Sexuality and the Resurrection of the body?

[Edward345]

Patricia Beattie Jung is Visiting Professor of Christian Ethics, Saint Paul School of Theology,she examines the historical traditions and biblical rationales for this teaching. She defends an alternative claim that there will be a healed and glorified experience of sex in heaven based on a compelling account of the Christian hope for bodily resurrection. The first half of the work focuses on Christian foundations for the notion of sex in heaven, while the second goes on to discuss some of the implications of those convictions for sex on earth.

In her article professor of historical theology Margaret Miles argues that Augustine’s late-fourth-century accounts of bodily resurrection hold open the notion of what we moderns, living in the shadow of Freud, would call sexuality. Miles explains that St. Augustine rejected the notion of postresurrection sex because “sexual intercourse can only take place between mortal bodies” for the divinely ordained sole purpose of reproduction to perpetuate a mortal race, which would be moot in paradise where no one dies. Nevertheless, it is possible to read Augustine as suggesting that “a quality and value we name as ´sexuality´will be a feature of resurrected ´spiritual´bodies.”

What do you think about that?

 

[Viki63]

I like C,S, Lewis’ relaxed take on these questions. If I read him rightly, he posits that our sexuality will be part of our immortal beings, rather as Christ’s healed wounds are part of his resurrected body, as medals or signs of triumph.

“Guesses, of course, only guesses. If they are not true, something better will be.”

Soon enough, if all goes according to the will of God, we will know.

.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

I believe that there will be males and females in heaven, but I believe that it is unlikely that there will be sex in Heaven.

1. Sexual urges serve to make humans propagate the human race. There will be no new humans in heaven, so sex would be purely for pleasing oneself, which seems lustful and therefore has no place in heaven.
2. The base human urges to eat, drink water, have sex, etc are tied to our biology. In heaven, we cannot die, so I also believe that we will not feel hunger. By extension, I think that will apply to sexual urges.
3. Who is one to have sex with? There is no marriage in Heaven. Our marriage on Earth is dissolved upon the death of one of the spouses. Many people have 2nd or 3rd spouses when their previous partner dies. Who would they have sex with?

I just can’t see how it would work logistically. I also think that it doesn’t fit with what we understand of our resurrected bodies. Admittedly, though, nobody really has a clue what having glorified bodies will be like.

 

[GEddie]

I think that the NT trumps “the shadow of Freud” in any case. Our LORD said there would be no marriage in Heaven. Sexual behavior is a gift between spouses. QED.

However, the spiritual body remains a solid, human body. Therefore male or female. Even in the natural life, we “behave sexually” only very intermittently, but are always man or woman.

ICXC NIKA

 

[SecretCatholic]

However, the spiritual body remains a solid, human body. Therefore male or female. Even in the natural life, we “behave sexually” only very intermittently, but are always man or woman.

What will be the point of genitals, though? If there is no more sex, I don’t think it would make much sense for women to have breasts or men to have testicles, for instance. If there is no sexual act, there is no need for breasts to attract or feed babies. If there is no sexual act, then there is no need for male bodies to produce and keep sperm cool.

As for masculine and feminine behaviors- a lot of those are predicated on the dangerous world we live in. Men tend to be physically protective of women because women are more fragile and men are stronger. But it seems that will no longer be the case with glorified bodies. I doubt that the glorified body of either sex will be able to be hurt and lack strength. Additionally, so much of the female body is designed for the production of life that it would make the female design largely irrelevant if that were no longer its function.

I agree that we must trust in God. But even brief consideration of this topic leaves one scratching one’s head- since so much of our physical and mental identity lies in our sex, which depends on functions that will seemingly no longer be necessary in glorified bodies. A change of function seems to necessitate a change of identity.

 

[Gertabelle]

There’s so much to be done in this life – serving Our Lord in those around us, spreading the gospel, growing in holiness.

I think it’s best we make sure we do our part in this life to make it to heaven in the first place, and bring along as many others as we’re able, and let God take care of what heaven will be like.

Just my two cents…

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I can’t help but think of this saying: “whatever is received is received in the manner of the receiver”.

