Jesus comments on same-sex marriage.

[John D. Brey]

Midrash Rabbah Bere[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]h, XXVI. 5, states:

R. Huna said in R. Joseph's name: The generation of the Flood were not blotted out from the world until they composed nuptial songs1 in honour of pederasty and bestiality. R. Simlia said: Whenever you find [this kind of] lust, an epidemic visits the world which slays both good and bad. R. Azariah and R. Judah b. R. Simon in R. Joshua's name said: The Holy One, blessed be He, is long-suffering for everything save immorality [of this kind].

The note in the passage, after nuptial songs, says: "1. Or perhaps: until they wrote marriage deeds for males and beasts --- i.e. they fully legalized such practices." The word translated “pederasty,” Heb. miskav zachur (“male sexual relations”), is mistranslated “pederasty” since it’s the standard Hebrew term for “homosexuality.” 

As is the case in almost every Jewish text of this sort, the generation of the Flood is paralleled with the generation of Sodom and Gomorrah. Nearly all scripture treat the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as parallel to the destruction of the antediluvian civilization by the Flood. Both are destroyed because of sexual lust and immorality, specifically homosexuality, and God rains down annihilation on both (first with water, then fire). The New Testament treats Sodom and Gomorrah as a test case, or an isolated type, of the universal flood that will plague the entire planet at the return of the Son of Man on the day of the Lord.


In Luke chapter 17 we find Jesus not only remaining true to the scriptural practice of paralleling the Flood with Sodom and Gomorrah, but we find statements which are either the source text for the passage above, or which are themselves based on a shared source. ----- In John chapter 17, verses 26-29, we read:

26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Jesus’ statement is set in the context of preaching to the Pharisees and his disciples concerning the signs of his return just prior to establishing his Kingdom (he had just predicted his death prior to these statements). And since Jesus is giving a sign to mark his imminent return, the question arises as to whom Jesus is referencing when he speaks of "they" and "them" in the passage quoted above? ----- The answer is important, since he’s supposed to be telling the Pharisees and his disciples how a person could know that the end of days had arrived, or were about to arrive? But the information he gives doesn't appear to provide a meaningful sign of the end times since in all ages people are eating, drinking, and marrying.

There’s only one way Jesus can be providing a meaningful sign of his return. He has to be speaking of a particular category of persons doing all the things he’s just mentioned. And even that requires that at least one of the things he mentions is remarkable concerning the category of persons he’s speaking about. Which is to say that there’s only one category of people for whom any of the things he mentions could be ironic enough to create a meaningful sign. Jesus is pointing out that the two times God has rained down death and destruction (as he will rain it down at the second coming of Jesus Christ) homosexuals were eating and drinking . . . which is not remarkable . . . marrying . . . and living as though they were married: same-sex relationships sanctified by the state, or the city-state.


After Jesus makes the statement referenced above, which now can be understood to be speaking of homosexuals specifically, as the "they" and the "them" who will be "marrying" in the day when the Son of Man shall return (as they were marrying in the days of Noah, and the days of Sodom and Gomorrah) Jesus follows up by saying:

34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

The statement that there will be “two men in one bed” is a hapax legomenon; it’s the only time in the entire scripture that two men are said to be sharing a bed. It resonates well with the Hebrew term miskav zachur, since miskav means “bed,” but symbolizes what’s done in a bed, while zachur means “male.” The statement that two women will be “grinding together” requires a bit more exegesis. Particularly since a parallel passage in Mathew (24:41) includes the word “mill” (the only time it’s used in the New Testament) in relation to the women who are grinding. In Luke Jesus omits the word “mill,” and since he says this “grinding together” takes place at “night,” it might appear that that’s why he omits the word “mill.”

But Gustaf Dalman, in his study, Grinding in Ancient and Modern Palestine, tells us that it wasn’t unusual for a woman to be grinding at the “hand-mill” mulos in the house (rather than at the “mill-house” mulon) in the middle of the night. While it's probably true that women didn't grind at the "mill-house" in the middle of the night, it’s true that they may have done grinding in the middle of the night, at the mill in the house.

