‘Till Death do us Part’ ? or the Continuation of Marriage... 67 So then, although deliberate intertextual referencing can be all but ruled out, so should the notion that the associations are purely acciden- tal28. For the present inquiry, the parallels between Luke 17,27-28 and Jer 29,4-7 lend greater credence to our contention that Jer 29,4-7 serves as the best resource among the jql-/tn constructions in the OT for ap- prehending the meaning of γαμέω-γαμίζω—at least in Luke 17,27 and Matt 24,38. b. Luke 17,26-28 and Matt 24,38 Thus far we have proposed that γαμέω-γαμίζω is an idiom calqued on jql-/tn and possesses roughly the same meaning as the combination in Jer 29,6, although condensed, I would add, to retain its aphoristic effect. The following discussion will demonstrate that the proposed idiomatic impulse of γαμέω-γαμίζω is upheld by a series of activities that accom- pany these verbs in Luke’s eschatological discourse: eating-drinking, planting-building, and buying-selling (17,27-28). In each case, it will be argued that the paired activities are idiomatic, signaling the flourishing of a basic institution of civilization—leisure (eating-drinking), sedentary living (planting-building), and commerce (buying-selling). 28 The more obvious intertext for these verses is Gen 6,2, where the sons of God marry the daughters of man, somewhere in the vicinity of Noah’s day. Zmijewski, Die Eschatolo- giereden, 433-434; Marshall, Luke, 663. Even so, it should be recognized that any influence of Gen 6,2 on Jesus’ haggadah need only be catalytic and broad, rather than extensive and specific. A generic reference is supported by the expectation that the same behavior will be manifested in days of the Son of Man. Moreover, like the ordinary activities of purchasing and marriage in the parable of the great banquet (Luke 14,15-24), none of the practices in the days of Noah and Lot are to be considered taboo in themselves, only the human preoccupation with life as normal to the neglect of kingdom priorities and the impending judgment (see “the cares of this life,” Luke 21,34). So most commentators: Witherington, Matthew, 455; Catchpole, “The Law and the Prophets in Q”, 103; C.M. Hays, “Hating Wealth and Wives? An Examination of Discipleship Ethics in the Third Gospel”, TynBul 60 (2009) 60-63; Hagner, Matthew 14-28, 719-720; Meier, Matthew, 291; D.J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (SP 1; Collegeville, MN 1991) 342; contra Bock, Luke vol. 2, 1432-1433. A litany of sins committed by Noah’s and Lot’s generations was certainly in circulation had Jesus or the evangelists desired to critique these generations more rigorously: Gen 6,5.11-13; 13,13; 18,20; 19,4-14; Jub 7,20- 29; 16,5-9; 20,5; T. Ash. 7,1; T. Benj. 9,1; T. Naph. 3,4-5; Sir 16,7-8; 2 Pet 2,5-8; Jude 6-7; etc. See J. Schlosser, “Les jours de Noé et de Lot: À propos de Luc 17:26-30”, RB 80 (1973) 13-36; Hays, “Hating Wealth and Wives”, 61-62; Str-B, 1.961-965. According to R. Stein, the conspicuous absence of marrying in Lot’s days is prob- ably intentional, suggesting a society that has abandoned this institution. R.H. Stein, Luke (NAC 24; Nashville 1992) 440. If correct, it verifies that the reference to marriage in Noah’s day is not pejorative—as in forbidden intermarriages—but has been democratized to refer to the normal institution of marriage practiced by all the inhabitants of the earth, who were thereafter destroyed by the flood.