I leads me to believe that if God created them male and female, and we are created in His image, it would make sense that there is some form of masculine and feminine on the other side. Sex?, I don’t think so. Testicles?, why bother.

What the apostles saw of Jesus’ resurrected body should, I would think, follow the hermeneutic, "whatever is received is received in the manner of the receiver”. That would mean that the fact that Jesus ate fish and, presumably, still had his testicles is not essential to the ‘meat and potatoes’ of the resurrected body. The point was that there is a resurrected body and it is not quite the same as the mortal body.

 

[SecretCatholic]

What the apostles saw of Jesus’ resurrected body should, I would think, follow the hermeneutic, "whatever is received is received in the manner of the receiver”. That would mean that the fact that Jesus ate fish and, presumably, still had his testicles is not essential to the ‘meat and potatoes’ of the resurrected body. The point was that there is a resurrected body and it is not quite the same as the mortal body.

I don’t think Jesus appeared naked to the apostles, so I don’t think we can comment on whether his glorified body had the same external anatomical features as his pre-glorified human body. Angels also appeared in human form, though they do not have intrinsic physical bodies.

BTW, could you explicate what you mean by “whatever is received is received in the manner of the receiver”?

P.S. I hope my mention of human genitals is not scandalous or viewed as disrespectful in any way. I cringe a little to mention it, but I thought it was essential to the discussion.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

What will be the point of genitals, though? If there is no more sex, I don’t think it would make much sense for women to have breasts or men to have testicles, for instance. If there is no sexual act, there is no need for breasts to attract or feed babies. If there is no sexual act, then there is no need for male bodies to produce and keep sperm cool.

As for masculine and feminine behaviors- a lot of those are predicated on the dangerous world we live in. Men tend to be physically protective of women because women are more fragile and men are stronger. But it seems that will no longer be the case with glorified bodies. I doubt that the glorified body of either sex will be able to be hurt and lack strength. Additionally, so much of the female body is designed for the production of life that it would make the female design largely irrelevant if that were no longer its function.

I agree that we must trust in God. But even brief consideration of this topic leaves one scratching one’s head- since so much of our physical and mental identity lies in our sex, which depends on functions that will seemingly no longer be necessary in glorified bodies. A change of function seems to necessitate a change of identity.

Since we can’t die, technically we have no need of food. Or oxygen. Hence a our organs are unnecessary.

Our bodies glorified will be like our earthly bodies even if we don’t need them like we do here. Or at least that is what makes sense to me.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

What will be the point of genitals, though? If there is no more sex, I don’t think it would make much sense for women to have breasts or men to have testicles, for instance. If there is no sexual act, there is no need for breasts to attract or feed babies. If there is no sexual act, then there is no need for male bodies to produce and keep sperm cool.

As for masculine and feminine behaviors- a lot of those are predicated on the dangerous world we live in. Men tend to be physically protective of women because women are more fragile and men are stronger. But it seems that will no longer be the case with glorified bodies. I doubt that the glorified body of either sex will be able to be hurt and lack strength. Additionally, so much of the female body is designed for the production of life that it would make the female design largely irrelevant if that were no longer its function.

I agree that we must trust in God. But even brief consideration of this topic leaves one scratching one’s head- since so much of our physical and mental identity lies in our sex, which depends on functions that will seemingly no longer be necessary in glorified bodies. A change of function seems to necessitate a change of identity.

You are mixing up sex (as in gender) and sex (as in the act). Priests are just as masculine as married men. One’s gender has some influence on their personality, be it due to biology or cultural norms. Sex as an act is enabled by the fact that two separate genders exist, but has nothing to do with the worth or the person. Your post obliquely implies that infertile or virgin people are somehow ‘less’, if you read it a certain way (accidental I’m sure).

Sex has no purpose in heaven. We will have no need to be biologically impelled to want to have sex. It won’t even be on anyone’s radar.

 

[thinkandmull]

Perhaps there are no genitals in heaven, as some old art portrays. Perhaps there is and yet the reproductive function would not exist for them. Or maybe on the pleasure element is still there and we will have that just like some say we will eat delicious food in heaven (The Happiness of Heaven book, Roman Catholic Books sells). Who is to say. It is a BAD question to ask though

 

[Qoeleth]

I think that in the Islamic Heaven, isn’t it?

