58 John Makujina For most, Jesus’ response to the Sadducees that “they neither marry, nor are given in marriage” signals the termination of marriage in the afterlife, since it effectively mutes the Sadducees’ reductio ad absurdum about a woman having seven husbands in the resurrection2. The obso- lescence of marriage also chimes with the reason provided, namely that human beings, like angels, will never die again (Luke 20,36)—with the implication that procreation is therefore unnecessary. Finally, it com- ports with broader NT anthropology, which identifies death as the agent that dissolves the bonds of marriage (Rom 7,2-3; 1 Cor 7,39; 1 Tim 5,14). Nevertheless, more recently this position has been challenged by B. Witherington III, primarily because it fails to do justice to the precise meanings of either γαμέω or γαμίζω, which technically denote entrance into marriage rather than the ongoing condition of being married: “These terms also reveal that the act of marrying, not necessarily the state of marriage, is under discussion. Thus, the text is saying, no more marriages will be made, but this is not the same as saying that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state”3. For this essay I am adopting, with most English translations, the reading γαμοῦσιν καὶ γαμίσκονται (v. 34). The alternatives for γαμίσκονται (ἐκγαμίσκονται, ἐκγαμίζονται, γαμίζονται, γαμοῦνται) are semantically inconsequential. The variants that involve gener- ant et generantur (= γεννῶσιν καὶ γεννῶνται) will not be factored into the discussion, even though they ultimately support the author’s thesis, as will be evident below. For an analysis of the variants see Marshall, Luke, 741; C.F. Evans, Saint Luke (TPI New Testament Com- mentaries; Philadelphia 1990) 716; J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke (X-XXIV) (AB; New York 1985) 1305. 2 E.g., V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark. The Greek Text with Introduc- tion, Notes, and Indexes. (London 1953) 482-483; J. Zmijewski, Die Eschatologiereden des Lukas- Evangeliums. Eine traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Lk 21,5-36 und Lk 17,20-37 (BBB 40; Bonn 1972) 433; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1305; J.P. Meier, Mat- thew (New Testament Message 3; Wilmington, DE 1980) 254; D.A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28 (WBC 33B; Dallas 1995) 641; L.T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke (SP 3; Collegeville, MN 1991) 313; Davies - Allison, Matthew XIX-XXVIII, 226-227; E. Main, “Les Sadducéens et la résurrection des morts. Comparaison entre Mc 12,18-27 et Lc 20, 27-38”, RB 103 (1996) 417-420, 423; E.P. Gould, The Gospel according to St. Mark (ICC; Edinburgh 1996) 229; C.A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20 (WBC 34B; Nashville 2001) 255; J.R. Donahue - D.J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark (SP 2; Collegeville, MN 2002) 349-350; R.H. Stein, Mark (BECNT; Grand Rapids 2008) 550, 554; A.Y. Collins, Mark (Hermeneia; Minneapolis 2007) 561-562; U. Luz, Matthew 21-28 (trans. J.E. Crouch; Hermeneia; Minneapolis 2005) 70-71; D.L. Bock, Luke Volume 2. 9:51-24:53 (BECNT; Grand Rapids 1996) 1623-1624; B.R. Grangaard, Conflict and Authority in Luke 19:47 to 21:4 (Studies in Biblical Literature 8; New York 1999) 111-120; N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God 3; Minneapolis 2003) 420-423, 426. 3 B. Witherington III, Women in the Ministry of Jesus. A Study of Jesus’ Attitudes to Women and their Roles as Reflected in His Earthly Life (Cambridge 1984) 34. Withering- ton’s early outlook has been maintained in his recent commentaries. Idem, The Gospel of Mark. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids 2001) 327-330; idem, Matthew (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon, GA 2006) 414-417.