What We Shall Be: A Look at Gender and the New Creation

Tools: Print E-mail

Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. (1 John 3:2 NKJV)

These words from the pen of the Apostle John reflect something of the mystery surrounding the future state of resurrected believers in the new creation. Because "what we shall be" has not yet been made fully apparent, many questions about that future state remain. One such question concerns the matter of gender: Will resurrected believers be male and female in the new creation? Some, perhaps, will view this question merely as fodder for idle reflection, a question whose answer is of little import beyond the satisfaction of a nugacious curiosity about the nature of things to come. However, in this age of "plastic sexuality" and confusion regarding the nature of gender and gender roles, the question takes on new significance.¹ If, on the one hand, gender differences are but temporal attributes that will be eliminated in the eschaton, then the egalitarian/constructionist view that gender differentiation is an accidental (as opposed to essential) attribute of human nature gains credence. It makes sense for the community of faith to seek the elimination of gender roles in an effort to approximate the coming eschatological reality. On the other hand, if it can be shown conclusively that gender differentiation will be preserved in the new creation, the complementarian/essentialist view of the fixity of sexual identity and gender roles is affirmed. It becomes incumbent upon the community of faith to embrace and, indeed, to celebrate the gender distinctives and roles established for humanity by its benevolent Creator.

Which view is correct? Is it even possible to determine "what we shall be" in the new creation with a reasonable degree of confidence, especially given that, as John Frame has accurately observed, "Scripture doesn't explicitly address this question [of whether believers will be male and female in the new creation.]"² Clearly, in the absence of explicit special revelation, an element of uncertainty necessarily accompanies all inquiries into the nature of things so far beyond the realm of temporal human experience. Uncertainties notwithstanding, however, it is my contention that enough is implicit in the biblical record to permit careful students of Scripture to develop conclusions on the matter with reasonable confidence. This is not to imply that careful scholars have always reached the same conclusions in their analyses of the biblical evidence. Indeed, history records that virtually every logically possible view of gender and the new creation has found proponents among the thinkers and theologians of the church. However, as this article will show, one position, namely, that gender distinctions will be preserved in the new creation, singularly emerges as logically consistent and genuinely tenable for those who embrace the evangelical faith.

The objectives for this article are: 1) to identify and evaluate views of gender and the new creation that have been proposed within Christendom across the centuries; and 2) to present evidence that gender distinctions will persist in the new creation. As a preface to the discussion that follows, four foundational presuppositions warrant special mention at this point. The first of these is the divine inspiration, trustworthiness, and ultimate authority of the biblical record. To acknowledge the authority of Scripture here is to tacitly affirm that the question of gender and the new creation is theological in nature-philosophical, sociological, ecclesiastical, and ethical ramifications notwithstanding. Second, this article accepts as a given the presupposition that the promised bodily resurrection of all true believers in Christ will be an eschatological reality. The doctrine of bodily resurrection is so fundamental to the historical Christian faith that it scarcely requires comment. However, it is well to note here that within this presupposition there inheres the understanding that the human body is, in some sense, of eternal import in the divine scheme of things. Third, this article accepts as a given that the imago Dei is the locus of human worth in the sight of God and is possessed by male and female in equal measure. It follows, then, that men and women possess ontological equality in the sight of God, and further, that functional equivalence cannot be the sine qua non of equality. Functional roles cannot be determinative of individual human worth. The fourth and final presupposition might be described as the ubiquity of individual sexual identity. By this I mean that the differences between male and female extend beyond the accoutrements of human physiology to less tangible (but no less real) aspects of human existence.³ Gender is a function of more than physiology; it involves the whole person.

Gender Differentiation in the New Creation: The Possibilities

Will there be gender differentiation in the new creation? Across the centuries, theologians and thinkers have proposed a variety of answers to the question. In reality, however, only four alternatives obtain as logically possible: resurrected saints in the new creation necessarily are asexual, androgynous, monosexual, or sexual in their essential nature. These four alternatives provide a convenient taxonomy for identifying and evaluating the views that historically have been set forth.

Resurrected Saints as Asexual

The view that resurrected saints will be asexual in the new creation holds that the process of transformation that occurs concomitantly with the resurrection completely does away with all sex characteristics. There is no distinction between male and female, not because the differences have become blurred, but because they have been removed. They are, ostensibly, an imperfect and no longer useful remnant of the "old" creation. In Christ, old things have passed away and all things have become new (cf. 2 Cor 5:17). The concept of "gender" does not become merely irrelevant in the new creation; it becomes meaningless.

On the face of it, this view has support both historically and scripturally as scholars, both ancient and modern, have found scriptural bases for embracing this position. Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 150-215), one of the earlier writers to use language suggesting support of the view, offered that "souls, themselves by themselves, are equal. . . . neither male nor female, when they no longer marry nor are given in marriage."⁴ Athanasius (c. A.D. 296-373) expressed a similar view when he observed that "in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the Angels;' and in Christ Jesus it shall be a new creation, and ‘neither male nor female, but all and all in Christ."⁵ And Zosimus (d. A.D. 418), bishop of Rome, in attempting to explain the transition that occurs at the death of believers, wrote that "the soul quits the body and the angels receive it, but we see the shape of the soul as a shape of light, perfect in all the body apart from the distinction of male and female."⁶ A more recent proponent of the view, Albrecht Oepke, suggests that a "full removal of sexual distinction" awaits resurrected believers in the eschaton.⁷

Those who hold that believers will be asexual in the new creation usually find scriptural support for their view in three principal texts: (1) 1 Cor 6:13, (2) Gal 3:28, and (3) the account of Jesus' exchange with the Sadducees concerning the resurrection (Matt 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-38). Because they are significant for the larger question of "what we shall be" in the new creation, they merit attention at this point in the discussion.

