Will there be sex in heaven?

For those of us who are honest enough to admit that we have wondered if there will be sex in heaven, well now we don’t have to wonder anymore.  Well, maybe I am being too generous.  However, Peter Kreeft, professor of Philosophy at Boston College, has written an academic article dealing with a usually non-academic issue…SEX.  I find his article intriguing and well thought out.  To download this article go here.

19 Responses to Will there be sex in heaven?

  1. Susan says:

    Intriquing indeed! I enjoyed what he said about the logic of chauvinism and egalitarianism. So true.
    Thanks for posting this link!

  2. Wesley says:

    Very intriguing, He makes a reference to C.S. Lewis’ space trilogy where the angels are masculine but not male or feminine but not female, in a way that transcended gender but keeps sex. I have been pondering this since I read it and so I really liked this article,

    Could it be that God is masculine then? In that all this time of some saying God is “sexless because he is Spirit” is in fact false? Or perhaps God is both masculine and feminine somehow? He doesn’t really answer this question, but just sees God as ultimately sexual. What do you think this means?

  3. Xavier says:

    Well at the risk of sounding ‘fleshly’ I for one hope that there will be sex in heaven–or better put, I hope there will be sex in the re-created heavens and earth. And why not? Of mankinds greatest pleasures in this life, it ranks near the top. Kreeft does not suppose that the pleasures of watching the the sun rise, or eating a sweet fruit, say, are unfit for God’s re-created world. What is it then, about the pleasures of sex that is so icky?

    I think Kreeft is also on shaky ground when he supposes that the joys of the next life would be so great that the desire for sex in humans would be all but erased. He makes issue of whether one would bother with candy during intercourse. Of course, no right thinking adult would want to subtitute candy–even if it is really, really good–for intercourse (although there may be some). Nor would most want to bother with peeling candy wrappers during intercourse. But this in itself is a bad analogy. If Kreeft is right, then there would be no pleasures in this life that we would experience in the next, since they would all be mere “candy” compared to our individual ecstatic union with God.

    This brings me to another point. Kreeft, it seems to me, supposes that the joys of the next life are a private experience between God and the individual human alone. But why? Would there not be joys in the new creation that are such that they are only experienced with another human person? The joy of intercourse, say? Perhaps this intercourse would be of a kind that physical intimacy in this life is mere “candy” compared to it.

  4. Wesley says:

    I think the “icky” part he is trying to avoid is the possible logical conclusion of saying there will be…

    1) physical sex in heaven or recreated earth
    2) no marriage in heaven or recreated earth

    Because this would lead to the idea of the Christian heaven being…well…a giant orgy. And perhaps it is possible to hold to those two ideas without that conclusion, but I think that’s what he (and others I have talked to about this) are ultimately afraid of saying.

  5. Gary Veazey (Xav's father-in-law) says:

    Without even reading the link, I will make my input solely based upon certain biblical references to what our bodies in heaven will be like. Scripture says we will have bodies like the resurrected Christ (i.e., glorified bodies not of flesh and blood–Hint, Hint). And since Scripture also indicates we will be spending all our time worshipping and glorifying Christ on His throne (casting crowns at His feet, etc.), He will be the focus of all we do in heaven. There will be no need or want for physical desires in a glorified body constantly worshipping Christ in person. There is no marriage in heaven, no pregnancy or procreation, so no need for sex. Nothing matters other than our in-person worship of the Creator.

  6. Clint says:

    Gary,

    I didn’t actually see any verse references for your points. And are you saying that Christ did not rise physically as well? Just wondering. Thanks for your comment!

  7. Clint says:

    It is very important to notice that Christ in his resurrection body was able to eat fish (Luke 24:43) and have Thomas touch him (John 20:27). This does imply some physicality. Although, it does seem that his physical body was somewhat different, with him being able to move from one place to another in space and time without using a door, or walking, running etc., to get whereever he pleased. So, will we be able to do these sorts of things in our glorified body? Who knows? This is probably outside of the bounds of scripture and into speculation.

  8. Deena says:

    Mr. Kreeft is a Catholic Philosopher.

  9. Clint says:

    Good point Deena…

  10. Keith says:

    Hi Deena,

    Thanks for stopping by our blog.

    I have two quick observations/questions about your “contribution”: (1) Peter Kreeft is a Dr., not a Mr. (He earned his Ph.D. in philosophy at Fordham– a very demanding school). He has taught philosophy at Boston College (arguable one of the top ten departments in the nation) for a long time. I’m not trying to be picky here, but (in defense of Kreeft) I feel obliged to say that he is one of our premier Christian philosophers and apologists.

    (2) Why does it matter that he is Catholic? This seems a good opportunity to make it clear to our readers that we welcome input from everyone (i.e., Protestants, Catholics, and others). Peter Kreeft has authored some 20 books (every one of which is worth reading) and a ton of scholarly articles; he is a fine Christian philosopher. He has a terrific relationship with Evangelicals. In fact, his book “Socrates Meets Jesus” is dedicated to Gary Habermas and Terry Miethe. His book “Between Heaven & Hell” contains some terrific and creative C. S. Lewis work.

