Bible Discussion Luke 17:34-37

[Unmasked]

(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) There will be two women 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."
(New King James Version)

This is a common text used to support the idea of the rapture of Christ's church. A lesser discussed topic is the text of verse 34 when the masculine is used to refer to two in bed. Most versions eliminate the gender on this one. There are those that believe that those versions are censoring this because of homosexual connotations. Knowing a bit about linguistics, I know that masculine words refer to male and mixed gender groups in most languages, and would have in Greek. So the question arises as to the gender of the two in bed, and whether this bed refers to a marriage bed. I'm not sure of the customs of the time and how common it was for men to share a bed, but I find it interesting that the text specifies that they were in one bed. In my limited experience and understanding I view that as Christ possibly drawing attention to the fact that these two were in bed together, which leads me to believe that the masculine was intended to mean two men, and the emphasis was to insinuate a romantic relationship between the two.

What are your thoughts on this passage?

[sailaway58]

In the 1830's it was common for men traveling to share a bed at the local boarding house. Nothing romantic about it. 12.5 cents per night and if you wanted a bed to yourself you had to pay for it.
So my guess there is no romantic connotation. The preachers on the site will have to clear this one up for us, Andy? Dave? it's all yours.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Unmasked

(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) There will be two women 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."

This is a common text used to support the idea of the rapture of Christ's church. A lesser discussed topic is the text of verse 34 when the masculine is used to refer to two in bed. Most versions eliminate the gender on this one. There are those that believe that those versions are censoring this because of homosexual connotations. Knowing a bit about linguistics, I know that masculine words refer to male and mixed gender groups in most languages, and would have in Greek. So the question arises as to the gender of the two in bed, and whether this bed refers to a marriage bed. I'm not sure of the customs of the time and how common it was for men to share a bed, but I find it interesting that the text specifies that they were in one bed. In my limited experience and understanding I view that as Christ possibly drawing attention to the fact that these two were in bed together, which leads me to believe that the masculine was intended to mean two men, and the emphasis was to insinuate a romantic relationship between the two.

What are your thoughts on this passage?

Here is the Greek:

λέγω ὑμῖν ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ ἔσονται δύο ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς ὁ εἷς παραλημφθήσεται καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται


The words in question:

κλίνης - bed
δύο - two (adjective, nominative, plural, masculine). What is curious is that the the nominative plural feminine is also spelled δύο! Is there something in the immediate Greek context that would cause us to assume it is two men in the bed?

The context does say that the other (man) was left: ὁ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται

ὁ - the (article, nominative, singular, masculine)
ἕτερος - other
ἀφεθήσεται - was left

So does the reference to the one man that was left behind automatically mean that δύο refers to two men? It makes sense to me unless you feel that that the author used δύο to be ambiguous about gender. I think the context would lead me to translate it as two men.

And this does bring up an excellent side discussion. Can homophobia influence translation. Absolutely.

[Steven E. Webster]

Antony and friends,

I don't think we can draw much of any conclusion from this.

The text does not say two MEN. It says only "two". The one who is left is not "the other MAN" but only "the other." The gender of the words "two" and of "other" (the Greek allows these words to be expressed with gender, but uses male gender when the gender is undetermined or indefinite or mixed) probably doesn't really tell us what sex the "two" are. (There is a difference between "sex" and "gender" after all.)

The point was also made earlier that two men or two women (or two children for that matter) sharing the same bed was not all that unusual. It's only in this century that we have so many rooms and beds that only married people and lovers share the same bed (and some time even they don't if they snore).

A much better candidate for an allusion to same-sex activity is found in Ecclesiastes, chapter 4 where the rhetorical question is asked "If two lie together they are warm, but how can one be warm alone?" In this case both the words "lie" and "warm" in Hebrew have double meanings alluding to sex and where there is a literary context with likely allusion to the Gilgamesh Epic and it's male pair of heroes/lovers, Gilgamesh and Enkidu.

Steven Webster

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

The text does not say two MEN. It says only "two". The one who is left is not "the other MAN" but only "the other." The gender of the words "two" and of "other" (the Greek allows these words to be expressed with gender, but uses male gender when the gender is undetermined or indefinite or mixed) probably doesn't really tell us what sex the "two" are. (There is a difference between "sex" and "gender" after all.)

Don't you think that the phrase "the other was left" refers to a male given that ὁ is nominative, singular, masculine in Greek. If this is the case, then it is a reasonable inference to translate δύο as two men.

Hey, my Greek is rusty so any challenge is good.

I could see how a gender neutral translation is appropriate, but I still lean to translating it as two men.

[Steven E. Webster]

Originally Posted by antonyh

Don't you think that the phrase "the other was left" refers to a male given that ὁ is nominative, singular, masculine in Greek. If this is the case, then it is a reasonable inference to translate δύο as two men.

Hey, my Greek is rusty so any challenge is good.

I could see how a gender neutral translation is appropriate, but I still lean to translating it as two men.