First Corinthians 6:13 has been cited by some as offering evidence that distinctions of gender will be eliminated in the new creation. For example, Clement of Alexandria argued from this text that, just as the stomach and the desire for food are destined to be "destroyed" in the resurrection, so, too, are distinctions of gender, for in much the same way, sexual distinctions tend only to inflame sexual desire.⁸ Oepke is another who cites this verse as the basis for his assertion that gender distinctions will be removed. Although both are correct insofar as the apostle declares the eventual destruction of the human mechanisms responsible for sinful appetites, they fail to appreciate that within this text lies tacit affirmation that sexual distinctions remain in the new creation. Daniel Heimbach's comments on this passage express the point well:

Here [in 1 Cor 6:13b-15] by divine inspiration Paul links sexual sin involving the bodies we have now with the purity that must and certainly will characterize the bodies we will have after the resurrection. Our sexual organs themselves, in Paul's bold language, are said to be "members of Christ" and thus are parts of our future resurrection bodies-bodies that in their entirety God will raise from the dead-bodies that in their entirety God wants us to use now for His glory and that someday He will also perfect for His glory through the resurrection. The logical connection Paul makes here between our pre- and post-resurrection bodies makes absolutely no sense . . . unless human sexual identity does in fact continue to characterize human embodiment on both sides of the resurrection.⁹

In other words, the human body-including its sexual "members"-is created to glorify God, both in the present age and in the world to come. Only by understanding the eternal importance of the body is it possible to understand Paul's admonition in 1 Cor 6:13-15. When careful exegesis and analysis is applied to this text, it weakens considerably the support that proponents of this view of gender in the new creation claim to find therein.

Another text cited in defense of asexuality in the new creation is Gal 3:28. This verse, universally appropriated by egalitarians as the textual linchpin of their argument for functional equality between the genders, is employed by some to argue the ultimate dissolution of all distinctions of gender in the new creation. Reflections of Gal 3:28 can be seen in the statements of Clement of Alexandria, of Athanasius, and, less directly, of Zosimus, as they declare the eventual elimination of gender distinctives. But is this a valid application of this text? If Gal 3:28 does, in fact, proclaim the removal of gender distinctions to be part of the Christian ideal for the present age, then there is ample reason to suppose that gender differences, both functional and physiological, will be eliminated in the new creation. However, it is not at all certain that this is a valid application of the text. Only by isolating the text from its soteriological context does it become possible to read into this passage the idea that gender distinctions will be dissolved in the new creation.¹⁰

Of even greater import in the question of gender and the new creation are the several pericopae recounting Jesus' confrontation by the Sadducees on the matter of the resurrection. Indeed, one can say with confidence that no other passage of Scripture is cited more frequently or prima facie addresses more directly the question of gender in the eschaton than these parallel texts. Here, the Sadducees (who denied the possibility of the resurrection¹¹) approach Jesus with a conundrum: There was a woman who, widowed seven times, had married seven brothers in succession according to the Mosaic provision for Levirate marriage (cf. Deut 25:5 and Gen 38:8ff.). Although each marriage was consummated, no offspring were produced. Whose wife, then, would she be in the resurrection? The Sadducees' obvious intention here was to call Jesus' teaching of the resurrection into question by demonstrating that the whole notion of any sort of meaningful life after death produces too many paradoxes and contradictions with scriptural principles to be taken seriously. Jesus, of course, was not deceived by the Sadducees' feigned desire for instruction. Rather, he asserted that their culpable ignorance of Scripture and of the power of God had caused them to be deceived (Matt 22:29; Mark 12:24). He then dealt with their challenge by demonstrating effectively that their fundamental assumptions about the possibility and nature of life after death were fl awed. "For in the resurrection," Jesus said, "they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in heaven" (Matt 22:30, NKJV).

A cursory reading of the pericopae would seem to indicate that Jesus therein declares the end of sexual distinction in the resurrection, and, as the above references to Clement and Athanasius suggest, some ancient writers have reached that conclusion as well. However, a cursory reading of a biblical text sometimes fails to appreciate much that the text has to say. Careful exegesis of these texts reveals that, far from proclaiming the end of sexual distinction in the new creation, these pericopae provide some of the strongest biblical evidence that gender distinctions will remain throughout eternity.