    Of course, it is entirely possible that you did not intend your remark to be somehow derogatory. I hope this is the case. We (Evangelicals) stand to learn quite a bit from Catholics, especially Dr. Peter Kreeft.

  11. Gary Veazey (Xavier's Father-in-Law) says:

    Yes, Christ rose physically but had a glorified body with no flesh and blood like we have now and He had before the resurrection. Any Bible student should know or be able to look up the actual refercnes to what I said.

    Nothing Keith said about “Dr.” Kreeft leads me to believe he is a believer, actually having faith in Christ for eternal life, something which most Catholics have no idea. Being friends with evangelicals and writing things seemingly scriptural does not one a Christian make. Unless it is for evangelical reasons, I don’t understand why a Bible-believing Christian would stay in the Catholic church. Nor does a PHD make one knowledgable of the things of God, especially experientially (epignosis as Paul said).

  12. Wesley says:

    But Jesus did have flesh and bones after the resurrection:

    “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” -Luke 24:39

    He ate after the resurrection, so he mush have had a stomach, (or was being deceptive)

    “And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them.” – Luke 24:43 (KJV)

    Our resurrection bodies will then also be flesh and bones with the capacity to eat, because Christ is the firstfruits of the resurrection (1 Cor 15:20), so that we will be raised as he is now.

    If Christ had a physical body (which you still admitted) at the resurrection, then so shall we. This makes it legitimate to assume we will have our genitallia still, unless you want to argue Christ was raised in a physical androgynous body? For if Christ had a physical flesh and bone body with all the things like a stomach to go along with it, then so shall we.

    I’m assuming your verse on flesh and blood was referring to 1 Cor 15:50?

    Paul’s point is not that we get new bodies but that are current ones are changed. The glory of the ones sown on earth are raised to the glory of heaven. But it is the same body, as can be indicated by Paul’s use of the third person pronoun to refer to the same object throughout. Note in verse 50:46 when he lays the groundwork for his argument later, he makes a dichotomy between the natural and the spiritual, not the fleshly and the spiritual. The greek is not “sarkos” but “psuchikon”. In verse 50, the backdrop is this distinction, not the distinction with the physical, so that the point is that flesh and blood by itself cannot inherit the kingdom of God, which is who “it” must take on the imperishable (v.53-54). Note Paul does not say we get something new, but that we are changed by adding something to us, by clothing our physical flesh and bone bodies with immortality.

    This is nothing new, the doctrine that Christ rose in the same human body he had while on earth, has been the belief of Christians for 2000 years:

    …on the third day He arose from the dead, with the same body in which He suffered, with which also he ascended into heaven… -Westminster Confession 8:IV (same in the London Baptist Confession)

    “We believe that, according to the Scriptures, He arose from the dead in the same body, though glorified, in which He had lived and died, and that His resurrection body is the pattern of that body which ultimately will be given to all believers” – Dallas Theological Seminary Doctrinal Statement art.VI

  13. Keith says:

    Frankly Mr. Veazey, not only was I not attempting to convince you or anyone that Peter Kreeft is a Christian, neither he nor I could care less whether you think he is saved or not. I don’t recall claiming any such thing about anyone. Furthermore, a Ph. D., in and of itself, doesn’t make one knowledgeable of anything at all, including the “things of God,” as you quaintly observe. However, certainly the years of devoted study do. Have you read anything by Kreeft by which to know what he believes, or do you dismiss him simply because he doesn’t replicate your faith? You also noted that a Ph. D. doesn’t give one experiential knowledge of God. This is merely a truism! Of course a degree doesn’t give one experiential knowledge of God! No one thinks it does! This is like noting that having a high school diploma doesn’t give one experiential knowledge of being married!

    Ah, the Catholic bashing…is not cool.

    Sir, based on my interaction with you on this blog as compared to theological discussions I’ve been honored to have with many Catholics, I’m not so sure that you’re in a position to say such things as “I don’t understand why a Bible-believing Christian would stay in the Catholic church.” Your comments are not gracious, loving, accurate, or fair. It seems that you are not very familiar with beliefs outside the (center of) fundamentalism.

    Do we agree with all Catholic doctrines? Of course not, but some we do. Do we agree with all Protestant doctrines? Of course not. If you want to disagree with Catholic doctrine, that’s fine—but be willing to go to a Catholic venue to do so (even better, Peter Kreeft’s email address is on his homepage, and I’m sure he’s willing to represent the Catholic perspective. Engage him!) But let’s be clear: while we genuinely appreciate dialogue with anyone—especially you– if you’re interested in insulting Catholics, perhaps you should blog elsewhere, because it is not welcome here.

