‘Till Death do us Part’ ? or the Continuation of Marriage... 65 Moreover, because jql-/tn in Jer 29,6 connotes family building, it probably serves as the closest template for Jesus’ saying. The examples of family expansion, cited above, are identified with additional issues such as marriage alliances and family consolidation, neither of which are directly applicable to the controversy between Jesus and the Sadducees. Instead, as descriptions of human activity within time periods, the expression in Matt 22,30; Mark 12,25; and Luke 20,34-35 is more compatible with the (broader) concept of family building, and the imperfective aspect of the Greek present is more than able to transmit the ongoing practice of marriage (and non-marriage), which Jer 29,6 unpacks in greater detail22. a. Luke 17,20-37 Furthermore, Jer 29,4-7 boasts additional parallels with Jesus’ logion when the eschatological discourse of Luke 17,20-37 is introduced into the discussion (par. Matt 24,36-44), the only other occasion where γαμέω and γαμίζω appear together in the Gospels. Remarkably, in this passage, Jeremiah’s reference to building and planting is also duplicated—produc- ing another point of contact with Luke’s version of the discourse:23 And just as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be in the days of the Son of Man; they were eating, drinking, marrying, being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building,…. (Luke 17,26-28) Correspondences like these—which encompass both vocabulary and concepts— naturally raise the question of literary dependence. Although 22 The present tense here is commonly understood as futuristic in meaning. R.H. Gun- dry, Mark. A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids 1993) 702; R.G. Bratcher - E.A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark (UBS Handbook Series; Leiden 1961) 379. It should be cautioned, however, that the future tempus is a func- tion of context alone and is not triggered by the imperfective aspect of the present, which remains free to communicate recurring and customary activity. See R.A. Young, Inter- mediate New Testament Greek. A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach (Nashville 1994) 111; B.M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek (Oxford 1990) 221-226; G.M. Green, “Some Interactions of Pragmatics and Grammar”, in L.R. Horn - G. Ward (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics (Malden, MA 2004) 411. 23 On the origin of Luke 17,28-29 (the days of Lot) in Q see D.R. Catchpole, “The Law and the Prophets in Q”, in G.F. Hawthorne (ed.), Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament. Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis for His 60th Birthday (Grand Rapids 1987) 102; Hagner, Matthew 14-28, 718; J. Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34 (WBC 35B; Dallas 1993) 860.