Christian theologians and Bible scholars generally answer this question in the negative. And they do so because of Mt 22:23-33 and its synoptic parallels (Mk 12:18-27; Lk 20:27-40). Here’s a representative statement:
“Procreation belongs to earthly not to heavenly life where there is no birth, growth, or death. Marriage, as the institution within which earthly procreation is set, is therefore out of place…People in heaven will be like the angels, who do not marry or procreate because they are eternal” (R. T. France).
But it seems to me that the standard interpretation doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The cultural mandate (Gen 1:28) supplies the original rationale for marriage. This is a prelapsarian ordinance. It doesn’t presuppose human mortality.
Marriage, per se, is not a stopgap for human morality. It’s not as if Adam and Eve would have remained childless had they never sinned. It would be pointless for God to create a male and female pair in the first place if, in an unfallen world, there were to be no children. In that event, it would make more sense for God to create an immoral, sexless species.
Human mortality no doubt makes procreation necessary for the perpetuation of the human race. But in the Biblical theology of marriage, mortality is not a prerequisite of the matrimony. Rather, Adam and Eve, along with their posterity, were to procreate because that was a means of exercising dominion over the earth.
What this interpretation loses sight of is the fact that Jesus and the Sadducees aren’t discussing marriage in general, but levirate marriage in particular. Now levirate marriage, in distinction to marriage in general, does assume a postlapsarian state of affairs. If a husband dies without leaving a male heir to provide for his widow and maintain the lines of inheritance, levirate marriage takes up the slack.
Remember, too, that this was a tribal culture in which the land was held in common by one’s respective clan. To pass out of the clan was to pass out of one’s hereditary livelihood.
So when Jesus speaks of the abolition of marriage in the final state, this presumably refers back to levirate marriage, or the functional equivalent thereof. That’s how the question was framed. So, absent some indication to the contrary, that’s how the answer is framed. He is answering the Sadducees on their own terms.
Another problem with France’s statement is that it fails to distinguish between the intermediate state and the final state. If we equate “heaven” with the intermediate state, then that is a discarnate state. In that situation, procreation is physically impossible since there is no body. (In principle, a disembodied soul could still entertain the equivalent of an erotic dream.)
But the final state of man is a reembodied state, due to the general resurrection. And Jesus himself, at the time he spoke, would soon be the archetype and prototype of glorification.
We don’t have much experience with the glorified body, but we have a paradigm-case in Jesus. In reference to his humanity, he was anatomically a male human being (e.g. Lk 2:21-23). He was put to death as a man, and he was raised to life as a man. His digestive system was intact (Lk 24:41-43). And he bore the scars of his Passion (Jn 20:27).
This indicates a high degree of physical continuity between his mortal body and his immortal body. The presumption is that he retained his primary and secondary sexual characteristics. And I assume he had the hormones to go with the plumbing. So what is true for him presumably holds true for glorified men and women.
Because we have so little revelation about the details of the afterlife, there are many more questions than answers. However, we need to give the right answers to those questions we can answer. And that queues us up to ask the right follow-up questions, whether or not we can answer them here and now.