This explanation fails on 2 fronts:
1. The question answered had to do with a woman that was "given in marriage" 7 times, they asked who's wife she'd be, Jesus' answer was nobody's. She wouldn't remain the wife of any of those she was given in marriage to. That directly refutes what you're trying to say that they stay married.
Marriage (a legal relationship) ends. No sex does not change the genetics of the other person, otherwise you'd start taking on phenotype traits of your spouse or anyone you ever had sex with, your eye color could change, your skin color or hair color could change, etc.
2. If all marriage is ended, everyone's single, that's equal. If people who got married stay married and people who died without finding anyone are forced to stay single for all of eternity juxtaposed against happy married couples while they're lonely, that's a pretty awful place. Not everyone would choose marriage of course but there are going to be people who'd choose marriage if they had the opportunity but it never arises, or they die young.
as for childbearing? well, Isaiah 65:23 does actually kinda say that people will have offspring on the New Earth so maybe there's a way for someone who was sterile or unmarried in this life to be able to be a parent on the New Earth still, I don't know how exactly it would work.
Jamdoc wrote: "The question answered had to do with a woman that was "given in marriage" 7 times, they asked who's wife she'd be, Jesus' answer was nobody's."
Yah! a Bible Text. XD. Thank your for your arguments, and thank your for a Bible Text.
The short answer to your argument: I disagree what Jesus answered 'nobody's. It is not a fact that Jesus said 'nobody's'. I argue that the statement of Jesus implies 'all seven of them'. The woman is a polygamous, and there is no erasing that fact, and in heaven she will remain a polygamous woman. She is definitely not going to go back to being a virgin.
The long answer - paraphrasing: the Pharisees asked which of the seven husbands would have the woman. Jesus replied, saying that the Pharisees didn't know the Scripture, and stated that, in heaven, neither male humans nor female humans will be getting married [literally: neither married, nor given in marriage].
Mark 12:25 "For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but as as the angels which are in heaven."
[paraphrasing: For when humans shall rise from the dead, the risen male humans will not be getting married, nor will the risen female humans be given in marriage, but they will be as the unfallen angels in heaven.]
Because Jesus contrasted the woman's marriages to the female unfallen angels, who are not 'given in marriage' in heaven, I interpret Mark 12:25 to mean that there are no NEW marriages in heaven.
So, we can see then, that Jesus did not directly answer the question of the Pharisees. The Pharisees asked which of the seven husbands will be the husband of their common wife, and Jesus answered, (paraphrasing: 'Well, neither the risen males will be getting married, nor will the risen females be given in marriage in heaven.') and he didn't address the question of which of the seven marriages would be valid in heaven.
So, in the case of the woman with seven husbands, when they all get to heaven, all seven of the men will be wanting to spend some time with the woman. Every one of them will be her husband, and they will all have to share her attention [that is so....o...o.o.o. disrespectful - making a bunch of men share one woman's attention. lol., but I suppose it is no different than seven sons, having to share the attention of one mother.]. On earth, we call that Polyandry - one woman; multiple men, which is a type of Polygamy. The only thing that will be different is that there is no sex in heaven. They will all have to live in blissful, celibate, polygamous/polyandrous marriage.
The fact that Jesus did not tell the Pharisees which of the seven husbands would be the woman's husband, begs the question about whether the death of a spouse terminates a marriage. Most theologians quote Romans 7:2,3 " For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband. So then if, while [her] husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man."
But it is pure presumption to conclude from this text that the woman is no longer married when her husband dies. It says she is "loosed from the law of [her] husband". It does not say 'she is no longer married to her husband'. One does not logically follow from the other. If this widow remarries, she becomes a bigamist - but bigamy and polygamy and polyandry goes unpunished in the Bible. Just because God does not punish polygamy in the Bible, does not mean, that death terminates a marriage. [Note: Bigamy is illegal in the USA and the British commonwealth countries.]
When a Parent dies, they are still your parent, even though they are dead. When an uncle dies, he is still your uncle. When a son dies, the father-son relationship is not terminated. When Christ died, He was still our King, even though he was dead, and when he arose again, he took up his crown as King. If death does not terminate these relationships, then why should it terminate a Spousal relationship?
God likens death to sleep - it is temporary. So, if your spousal relationship is not terminated when they are asleep, then why would their death - which is temporary in the eyes of God - terminate the spousal relationship.
[Deut. 31:16 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold thou shalt sleep with thy fathers ..."]
But Wait! It gets worse.
