I know that we will have to wait and see, but taking a hint from how God dealt with Israel can't we speculate a little about what life could be like for my family and other ancestors in their resurrection? I think it could be fun and informative.
Sounds boring.
I guess the women will wear long dresses to their ankles, which will be covered in modest black socks. Their long hair will be tied up in a knot and covered by a head scarf. No bikini. The women will clean house and churn butter all day.
The men will be farmers spreading manure over the fields.
I guess they will attend some type of religious service daily to pray to the Lord, read the good book, and keep their minds off sex.
No need for roads. Why travel? A veritable local utopia.
No electricity, no T.V., no radio. no internet. No joking or laughter permitted. Living religiously is serious business after all.
Sounds like a Christian North Korea.
Please Jesus, if that is what you have planned for the world, send me to hell with some loose women, and no Christians or any kind of religious people allowed.
I can appreciate sarcasm. I understand your point too. But, I don't think anyone here really believes any of what you're saying will pertain to the Kingdom Age. Like Kat, I see no reason why human technology must be done away with, on the contrary, I see it growing and advancing exponentially in the Kingdom...
However, some of what you imply (in sarcasm?) seems kind of oddly backwards to me. Why your strong focus on sexuality? Of course, mortals will still be living, being married and procreating during that time, so it will still be going on, but really, do I still have to be accosted by thongs when I'm at the beach with my wife and daughters? Have you been to the beach lately, John? Or is your impression of "bikinis" still the Mousketeer Annette Funicello Beach Blanket Bingo sort of thing.. Cuz I'm here to tell you, things have really changed in that regard.
And I don't know about you brother, but when most of us get a little bit more mature--even in this world--it becomes not so much of a chore to "keep our minds off of sex" all the time. I tend to think that in the world to come, it will be a bit easier even (especially if we're all not constantly afflicted with rote pornography--in all of it's subtle, and not-so-subtle forms).
I for one don't want to be "spreading manure on fields" all day either (and I enjoy my gardens and mini-farm immensely)...I think the old adage, 'work smarter, not harder' will apply in that Future Day as well, and much more! Likewise, I don't want to see women "churning butter and cleaning houses" all day...unless they're doing it in a summer dress and high heels of course ;) . But skip the gratuitous nudity, please. I've had enough of that offense, and frankly, some of the bodies on display at said beaches NEED to be covered.
That being said, is it commonly accepted among all here that the Kingdom of God begins on the earth and ultimately spreads to all of the universe (since "of the increase of His kingdom will be no end")?
There are many verses, some of which I listed, which talk about old things being passed away and no more. So why are so many people so sure that the next age is the old stuff minus the sin? The old stuff without the ungodliness?
Well, of course you could be 100% right, Alex, we don't know much at all about the next age. Speculation, all, but then that was the point of this thread..
I've always thought of the passage in Matthew 22 on marrying in the resurrection applied to those who were in the first resurrection only, but you're right, it's ambiguous at least. However, if you theorize that Christ meant that ALL in the resurrection(s) would not marry, then you are saying He'll raise mortal men in corrupt bodies (which he will) that will somehow be sexless? Interesting thought--I've never considered that. Does anyone else see it that way? (Certainly not John ;D )
I suppose I take these scriptures to give credence to the idea that children will be born during that time:
Is11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea."
And also, below, where Isaiah seems to be speaking of the elect:
Is65:17 17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them.
And is this not saying there will still be death (at least for a time?) The Kingdom does not come to all at once. Indeed many will find themselves "outside the gates". All of the promises you mention (with which I agree and eagerly await!) come, it seems to me, at the culmination of the Kingdom, not necessarily in the beginning, no?
I'd love to hear more comment about this very interesting subject.
Right, but won't some go alive into the Kingdom age when Christ returns? Or are you suggesting that ALL will be slain who are not in the first Resurrection? If so, I'm quite curious as to where you discern that, because I've never seen anything suggesting that in scripture, or in any of Ray's teachings. Could you elaborate? And if you agree that some do indeed go alive into the next Age, why wouldn't they still die and yet not contradict Hebrews 9:27? (They haven't died "once"). This scripture just doesn't "remove all doubt" for me.