Jesus answered the Sadducees by saying that in the resurrection, "they neither marry (γαμοῦσιν) nor are given in marriage (γαμίζονται)." The pairing of the two verbs indicates that both males and females are in view. Although the verb "marry" (γαμἐω) can be used with reference to women (Mark 10:12; 1 Cor 7:8-9), in this context it would refer to a man marrying a woman, since it is paired with "given in marriage" (γαμἰζω) which would refer to a daughter given in marriage by her father.¹² Far from saying that there will be no distinctions of gender in the new creation, Jesus said in essence that those who are male in heaven will not take a wife, nor will those who are female be given in marriage. New marriages¹³ will be no longer necessary because there will be no more death. The need for procreation will have ceased. Had Jesus intended to communicate to his questioners or his disciples that gender distinctions would no longer exist in the new creation, he could have done so easily by saying that in the resurrection the categories "male" and "female" simply do not apply.¹⁴ Instead, he used gender-specific terms that make sense only if distinctions of gender remain.

Some proponents of the asexual view might concede that, though Jesus' comments on marriage do not eliminate the possibility of gender in the resurrection, his comparison of resurrected saints with the angels does, in fact, eliminate that possibility. The assumption here, of course, is that spiritual beings (angels) are genderless beings. If resurrected saints are like the angels, the argument goes, they also must be genderless beings. This argument, though plausible, is weak. It is weak, first, because there is little biblical evidence to suggest that angelic beings are genderless. To the contrary, when Scripture speaks of angels they are virtually always referred to as male.¹⁵ However, even if it is granted that angels are genderless, it does not follow that resurrected saints also are genderless. Jesus said only that they are "as the angels." But in what sense? Certainly, there is a sense in which resurrected believers are unlike the angels as well. How then, are we to understand this comparison? Since Jesus' declaration that resurrected saints are "as the angels" is offered in juxtaposition to his comment about marriage, it is reasonable to conclude that it is in this sense that Jesus wanted his hearers to understand the similarity between angels and resurrected believers. All that can be said with confidence here is that resurrected believers, like angels, do not enter into marriage. One might legitimately infer from this comparison that believers do not procreate in the resurrection, since the best scholarship indicates that angels, as created rather than procreated beings, do not procreate. However, there is little else pertinent to the discussion at hand that can be deduced from Jesus' teaching about the similarity between resurrected believers and angels. In light of the clear distinctions made between the experiences of males and females in the eschaton through the pairing of the verbs used ("marry" and "given in marriage") it is exegetically unsound to find asexuality in this passage.

Thus, though there is prima facie evidence to suggest the asexual view, careful examination of the several principal texts reveals that the view has little scriptural support. Indeed, some of the passages actually lend substantial support to the opposing view. The question arises, then, as to how some scholars, ancient and modern, have come to embrace the view. Though it is not possible to answer that question with certainty, it seems likely that a few flawed presuppositions are responsible for leading proponents of the view to embrace it as biblical. The thought of early proponents of the view was shaped in an age when rigorous asceticism was considered to be among the essential virtues of the Christian faith. Sexual desire and every expression of it was considered sinful, even within the context of marriage. Sexuality was generally believed to be a "necessary evil" that, once its procreative function had been fulfilled, should be thoroughly suppressed. The husband should think of his wife as a sister. Marriage was for the purpose of procreation alone. With such a view of marriage and sexuality, it is easy to see why sexual differences would be viewed negatively and thought to have no place in Gods perfect new creation.

Of course, modern proponents of the view are unlikely to agree with the notion of sexuality as either "necessary" or "evil." Rather, their support of the asexual view seems to be driven by a fundamental belief that equates sameness with equality, dissimilarity with inequity. Equality and equity are prized above all. Surely, they reason, a just God would eliminate all inequity in the eschaton-especially the ontological and functional dissimilarities associated with gender. For those who fully embrace such a worldview, any interpretation of the biblical texts that suggests gender distinctions will remain eternally is simply not given serious consideration.

When it is seen that there is little solid scriptural support for the asexual view and, moreover, its proponents must rely on flawed premises to support their argument, the asexual view of gender and the new creation must be rejected. Not all who reject this view, however, are prepared to accept the idea that gender distinctions will remain in the new creation. Rather, the same presuppositions that lead some to accept the asexual view lead others to adopt an androgynous view of gender and the new creation.

Resurrected Saints as Androgynous

The androgynous view of gender and the new creation, like the asexual view, minimizes the place of gender in the resurrection. However unlike the asexual view, which maintains that resurrected saints are neither male nor female, the androgynous view maintains essentially that resurrected saints are at once both male and female. Sexual distinctions become blurred to the point of irrelevance as each resurrected individual manifests traits of masculinity and femininity with heavenly perfection.

The androgynous view, like the others, has both ancient and modern proponents-though certainly not all could be considered either Christian or orthodox. For example, we learn from Hippolytus (c. A.D. 170-236), in his Refutation of All Heresies, that the Naassene Gnostics taught of an "everlasting substance above, where . . . there is neither female or male, but a new creature, a new man, which is hermaphrodite."¹⁶ Although the source of this idea in Gnostic thought remains unclear, the concept of the androgynous man appears very early in Christianity. Clement, bishop of Rome (fl . A.D. 96), asserted that "man is a compound of two mixtures, the female and the male."¹⁷ Several centuries later, the Persian sage Aphrahat (fl . A.D. 345) offered, "They shall not marry wives there, nor shall they beget children; nor shall there the male be distinguished from the female . . . ."¹⁸ The idea also appeared in Talmudic Judaism. One Rabbinic tradition held that the biblical account of the creation of man as "male and female" (Gen 1:27) was a reference to an androgynous Adam from whom the rest of the human race emerged.¹⁹ This notion of an androgynous Adam gave rise to the concept of an "androgynous ideal" to which the human race should ascribe and would in the eschaton attain.