Nevertheless, the context in Luke seems to suggest that the women are “grinding together” in the same bed, in the same sense that the passage has just noted, “two men are in one bed.” Exegesis supports “grinding together” being used this way in passages like Job 31:9-10, where Job claims that if he’s had an extra-marital affair, then let his wife have sex with other men:

If mine heart have been deceived by a woman,
Or if I have laid wait at my neighbour’s door;
10 Then let my wife grind unto another,
And let others bow down upon her.

Using the term “grinding” as a sexual metaphor is secondarily legitimized by the fact that throughout the scripture, “grinding at the mill” is used as a symbol for the sexual congress of the bridegroom and the bride. Deuteronomy 24:5-6 says:

When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife [enjoy conjugal relations with her] which he hath taken. 6 No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh a man’s life to pledge. 7 If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.

Rabbi Elie Munk comments:

One shall not take an upper or lower millstone as a pledge. The Midrash notes a symbolic linkage between this verse and the previous passage having to do with marriage. After the first sin, Eve was told, your craving shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you (Genesis 3:16). . . [The set of upper and lower millstones are considered to be an analogy for a husband and wife, with the lower millstone, corresponding to the wife.].

Rabbi Elie Munk, The Call of the Torah: An Anthology of Interpretations and Commentary of the Five Books of Moses (Parenthesis is Munk's).

Rashi tells us the lower stone is the "millstone," and the higher is the "grindstone." ----Deut. 24:6, says that neither stone can be taken away, since taking either the lower stone, or the upper stone, would be tantamount to endangering life.

In his essay on Grinding in Ancient and Modern Palestine, Gustaf Dalman references two other passages of scripture. The first is Jeremiah, 25:10, "Moreover I will take from them the voice of mirth, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones, and the light of the candle." The prophet links the sound of the bride and groom grinding together in gladness (a sexual euphemism established in the Deuteronomy passage 24:5) with the sound of the millstones grinding together. This analogy relays the fact that the concept of sexual congress, and grinding at the mill, has always been analogous in the scripture. The last passage Dalman notes is Revelation 18:22, which is almost a word for word quotation of Jer. 25:10. The passage in Revelation speaks of the future destruction of the city parallel to Babylon in Jeremiah's writing, a city that will be destroyed because of its sexual perversion during the End Times.

Unfortunately there are some pronounced interpretive errors in Luke chapter 17 which led to some incorrect translations in the current English text. Why for instance does not the fact of it being "night" and there being "two men in one bed" not cause the translators to think about the "two men in one bed" more carefully? ------ After Jesus notes that this particular "night" two men will be in one bed, and two women will be "grinding together," he also says that "two men will be in the field," one will be taken and the other left. The interpreters therefore equate the "two men in the field" (vocational activity), with the two women grinding in the mill (vocational activity), as in the Mathew passage, signifying to them that the passages are completely parallel. They therefore choose to ignore both the fact that it's night, nyktos, and also the fact that there are the "two men in one bed." They ignore the fact that it's night, and the fact that two men are having intercourse in one bed because they don't know what to do with the two men working in the field in the middle of the night.

But a closer look at the actual passage shows where a mistake in translation/interpretation is made:

34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. 37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.

The word translated "eagles" is often translated "vultures," and the determination of which is used is based on the context where it's presented. In the passage in question, Jesus' disciples appear to have focused correctly on the fact that Jesus is speaking of night. They're ok with everything until Jesus says that two men will be in the field. Jesus' disciples are scratching their heads, like the translators should have been, thinking, "Wait a minute? If it's night, and the men are in bed, doing their thing, and the women are grinding together, then why the heck are men out working the fields"? ---- They query him "Where Lord"? . . . Where do men work the fields in the middle of the night?

Jesus answers them that where there are "vultures" gathered together, there you will find a corpse. Immediately they know that Jesus is speaking of the fact that the "taking" of the men and women is the resurrection of the righteous among the living and the dead. Jesus had already taught his disciples that the resurrection of the wicked doesn't take place simultaneous with the resurrection of the righteous, but at the end of the Kingdom of God.