How about the case of a large majority of Christian (Protestant and Catholic) men, who have high 'body counts' [to use the modern term]. They call it 'dating', which means: burger, fries, movie, [and then the euphemism] 'home run', and repeat many times and each iteration increases his 'body count' by one more. None of these 'relationships' involve a 'legal contract'. How do you explain all these? Which of these 'conquests' will be his in heaven? My answer is that each and every one is a 'marriage', because 'Sex is marriage'. True, they have a different title: Concubines, harlots, girlfriend with benefits etc. In the case: If the guy confesses his sin and repents and goes to heaven which of these females will belong to him? I answer: all of them. He will have to deal with all of them and all the multitude of consequences of his behavior - for eternity. What happened between him and all these females cannot be erased. The consequences of his actions will not be erased. He will have to deal with it - for eternity - and the consequences are not restricted to just between him and the female, but extend to all her family members too, and he will have to deal with that too - for eternity. In short, God will forgive, but consequences are eternal.
Jamdoc wrote: Marriage (a legal relationship) ends.
I counter that there is no 'legal relationship', because, according to the law, a person can't make a 'legal contract' with a 'minor', or a human who is not a 'legal person', and women were not recognized as a 'legal person' until 1929 in Canada, - before 1929, women were under the system called 'Coverture' - therefore no 'legal contract' is valid, therefore, Marriage is not a 'legal contract'.
[Evidence]: from
Coverture - Wikipedia
"Coverture was a legal doctrine in English common law ... in which a married woman's legal existence was considered to be merged with that of her husband. Upon marriage, she had no independent legal existence of her own, in keeping with society's expectation that her husband was to provide for and protect her."
But, to be fair, upon re-reading it, I notice that you changed it from 'contract' to 'legal relationship', so maybe we are making some progress here. If you mean - by legal relationship - that civil government recognition of the 'relationship' will end, then, ok, I agree with that, but only because on the judgement day, all civil authority will be wiped out. There will be no civil government at that point. But if you take out the word 'legal' and just say that 'the marriage relationship ends'; then I disagree with that.
Jamdoc wrote: No [-] sex does not change the genetics of the other person, otherwise you'd start taking on phenotype traits of your spouse or anyone you ever had sex with, your eye color could change, your skin color or hair color could change, etc.
When a human stomach - or a white blood cell - 'digests' something, for example, a carrot, or a dead sperm cell, all the proteins and DNA, is broken up into short fragments, which are incorporated into the cells of the host - the short fragments are recycled. We would not expect to see changes in phenotype because the short fragments are much shorter than 'genes', nevertheless, the host DNA is changed. The saying 'You are what you eat' is literally true. When you eat a carrot or a sperm cell, all the protein, and DNA, and carbohydrates inside it are broken up and become part of You. Yes, your DNA is merged with the DNA of what you eat - or otherwise exchange DNA with.
An example of longer DNA sequences being inserted into the host DNA occurs with virus's.
[Evidence] from
Viral Integration and Consequences on Host Gene Expression - PMC (accessed: 10 March 2025)
"Abstract: Upon cell infection, some viruses integrate their genome [their DNA] into the host chromosome, either as part of their life cycle (such as retroviruses), or incidentally."
So, yes, exchanging DNA with another person, does change their DNA, and like I said before, if the wife is a oral sodomist and swallows, the husband's DNA will be incorporated into her DNA. They will - literally - become one - same as eating a carrot - no difference.
Jamdoc wrote: "If all marriage is ended, everyone's single, that's equal. ... people who died without finding anyone are forced to stay single for all of eternity ..."
True. But think of a city full of the most Loving, Loyal, Righteous, tender-hearted, Virtuous, people that ever lived on earth. 'Single' also has huge benefits: a lot less emotional baggage, a lot less family responsibilities - you'll get to spend more time with God. The fact that the angels are capable of marriage, but choose singlehood, says a lot about the desirability of singlehood.
jamdoc wrote: "Isaiah 65:23 does actually kinda say that people will have offspring on the New Earth"
Isaiah 65:23 "They will not labor in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; they [are] the seed of the blessed LORD, and their offspring with them."
I believe that there will be tons of orphan babies in the New Earth, that will need adults to take care of them, and I'm sure that God will be asking for adult volunteers and assigning the orphan babies to available adults. And where ever there are babies, the women will gather, and that woman and orphan baby will need support from other adults so there will be plenty of opportunities for 'single' people to form 'celibate friendship groups' to help raise an orphan baby. The New Earth will be a busy place.
In my opinion in Isaiah 65:23, those words "will have offspring" have to be read in the context of the preceding phrase where God says that all people are the offspring of God, so the following words "will have offspring" does not automatically mean that women will be getting pregnant and birthing babies, but that they will be taking care of, and raising, orphan babies, assigned to them by God. I also think - without proof - that God will hand over- to any woman who lost an unborn baby - the baby she lost, so she will get a chance to raise her own baby that she lost.
That is just my opinion though - for what its worth.
robert424
www.theatlantic.com