Although some contemporary scholars have seized on this concept of an androgynous ideal, perhaps in an attempt to bolster the case for egalitarianism, the position is problematic both Christologically and hermeneutically. Indeed, the Christological ramifications alone are sufficient to render the view untenable. If, as the proponents of this position argue, androgyny is truly the Creators ideal, reflected in the creation of the first "man," Adam, could Jesus Christ, the second Adam and the express image of the eternal Godhead be otherwise? Certainly not. To cede the androgyny of the first Adam is to cede the androgyny of Jesus Christ. Graham Ward, however, argues to that end in his chapter entitled "Bodies: The Displaced Body of Jesus Christ."²⁰ Here, Wards central contention is that through progressive "displacements" of Jesus body (e.g., the transfiguration, Eucharist, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension) one is led to a view of Christ's body that is progressively less male and progressively more androgynous.²¹ If he could demonstrate conclusively that the resurrected and ascended Christ was in fact translated into an androgynous state, proponents of the androgynous view of gender in the new creation would have an immeasurably strengthened case.²² Ward fails, however, because the Christ he presents could not be Christ the Savior, and is not the Christ of Scripture. As Bruce Ware convincingly demonstrates, the maleness of Christ was essential to his redemptive mission:

Jesus being male was in fact theologically, Christologically, and soteriologically significant, despite what others have asserted. For reasons ranging from the nature of the Trinity itself, to his role as the second Adam, the seed of Abraham, the Son of David, the Son of Man, and the Son of God, Jesus simply had to be a man. . . . his being male was by theological necessity.²³

And, we might add, if the maleness of Christ was a theological necessity, it remains a theological necessity for the eternal Son of God, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 4:8).

If the concept of an androgynous ideal is untenable Christologically, it is equally untenable hermeneutically. Judith Gundry-Volf, in exploring possible connections between a nascent sexual asceticism among Corinthian believers (1 Cor 7) and the Pauline declaration that in Christ "there is neither male nor female" (Gal 3:28),²⁴ explores the idea promoted by Wayne Meeks and others that "the Adam-Androgyne myth [Gen 1:27] lies behind Gal 3:28."²⁵ If it could be shown that Gal 3:28 is in fact a reference to this Adam-Androgyne myth, then the verse would become pivotal in the argument for an androgynous new creation. However, as Gundry-Volf has successfully demonstrated, the textual evidence does not support that conclusion. Accepting, for the sake of argument, that the "neither male nor female" is part of an early baptismal tradition, she writes

[If] the baptismal tradition did understand Genesis 1.27 in this way and wanted to communicate that the androgynous image is restored in baptism, it would not have negated the phrase ‘male and female=masculo-feminine' of Gen. 1.27. As a mater of fact, however, the tradition draws on Gen. 1.27 to make a denial about what that text says: ‘There is no "male and female"‘. The only way to read this early Christian declaration as an affirmation of androgyne is to say that it sees already in Gen. 1.27 the ‘fateful division' of humanity narrated in Gen. 2.21-22, which is now overcome in Christ. But to say this is to saw off the limb on which one is sitting, for then Gen. 1.27 no longer expresses the ideal of an originally androgynous humanity which could have inspired the early Christians who were seeking to define Endzeit in terms of Urzeit. The whole interpretation of Gal. 3.28c as expressing the androgynous ideal falters once we take seriously ‘There is no "male and female" as an allusion to Gen. 1.27 and, in some sense, its negation.²⁶

Even if a connection between Gen 1:27 and Gal 3:28 exists (and Gundry-Volf believes that it does),²⁷ it negates rather than affirms the possibility of an androgynous ideal toward which humanity moves.

Thus, when the textual and theological evidence is considered together, there remains little to commend the view that resurrected saints will be androgynous in the new creation. To the contrary, the weight of evidence suggests that the position is indefensible. Moreover, since the view that we will be asexual in the resurrection is likewise untenable, it must be removed from serious consideration as well. Of the four logically possible positions, the two that minimize the place of gender in the new creation must be rejected, leaving for consideration only the views that make allowance for sexual identity in the new creation, namely, the view that sees the company of resurrected believers as monosexual, and the ‘sexual' view which holds that the company of saints will comprise those who retain their sexual identity as male or female in the new creation.

The Company of Saints as Monosexual

The view that resurrected saints will be monosexual holds that the whole company of resurrected believers will be all of one gender in the new creation. Strictly speaking, in this view gender distinctions are neither removed nor blurred, because gender identity remains, and in fact is strengthened and perfected. It is simply that one gender (or the other) is conspicuously absent in the new creation. Of course, the question of which gender will be the heavenly norm instantly arises. Will we all be male in the new creation, or will we all be female?

