I hesitated to respond before I had a chance to check it out in context, but as it turns out that does not change my reply. While my default assumption is to respect Heiser's opinions, I can't go with him here. He starts by questioning the "traditional" assumption that the heart of the issue in this passage from Matthew is sex:
> ““Appeal is usually made to Matthew 22:23–33 in this regard, under the assumption that verse 30 teaches that angels cannot engage in sexual intercourse:”
I'm with him so far. This is *clearly* an *assumption.* But he then immediately follows that with an assumption of his own:
> “The text does not say angels cannot have sexual intercourse; it says they don’t.”
Nowhere in the Matthew text or context does it say anything of the kind; this is pure extrapolation on Heiser's part. He then carries this assumption further, applying an incomplete and unwarranted logic:
> “In like manner, life in the perfected Edenic world also does not require maintaining the human species by having children—everyone has an immortal resurrection body.”
While this is a "true" statement in and of itself (i.e., by the incredible kindness of Jesus our God and King, we WILL have immortal resurrection bodies), and while it is true that "maintaining the human species" would consequently be a given WITHOUT reproduction, it absolutely does not follow that expanding the human population and presence in the universe is uncontemplated or in any way illogical or forbidden.
As I make the case in the fictionalized article I cited to begin this thread, NOWHERE in scripture do we ever find God rescinding the creation mandate for humanity to "be fruitful and multiply and fill *the earth* (Hebrew "eh'-rets" which Paul renders in Greek as "cosmos" in Romans 4:13)."