[RBerman]

1) The Greek of Luke 17:34 does not say "two men in one bed." It just says "two in one bed." (δύο ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς )
2) Matthew 24's discussion of this same judgment does not mention beds at all; like Luke 17, it does mention two gathering (wheat) in the field, and two grinding (wheat) in the mill.

[Jedidiah]

Someone grinding an axe?

[John D. Brey]

1) The Greek of Luke 17:34 does not say "two men in one bed." It just says "two in one bed." (δύο ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς )
2) Matthew 24's discussion of this same judgment does not mention beds at all; like Luke 17, it does mention two gathering (wheat) in the field, and two grinding (wheat) in the mill.

. . . And yet the translation says “two men”? ---- After noting that two men are in one bed, it says one shall be taken. The one that’s taken is in the masculine gender. The other that’s left, is also in the masculine gender. Thus there are two men in one bed in the middle of the night. ---- Concerning the women grinding together, the one taken is in the feminine gender as is the one left.

Nowhere is “wheat” mentioned. And nowhere is “gathering” mentioned. And Jesus makes it clear in Luke 17:37 that the two men in the field are corpses. So they're not really gathering wheat are they. It was not a common practice to gather wheat in the middle of the night.

Concerning the women grinding at the mill (in the middle of the night), we have a similar problem. The word is either mulos, a mill, such as could be found in the home, or mulon, which is a mill-house. Different manuscripts have different words. Nevertheless, if it’s a mill mulos, such as one would find in a house. There would not be two women grinding on it, since it’s a small device designed for the woman of the house to provide bread for her home. And if it’s a mill-house, mulon, then there would not be women working there at night. Either way the word is problematic unless we realize that in the scripture, a mill was made of a lower stone, the millstone, and an upper stone, the grindstone. Midrash and exegesis reveal that the millstone is emblematic of “woman” while the grindstone symbolizes “male.” The two together represent the bridegroom and the bride grinding together in holy matrimony to create the bread of life from the floor that falls through a hole in the middle of the millstone when the grinding takes place.

[RBerman]

1) "Midrash and exegesis" is just another name for "some guy's opinion" as to whether the mill is literal or not. Certainly you'll find writers in the early church (e.g. Origen) who were infamous for allegorizing everything.

2) Luke 17:37 ("Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.”) is a proverb that means to look for the consequences where the problem is, i.e. Israel. The parallel passage in Matthew 24 makes it clear that the situation Jesus is describing is one where people are doing their usual daily farm labors, gathering crops and grinding them into flour, so that the "two in the field" are not dead, but alive and working. The Matthew 24 version is also clear that Jesus' comments are about the destruction of the temple, so that's where "the corpse is." He's predicting the way the riches of Herod's temple will be carried away in 70 AD.

3) Your comments about μύλων vs μύλος are not quite right. The μύλων is the place (the mill) where the μύλος (the millstone) is found. A μύλος can be of any size, not just "a small device designed for the woman of the house." Matthew 18:6 speaks of μύλος ὀνικὸς, "a millstone of an ass," i.e. a millstone sufficiently large that it required a beast of burden to turn it, and thus large enough to drown you if it were attached to your neck. The μύλος in Matthew 24:41 was large enough to require two adults to operate it, and Matthew has no reference to this being done at night. Here is a nice photo of a medium-sized μύλος in the Roman port town of Ostia Antica, which I visited a couple of years ago. (It's not my photo, though.) You can imagine how the whole grains of wheat would be put in the top and crushed as the stone turned, with the flour collected out the bottom. (You also wouldn't want it tied around your neck!) Here is more information about milling and baking in Roman times, with pictures of a variety of sizes of μύλος, including handheld units for home use.

[John D. Brey]

2) Luke 17:37 ("Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.”) is a proverb that means to look for the consequences where the problem is, i.e. Israel.

. . . While I don’t question the legitimacy of the proverb, I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s important to interpret the scripture in its proper context. Jesus is answering a specific question posed by his disciples, which is not addressed by the proverb: why is anyone working the field at night. Since Jesus clearly says that these things are occurring at “night,” the disciples are asking him point blank where people work the field at night? Jesus answers the question by stating that where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. Jesus is clearly answering his disciple’s question by telling them that at least one of the bodies in the field this night is a corpse. The other person in the field could be burying the body, or have just killed the body, as Cain killed Abel in the field, or such and such. But one of the bodies in the field is a corpse.

