In an Internet search concerning the question as to whether the bodies of the resurrected saints will still be male and female or the same gender they had when they lived on earth, AI Overview gave this summation:
"The Bible doesn't explicitly teach what gender people will have after death, but some say it's likely that people will retain their gender. Gender is part of who people are, and it's more than physical, it's part of their nature and how they relate to God. Some say that gender will be perfected and glorified in eternity, and that Jesus retained his gender after his death and resurrection."
I think that is a good short summary of the debate pro and con. It seems to be a direct quote from Got Questions web page but the same page also adds this remark (here):
"Matthew 22:30 speaks of people after the resurrection not participating in marriage–they become "like the angels." However, this does not mean people are genderless. The masculine, not neuter, pronoun is used many times to describe angels (and HE was like...HIS appearance was like, etc.). So there is no real indication that the angels are genderless beings."
The question as to whether the sons of the resurrection will be genderless is not a settled question, although most Christians have historically believed that resurrected saints will retain their gender. Some few others, however, will affirm that saints will be neither male nor female. So, who is right? Most will admit that the bible does not give an explicit clear cut answer to the question, and lean upon inference from scripture for their view. I lean towards the view that the resurrected saints will not have male or female genitalia. Here are my reasons for believing this.
First, if I am correct in affirming that the resurrected saints will not need to urinate and will not procreate, then the genitalia becomes obsolete and even becomes a hindrance to enjoyment of life. Those therefore who affirm that genitalia will be part of the resurrected bodies will needs tell us why. Some say it is for some speculative reason, although the reasons suggested are quite untenable. For instance notice these words from C.S. Lewis:
“In denying the sexual life [in heaven] . . . it is not of course necessary to suppose that the distinction of sexes will disappear. What is no longer needed for biological purposes may be expected to survive for splendour” (Miracles, p. 166).
So, we retain genitalia "for splendour"? Who can believe it? Others may suggest other reasons but all are untenable. I find this answer by Lewis to be quite absurd. Our resurrected bodies will have body parts that serve no use, or that make life not quite as enjoyable as it could be? I find that quite untenable. Augustine believed that genitalia would be present, not for "splendour" as Lewis affirmed, but for ornamentation!
One source gives these citations from Augustine's work "City of God" (See here):
"Beauty is also valued prized by Augustine, and he mentions male bodies as possessing this beauty in a very ornamental way. Women’s bodies will be beautiful too, beautiful in a way that “excites praise” rather than lusts (22:17). Their breasts and vaginas and wombs will be aesthetically pleasing in a pure way, not desired for pleasure or function. Nevertheless, it seems that Augustine highlights even more strongly men’s bodies as those possessing beauty. In particular, men are raised with their nipples and beards and rough skin (22.24). Since these features do not serve any real function, thus unnecessary to the human constitution (as proved by the fact that women’s bodies are different), nipples and beards and rough skin are to be understood as ornamental, as beautiful adjuncts to the resurrection body.
In short, the male body in Augustine’s vision of the resurrection holds onto key masculine features. Whether the basic size of the male body or its decorative aspects, it is to be raised powerful and beautiful, and celebrated as distinctly male."
I find this idea totally untenable. Genitalia is retained for ornamentation and as a thing of beauty? How could it be for pleasing the eyes if no one sees the genitalia of other resurrected saints? Will saints admire their own genitalia as Augustine imagines? I hardly think so.
The above citation from Got Questions argues that men and women in the resurrection retain their genitalia for if they did not, then they would lose their identities. It is argued that if a saint was a male on earth, he must also be a male in the resurrection and throughout eternity. But, the fault with this reasoning lies in the unproven assumption that one cannot be male without the genitalia. However, the same citation says that angels are addressed as masculine, with masculine pronouns. But, if angels are spirits, then how can they have genitalia? That they are able to appear in bodies and do bodily things, such as eat, drink, and have sex with women, the scriptures do declare. But, this is not their normal state, it being non physical, i.e. spiritual. So, the retort says that if angels can be spoken of in the masculine gender without having male physical organs, then why cannot resurrected men still be masculine although they no longer have male genitalia?