The next age is for a different purpose... judgment on those who have already lived once, the exception is the elect who have already been judged. When this age ends and Christ returns, the pattern that was set for this age will be over... things will be different. There will be those that live through that period, from this age into the next, and I think they will be in a special situation, they are then to partake of the new pattern of the new age. I do not think there will be physical death in the next age... what purpose would that serve? Death is a keeping place for everyone just until they are resurrected. The next age is that judgment - the second death - dying to self. Now after the first resurrection, I can see how the rest could be raised in stages, maybe, Paul did mention "each one in his own order," (1 Cor 15:23).
Well Kat and Alex, I actually agree with both of your last posts.
One point though, Alex--The fact that I do understand that Hebrews 9:27 is speaking of spiritual death was my point in arguing it the way I did. Kat used it to prove there would be no physical death in the Kingdom Age, but we can't have it both ways, can we? If it is speaking of the spiritual,then it does not remove the possibility of the physical. See?
Nevertheless, I fully accept the sense of your last post, Kat. It seems true to me. The details, I guess, we really can't know, as obviously things will be SO radically different that anything we imagine will probably be wrong. Like my sticking point of the 'sexlessness' of people resurrected with mortal, carnal bodies...I don't get that. But it does seem it must be so if, in fact, there will be no more creation of humans then. How this will work, I have no idea. Maybe John from Kentucky has some thoughts? ;D ;D
I especially like what you said below..
The next age is for a different purpose... judgment on those who have already lived once, the exception is the elect who have already been judged. When this age ends and Christ returns, the pattern that was set for this age will be over... things will be different. There will be those that live through that period, from this age into the next, and I think they will be in a special situation, they are then to partake of the new pattern of the new age. I do not think there will be physical death in the next age... what purpose would that serve? Death is a keeping place for everyone just until they are resurrected. The next age is that judgment - the second death - dying to self. Now after the first resurrection, I can see how the rest could be raised in stages, maybe, Paul did mention "each one in his own order," (1 Cor 15:23).
That I can wrap my mind around. I guess my fixation on the HOW of it is something I should just let go...for now.
I see it completely differently. If physical death is not required to enter judgment, and the next age is about judgement, then when humanity is raised, there is no reason for them to ever have to physically die again because that was never the requirement in the first place. Physical death will serve no purpose.
Hi Alex,
You're missing the mark on all the Scriptures you quoted.
I'm still at work. Gotta get home and get rested up. Kentucky basketball game tomorrow night. God's team is playing, and I must watch. (And yes, I can prove they're God's team :D )
But I'll show you where you're off on a few of your comments.
The Galatians 3:28 quote, God is not saying there won't be men and women in the Kingdom. Remember God's Word never contradicts. In 2nd Corinthians He says He will have sons and daughters. The Galatians Scripture is saying there will be no superiority of one over another. There is another Scripture that says God is no respecter of persons. A man or woman is equal in God's sight. He loves both His sons and daughters equally.
Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom. Yes, that is true, but that doesn't specifically address the question of sexual differences. We cannot twist and read something into the Scriptures that is not there.
I don't get where you are coming from that husband and wife involves lusting after the flesh. So what? A husband and wife having sex is perfectly all right and is not sinful at all. God created it so. The marriage bed is undefiled. All lust is not sin, if it is permitted and blessed by God. Jesus greatly desired (the Greek word is lusted) to eat that final Passover with His Apostles. Jesus did not sin. Only unlawful desires, from the heart, are sins.
Jesus is God. He is in a state all His own. He had a unique special purpose. He is not equal to us. Therefore, things He did while on the Earth do not equate with us. For example, He was sinless---all of us are sinners. Jesus was the Creator God and Savior---we are the dust of the Earth. Get the point?
All the quotes of Paul relate to the specific factors affecting the Corinthian church. They don't specifically apply to us.