But seriously, if there was sex, there would be desire, and if there is desire, there is always less than perfect happiness (since a perfectly happy being cannot desire anything). Yet, if there was no desire, the sex would be pointless and ungratifying. If there was desire, there would be jealousy, rivalry, resentment, broken hearts, disappointments, etc, etc.

And even if it was some kind of weird free-for all, where every automatically gave consent, and everyone was attractive- I don’t think that would be the ultimate in possible bliss.

I’m sure Heaven is better…

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I don’t think Jesus appeared naked to the apostles, so I don’t think we can comment on whether his glorified body had the same external anatomical features as his pre-glorified human body. Angels also appeared in human form, though they do not have intrinsic physical bodies.

BTW, could you explicate what you mean by “whatever is received is received in the manner of the receiver”?

P.S. I hope my mention of human genitals is not scandalous or viewed as disrespectful in any way. I cringe a little to mention it, but I thought it was essential to the discussion.

It means that people are spoken to in the manner in which the speaker thinks they will understand. It’s why I would speak Spanish to someone who only speaks Spanish. If people do this, then how much more would God do it.

It’s also why historical scholarship is necessary to understanding scripture. For example, the scripture passage, “Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles.” meant something very specific to a Jew living under Roman occupation.

The same reasoning is applied to the private revelations like those of St. Faustina or the children of Fatima. But that’s not to say that the world cannot derive help from the revelations of others.

So my point in using that hermenutic was to show that the way in which Christ appeared to people after the resurrection would have taken place in the manner that would have gotten his point across to that person. But not just that person, God knew full well which accounts would be included in scripture and how people would need to understand those accounts throughout the ages. Nothing was arbitrary about each one of Christ’s appearances after his resurrection.

Here is more, and better explanations:

First, if you assume that God reveals himself to people according to their cultural concepts, categories and mindsets, then you will see that God’s revelation will have to develop along with the intellectual and cultural capacity of human beings. Throughout time, we have greatly expanded our understanding of the world, as well as our methods for understanding our world – and this is a good thing. But people who had much narrower approaches to the world also had a right to receive revelation from God according to what they understood. Thus, it would not be surprising to find that in 1800 BCE, polygamy was accepted – in the Bible! Then six hundred years later it is prohibited by Moses – in the same Bible!

Did God change his mind or did human beings develop to the point where they could understand monogamy?

There is an old expression in hermeneutics – “whatever is received is received in the manner of the receiver.” What that means is if you were just learning to add and subtract and I put a series of algebraic functions on the board, you would not be able to understand them because you do not have the categorical apparatus to understand the intricacies of algebraic equations. You’d be looking for the numbers and trying to figure out why there are letters like “x” in the middle of the math problem.

In the Bible, God has the same problem as the math teacher. The Bible records revelations that were made from 1800 BCE to about 90 CE. The Biblical authors’ view of the world (and I assure you, there were many different authors living in many different times) broadened tremendously during these eras. Israel moved from a warrior culture battling Philistines to a metropolitan culture interacting with ideas from Greece and Rome. Of course the theology of the prophets developed tremendously, until we get to the time of Jesus, who gives us the notion of God as Unconditional Love.

This love is illustrated in the character of the father in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15, 11-32), who unconditionally loves his son and forgives him even after the man commits every imaginable offense against family, country, people and the law – and rejoices in his return. What does this have to do with the hermeneutical method? We might say that it illustrates asymmetrical (one-directional) hermeneutics. What does that mean? It means that you can look at older (narrower) revelation through newer (broader and more comprehensive) revelation, but you can’t look at the newer, more comprehensive revelation through the lens of the older, narrower revelation. The narrowness of the older revelation is simply too constrained to allow the broader, more comprehensive revelation to have its full meaning.

If you try to fit the Unconditional Love of God into the categories of strict justice (appropriate to the Torah in 550 BCE), you are going to get a disconnect. In fact, you won’t be able to do it. It will seem like a contradiction – or, as some of you have suggested, that God changed mind, or even his identity altogether!

