‘Till Death do us Part’ ? or the Continuation of Marriage... 59 Others have also disputed the prevailing opinion in support of their own broader interpretations of the pericope. B. Trick, for example, echoes Witherington’s observation that the verbs here denote the process of mar- riage rather than marriage itself4. The same reservations are expressed by J. Kilgallen on both contextual and philological grounds; that is, Jesus’ response to the Sadducees addresses the specific eschatological difficulty created by the levirate law, rather than the existence of all marriages in the resurrection5. E. Fiorenza also seizes on the concept of levirate marriage but expands it to include all patriarchal marriage structures; she then insists that Jesus was abrogating this alone and not sexuality, in God’s world to come6. Likewise, E. Charpentier cautions that the text says nothing about the future relationship of spouses or the extinction of the sexes7. Still others retain the traditional interpretation, but for alternative reasons (e.g., the analogy with angels), claiming that what is actually excluded by γαμέω and γαμίζω is the contraction of new marriages in the resurrection8. It is evident, then, that a chorus of dissenting voices has arisen against the conventional exposition of these texts—with Witherington’s being the most persistent. What is more, those who have singled out γαμέω and γαμίζω as the reason for their deviation happen to be correct, on semantic grounds, and should be applauded for their attention to the minutia of the text. Does it follow, however, that the traditional interpretation finds its only support in the logical unfolding of Jesus’ argument, sans philological evidence? If so, should theologians consider disqualifying these texts as evidence for the termination of marriage in the afterlife, as some suggest? For a variety of reasons the present author answers these questions in the negative and feels that the conventional interpretation should be upheld. Without analyzing the overall exegesis of the above-mentioned detrac- 4 B.R. Trick, “Death, Covenants, and the Proof of Resurrection in Mark 12:18-27”, NovT 49 (2007) 241-243. 5 J.J. Kilgallen, “The Sadducees and Resurrection from the Dead. Luke 20,27-40”, Bib 67 (1986) 482-485. 6 E. Schlüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her. A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York 1985) 143-145. 7 È. Charpentier, “Tous vivent pour lui Lc 20,27-38”, Assemblées du Seigneur 63 (1971) 88-89. 8 B.P. Robinson, “‘They Are as Angels in Heaven’. Jesus’ Alleged Riposte to the Saddu- cees (Mark 12:18-27; par. Mt 22:23-33; Lk 20:27-40)”, NBf 78 (1997) 530-537. Likewise, J. B. Green ultimately maintains the traditional position, although, much like the revisionists, he drives a wedge between γαμέω and γαμίζω and assigns special significance to the latter. He, moreover, feels that Jesus responds specifically to the practice of levirate marriage, which by extension can be taken as a critique of marriage in general. The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids 1997) 721.