The parallel passage in Matthew 24 makes it clear that the situation Jesus is describing is one where people are doing their usual daily farm labors, gathering crops and grinding them into flour, so that the "two in the field" are not dead, but alive and working. The Matthew 24 version is also clear that Jesus' comments are about the destruction of the temple, so that's where "the corpse is." He's predicting the way the riches of Herod's temple will be carried away in 70 AD.

Jesus’ comments are about his second coming, and not the destruction of the second temple. No resurrection of the dead occurred after the destruction of Herod’s temple. Since the context is clearly the resurrection of the dead at Jesus' second coming, Herod’s temple will have to have been destroyed for some time. Furthermore, it’s clear from scripture that the third temple will be standing when Jesus returns. So the destruction of the temple is not in view.

Furthermore, the scripture is never redundant. That’s one of the first and foremost principles in properly dividing the Word of Truth. Nothing in the scripture is said redundantly. Every single word and phrase is there for a reason. If Jesus was simply claiming that people were eating, drinking, and marrying, when he returns . . . that is a redundancy and has no meaning since it’s obvious that as long as people are alive and functioning, they will be eating, drinking, and marrying. --- Jesus is not being redundant. And since he is not being redundant, he gives the clue to clear up the apparent redundancy. He says that as in the days before the Flood, and as in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, people will be eating, drinking, and marrying. ---- In other words, Jesus didn’t say to his disciples, that even as people today are eating, drinking, and marrying, so will it be when I return. He carefully and purposefully notes that as in the days before the flood, and in Sodom Gomorrah, they eat, drank, and married, so will it be when he returns.

Jesus links his statement not with contemporary Israel, but with the two times that homosexuals were both living together as though they were married, and were actually given legal permission to do so. Jesus is saying that a “sign” of his imminent return will be that homosexuals are both living together as married couples, and being given permission to do so by the highest authority in the land.

) Your comments about μύλων vs μύλος are not quite right. The μύλων is the place (the mill) where the μύλος (the millstone) is found. A μύλος can be of any size, not just "a small device designed for the woman of the house." Matthew 18:6 speaks of μύλος ὀνικὸς, "a millstone of an ass," i.e. a millstone sufficiently large that it required a beast of burden to turn it, and thus large enough to drown you if it were attached to your neck. The μύλος in Matthew 24:41 was large enough to require two adults to operate it, and Matthew has no reference to this being done at night.

You should determine if you’re going to stick with your belief that Luke and Matthew are parallel passages, as you seemed to do when it fit your exegesis <s> or are not parallel when it fits new exegetical thoughts?? Before, you treated Matthew and Luke as parallel passages (meaning they spoke of the same event) and now, when it fits a different exegetical point, you treat them as speaking of different times or places. In Luke, Jesus is clear that it is at night. Matthew doesn’t say night or day, and all of the points you added to make it appear that it was day, such as claiming the persons in the field were “gathering” “wheat” (neither word is in the text) are not part of the actual text of the scripture. The only word in Matthew that could make it appear that it is day and not night, is the word “mill.”

But as I’ve pointed out to you, either the mill is in the mill house, in which case Luke and Matthew can’t be parallel, since women would not be working at the mill-house at night, or else it is not a mill-house in question, but a mill small enough to be in a woman’s house, such that she might grind on it in the middle of the night to have floor for cooking bread in the early morning.

If Matthew and Luke are parallel passages, such that both speak of “night,” then it makes sense to note that throughout scripture the mill stone is a symbol of a woman, and the grindstone is a symbol of a man, such that a woman grinding in the mill stone, in the middle of the night, is like saying a lesbian is grinding in another woman, the term “grinding” already having been established in the scripture as a metaphor for sexual congress.