Wrote Ian Paul (See here - emphasis mine):
"But what is really fascinating in the patristic writers is the way that they frequently move from the question of resurrection life and virginal existence (encouraged not least by Rev 14.4) to the question of the bodily organs, including sexual organs. They often appear to be responding to a very similar kind of reductum ad absurdum argument to the one that the Sadducees presented to Jesus: if we are to be raised bodily, and if we are going to do without sex in the resurrection, what is the point in having sexed, differentiated, sexual organs? The answers given are unambiguous. Lehtipuu summarises the arguments of Pseudo-Justin and Tertullian in this way: ‘If having sexual organs does not unavoidably lead to sexual intercourse in this world, it will certainly not do so in the world to come.’"[11]
Indeed, what is the purpose of the male and female genitalia if it is still present in the resurrected bodies? The answer that says it is for splendour or ornamental beauty is ridiculous. That it is in order to remaining the same person the saints were on earth is also not cogent reasoning. The eunuch does not cease to be a man because he has been castrated. A women who has had both breasts removed does not cease to be female as a result.
Wrote Ian Paul further:
"If there is no marriage, procreation and sexual relations in the resurrection, but virginity demonstrates that sex difference need not lead to sexual relations, that allows for the possibility that our resurrected bodies will indeed be sex differentiated. But is this necessary? The answer of Jerome (also an ardent opponent of Origen) is unequivocal: bodily resurrection must of necessity imply the continuance of sex identity. ‘The apostle Paul will still be Paul, Mary will still be Mary.’[12] Since we only know ourselves as bodily persons with sex identity, then true continuity into the resurrection (whatever the discontinuities) must involve retaining this.
If the woman shall not rise again as a woman nor the man as a man, there will be no resurrection of the body for the body is made up of sex and members." [13]
Again, this argument that saints lose identity by being resurrected without genitalia is not cogent. A eunuch does not lose his identity by being castrated. Further, it is a begging of the question. The argument assumes a premise that has not been proven to be true, i.e. that the resurrected bodies must retain everything that made a person a person, or a unique person, or a male or female, and that identity necessitates that the resurrected body retain all the parts of the earthly body. Of course, we will have much more to say about these things when we focus on the nature of the resurrected and glorified bodies of the saints.
Consider also the fact that in the intermediate state, the saints in heaven, dwelling as spirits in temporary spiritual bodies, are still male and female though they are disembodied spirits. Are we to suppose that those temporary bodies have male and female parts?
Writes Ian Paul:
"Jerome supports this by himself going back to Jesus’ saying and noting that the phrase ‘they will neither marry nor be given in marriage’ in fact presupposes sex difference."
This reasoning by Jerome is not cogent. One may just as well suppose that the words "neither marry nor given in marriage" presupposes no sex difference.
Writes Ian Paul:
"...it is hard to envisage Jesus’ resurrection body not also being sexed."
Are we to believe that Christ Jesus, after his resurrection, still had male genitalia? Does he need to use the toilet in heaven? I don't think so. Yet, he was still a man after his resurrection. Men can still be men even though they do not have male genitalia. I rather find it "hard to envisage Jesus' resurrection body as being sexed." In the previous chapter we referred to those who had made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. Did they cease to be male because they were eunuchs? No, they did not. Do women today who have a double breast mastectomy cease to be fully women? No, they do not. Also, angels in their natural state are spirits without genitalia and yet are referred to by masculine pronouns.
Heaven would not be paradise if we must use the toilet throughout eternity. Also, will a resurrected man who runs need a jock strap? Will a resurrected female need a bra when she runs?
Paul refers to the body's "comely parts" in contradistinction to its "uncomely parts" (I Cor. 12: 22-24). But, the bodies of the resurrected saints will have no uncomely parts. I understand genitalia to be uncomely parts and is one reason why they are concealed by clothing. But, nothing about the bodies of the risen saints will be ugly or uncomely. Further, in this text Paul says that all parts of the body exist because they are needed, or serve some purpose in the body. But, what purpose will the genitalia serve in the body of the sons of the resurrection?
Second, Galatians 3: 28 and Paul affirming that "in Christ there is neither male nor female" seems to deny that there will still be genders among the resurrected saints. But more on that text in the next chapter.
Third, the arguments used to support the idea that resurrected saints will still have male and female body parts are not convincing, and a begging of the question. Also, the arguments for there being no male and female body parts outweigh arguments against.
