This is part one of a response to a post by Jeremy Myers. In that post, Myers summarizes the view of Ron Goetz, which proposes that Luke 17:34–35 is about saved non-celibate homosexuals. While I believe that there are saved non-celibate homosexuals, I disagree with the process of forcing a gay reading into this text (especially by using Document Q and Pagan mythology).
See Myers’s original post here. Part I has an introduction and some word studies. Part II talks about the context of Luke 17:34–35 and the Pagan myth Goetz bring into the discussion. Part III talks about the gospel, why saved people can be non-celibate homosexuals, and what saved people lose when we sin.
-Paul
Introduction
In July 2015, Jeremy Myers participated in a Synchroblog on gay marriage. Synchroblog was a project that that invited Christian bloggers to weigh in on a monthly topic from their perspective. Unfortunately, it seems that Synchroblog ceased in November, 2018.
Myers is a chaplain in the federal prison system, which, if you know my history, is a demographic that is very near and dear to me. He is also a talented and prolific writer. I read his book, Skeleton Church, a few years ago and enjoyed some of his ecclesiological insights.
I looked around at some of the other blogs that participated in the gay marriage Synchroblog, and Myers, in my opinion, crafted the best written post. It was longer and more thought out than most of the others, and he stuck to the Scriptures, specifically Luke 17:34–35. That said, I believe that Myers’s process was an atrocious twisting of God’s Word and his conclusions were off base.
Now, officially, Myers has refused to take a stance on homosexuality (here, for example). And in the post, he tries to use words that are pleasing to the Free Grace Movement, such as “Homosexuality is Not a Criterion of Acceptability for God.” If we read this with the Free Grace lens, then he seems to be saying that homosexuals can still be saved, to which Free Gracers give a hearty, “Amen!” But, if we peel back the layers a bit, it is difficult to discern what exactly he is saying.
Also, it is important to note that in the actual blog post, Myers put in a big disclaimer that he was only summarizing Ron Goetz’s view, which he expresses on his blog, “Bible-Thumping Liberal” (he links to this page). In Myers’s post, which was written in 2015, he is not explicitly endorsing or rejecting the details of Goetz’s perspective, so it is difficult to know what exactly his thoughts were then or have been since then. I think that Ron Goetz has made some glaring errors (and, admittedly, some not-so-glaring errors) that Myers should easily recognize as erroneous and dangerous, so I do not feel much obligation to shield Myers from criticism for his lack of discernment.
In case you missed it, Myers’s blog post that I am responding to is here: https://redeeminggod.com/two-men-in-one-bed-luke_17_34/
That said, let’s dig in.
The Text in Question
The passage in question is Luke 17:34–35, which occurs in a section that the Goetz calls, “Luke’s Gay Apocalypse” (a more common name for this section is “Luke’s Little Apocalypse”). The passage under the microscope is Luke 17:34–35, so I will produce vv. 22–37 for greater context:
22 Then He said to the disciples, “The days will come when you will desire to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. 23 And they will say to you, ‘Look here!’ or ‘Look there!’ Do not go after them or follow them. 24 For as the lightning that flashes out of one part under heaven shines to the other part under heaven, so also the Son of Man will be in His day. 25 But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.
31 “In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back. 32 Remember Lot’s wife. 33 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left. 35 Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left. 36 Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left.”
37 And they answered and said to Him, “Where, Lord?”
So He said to them, “Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.” (NKJV)
The gay interpretation calls this, “Luke’s Gay Apocalypse,” because of the phrases, “in that night there will be two men in one bed” (vs. 34) and “Two women will be grinding together” (vs. 35). The understanding is that these phrases are in reference to same-sex sexual activity.
Some old-fashioned word studies will demonstrate these to be misinterpretations.
Word study #1: klinē (κλίνη) “a place to eat or die”
Luke 14:34 has:
I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left. (NKJV)
λέγω ὑμῖν, ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ ἔσονται δύο ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς, εἷς παραληφθήσεται καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται·
First, a point of clarity. Italicized text in the NKJV indicates that the words are not in the original. Some might think that because the word, “men” is italicized, that the Greek not necessarily clarify the sex of the two people. However, the phrase “the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left” (εἷς παραληφθήσεται καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται) does clarify sex. “The one” is “heis,” which is masculine and “the other” is “ho heteros,” which is also masculine. Verse 35 has a similar construction to clarify two women and vs. 36 does likewise to clarify two men again.
Myers declares that his response, before being exposed to Ron Goetz, was, “Just because two men are in one bed, this doesn’t mean they’re gay.” I agree that this is a weak response, but reading homosexuality into the text is not the only alternative.
So, it is two men, but what does it mean that they are “in one bed” (ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς)? The word that is translated “bed” here is klinē (κλίνη). A klinē can have several purposes, but it seems that one of the most common usages is that it is the “couch” where someone would eat. Mark 7:4 features the word, klinē, and it is translated as “table” in the KJV, “couches” in the NKJV, and, perhaps more accurately, “dining couches” in the ESV:
and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.) (Mark 7:4 ESV)
καὶ ἀπὸ ἀγορᾶς, ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται, οὐκ ἐσθίουσι· καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν, βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων καὶ κλινῶν· (Mark 7:4)
In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), klinē is used in reference to dining place as well, typically a translation of the Hebrew word, miṭṭâh (מִטָּה). Here are some passages translated from the Hebrew with boldface where klinē occurs in the Septuagint:
King Ahasuerus… made a feast for all his officials and servants… There were white and blue linen curtains fastened with cords of fine linen and purple on silver rods and marble pillars; and the couches were of gold and silver on a mosaic pavement of alabaster, turquoise, and white and black marble. And they served drinks in golden vessels, each vessel being different from the other, with royal wine in abundance, according to the generosity of the king. (Est 1:2–3, 6–7 NKJV)
Notice that this is a feast with eating and drinking. They are not sleeping on the couches, but eating there.