Proponents of the monosexual view divide over the question of "which gender." Some have argued that all resurrected saints will be female in the new creation, while others have held that resurrected saints would be male. Drawing on the bridegroom/bride metaphor for the eschatological relationship between Christ and his church, Eric Johnson suggests one sense in which all will possess a female identity. He concludes that, "Spiritually speaking, when resurrected we shall together all be as ‘female.' In that day . . . we will all be fulfilled through perfect union with our husband [Jesus Christ]."²⁸ Historically, however, it seems that few have given much serious consideration to the idea that all would be female in the eschaton, opting instead for an all-male company of saints in the new creation.

Many of the better-known examples of the view are found in early Gnostic literature. In her contribution to The Image of God: Gender Models in Judeo-Christian Tradition, Kari Vogt offers examples of expressions of the view from early Gnostic and Christian writings. The following well-known excerpt from the Gospel of Thomas is representative:

Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male (hout), so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male (hout) will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."²⁹

Vogt holds that this and other, similar Gnostic references are metaphorical depictions of spiritual progress from a lower to more perfect state of being. If she is correct, then such passages have little bearing on the question at hand, even as exemplars of the view. But are there examples in early Christian literature of a more literal change in the eschaton? There are frequent instances of Christian writers accusing an opponent of embracing that position, but few, if any, seem willing personally to be identified with the view.³⁰ For example, the monk Rufinus (c. A.D. 345-411) accused Jerome (c. A.D. 345-420) of teaching that in the new creation women will be turned into men, citing the following from Jerome's commentary on Ephesians:

Let us men then cherish our wives and let our souls cherish our bodies in such a way as that the wives may be turned into men and the bodies into spirits, and that there may be no difference of sex but that, as among the angels there is neither male nor female, so we who are to be like the angels may begin here to be what is promised that we shall be in heaven.³¹

Rufinus continues his accusation against Jerome:

If the wives are to be turned into men, according to this suggestion of yours, that there is to be no difference of sex whatever, by which I suppose you mean that the female sex will entirely cease, being converted into the male, and the male sex will alone remain; I am not sure that you would have the permission of the women to speak here on behalf of their sex. But, even suppose that they grant you this, then with what consistency can you argue that the male sex is any longer necessary, when the female is shown not to be necessary? For there is a natural bond which unites the sexes in mutual dependence, so that if one does not exist, there is no need of the other.³²

In other places Jerome convincingly demonstrates that Rufinus' charge against him is unjustified on this point.³³ However, what this interaction, and others like it, demonstrate is that the notion of a real, somatic change of gender in the new creation was an idea that received considerable attention in the first half of the first millennium anno Domini.

Given that the idea of a monosexual company of saints was being considered in the early years of Christianity, is there scriptural evidence that might be found to support such a view? One of the passages figuring prominently in early discussions of the view is found in Paul's letter to the Ephesians. In the fourth chapter of the letter, Paul describes the goal of Christian maturity as coming "to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Eph 4:13, emphasis added). Here, interpreting perfect man ἄνδρα τέλειον in an almost corporeal sense, some have concluded that the soteriological and eschatological ideal includes maleness. A similar hermeneutic has been applied to Rom 8:29 where Paul speaks of believers as being "predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son." Since the Son of God clearly is male, they reason that "becoming male" must be an aspect of that conformity to his image. Another passage where this line of reasoning might be applied is Phil 3:20-21 where Paul writes that "the Lord Jesus Christ . . . will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body." Similarly, the Savior's statement that in the resurrection, believers will be "like the angels"³⁴ could be interpreted to include maleness, given the observation that angelic beings are always depicted as male in Scripture.

Do these passages provide scriptural support for the monosexual view? Most modern interpreters applying sound exegetical principles would be hesitant to find in these verses any reference to "maleness," and much less to "becoming male" in the eschaton. And they are not alone in their hesitancy, as early interpreters rejected that interpretation as a valid application of these verses.³⁵ If being conformed to the image of Christ involves transformation of one's physical features to match those of Jesus Christ, there seems to be no reason to limit that change to gender. Why not require a transformation of race as well? One could as easily make a case for "becoming Jewish" in the resurrection if such a material hermeneutic is to be applied.

It is clear enough that, though intriguing, the monosexual view of gender in the new creation, like the asexual and androgynous views, must be rejected on the grounds that there is inadequate scriptural support. Only one view, then, remains as logically possible: the view that resurrected believers will retain their sexual identity in the new creation. However, few can-or should-adopt a view on an issue of such import simply by default. Certain questions must be answered: What, precisely, is the sexual view? Does it have historical support? Is it truly defensible scripturally and theologically? We now turn our attention to finding answers to these important questions.

Gender Distinctions Remain

The view of resurrected saints as sexual³⁶ in the new creation holds that gender identity is eternally fixed and will remain in the new creation. Unlike the asexual and androgynous views, which minimize gender to the point of irrelevance, the sexual view acknowledges gender as an eternally significant dimension of the created order, and as an eternally significant aspect of personhood. Unlike the monosexual view-which also emphasizes the eternal significance of gender-the sexual view celebrates rather than depreciates gender distinctives. While it acknowledges that the mortal, earthly bodies of believers will undergo a radical transformation of form and function in the new creation, it denies that those changes will either erase or obscure gender distinctives or identities. Gender was part of God's original creation and is of God. Therefore, gender is in no sense incompatible with His eschatological new creation.