Fourth, in the text we have been examining where Christ says there is no marrying for the resurrected saints speaks of those resurrected as "sons of the resurrection," and not "sons and daughters of the resurrection."
Also, we must ask these questions: Do the wicked, after their resurrection, retain their genitalia? If so, what will keep them from sexual intercourse in Hell?
Wrote Augustine (as cited by Schaff here):
"Jesus Himself also, when asked by the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, which of the seven brothers should have to wife the woman whom all in succession had taken to raise up seed to their brother, as the law enjoined, says, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God.” And though it was a fit opportunity for His saying, She about whom you make inquiries shall herself be a man, and not a woman, He said nothing of the kind; but “In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” (Chapter 17.—Whether the Bodies of Women Shall Retain Their Own Sex in the Resurrection)
I do not see the argument of Augustine (in bold above) to be of any weight. I think that when Christ said that the "sons of the resurrection" do not marry includes the inference that they will no longer be strictly male or female as far as genitalia. If the resurrected saints are still male and female, having genitalia, then why could they not marry and have sex?
In fact, in the bulk of new testament texts involving salvation, a sinner saved becomes a "son of God." Only a few texts speak of becoming both sons and daughters. Here are two:
"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (II Cor. 6: 17-18 KJV)
"In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered." (Heb. 2: 10 NIV)
But, again, these are the exceptions. The bulk of times the saints, male and female, are spoken of as becoming sons of God or grown men in Christ. Let us notice some of these texts.
"And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” (Gal. 4: 6 KJV)
Was Paul only addressing the male members of the churches of Galatia? Was he not addressing the female members too? Surely he was and yet he says they are sons of God.
"Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God." (Mattt. 5: 9 kjv)
Female peacemakers will be called "sons of God" in the eternal kingdom?
“nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." (Luke 20: 36)
Here Christ says even the resurrected females will be "sons of the resurrection."
"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God...For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God." (Rom. 8: 14, 19)
Female believers are led by the Spirit of God. So, they are sons of God.
"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3: 26)
Again, this was said as much to the female members of the church as to the male members.
Further, the body of Christ, or his church, composed of male and female members, are to become one perfect man after the image of Christ. Wrote Paul:
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." (Eph. 4: 11-13 kjv)
There are two Greek words for "man." "Anthropos" means a human, and may be either male or female. "Aner" on the other hand denotes a male. In the above passage "man" in the words "a perfect man" is aner.
There are other ways to be either male or female other than the genitalia or the breasts. Men have greater muscles and bones, greater strength, than women. This is why women are referred to as being "weaker vessels" by the apostle Peter. (I Peter 3: 7) But, there will be no weak vessels after the resurrection for all the bodies of the resurrected will be raised in power. (I Cor. 15: 43)
Paul also exhorts all believers, male and female, to be "men." "Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong." (I Cor. 16: 13 ESV)
The answer to our question about resurrected saints retaining male and female body parts is involved in the apostolic question raised by Paul in that great chapter dealing with the resurrection body of believers, i.e. "With what body do they come?" (I Cor. 15: 35) We will deal more in depth with that question in upcoming chapters, but will say this much now; the resurrection body is in some respects the same body that died, but in other respects is not the same body. Therefore, "identity" does not require that the body be in every respect the same body as it was while the believers lived on earth.
Notice these words of the apostle Paul:
"Food is for the stomach and the stomach is for food, however God will do away with both of them. But the body is not for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body." (I Cor. 6: 13 nasb)
If the resurrection body no longer has a stomach, does that mean the body is no longer human? No. Likewise, for the resurrection body to no longer have male and female genitalia and body parts does not mean that they cease to be male and female in every respect. Further, as we have seen, there will be food to eat for the resurrected saints. However, per the above text, the food will not be for the stomach for stomach food will be no longer. I cannot explain the physics of such a thing, but the power of God will bring it about that the saints will eat food and drink beverages and water without digestive organs.
Paul also said that “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.” (1 Cor. 15: 50) So, this is further evidence that the resurrection bodies will not have every body part the same as it was when it lived a mortal life on earth. On this we will have more to say later in chapters on the resurrection bodies.
In the next chapter we will continue focus on this question, especially concerning Galatians 3: 28.
No comments:
Post a Comment