John Makujina, «‘Till Death Do Us Part’? Or the Continuation of Marriage in the Eschaton? Answering Recent Objections to the Traditional Reading of Gameo - Gamizo in the Synoptic Gospels.» filologia-neotestamentaria, Vol. 25 (2012) 57-74 page 61

Vol 25 (2012)

John Makujina, «‘Till Death Do Us Part’? Or the Continuation of Marriage in the Eschaton? Answering Recent Objections to the Traditional Reading of Gameo - Gamizo in the Synoptic Gospels.», Vol. 25 (2012) 57-74

B. Witherington III et al. propose that gameo and gamizo in Matt 22,30 (par. Mark 12,25; Luke 20,34-36) describe entrance into marriage rather than the state of marriage. Consequently, these passages indicate no more than the impossibility of new marriages in the resurrection; they do not, by themselves, insists Witherington, teach the termination of existing marriages, as has been ordinarily assumed. In contrast, this article argues for the traditional interpretation of these texts by demonstrating that when combined gameo and gamizo posses an idiomatic value and refer to the institution of marriage and the family, which, according to Jesus, will end with this age.

See more by the same author

Page 61/74
‹
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
›

‘Till Death do us Part’ ? or the Continuation of Marriage... 61 byvwh, hnq)11, but they do not appear to be factors in our study because of their restricted usage12. a. jql and /tn, a Collocation As we have just demonstrated, jql and /tn clearly constitute the normal vocabulary for marrying in OT literature—alternatives notwith- standing. It would not, therefore, be adventurous to propose that γαμέω corresponds with jql and γαμίζω with /tn13, something that can be veri- fied by the repeated observation of NT commentators that γαμέω refers to the masculine role in marriage and γαμίζομαι to the feminine14. What has, however, eluded the discussion are the handful of occasions where jql and /tn appear together in the OT: Gen 34,9.16.21; Deut 7,3; Judg 3,6; 12,9; Ezra 9,12; Neh 10,31; 13,25. Gen 34,9, “Intermarry with us [wnta wntjth]. Give [wntt] your daughters to us and take [wjqt] our daughters for yourselves”. 11 See also the circumlocution hval wl htyh, “she became his wife”, or variations there- of: Gen 20,12; 24,51.67; Num 30,7; 36,3.6.8.12; Deut 21,13; 22,29; 24,4; 25,5; 1 Sam 25,42.43; 2 Sam 11,27; 12,10; 1 Kgs 4,11; Ru 1,11.13; 4,13. For a possible calque on vyal htyh, “mar- ried to a man” (Lev 21,3; 22,12) see Rom 7,3, ἐὰν γένηται ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ…γενομένην ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ, “if she is married/belongs to another man…though married/belonging to another man”, and 7,4, εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ, “in order that you may belong to another”. 12 For definitions consult the standard lexicons. See also Guenther’s semantics— some- times eccentric (lub)—for the same. “Israelite Marriage”, 387-407. D. I. Block identifies constructions that are even more idiosyncratic than those in the previous list: bbs (Jer 31,22); axm (Prov 31,10); b qbd (Gen 2,24); l ubv (Ezek 16,8); lu [nk crp (Ezek 16,8; Ru 3,9); etc. “Marriage and Family in Ancient Israel”, in K.M. Campbell (ed.), Mar- riage and Family in the Biblical World (Downers Grove, IL 2003) 46, n. 53. Include here dja rcbl wyh (Gen 2,24) and lav (2 Chr 11,23). For the noun “wedding/marriage” see the hapax hntj (Cant 3,11); for “betrothal” see hlwlk, another hapax (Jer 2,2). BDB 368, 483. 13 Cf. EDNT, 1:236; TDNT, 1:651, n. 15. 14 E.g., C. Vander Stichele, “Like Angels in Heaven. Corporeality, Resurrection, and Gender in Mark 12:18-27”, in J. Bekkenkamp - M. de Haardt (eds.), Begin with the Body. Corporeality, Religion, and Gender (Leuven 1998) 221; TDNT, 651, n. 15; O. Schwankl, Die Sadduzaerfrage (Mk 12, 18-27 parr). Eine exegetisch-theologische Studie zur Aufer- stehungserwartung (BBB 66; Frankfurt 1987) 368, n. 124; Luz, Matthew 21-28, 70; J. Reil- ing - J.L. Swellengrebel, A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke (UBS Handbook Series; New York 1971) 653; et al. Γαμίζονται is usually translated as a passive, “given in marriage”, although some claim a permissive middle here, “allow oneself to be married”. BDF 165; EDNT, 1:236; TDNT, 1:651, n. 15; Green, Luke, 721. Although, in this case, there is little practical difference between the passive and the permissive middle, the idiomatic quality of the combined con- struction (see below) should caution against reading too much into the subtle nuances of the middle, including Green’s emphasis on the woman’s consent in marriage. See also Matt 24,38, below, where the active voice is used.