Like the three previous views of gender in the new creation, the sexual view has both ancient and modern proponents. A few examples from history will provide evidence that the view has found acceptance within the Christian community since the early centuries of the church. One of the first of record to address the question was Justin (c. A.D. 100-165). In his apology against those who denied the possibility of a real bodily resurrection for believers, Justin affirmed that the bodies of both males and females would rise entire, with organs of reproduction intact.³⁷ Jerome, likewise in response to those who denied the resurrection, declared in very certain terms that "if the woman shall not rise again as a woman nor the man as a man, there will be no resurrection of the dead."³⁸ Jerome did, of course, believe in the reality of the resurrection and, accordingly, believed that distinctions of gender would be preserved in the new creation. Consider also the view of Rufinus, who, in his unequivocal declaration that "in the resurrection even lawful intercourse will no longer exist between the sexes,"³⁹ actually affirmed that differentiation of the sexes remains. Finally, consider Augustine. Augustine probably addressed the question of what we shall be in the new creation more directly and extensively than any of the other fathers of the church, yet his position on gender in the new creation is expressed succinctly in the following excerpt from The City of God: "He . . . who created both sexes will restore both [sexes]."⁴⁰ Clearly, the view that resurrected believers will retain their respective genders in the new creation has had able proponents since the early centuries of the church. But what of modern times? Does the view continue to find support among contemporary scholars and exegetes? It does indeed, though the number of contemporary scholars that have written recently on the question of gender in the new creation is somewhat limited. A brief look at several proponents of the view will provide some orientation to the state of contemporary studies on the subject.

John Frame, cited earlier in this article for his observation that Scripture does not explicitly answer the question of gender in the new creation, nonetheless indicates that he is "inclined toward an affirmative answer"⁴¹ and proceeds to provide evidence from Scripture to explain why he is so inclined. Similarly, Daniel Heimbach, in one of the more extensive treatments of the subject to date, affirms that gender distinctives will remain in the new creation.⁴² In addition to offering philosophical and ethical support for the view, Heimbach presents four distinct lines of biblical evidence to suggest that believers will maintain their gender identities in the eschaton. Wayne Grudem, in his Systematic Theology, also affirms the view that believers will be male and female in the new creation. Although Grudem here does not address the question as directly as some others, his position is clear: "[It] is appropriate to think that our resurrection bodies . . . will have the characteristics of youthful but mature manhood or womanhood forever."⁴³

We see, then, that the sexual view of gender in the new creation is well represented by notable apologists, theologians, and students of Scripture from both past and present. One could argue, however, that at least some of the other views had notable proponents as well. Simple recognition that one view has enjoyed a degree of acceptance in some quarters does little to help establish the correctness of one view above the other. Of far greater importance is the question of evidence. Is there sufficient evidence for the sexual view of gender in the new creation to distinguish it as the more theologically probable among the logically possible choices? It is to that end that we now turn our attention.

Evidence that Gender Distinction Remains

In the discussion of the asexual, androgynous, and monosexual views, above, several passages of Scripture have been identified as central to the question of what we shall be in the new creation. A review of the major passages will be helpful at this point. First Corinthians 6:13 was thought by some to support the view that all sex characteristics would be erased in the new creation. Closer analysis of the passage, however, revealed that, far from denying sexual distinctives in the new creation, the verse made sense only if gender distinctions remained. Similarly, Gal 3:28 has been interpreted by some as declaring the end of gender in the new creation. Judith Gundry-Volf has shown, however, that the phrase "no male and female" should not be construed to affirm an androgynous (or sexless) ideal toward which society moves. Indeed, when the verse is properly interpreted in its soteriological context, it shows that both male and female have access to salvation and thus would take part in the eschatological new creation. Ultimately, Gal 3:28 says more to affirm the place of gender distinctives in the eschaton than to deny them.

Of the various passages of Scripture thought to speak to the question of gender in the new creation, none are more significant than those that relate Jesus' interaction with the Sadducees on the question of the resurrection (Matt 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-38). Here, some have alleged, Jesus declared the end of gender. In reality, however, Jesus affirmed that gender would remain. For, as Augustine observed

[Jesus] affirmed that . . . [gender] should exist by saying, ‘They shall not be given in marriage,' which can only apply to females; ‘Neither shall they marry,' which applies to males. There shall therefore be those who are in this world accustomed to marry and to be given in marriage, only there they shall make no such marriages.⁴⁴

Thus, the passage that often is thought to provide the strongest scriptural evidence against the view that gender distinctions will remain, in fact argues most persuasively for it.

When taken together, the weight of scriptural evidence favors the sexual view of gender in the new creation. But is the view theologically sound? Are there theological principles that support, perhaps even require, the sexual view? Two related yet distinct theological principles when taken together, argue persuasively that sexual distinctions must remain in the new creation.

