Same-Sex Pairings in Luke 17:34-35

  • Thread starter Thread starter Baho
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Baho

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

I’ve only been able to find a handful of blogs discussing these two passages specifically and they seem to be Protestant sources. Some folks seem to think that these passages may be referencing same-sex couples though. Do we have any Catholics out there following that line of thinking?

Edit: It should be noted that a lot of translations to include the RSV2CE state “two men” for 17:34, vice just “two”.

Edit #2: It should also be noted that its not my personal stance that its the case. Ive just become aware of the fact that some people read it as such. Seeking a friendly conversation and not anger, obviously. Not sure how it went that way.

Edit #9000: Question re-formed so its more of a conversation and less of a yes/no thing.
 
Last edited:
It seems rather difficult to imagine one of a sinful pair to be taken up to Heaven.

No, this does not refer to homosexual couples. For thousands of years, it was normal for men to share a bed, and nobody imputed anything scandalous to it.

The women grinding together are grinding grain, of course, they are doing agrarian work such as in a mill.

The two situations are meant to illustrate the unexpected nature of their disappearance. Taken by a thief in the night, taken in broad daylight during a normal workday.
 
It’s not the same verb because the books you list are written in Hebrew, and Luke is written in Greek. So let’s discuss the source languages or it’s apples and oranges.
 
Are you reading a “Bible Thumping Liberal” blog? You should know better than to read random blogs by people with agendas. I can recommend a large number of social media outlet where you can form your faith without injuring it.
 
Reading a variety of opinions to see what sources they draw on and conclusions they come to, when researching a specific topic, is the reasonable way to do things. I already told you, I’m arguing no position. I’m having a conversation. And if you don’t think that virtually every blog has an agenda, you’re wrong friend. I’m not sure why you’re riled. You’ve shared your stance. I got it.
 
I think you should stick to orthodox Catholic Bible commentaries. The Didache Bible is a good resource. As is the Haydock commentary. Ignatius is coming out with a complete Study Bible.
 
Adam’s wife, Eve, listened to a variety of opinions about what she should do with some fruit. How did that work out?
 
I have and exclusively read the Didache Bible. I’m not about to close myself off to reading opposing viewpoints, though. That’s how you get out of touch with your peers and unable to understand their viewpoint, whether its wrong or right.
 
Last edited:
It can also lead one into questioning the Faith which is never good. I’m not saying you’re one of those people. But not everyone is called to read opposing viewpoints. Some are called to simple obedience.
 
With all due respect, a faith that is sheltered and untested will fall apart when it runs into a strong counter-argument. Its why kids who go to Catholic school leave the faith or fall inactive at such high rates. Sticking your head in the sand is a good way to get surprised.

Also I’m really not sure why this is the main topic of discussion.
 
Last edited:
Also no. I did get his post in my searching and I did read it but the scriptures listed were from redeeminggod which I assumed was some reformed evangelical guy.
 
Ah yes, as we read the Psalmist who sang, “At night I listen to opposing viewpoints, I ponder the thoughts of my enemy on my bed. Your heresies are intriguing and exciting, O Lord, intriguing and exciting!”
 
Its funny you bring up the Adam and Eve example because, do you think if Eve had encountered any other evil in the garden until then, of a lesser nature, and learned that it was bad she might have been weary of the snake? JBP has a good talk about it regarding safe spaces and why they’re bad. Its kind of interesting. Secular, though.
 
What difference does it make, the message doesn’t change even if you believe its about same sex couples.

You have to read the whole passage to know the message God wants us to understand.

The next passage tells the The Parable of the Widow and the Unjust Judge… the part you need to really listen too is Luke 8:6-8. it explains why one person is taken and one person is left behind…

Like Lot, one person accepted God, never looked back. One person repented, accepted God as his savior to the point God choose him to be taken… the other person didn’t.

When God returns… He will quickly grant justice… He find faith on earth?”

Question why do you want or believe the passage is specifically talking about a same sex couple, because IMO it doesn’t matter if it is or isn’t because we should always be ready for the return of God.
 
Last edited:
Well, it does matter, because if it is about homosexual pairs in flagrante delicto then we need to somehow explain how one of each went to Heaven. And we know that is not what happened. So it matters that Luke intended us to know it was about innocent friends/coworkers.
 
I don’t know why you’re getting such a hard time over this question, it seems reasonable enough.

I imagine you’d have to go back to the Greek roots of the passage to see what the words actually translate to. Unfortunately, I don’t know Greek, so I can’t help you much there.

The thing that makes me question if these passages refer to same-sex couples is I imagine if they did, they’d be quoted more often by those who are opposed to the Church’s teachings. Since they aren’t makes me suspect that the actual original translation is less ambiguous.
 
Last edited:
I don’t see a reason for this hostility. The man has made it clear that he’s asking a question, not pushing an agenda. There is nothing wrong with examining rival viewpoints or asking questions. Dragging in Eve and the Pslams was extremely uncalled for.

I trust you can explain the meaning of the verse without attacking the OP for choosing to be open to another viewpoint, right? Because otherwise your posts would be off-topic.
 
It is only in the last century or so that it was assumed that people would have a bed to themselves if they did not have a sexual relationship. In the days of big families it was perfectly normal for brothers or friends to share a bed.

The suggestion that grinding refers to anything but corn is ludicrous and ignorant.
 
Standard of using a modern definition to change meaning in the past. (Usually to fit the persons notion)
Take “Most wonderful time of the year” Christmas song. Would they believe, “gay happy meetings” refers to sex? How ‘bout The Flintstones? “We’ll have a gay old time!” Doesn’t apply there either.
Dominus vobiscum
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top