But in making that translation is one emphasizing something that the author was actually silent about? The author may have just meant two people. Could have been a husband and wife. Could have been two men (with or without any sexual connotation to sharing a bed). Why would one choose to interpret what the original text may actually have left an open question.

Isn't the best translation simply "Two were in bed, one was taken and the other was left."

I would definitely disagree with translating it in such a way as to make it a heterosexual couple--the text doesn't say that either---but it doesn't exclude the possibility.

Steven Webster

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

But in making that translation is one emphasizing something that the author was actually silent about? The author may have just meant two people. Could have been a husband and wife. Could have been two men (with or without any sexual connotation to sharing a bed). Why would one choose to interpret what the original text may actually have left an open question.

Isn't the best translation simply "Two were in bed, one was taken and the other was left."

I would definitely disagree with translating it in such a way as to make it a heterosexual couple--the text doesn't say that either---but it doesn't exclude the possibility.

Steven Webster

I am now going to build a case that this author intended to refer to two men in the same bed. The basis of my case is that this verse shares parallelism with the next verse which refers to two women grinding together in a field.

Verse 34 (two men in bed):

ὁ - The (article, nominative, singular, masculine)
εἷς παραλημφθήσεται καὶ - one will be taken
ὁ - The (article, nominative, singular, masculine)
ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται - other will be left

Verse 35 (two women grinding):

ἡ - The (article, nominative, singular, feminine)
μία παραλημφθήσεται - one will be taken
ἡ - The (article, nominative, singular, feminine)
δὲ ἑτέρα ἀφεθήσετα - other will be left

In both verses δύο is used! It is the only the context that helps us determine if δύο is masculine or feminine.

Now on to the translations.

The NRSV leaves the gender neutral in verse 34 ("there will be δύο two in one bed") BUT in verse 35 uses the female gender ("δύο two women grinding together"). Definitely leaving the men in the closet.

The translators of the KJV include the men in bed.

Most amusingly, the Darby Translation apologetically includes the men in bed...

I say to you, In that night there shall be two [men] upon one bed; one shall be seized and the other shall be let go.

This is more fun than Seminary.

[Emproph]

I've got many thoughts, but first, the following portion of scriptural text seems out of place.

Originally Posted by Unmasked

(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."

(New King James Version)

Ok, so that's Luke 17:37 NKJV

Now, here's Luke 17:37 NIV:

37"Where, Lord?" they asked. He replied, "Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather."

Are those not completely opposite sentiments?

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Emproph

I've got many thoughts, but first, the following portion of scriptural text seems out of place.


Ok, so that's Luke 17:37 NKJV

Now, here's Luke 17:37 NIV:


Are those not completely opposite sentiments?

Greek:

ὅπου τὸ σῶμα ἐκεῖ καὶ οἱ ἀετοὶ ἐπισυναχθήσονται

ὅπου - where
τὸ - the
σῶμα - body
ἐκεῖ - there
καὶ - and, also, even
οἱ - the
ἀετοὶ - eagles/vultures
ἐπισυναχθήσονται - gather together

I think the issue hinges on the bird.

ἀετός - Is it an eagle or a vulture?

If it is a vulture I think the NIV is taking too much liberty to assume the body is dead even though vultures like to prey on dead bodies.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by antonyh

Greek:

ὅπου τὸ σῶμα ἐκεῖ καὶ οἱ ἀετοὶ ἐπισυναχθήσονται

ὅπου - where
τὸ - the
σῶμα - body
ἐκεῖ - there
καὶ - and, also, even
οἱ - the
ἀετοὶ - eagles/vultures
ἐπισυναχθήσονται - gather together

I think the issue hinges on the bird.

ἀετός - Is it an eagle or a vulture?

If it is a vulture I think the NIV is taking too much liberty to assume the body is dead even though vultures like to prey on dead bodies.

Interesting. Perhaps the bird was meant to signify both.

The ones "taken" could be understood as eagles who saw the overview and gathered together on purpose.

But the ones "left" would be vultures, or the victims of vultures. Those without "sight," stuck with each other by the nature of their common confusion. The kind of people that would invariably turn on each other, aka 'eat each other' like "vultures."

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Interesting. Perhaps the bird was meant to signify both.

The ones "taken" could be understood as eagles who saw the overview and gathered together on purpose.

But the ones "left" would be vultures, or the victims of vultures. Those without "sight," stuck with each other by the nature of their common confusion. The kind of people that would invariably turn on each other, aka 'eat each other' like "vultures."

At the time, especially in Jewish culture, there was no real difference between an eagle and a vulture - they were both considered carrion eaters and, therefore, unclean.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Interesting. Perhaps the bird was meant to signify both.

The ones "taken" could be understood as eagles who saw the overview and gathered together on purpose.

But the ones "left" would be vultures, or the victims of vultures. Those without "sight," stuck with each other by the nature of their common confusion. The kind of people that would invariably turn on each other, aka 'eat each other' like "vultures."

Interesting idea. It is hard to really figure out what is meant by this verse but given the context of people taken and people left it makes sense.