Jesus anticipated this, and indicated that you can’t pour new wine into old wine skins. If you do, the new wine will burst the old skins, and both the wine and the skins will be lost. To understand the unconditionally loving God of the New Testament, one has to allow the new, broad, comprehensive and full revelation to have its full meaning, which means freeing it from the constraints of a much narrower worldview. Such a worldview is to be expected from a people who have far less experience to draw upon.

magiscenter.com/ask-fr-spitzer/

 

[RandalD]

Sex is part of the imago Dei, is an essential aspect of human identity. Even in this age of “plastic sexuality,” sex-change operations, gender-identity disorders, and homosexual behavior, sex is a part of being human that cannot be ignored. Sex is at the heart of human physical identity.

As for physical intercourse, I believe It is the business transaction of marriage, not the relationship of marriage, that Jesus is saying will not exist at that time. If this is true, why sexual expression of love would not be a reality in the life to come?

Even without procreation I think genital intercourse is unitive. I once read that even though the resurrected body did not need food to survive, there would be food as a means of fellowship and of experiencing the universe via our taste buds. Similarly, even though there’s no need for reproduction, maybe there would be sexual intercourse for intimacy, bonding and mutual delight. Sex, after all, is not just reproductive capacity. Our sex organs and secondary sexual characteristics have functions other than procreation.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

No, because everyone must eat to live. Eating for pleasure (not gluttonous eating) is not sinful and on earth eating is fundamental to our individual survival.

One only has sex with one’s spouse. One has no business indulging in sexual activity if unmarried. We won’t be married in Heaven; if we were reunited in heaven, then remarriage would not be allowed. The unitive and procreative aspects of sex cannot be isolated; sex must be open to life.

So one can’t have sex with one’s spouse since no one is married and one can’t have procreative sex. What you are suggesting is that something that is sinful on earth for us now will somehow become not sinful in heaven. That doesn’t make sense to me. What about priests and nuns? Would they suddenly be able to have sex in heaven?

Plus, why would anyone want to have sex in heaven? It’s just completely pointless - we will be in spiritual unity with everyone there, which will transcend any base physical pleasure we could derive from sex.

Again, you seem to think that having sex, rather than having a gender, is fundamental to human identity. Rather sexual desire is a weakness (not in a sinful sense necessarily, but all desire implies a lack of something). Our marriage vows state ‘until death do us part’. We will still have a special relationship with former spouses in heaven, but not a sexual one.

 

[SecretCatholic]

Since we can’t die, technically we have no need of food. Or oxygen. Hence a our organs are unnecessary.

Our bodies glorified will be like our earthly bodies even if we don’t need them like we do here. Or at least that is what makes sense to me.

We are body-soul composites. We are beings very much tied to this physical world, and Christianity has always asserted this. In the resurrected body, we will continue to be physical-spiritual people, not some kind of spiritual people with illusory or incidental physical bodies. The difference is that the glorified physical body will be perfectly integrated with and completely obey the spirit, rather than causing us pains and temptations that it does in this life.

You are mixing up sex (as in gender) and sex (as in the act). Priests are just as masculine as married men. One’s gender has some influence on their personality, be it due to biology or cultural norms. Sex as an act is enabled by the fact that two separate genders exist, but has nothing to do with the worth or the person. Your post obliquely implies that infertile or virgin people are somehow ‘less’, if you read it a certain way (accidental I’m sure).

Sex has no purpose in heaven. We will have no need to be biologically impelled to want to have sex. It won’t even be on anyone’s radar.

Biologically-speaking, the sexual act and the sexes are intimately linked. If there was no need for reproduction, there would be no need for the sexes. Perhaps we would have different kinds of people, but not different sexes. No where in my post did I link virginity nor infertility to a person’s value nor do I believe that such a link exists. However, it is clear that the male and female sexes, biologically-speaking, are indeed designed for procreation and female anatomy is very much dedicated towards the life-giving process. Some people give up procreation for a higher good of serving God, as priest, nun, or consecrated. But it is indeed a sacrifice and not the natural norm (but rather super-natural).

