the rest of Scripture. By the way, it is doubtful that there are actually biological male angels." [(Source:](https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/are-the-two-women-in-zechariah-59-angels/)

I don't think Christians will all become men in the resurrection (despite what the Gospel of Thomas says 🙄); we will likely retain some recognizable correspondence with our previously mortal body, although it may strangely not appear quite the same, judging by the way Jesus was received after His resurrection. And of course Jesus' resurrected body could do things like appear and disappear. My point is our resurrected bodies will be somewhat different, and perhaps might even lack unnecessary organs or even those that led to so much trouble in a past life 😅

As to Genesis 6, I'm more inclined to the interpretation that "The sons of God could be translated 'the sons of the gods'. Ancient texts attest to an ideology of divine kingship; human kings were called sons of various gods." (Note on Gen. 6:1-4 from Guthrie, Donald, *The New Bible Commentary Revised.* Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1973, p. 87.) I think it refers to the despotic rulers of the time who had cities built for themselves and imitated the lifestyle and cruelty of Lamech. They began to call themselves "sons of the gods" and associated with demonic forces (compare Ezekiel 28:11-15; Daniel 10:13). Jude 6-7 speaks against the interpretation that they were angels. If these "sons of the Elohim" were angels, then humans would then have been punished by the Flood for what angels were guilty of.

I think when Jesus' was asked whose wife would the woman who had seven husbands be in the resurrection Jesus' answer was in essence "none of their wife, since there is no marriage in the resurrection." They would be unmarried, like the angels of God. I think the context rules out Jesus referring to the angels' gender or immortality or number of faces, etc.

Good point on quoting 1 Corinthians 2:10: "...these are the things God has revealed to us by His Spirit," though I don't believe the context is referring to sex in heaven as one of them 😄

Duncan Cary Palmer 1y ago

Hi again, Bro!

I really, really appreciate your detailed and thoughtful response! It is good to know what underpins your thinking, and I'm more than glad to see that there's a lot of Scripture there. Believe me, I will be reading up on the passages you've shared and giving them some serious thought!🙏🏻😀🫂😆