  14. Gary Veazey says:

    No freedom among fellow believers, huh?
    I wiil end this by saying that our glorified bodies will not consist of blood. Blood is the seat of sin and sickness, especially the sinful nature passed down by man from Adam. That’s why Joseph could not have relations with Mary and conceive a God-man child. Christ had to come supernaturally by way of the Holy Spirit. That how He was sinless.
    Goodbye.

  15. Wesley says:

    Where do you get blood as the seat of sin and sickness? It is also (at least) the source of life:

    Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. – Gen 9:3-4 (KJV)

    For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. – Lev 17:11 (KJV)

    And if blood is the seat of sin and sickness then Jesus should have never had blood but he did:

    And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground. – Luke 22:44 (KJV)

    But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. – John 19:34 (KJV)

    It is the blood of Jesus that is the power of our redemption

    Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. – Acts 20:28 (KJV)

    Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. – Romans 5:9 (KJV)

    Romans says sin passed by way to Adam but does not say this was by blood, but merely “in Adam all sin”. You can’t have blood the seat of sin and have Jesus sinless at the same time because Jesus had blood when he was sinless, that and where does scripture equate blood with sin?

    The bible seems to indicate he was born of a virgin to fulfill prophecy:

    Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. – Matt 1:22-23 (KJV)

    I’m not denying there may not have been other reasons for the virginal conception, but I see no scriptural evidence to indicate it was to create a blood-less Jesus.

    So you don’t believe Jesus was God and Man? That he was the Logos who “became flesh and dwelt among us”? (John 1:1, 14)

  16. Keith says:

    Good points, Wesley.

  17. Milton says:

    Will there be sex in heaven? Good question. I think it’s safe to say that the greatest pleasure in sex is the intimacy, transparency, vulnerability in trust, and the complete acceptance of and joy in the presence of each other and the joy in giving each other pleasure as well as receiving pleasure. I am sure these will all be present between all the redeemed and between them and the Lord Jesus Christ for all eternity. How these will be manifest is certainly far beyond our imagnation. Isaiah 64:4 “For from of old they have not perceived nor have they heard of a God like Thee, who waits upon those who love Him.” Or Paul’s rendering of it in his quote, “Eye has not seen, ear has not heard of the wonderful things God has prepared for those who wait for Him and are the called according to His purpose.” (from memory, don’t have a Bible handy at this computer) Certainly there will be no orgies in Heaven even if there is sex as we now know it, for we will be as incapable of lust as any other sin, and there will be no exclusive marital relationships and no jealousy or emotional dependence. I, for one, both can’t wait to open the mysteriously gift-wrapped package that is the promise of Heaven and also know that it will be complete, perfect, and eternal joy and satisfaction, with no sense of loss for whatever elements of earthly experience God sees fit to transcend in order to fill us with greater joy.

    Two non-Biblical but no doubt Bible-inspired allegories may shed some light. In the last book of C. S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia, “The Last Battle”, all the main characters find themselves in a paradise with Aslan after their bodily deaths in battle. As the familiarity and yet strangeness of their new world sinks in, it dawns on them that the old Narnia (Earth) that died was only a foreshadowing of this, the real and eternal Narnia. Everything good about the old Narnia was in the new, now glorified and cleansed and magnified.
    The other is in one of Madeline l’Engel’s post-Wrinkle in Time books (can’t remember which one) where while still on Earth, two of the charachters can take turns inhabiting each others’ entire being, not possessing them but experiencing life from inside the other’s body, mind, and soul. She called it “kything”. It didn’t strike me until some time after I read the book what a droll point she made by choosing that made-up term. Say it out loud. Sounds like “kissing” spoken with a lisp, doesn’t it? :) What deeper kiss could there be than being ALL the way inside each other? Makes plain (NOT!) Earthly sex seem even a little drab by comparison! Peace and happy anticipating!

  18. rezfamilies says:

    In case anyone is still reading, a positive (though possibly speculative) case can be made that male-female relationships similar to marital bonds can continue between the redeemed into the next life. This may then also imply a romantic, physical or even sexual aspect in such a relationship.

    Below are some websites that make this positive case (across Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant strands of Christianity). Each website does deal with the marriage pericope of Mt 22 to a lesser or greater degree -
    1. http://rezfamilies.googlepages.com
    2. http://www.ewtn.org/library/Marriage/zmarrheavn.htm
    3. http://members.aol.com/johnodhner/Marriageinheaven.html
    4. http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&id=YSSCUO1tonkC&dq=meyendorff+marriage%20&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=5NSzvkqo5M&sig%20=hBJchN5_JtqohBFEy0xFHYABFJI#PPA15,M1
    Whether you find these arguments convincing is ultimately up to you.

    PS. please note according to historic Christian doctrine, the next life involves the resurrection, which is physical in nature, and is not to be identified with “heaven” (where the redeemed go after death to await future physical resurrection of their bodies) – please see this link for more explanation -
    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1710844,00.html

  19. UnmK(M.Div) says:

    Enjoyed reading these blogs and learned many new things here.
    Kindly explain whether a christian can have more than one wife?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: