Jesus on Same Sex Marriage.

johndbrey@gmail.com

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].

Midrash Rabbah Bereshith, XXVI.

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 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 are based on a shared source. ----- In Luke 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.

If Jesus was simply claiming that people were eating, drinking, and marrying, when he returns . . . that’s 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 living together as though they were married, and were given legal permission to do so. Jesus is saying that a “sign” of his imminent return will be that homosexuals are living together as married couples, and being given permission to do so by the highest authority in the land.

Jesus is providing a meaningful sign of his return by 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, 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 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:

The statement that there will be “two men in one bed” is 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 (Bracketed statement is R. 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.

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 Deuteronomy 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, have 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.

There are pronounced interpretive errors in Luke chapter 17 leading 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 and 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 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 Jesus is speaking of the resurrection at the End of Days.

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 wouldn’t really be a a sign with 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, homosexuals are engaging in holy matrimony with the sanctification of the State.

* * *

In their excellent Bible commentary, Keil and Delitzsch address all the various interpretations of what Daniel means when he claims that the Anti-Christ has no regard for the “desire of women.” After easily debunking all the interpretations that suggest something other than homosexuality, Keil and Delitzsch explain that in the Hebrew original, the phrase means not that he has no regard for what women desire (as some try to interpret it) but that he has no regard for the desire that is associated with “women” as an inherent property of a woman: “For these words, desiderium mulierum, denote not that which women desire, but that which women possess which is desirable; cf. under 1 Sam. ix. 20.” -----Anti-Christ is not said to have no sexual desire, but rather, no desire that regards “women” as an object of his desire. There are fascinating statements in the Hebrew text which show conclusively that the Anti-Christ actually engages in homosexual acts as a distorted form of religious practice.

In Romans chapter one, the apostle Paul explains that God gives men and women over to homosexual desire when they disregard natural theology. Although Paul is clear that only through the Holy Spirit can the deeper things of the Sprit be understood and conceived in the heart of man, nevertheless, the scripture is very clear that there’s one form of theology, known as “natural theology,” that can be conceived by all men and women in whatever spiritual, or non-spiritual state they might exist. It’s related to the natural and obvious design inherent in the way the world was created. When a man or women disregards God’s clear design, far from sharing his deeper secrets with them, he hands them over to an obvious distortion of natural design:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 . . . 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

There’s a clear parallel between what Paul claims leads to homosexual desire, i.e., a blatant disregard for God’s natural design, and how Daniel describes the Anti-Christ. They’re almost parallel passages. Daniel claims that the Anti-Christ disregards every natural design of God as no person before him has ever disregarded God’s natural design. Anti-Christ is the poster-boy for what Paul, in Romans one, claims is the fertile soil for homosexual lust, a complete disregard for natural theology. In verse 19 (of Roman’s one) Paul claims that God’s natural design is manifest in them, in their body, the way their body is designed, such that if they disregard God’s natural biological design there, in the very way their bodies are formed by God, then God, almost with a sense of humor, or a satire befitting their arrogance and evil, makes them desire an unnatural abberation of his original design.

Throughout the scripture, Jewish midrashim, and the New Testament, the antediluvian civilization and Sodom and Gomorrah are brought up as exclusive examples of God revealing his wrath "from heaven" because of sexual immorality. Although God expresses his wrath throughout the OT, the only times he reveals his wrath “from heaven,” i.e. rains it down, because of sexual immorality, is in the case of the antediluvians, and the sodomites at Sodom and Gomorrah.

This keys us in to exactly whom Paul is referring to when he speaks of the “them,” whom God showed his natural design, which they rejected, such that the wrath of God rained down "from heaven" on them (verse 18 of Romans one). Which is to say that not only does Roman’s chapter one paint the exact picture of blatant disregard for God’s natural design, registered in the human body (verse 19), that parallels Daniel’s description of the Anti-Christ, but we can see that Paul, like Jesus, in Luke chapter 17, draws a direct parallel to the times of Noah, and the times of Sodom and Gomorrah, as the exclusive example of when God rains down his wrath because of sexual immorality. . . Even as Paul is clearly thinking of the antediluvians, and the sodomites, and says clearly “men with men,” so too, Jesus notes the antediluvians, the sodomites, and then says plainly, two men in one bed, two women grinding together.

[1] In the English translation, it says two "men" in one bed while in the Greek it merely says that there will be two in one bed. There's no word for "men" in the Greek passage at all. So why does the English add "men" where there is no "man" in the passage? ----- When the Greek text says "one will be taken," the "one" is in a masculine case, such that its proper to add the "men" in the English text. Secondarily, when it speaks of the two "women," it uses the feminine case for the word "one" . . . as in "one" being taken. ---- Which is simply to point out that there is no one-to-one correspondence between how language works in different languages. Translators add words and concepts all the time in order to clarify what’s being said. And it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus is saying the sign of the end of the age will be that homosexuals are doing everything non-homosexuals are doing, with emphasis on marriage and business, with the full support of the legal authorities of the land.

Sunday, July 14, 2013