[RBerman]

. . . While I don’t question the legitimacy of the proverb, I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s important to interpret the scripture in its proper context. Jesus is answering a specific question posed by his disciples, which is not addressed by the proverb: why is anyone working the field at night. Since Jesus clearly says that these things are occurring at “night,” the disciples are asking him point blank where people work the field at night? Jesus answers the question by stating that where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. Jesus is clearly answering his disciple’s question by telling them that at least one of the bodies in the field this night is a corpse. The other person in the field could be burying the body, or have just killed the body, as Cain killed Abel in the field, or such and such. But one of the bodies in the field is a corpse.

That's simply a misreading of the passage. Jesus isn't treating the events of Luke 17 as something that happen in a single instant; rather, some parts of it happen at night (while people are in bed) and some during the day (while people are working in the fields and at the mill). It's not even a single day; it's the "days" (plural) of the Son of Man in Luke 17:22 and 26. Even assuming the days are consecutive, there would be nights between them.

Jesus’ comments are about his second coming, and not the destruction of the second temple. No resurrection of the dead occurred after the destruction of Herod’s temple. Since the context is clearly the resurrection of the dead at Jesus' second coming, Herod’s temple will have to have been destroyed for some time. Furthermore, it’s clear from scripture that the third temple will be standing when Jesus returns. So the destruction of the temple is not in view.

Luke 17 doesn't mention the destruction of the temple, but the parallel passage in Matthew 24 is clearly occasioned by discussion of the destruction of the temple.

Furthermore, the scripture is never redundant. That’s one of the first and foremost principles in properly dividing the Word of Truth. Nothing in the scripture is said redundantly. Every single word and phrase is there for a reason. If Jesus was simply claiming that people were eating, drinking, and marrying, when he returns . . . that is a redundancy and has no meaning since it’s obvious that as long as people are alive and functioning, they will be eating, drinking, and marrying. --- Jesus is not being redundant. And since he is not being redundant, he gives the clue to clear up the apparent redundancy. He says that as in the days before the Flood, and as in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, people will be eating, drinking, and marrying. ---- In other words, Jesus didn’t say to his disciples, that even as people today are eating, drinking, and marrying, so will it be when I return. He carefully and purposefully notes that as in the days before the flood, and in Sodom Gomorrah, they eat, drank, and married, so will it be when he returns.

It is not the case that the only two options are "Scripture is redundant" or "John Brey's exegesis of Luke 17 is correct."

Jesus links his statement not with contemporary Israel, but with the two times that homosexuals were both living together as though they were married, and were actually given legal permission to do so. Jesus is saying that a “sign” of his imminent return will be that homosexuals are both living together as married couples, and being given permission to do so by the highest authority in the land.

Jesus doese not discuss this issue in either Luke 17 or Matthew 24. For instance, even if "two in one bed" meant "two homosexuals" (which it does not), there's no mention of "the highest authority in the land" having an opinion about that aspect of the situation one way or another. All it says is that one will be taken away (i.e. in judgment) and one would be left behind -- that is, the two people don't have the same fate.

You should determine if you’re going to stick with your belief that Luke and Matthew are parallel passages, as you seemed to do when it fit your exegesis <s> or are not parallel when it fits new exegetical thoughts?? Before, you treated Matthew and Luke as parallel passages (meaning they spoke of the same event) and now, when it fits a different exegetical point, you treat them as speaking of different times or places. In Luke, Jesus is clear that it is at night. Matthew doesn’t say night or day, and all of the points you added to make it appear that it was day, such as claiming the persons in the field were “gathering” “wheat” (neither word is in the text) are not part of the actual text of the scripture. The only word in Matthew that could make it appear that it is day and not night, is the word “mill.”

But as I’ve pointed out to you, either the mill is in the mill house, in which case Luke and Matthew can’t be parallel, since women would not be working at the mill-house at night, or else it is not a mill-house in question, but a mill small enough to be in a woman’s house, such that she might grind on it in the middle of the night to have floor for cooking bread in the early morning.

If Matthew and Luke are parallel passages, such that both speak of “night,” then it makes sense to note that throughout scripture the mill stone is a symbol of a woman, and the grindstone is a symbol of a man, such that a woman grinding in the mill stone, in the middle of the night, is like saying a lesbian is grinding in another woman, the term “grinding” already having been established in the scripture as a metaphor for sexual congress.