Another from Esther:
When the king returned from the palace garden to the place of the banquet of wine, Haman had fallen across the couch where Esther was. (Esther 7:8a NKJV)
Was Esther having sex with Haman or was she sitting at a banquet table when he came to plead for his life?
You sat on a stately couch, with a table prepared before it, on which you had set My incense and My oil. (Ezek 23:41 NKJV)
Where is the klinē? It is right where it belongs, next to the table.
Sometimes it is ambiguous as to whether or not it is used for food (Exod 8:3; Mark 4:21), but it is never clearly used for sleeping when it is translated from miṭṭâh. The klinē/miṭṭâh is frequently used as a sickbed (1 Sam 19:13–16; Mark 7:4, 30) or even a coffin (2 Sam 3:31; 2 Chron 16:14) but this usage unlikely in Luke 17:34, because two men would not likely share one sickbed. Now, of the 34 Greek Old Testament, there are a minority of cases where klinē it is a translation of a different Hebrew word, ‛ereś (עֶרֶשׂ), which can be a place for sex and sleeping. But of the 9 New Testament occurrences, klinē is only a reference to a sickbed or an eating place and the Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon, which takes into account many Greek texts besides the Bible, concurs that extra-biblical sources overwhelmingly use klinē in the sense of a couch for eating or as a sickbed. For Luke’s original audience, the word, klinē, would conjure an image of a mealtime, not a naptime. To force a minority Septuagint usage into Luke’s mouth here to condone homosexual activity is nothing short of eisegesis.
Conclusion: The two men were not lying together at all! They were eating together on a klinē, which is most likely a mat on the floor to sit on by the table while they eat.
Everyone’s favorite scene from The Passion of the Christ.
Word study #2: alēthō (ἀλήθω) “to mill flour”
Luke 17:35 reads:
Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left. (NKJV)
δύο ἔσονται ἀλήθουσαι ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, ἡ μία παραληφθήσεται καὶ ἡ ἑτέρα ἀφεθήσεται.
The word for “grind” is alēthō (ἀλήθω), and it only occurs twice in the New Testament (here in Luke 17:35 and in the parallel verse, Matt 24:41) and four times in the Greek Old Testament (Num 11:8; Jdg 16:21; Ecc 12:3, 4). Each of these comes from ṭâchan (טָחַן), which means “to grind” or “to mill” except for Ecc 12:4, which comes from ṭachănâh (טַחֲנָה), which is the actual tool for milling. Each time, it is speaking of grinding flour:
The people went about and gathered it, ground it on millstones or beat it in the mortar, cooked it in pans, and made cakes of it; and its taste was like the taste of pastry prepared with oil. (Num 11:8 NKJV)
Then the Philistines took him and put out his eyes, and brought him down to Gaza. They bound him with bronze fetters, and he became a grinder in the prison. (Jdg 16:21)
In the day when the keepers of the house tremble,
And the strong men bow down;
When the grinders cease because they are few,
And those that look through the windows grow dim; (Ecc 12:3)When the doors are shut in the streets,
And the sound of grinding is low;
When one rises up at the sound of a bird,
And all the daughters of music are brought low. (Ecc 12:4)
Goetz has:
In the Hebrew Bible, “grind” is used as an acceptable euphemism for sexual intercourse in at least four places: Job 31:10, Judges 16:21, Isaiah 47:2-3, and Lamentations 5:13.
Now, it is true that ṭâchan and related roots can be used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse, but to be more precise, it is for perverse sexual acts. Of his example, two are explicitly sinful sexual acts (a cheating wife in Job 31:10 and a picture of Israel ravished by Babylon in Isa 47:2–3) and the other two (Jdg 16:21; Lam 5:13) are questionable as to whether sex is in mind, but if it is sex, then it refers to male sex slaves.
This apparent defense of lesbian sexual acts is self-defeating, for if the word used here is slang for sinful sexual acts, then is it the best word to show that homosexual activity is not sinful? Regardless, the argument misses what Jesus said in Matthew’s account:
Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. (Matt 24:41)
Luke’s account does not include “at the mill,” probably because it’s a given. It is not uncommon for women to do the work of grinding. In Exodus, it was the task of a female servant:
Then Moses said, “Thus says the Lord: ‘About midnight I will go out into the midst of Egypt; and all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne, even to the firstborn of the female servant who is behind the handmill, and all the firstborn of the animals. (Exod 11:4–5 NKJV)
Indeed, in Ecclesiastes 12:3, the word for, “the grinders,” is in the feminine plural “haṭṭōḥănōwṯ” (הַטֹּחֲנוֹת), indicating that they are females who work a mill, so it is to be expected that in Luke 17:35, it is a pair of women who are milling the grain.
Conclusion: The two women were grinding flour at a mill, not each other in a bed.
Bedouin woman grinding flour.
That was Part I. Part II talks about the context of Luke 17:34–35 and the Pagan myth Goetz bring into the discussion. Part III talks about the gospel, why saved people can be non-celibate homosexuals, and what saved people lose when we sin.
If you have any questions about salvation, feel free to contact us!