Will There Be Sex in Heaven?

Dr. Peter Kreeft is a Catholic theologian of the Thomist tradition. Last Spring he delivered a lecture at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina (Yes, a Roman Catholic addressing Baptists!). The title of his lecture was “Will There Be Sex in Heaven?,” and this lecture is one you will not want to miss.

The short answer he gives to the question in the title is “yes.” The answer is “yes” mainly because gender distinctions continue in the new creation. The resurrection of the body is a restoration project, not an obliteration of something so deep as our maleness or femaleness. Thus gender complementarity will always be a part of us, even in the age to come.

In any case, you can listen to the entire lecture for yourself at Southeastern’s chapel audio page (February 3, 2007). The lecture actually comprises the gist of a chapter in Kreeft’s book about heaven. So a text version of the lecture is available here: “Is There Sex in Heaven?” I’ll be interested to read your responses.



    “I’ll be interested to read your responses.”

    Uh … keep it clean!

    WARNING: This blog is rated PG. Parental Guidance is therefore suggested.

    I’m afraid to read the link or give a listen.


    If there’s sex …

    is it monogamous?
    is it voyeuristically on display for others?

    As a Roman Catholic, is he advocating sexuality without any notion of procreation?

    VERY interesting topic you’ve raised, kind sir.

    I also will be interested to read the responses.

  • julie

    Peter Kreeft is not a theologian, Catholic or otherwise. Peter Kreeft is a HERETIC. You see he wrote a book called Ecumenical Jihad. I heard John MacArthur preach on this topic and did a little research. You can read about this book on Amazon. Here is a comment that someone left who has read the book:

    “There is one portion of this book that is truly bizarre. Mr. Kreeft claims to have had an out of body experience while surfing in Hawaii. During this experience, he “soul-surfed” and landed on a “Heavenly beach.” [p. 86] There, he met and spoke with Confucius, Buddha, Mohammed, and Moses. In the afterlife, all have become pious Roman Catholics. Nonetheless, Mohamed still teaches (and Kreeft appears to agree) that the Koran is “divine revelation.” [pp. 103-4] This stuff goes on for twenty-five pages. Mr. Kreeft purports that his recounting of this ecumenical beach party is in some sense “true.” [p. 86] ”

    So it is not surprising to me that now he imagines something about sex in heaven. His “theology” is his own imagination.

  • dorsey

    “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
    Nor have entered into the heart of man
    The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

    Sex in paradise? Who can say?

  • Ronjour Locke

    Now is he saying that there will be “sex” in heaven in the sense of gender, or in the sense of intercourse. For unless there is a different ethic in heaven, sex as intercourse is a distinctly marital act, something that Jesus said will not be in heaven because its primary purposes– procreation and Gospel magnification– will be fulfilled. But I would agree that our humanness will be realized par excellence in glorification. And if that is the case, then our gender distinctions will be magnified in all its sinless beauty, and God will be glorified as the One who created them male and female.

  • Larry

    “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” Mark 12:24

    I think Jesus is pretty clear on the topic.

  • Suzanne

    I realize we are not taking Kreeft weriously here, but Doug Groothuis thought that this idea should be reviewed.

    Kreeft subscribes to a troubling view of sexuality, one that over-sexualizes both God and humans. This view logically leads to the inferiority of women, although Kreeft would deny it. He thinks that God is male, because God initiates in creation and redemption. Thus, men mirror God as initiators and leaders in ways that women do not. The implication is that men are more like God than women are, thus rendering women ontologically inferior to men. But the Bible never deems women as inferior to men in their being. Both woman and man were given authority to rule the earth and both were made in God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:26).

    The problem with Kreeft’s reasoning lies in granting God a gender at all. God is, of course, a personal being: “I am who I am” is God’s name forever (Exodus 3:14-15). God is not an impersonal force, principle, or substance, as pantheism teaches. We rightly refer to God metaphorically as “our Father” (as well as other biblical names and descriptions of God’s character) but this is not a sexual reference. This is because God has neither a body nor any need for a sexual partner in order to create. Rather, God creates out of nothing; but humans procreate sexually on the basis of what God has given them. Gender is a category of creation, not a category applicable to the Creator.

    But Kreeft even sexualizes creation out of nothing, saying that God “impregnates nothingness” to create everything. Through this kind of reasoning, sexuality gains a theological significance it was never meant to bear, and women bear the brunt of the metaphysical blunder. (Moreover, nothingness cannot, by definition, be “impregnated,” since there is nothing there to be impregnated.)

  • Rezfamilies rezfamilies

    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. This positive case is made on my website (click on my name) – all interested visitors are welcome.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.