Gender Central to Human Identity

Consider, first, that gender is central to human identity. In creating humanity "male and female" (Gen 1:27), God established gender as the first and most elemental dimension of human identity. More than just a social or behavioral construct, gender is at the very heart of who we are as human beings. Even Eric Johnson, who denies that gender is of any ultimate importance,⁴⁵ says that "for one's membership in the kingdom it is hard to imagine any more important distinguishing human characteristic. . . . It is as males and females that we exist, and we are called upon to listen to the Word of God as males and females in order to find out who we are individually and in our social relations."⁴⁶

Gender is more than just an accidental attribute of human nature, peripheral to the human experience. Gender is an essential part of who we are. Accordingly, the essential nature of gender perhaps is best described in terms of the imago Dei. Scripture teaches that both male and female are, in some sense, created "in the image of God" (Gen 1:27), and thus bear the divine image. On this there is general agreement throughout the Christian community.⁴⁷ The question of precisely what the imago Dei entails, however, is a different matter. Even a cursory survey of the various views of the divine image would take us far afield. However, some consideration of the imago Dei as it touches the subject of gender is in order.

One view maintains that male and female together constitute the image of God. They do so, however, in such a way that God is not fully "imaged" by either the male or female alone. Both male and female together are necessary to properly reflect the divine image. Some proponents of this view, perhaps following Barth, find the locus of the divine image in the male-female marriage relationship. Other proponents of the view find the locus of the image in the characteristic traits of the genders. According to this version of the view, neither masculinity nor femininity alone is sufficient. Only when both masculine and feminine traits are taken together is the divine image properly constituted, according to this view. No doubt many will find one of these versions of the view appealing. It does, after all, emphasize the unique contribution of female bearers of the divine image, as well as the need for mutual respect between the sexes. However, significant difficulties are associated with this view.

It is generally accepted that it is the imago Dei that separates human beings from the rest of creation. Humans are qualitatively different from the animals, not because of biology, but because human beings alone bear the image of God. It is the image of God that makes us human. However, if man alone or woman alone bears only part of the image of God, it necessarily follows that either alone is not fully human. Clearly, the ethical and social ramifications of this position are enormous. Of much greater import, however, are the christological and consequent soteriological difficulties that inhere in this view. If both genders are required to fully constitute the image of God, then Jesus Christ who was and is and remains male, is incapable of bearing the whole image of God. Both the deity and humanity of Christ stand in jeopardy under this view, as does the salvation of those He came to save.

Is there, then, an alternative? Some might suggest that it is best to understand gender as a non-issue where the image of God is concerned. But this, too, is problematic. It is problematic, not only because it would introduce an element of circular reasoning into our argument, but most especially because it fails to account for an obvious and important characteristic of God, namely, that He is in some sense a gendered Being. The fact that consistently throughout Scripture, the triune God-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-is referred to in masculine terms simply cannot be ignored. If one maintains a high view of the inspiration of Scripture, he or she is compelled to acknowledge that the way the Scriptures present God and His character must be consistent with the way He desired to make Himself known. Neither accommodation to culture nor anthropomorphic imagery can account for the consistently masculine portrait Scripture presents of God. Gender must be, in some sense, characteristic of God.

Are we to conclude, then, that because God is masculine that masculinity is essential to the image of God? Are males the only true bearers of the divine image? Is there a solution? As previously discussed, Scripture requires that any valid view of the imago Dei be able to account for it as borne by male and female alike. Clearly, then, neither masculinity, nor femininity, nor any commingling of the two can legitimately be identified with the essential image of God. The difficulty disappears, however, with the understanding that gender itself is an aspect of the essential image of God. To be created in God's image, then is to be created with gender. Since both males and females possess gender to an equal degree, both are able to bear the divine image of God. Both are fully human. And both enjoy ontological equality in the sight of God.

Because gender is part of the imago Dei, gender is an essential aspect of human identity. Even in this age of "plastic sexuality," sex-change operations, gender-identity disorders, and homosexual marriage, gender is a part of being human that cannot be ignored. Gender is at the heart of human physical identity. As Augustine observed, "What is there which more intimately concerns a body than its sex?"⁴⁸ But gender is much more than physiology. It is at the heart of the identity of the soul. Tertullian, for example, taught that souls were assigned gender simultaneously with the body:

The soul, being sown in the womb at the same time as the body, receives likewise along with it its sex; and this indeed so simultaneously, that neither of the two substances can be alone regarded as the cause of the sex.⁴⁹

Tertullian's position presents some difficulties, but it does reflect the ubiquitousness of gender in the human constitution. Ultimately, however, whether Tertullian was correct in the details of his assertion is irrelevant. Why? Because, as Heimbach has observed, in creating Adam and Eve God "created embodied spirits. God did not first create nonmaterial beings and then in a second, separate action place them into material bodies. Rather, each was created whole in a single divine act of creation."⁵⁰ Human beings, then, are sexual, gendered beings, and it is as sexual, gendered beings that we are known.