The two passages are parallel and appear to be discussing the same circumstance. See above for my argument why your "Luke 17 is occuring only at night" idea doesn't hold water.

[John D. Brey]

Originally posted by John D. Brey
. . . While I don’t question the legitimacy of the proverb, I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s important to interpret the scripture in its proper context. Jesus is answering a specific question posed by his disciples, which is not addressed by the proverb: why is anyone working the field at night. Since Jesus clearly says that these things are occurring at “night,” the disciples are asking him point blank where people work the field at night? Jesus answers the question by stating that where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. Jesus is clearly answering his disciple’s question by telling them that at least one of the bodies in the field this night is a corpse. The other person in the field could be burying the body, or have just killed the body, as Cain killed Abel in the field, or such and such. But one of the bodies in the field is a corpse.

That's simply a misreading of the passage. Jesus isn't treating the events of Luke 17 as something that happen in a single instant; rather, some parts of it happen at night (while people are in bed) and some during the day (while people are working in the fields and at the mill). It's not even a single day; it's the "days" (plural) of the Son of Man in Luke 17:22 and 26. Even assuming the days are consecutive, there would be nights between them.

Many things are discussed concerning the “end times.” And the end times span a relatively long period, to include the Tribulation. But the return of Christ, which is the topic addressed in the context of the taking of some and leaving of others, is one day. Matthew speaks of the “day and the hour” that the Son of Man will return. True enough this one day (or hour) will be light on one side of the globe, and dark on the other. But it’s still one day. And even if Matthew is discussing the day side of the planet (and there’s no guarantee that it is) Luke is clearly and unambiguously discussing just one night, the night when Jesus will return to take some and leave others; the night when two men will be in the same bed, and two women will be grinding together in the middle of the night.

[David Hayward]

...Sodom and Gomorrah... are destroyed because of sexual lust and immorality, specifically homosexuality, and God rains down annihilation on both (first with water, then fire). The New Testament treats Sodom and Gomorrah as a test case, or an isolated type, of the universal flood that will plague the entire planet at the return of the Son of Man on the day of the Lord.


...Jesus answers them that where there are "vultures" gathered together, there you will find a corpse. Immediately they know that Jesus is speaking of the fact that the "taking" of the men and women is the resurrection of the righteous among the living and the dead. Jesus had already taught his disciples that the resurrection of the wicked doesn't take place simultaneous with the resurrection of the righteous, but at the end of the Kingdom of God.

The awkward question arises: why, in each of these pairs of alleged homosexuals, do the two NOT share the same fate? I have either not found, or have overlooked, your explanation WHY one homosexual should be taken and the other left.

My understanding of Mosaic Law is that it would not discriminate between them -- BOTH would have been liable to be stoned to death. Have I misunderstood the Mosaic Law, or is there a reason you can advance why Jesus would have judged them differently. Their being in the same bed -- ie their being practising homosexuals -- presumably precludes one being a repentant follower of a homophobic Jesus while the other not.

Rather than damning all homosexuals as hateful immorals who will cause the wreaking of righteous destruction, your interpretation seems to tell us the contrary: that according to Jesus, practising homosexuals CAN be righteous -- and by extension that many ARE righteous.

David

[Abigail]

. . . While I don’t question the legitimacy of the proverb, I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s important to interpret the scripture in its proper context. Jesus is answering a specific question posed by his disciples, which is not addressed by the proverb: why is anyone working the field at night. Since Jesus clearly says that these things are occurring at “night,” the disciples are asking him point blank where people work the field at night?

I think the use of 'night' is an allusion to Jesus' coming in judgement on sinful flesh, as would happen when Jerusalem was destroyed, but more specifically in each individual life of the person who as spoken of in Romans 6:6-8 "knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him..."

So in each of the verses of the Luke passage, Luke 17:34-36, the two men in the bed are actually the same person, the old man and the new man; the two women at the mill are the same person,the old woman and the new woman, the two in the field, the old man and the new man. For just as Noah left the community and entered the ark and Lot went out from the city, so must our old self die that the new self might live in that day when Jesus comes a second time.