Also, I don't understand your point about consummation of marriage. If you study Ray' article on marriage, from the Scriptures, sexual consummation is not required to validate a marriage. Although just about everyone thinks it does, but everyone does not understand the Scriptures on that point. Read Ray's study if you want understanding on that point.
You're a bulldog Alex. Keep studying and thinking. Do not take any man's word on anything. God's Spirit will guide you to all Truth.
Remember the paramount Truths: 1) God does not lie, and 2) God's Word does not lie. There are no contradictions. But all Scriptures must be brought together to see the Truth on a matter. There is a Scripture that tells us what is true humility, it is one who trembles at God's Word.
Also, my favorite, "Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit says the Lord Almighty."
Now follow this closely since some can't quite get it. To have sons and daughters means there will be sexual differences in the spiritual bodies we will have. Because if we don't have sexual differences then there will not be sons and daughters. We would be "its" without sexual differences.
We do not know for sure if there will be sex in the age to come; Scriptures are not definite either way.
I know some of you think there is one Scripture that says no sex after the Resurrection. However, you make the common mistake of using only one Scripture and not closely reading the words. Jesus said they would not marry after the age to come; He did not say that there would be no sex :-[.
Ray did an excellent study on marriage in which he showed that having sex is not a requirement to validate a marriage. Please read Ray's article carefully if you want to increase your Scriptural knowledge on the subject of marriage.
God's Words are Spirit, and They are Life, and must be spiritually discerned.
Kat,
;D ;D ;D ;D Also, you are being dishonest.
Those who have formed a conclusion on this matter are ignorant of the Scriptures because they cannot quote at least two Scriptures that directly backs up their opinion.
This question regarding sex does not offend me. In fact, I am bored with the discussion.
What is offensive are those who have formed unscriptural opinions and cannot produce two witnesses in support of their opinions. They think having a cheerleading section backs up unscriptural opinions. Blind leading the blind.
P.S. You quote Jesus saying they will not marry in the Resurrection. That is true. But marriage and sex are two different things. That is why they are two different words. That is why Ray in his marriage article states that sex is not a requirement to form a valid marriage. You need to carefully read Ray's study on marriage.
John F. K.
My friend on the forum.
Suggestion from one who has made a couple of mistakes in my short life.
I sense that you have a lot to offer by way of Bible knowledge and spiritual understanding.
And I observe that it is sometimes misunderstood by your readers.
Maybe it would help if you carefully and lovingly delayed and edited your responses before sending them on. You have said a couple of times that you were at work and were tired and waiting to get home to a game. Perhaps your advice would be just as valuable after a period of rest and a chance to think through how they will be perceived by your friends.
Plus if your remarks were more judiciously presented with long suffering patience they would be more helpful for all concerned including the guests that read along with us.
Kindly offered, Indiana Bob
John F. K.
My friend on the forum.
Suggestion from one who has made a couple of mistakes in my short life.
I sense that you have a lot to offer by way of Bible knowledge and spiritual understanding.
And I observe that it is sometimes misunderstood by your readers.
Maybe it would help if you carefully and lovingly delayed and edited your responses before sending them on. You have said a couple of times that you were at work and were tired and waiting to get home to a game. Perhaps your advice would be just as valuable after a period of rest and a chance to think through how they will be perceived by your friends.
Plus if your remarks were more judiciously presented with long suffering patience they would be more helpful for all concerned including the guests that read along with us.
Kindly offered, Indiana Bob
Loc,
If you read my response in that regard, you'd see that I've diligently studied Ray's teachings on marriage. Ray is not correct in saying sex and love have nothing to do with marriage; please re-read what I wrote. You are free to disagree of course, but be sure, I have diligently read and listened.
But again, on this matter, some are saying things that I don't think Ray meant to say. Such as a woman and a man 'can be married having never had sex'. Absurd. Is there anybody here that thinks otherwise?
I'd like to point out to anyone else reading now or in the future that some things in the scriptures must be deduced. There is not chapter and verse on every single detail about anything. I've had to learn--and recently been reminded of that on this very thread.