Perhaps there are no genitals in heaven, as some old art portrays. Perhaps there is and yet the reproductive function would not exist for them. Or maybe on the pleasure element is still there and we will have that just like some say we will eat delicious food in heaven (The Happiness of Heaven book, Roman Catholic Books sells). Who is to say. It is a BAD question to ask though

Why is this a bad question to ask? I think its an interesting and fundamental question, even if we must be prudent in asking it.

I think that in the Islamic Heaven, isn’t it?

But seriously, if there was sex, there would be desire, and if there is desire, there is always less than perfect happiness (since a perfectly happy being cannot desire anything). Yet, if there was no desire, the sex would be pointless and ungratifying. If there was desire, there would be jealousy, rivalry, resentment, broken hearts, disappointments, etc, etc.

And even if it was some kind of weird free-for all, where every automatically gave consent, and everyone was attractive- I don’t think that would be the ultimate in possible bliss.

I’m sure Heaven is better…

How is sexual desire bad? How does it inherently illicit jealousy and rivalry, broken hearts, etc…? No, sexual desire is as wrong as the desire to eat delicious food. The problem is putting physical desires before our moral duties and the dignity of others and ourselves. If we have perfected hearts, none of these things will take place and thus sex could be had, without resentment jealousy or any of those other negative consequences. I am not saying that we will have sex in heaven- From my understanding, we will not- But I am saying that those reasons you stated are not truly satisfactory.

It means that people are spoken to in the manner in which the speaker thinks they will understand. It’s why I would speak Spanish to someone who only speaks Spanish. If people do this, then how much more would God do it.

Thanks for that. I am a fan of Fr. Spitzer and his Magis center and was happy to read this illuminating piece.

 

[SecretCatholic]

Plus, why would anyone want to have sex in heaven? It’s just completely pointless - we will be in spiritual unity with everyone there, which will transcend any base physical pleasure we could derive from sex.

Go a little but further with this logic and you will be asking: “Why live in the physical world- it’s just completely pointless- we will be in spiritual unity with everyone instead.” The trouble is that we are a very earthy religion- with belief in both the physical and spiritual realities and the continuance of the physical reality which we will experience in glorified physical bodies. Can you imagine living in the physical world but not experiencing any of its pleasures- not to mention one of its most gratifying ones? It does seem a mystery.

Again, you seem to think that having sex, rather than having a gender, is fundamental to human identity. Rather sexual desire is a weakness (not in a sinful sense necessarily, but all desire implies a lack of something). Our marriage vows state ‘until death do us part’. We will still have a special relationship with former spouses in heaven, but not a sexual one.

“Gender” was not commonly used to describe sex until the mid 20th century and refers to cultural or social differences, not strictly biological ones. And so, “gender” is not a word I use anymore. “Sex” is the more apt and traditional term. And no, the act is not the same as the biological, physical identity. But both are based in the same functions and are a result of the same needs.

Also if desire is a weakness, then are we to believe that we will have no desires in the new Earth? Could you imagine human existence without desire? Would this even be desirable (pun intended)? Honestly, it seems utterly inhuman to me. I don’t believe that we are supposed to become angels or some kind of spiritual computers. I think we are to become perfected, spiritual human beings who will always be improving and graced with God’s presence.

 

[joecap]

I think that in the Islamic Heaven, isn’t it?

But seriously, if there was sex, there would be desire, and if there is desire, there is always less than perfect happiness (since a perfectly happy being cannot desire anything). Yet, if there was no desire, the sex would be pointless and ungratifying. If there was desire, there would be jealousy, rivalry, resentment, broken hearts, disappointments, etc, etc.

And even if it was some kind of weird free-for all, where every automatically gave consent, and everyone was attractive- I don’t think that would be the ultimate in possible bliss.

I’m sure Heaven is better…

Not quite. UNFULFILLED desire would be less than perfect, but in my limited experience, I LOVE the desire…like they say, anticipation is half the fun. Since everything else we experience on earth is just a dim reflection of what it will be like in heaven, who’s to say if sex will or will not play a role?