Abigail

[RBerman]

Many things are discussed concerning the “end times.” And the end times span a relatively long period, to include the Tribulation. But the return of Christ, which is the topic addressed in the context of the taking of some and leaving of others, is one day. Matthew speaks of the “day and the hour” that the Son of Man will return. True enough this one day (or hour) will be light on one side of the globe, and dark on the other. But it’s still one day. And even if Matthew is discussing the day side of the planet (and there’s no guarantee that it is) Luke is clearly and unambiguously discussing just one night, the night when Jesus will return to take some and leave others; the night when two men will be in the same bed, and two women will be grinding together in the middle of the night.

Your argument is self-defeating; if Jesus is talking about something that happens in an instant worldwide (which doesn't seem to be the case, given the mention of "days"), then the "two in one bed" would be something that happens where it's night, and the "two grinding at the mill" would be something that happens where it's day.

[John D. Brey]

The awkward question arises: why, in each of these pairs of alleged homosexuals, do the two NOT share the same fate? I have either not found, or have overlooked, your explanation WHY one homosexual should be taken and the other left. . . My understanding of Mosaic Law is that it would not discriminate between them -- BOTH would have been liable to be stoned to death. Have I misunderstood the Mosaic Law, or is there a reason you can advance why Jesus would have judged them differently. Their being in the same bed -- ie their being practising homosexuals -- presumably precludes one being a repentant follower of a homophobic Jesus while the other not. . . Rather than damning all homosexuals as hateful immorals who will cause the wreaking of righteous destruction, your interpretation seems to tell us the contrary: that according to Jesus, practising homosexuals CAN be righteous -- and by extension that many ARE righteous.

Salvation has never been based on obedience to the law. And since all have sinned and come short of the righteousness of God, all are saved the same way, faith alone in Christ alone. No sin is stronger than the blood of Christ. A homosexual is just as saved as a fornicator, or a liar, or a thief, or anyone else. . .Jesus came not to enforce the Mosaic law, but to fulfill it, and surpass it. He did that. And anyone who has faith in him is no longer subject to the law. Those who are taken, are those who have not believed in the one and only Son of God. Those who are left are those who have. Those who are left are not distinguished by their sins, but by their faith. Some are gay, some are murderers, some are thief’s. But all are redeemed by the blood of the lamb.

The sign of the times that Jesus gives is not that there will be homosexuals, since there are homosexuals in most societies, and thus that would not really be a a sign that would have any significance. The sign that Jesus gives is that homosexuals will be “marrying.” And that has only happened two times in human history: the antediluvian civilization, and the city-states of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Jesus, like Jewish midrashim, specifically targets the antediluvians and the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, because they are the only peoples whose sinful sexual proclivity was sanctified by the state such that homosexual relations were treated as “holy matrimony.”

The sign that the end times, and thus the return of Christ are near, is that for the first time since the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the average person has become so blinded by the Devil, that they are too theologically inept to understand that “holy matrimony” is the epitome and foundation for all natural theology. Such that destroying the sanctity of the marriage union of male and female is a complete repudiation of the natural theology that every human being can grasp and comprehend, as a stepping stone to positive volition toward revelation from the Holy Spirit of God. Which is to say, with Romans chapter one, that no natural process in the mundane world is so infused with obvious “design” and thus natural theological implications, as is human sexuality. Any people who are willing to ignore the design inherent in the genital organs, and human gender dynamics, and sanctify homosexual relationships, have devolved below the level of apes, and are thus subject to annihilation from the wrath of God.

This is all to say that homosexuality is a dangerous sin, but nothing close to the evil of heterosexuals both endorsing the lifestyle and then sanctifying it as though it were equal to holy matrimony between a male and female.

[John D. Brey]

I think the use of 'night' is an allusion to Jesus' coming in judgement on sinful flesh, as would happen when Jerusalem was destroyed, but more specifically in each individual life of the person who as spoken of in Romans 6:6-8 "knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him..."