Resurrection Requires Holistic Continuity

It has been shown that gender is central to human identity. Second, consider that resurrection requires holistic continuity.⁵¹ If the Christian concept of resurrection is to be in any sense meaningful, some degree of continuity must exist between what we are and what we shall be. Scripture provides a number of examples of postmortem appearances (1 Sam 28:11-15; Matt 17:1-3, 27:52ff.; Luke 16:19-31; Rev 11:1-12). In each case, John Frame has observed, "those who appear after death . . . appear similar to their earthly forms."⁵² In other words, they were recognizable in and by their corporeality. Likewise, as Frame again has observed, "Jesus' resurrection body also resembled the form He bore on earth, even down to the wounds he bore in His hands and side (John 20:25, 27)."⁵³ He was recognizable in and by his bodily form. As Günter Thomas suggests, "Christ's body becomes the visible medium for his memory. The cross remains inscribed in the body of the Resurrected One."⁵⁴ By showing that in the life after death, persons are recognizable by their physical appearance, the scriptural evidence suggests something we have alluded to already, namely, that the bodies of resurrected saints will be recognizable because of a somatic continuity between their pre-and postresurrection forms.

The basis for this continuity lies in the nature of resurrection itself. The biblical concept of resurrection is much more accurately described as a transformation of that which is, than as a re-creation of that which was.⁵⁵ In the resurrection bodies are changed, not replaced (1 Cor 15:51ff.),⁵⁶ for as Justin maintained, "the resurrection is a resurrection of the flesh which died."⁵⁷ Because there is a resurrection of the very body that died, somatic continuity is maintained.

Admittedly, there is much that will change in the resurrection. Present concepts of space, time, and matter are inadequate to allow full comprehension of how we shall be "what we shall be." Nancy Murphey is probably correct in her assertion that "the language of the present aeon is incapable of describing a resurrected body."⁵⁸ Many of the changes that resurrection will bring to the body-for example, the removal of deformities, the elimination of disease, and so forth-are restorative in nature. Resurrection will "fix" that which has gone wrong. Other changes are designed to fit believers for kingdom life. Because the world to come is vastly different from the world in which we now live, Murphey notes, "our physical composition has to be unimaginably different."⁵⁹ Our bodies must be changed, for they "must provide all that is necessary to carry forward the moral and social relations that constitute the kingdom of God."⁶⁰ However, as sweeping as resurrection changes may be, identity, of which the body is a integral part, remains unchanged. And this is as it must be. Why? Because, as Murphey observes, "participation in the postresurrection kingdom depends on one's being the same person before and after the resurrection." The eschatological hope of life in the new creation is meaningless, so far as human beings are concerned, if continuity is not maintained.

Being the same person, however, involves more than somatic continuity. Because human beings are "embodied souls," the requirement for continuity applies equally to the material and nonmaterial aspects of man. Resurrection necessarily requires continuity of the personality as fully as it requires continuity of the body. Lampe, referencing Paul's theology of resurrection, states the point well:

In Paul's holistic perspective . . . the reality of salvation is not another reality apart from the outer everyday life, not just a religious reality for the inner life of a person. It grasps and embraces the whole of human existence, the entire personality. This principle is also applied very consistently to the eschatological concept of a postmortem life: this life will not only involve parts of a human being, a soul or a spirit, but the entire personality, including his or her bodily existence.⁶¹

Although in this excerpt Lampe is arguing for bodily resurrection on the basis of a holistic view of salvation, he nonetheless demonstrates effectively that the eschatological hope of resurrection applies to the whole person. The continuity of resurrection is a continuity of body and soul. Resurrection thus involves continuity of the whole of personal identity.

The connection between principles one (1) and two (2) is now apparent. We have seen that resurrection requires holistic continuity (i.e., continuity of the whole of personal identity). We have seen, also, that gender is a central feature of personal identity. It follows, then, that resurrection necessarily must include continuity of gender. To put it another way, if gender is a central part of who we are, an integral part of our human identity, then the biblical, Christian understanding of resurrection virtually requires that our resurrected bodies preserve our respective genders.

Conclusion

In the preceding discussion, the four logically possible views of gender and the new creation have been defined and analyzed. Each view was found to have proponents and, to some extent, to claim to have scriptural support. On closer analysis, however, the scriptural evidence for the asexual, androgynous, and monosexual views was found to be wanting. The only view that could be shown to have genuine biblical support was the sexual view, which maintains that gender distinctions will remain in the new creation. Moreover, an examination of the theological evidence for the view revealed that the Christian understanding of resurrection virtually requires that gender be preserved in the eschaton. Gender is so much a part of who we are that it is nearly inconceivable that our eschatological transformation would blur, erase, or change a feature so central to our understanding of ourselves as members of the human race and as bearers of the image of God.

In the absence of an explicit scriptural declaration of "what we shall be," an element of uncertainty persists. Clearly, there is room for more discussion and research. Objections need to be answered. Social, ethical, and theological ramifications of the view need to be explored. As consensus is reached on the question of "what we shall be," divisions no doubt will occur over the questions of "what we shall do" and "how we shall relate" as male and female in the new creation. Until the view can be thoroughly vetted in both church and academia, dogmatism should yield to scholarly reserve. Still, the evidence that gender will remain in the new creation is convincing and strong. We conclude, then, with Augustine: "They seem to be wiser who make no doubt that both sexes shall rise."⁶²

Tools:Top Print E-mail