So in each of the verses of the Luke passage, Luke 17:34-36, the two men in the bed are actually the same person, the old man and the new man; the two women at the mill are the same person,the old woman and the new woman, the two in the field, the old man and the new man. For just as Noah left the community and entered the ark and Lot went out from the city, so must our old self die that the new self might live in that day when Jesus comes a second time.

IMO, although there could be significance to your analogies, they are of a personal nature and not really what is intended in the text itself. It’s important to distinguish between allegorical points of interest such as you have given, and the general meaning of the text as the giver in the narrative intended it to be received, and how the receiver could reasonably be thought to have received it. It’s not likely that Jesus thought his audience would have taken his words in the allegorical sense that you have provided. And because your interpretation is so allegorical, it detaches itself from any meaningful exegetical legitimacy. It’s just not likely that that is the meaning Jesus intended when he made those statements. Which is not to say that the allegorical meaning you give is wrong. But only to say that we need to separate personal meanings and allegories (even if legitimate) from the general and immediate intent of the narrative in question.

[John D. Brey]

Originally posted by John D. Brey
Many things are discussed concerning the “end times.” And the end times span a relatively long period, to include the Tribulation. But the return of Christ, which is the topic addressed in the context of the taking of some and leaving of others, is one day. Matthew speaks of the “day and the hour” that the Son of Man will return. True enough this one day (or hour) will be light on one side of the globe, and dark on the other. But it’s still one day. And even if Matthew is discussing the day side of the planet (and there’s no guarantee that it is) Luke is clearly and unambiguously discussing just one night, the night when Jesus will return to take some and leave others; the night when two men will be in the same bed, and two women will be grinding together in the middle of the night.

Originally posted by RBerman
Your argument is self-defeating; if Jesus is talking about something that happens in an instant worldwide (which doesn't seem to be the case, given the mention of "days"), then the "two in one bed" would be something that happens where it's night, and the "two grinding at the mill" would be something that happens where it's day.

I don’t have a problem with the possibility that Matthew is speaking of events during the day, and Luke, events at night. Nevertheless, Luke is talking about night, and there are two men in one bed, and two women grinding together. For the women to be grinding together at night, is problematic, since if its a large mill, at a mill-house, they wouldn’t be there at night. And if its a small household mill, we should not have two women using it in the middle of the night.

[Abigail]

IMO, although there could be significance to your analogies, they are of a personal nature and not really what is intended in the text itself. It’s important to distinguish between allegorical points of interest such as you have given, and the general meaning of the text as the giver in the narrative intended it to be received, and how the receiver could reasonably be thought to have received it. It’s not likely that Jesus thought his audience would have taken his words in the allegorical sense that you have provided. And because your interpretation is so allegorical, it detaches itself from any meaningful exegetical legitimacy. It’s just not likely that that is the meaning Jesus intended when he made those statements. Which is not to say that the allegorical meaning you give is wrong. But only to say that we need to separate personal meanings and allegories (even if legitimate) from the general and immediate intent of the narrative in question.

Hey John,

In light of John 3:1-21 would my interpretation really be so 'unlikely' for the listeners? Here Jesus tells Nicodemus that one must be born again and further the passage also contrasts light and darkness in relation to the deeds of men. In fact if you think about it your argument seems to be built on the assumption of mine or how are you differentiating between the fact that one man gets take and the other left if not that the one is regenerated and the other not.

Assuming for argument's sake your interpretation of the two men and two women being homosexuals is correct, then what do you say to the comeback that all the situations show a senario just before God's final coming but that the flood senario and the Sodom senario also show the picture of when God's coming is apparent to all: This time before (first coming) is best described as night and the final coming as 'day'. The one is obvious to all whilst the other is not. God came at night when He told Noah to build the arc and preach (obvious to the heeders), God came in the day when He let the rain fall (obvious to all). God came at night to count the righteous (visit to Lot) and in the day when he destroyed Sodom (obvious to all). So then surely if the other senarios are 'night', we should interpret those as being first comings where some are 'taken' (separated) in order that they might escape the day of the Lord. In other words we should not expect to find those people in those senarios when the 'day' comes. Ok that is a pushback I can see you needing to answer.