PDA

View Full Version : one taken, one left



Nihil Obstat
May 26th 2008, 05:19 AM
This is so interesting, and I've been meaning to share this, but it was something discovered and shared by a fellow classmate of mine, so I cannot take credit for this, but I have done the research myself and she is right: to be taken is good, and to be left is bad.

I had always read Matt. 24:37-42, specifically vv.38-39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:38-39&version=50), that the ones taken were those swept away in judgment by the great Flood, leaving Noah and his family alive and safe. This is true, as the word "took / away" there means to be snatched away from life into death. However, I had then incorrectly believed that when Jesus immediately after said one would be taken and the other left to mean that one would be taken / killed and the other left / saved. Not true.

The actual word "taken" in vv.40-41 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:40-41;&version=50;) is not the same as "took / away" in vv.38-39, though in the English it is similar. What this different word means is to be received unto one's self. And what's more, the word for "left" is very similar to "took / away", in that it means to be rejected or denied.

Basically, when Jesus says in Matt. 24:40-41 and Luke 17:34-36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:34-36;&version=50;) that "the one will be taken and the other left", He means that the one will be taken inside the ark, and the other will be left outside of the ark; the one will be taken outside of the city, and the other will be left inside the city. This phrase, then, is not about the resurrection at all (especially seen by Luke 17:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:32;&version=50;)), but is about being kept through the great tribulation! Will you be covered by God's hand and the shadow of His wing in those days, or will you be left to your own devices? This is the true meaning of this phrase. It may very well change your eschatological perspective on many things!

Lk.11

p.s. - Has anyone else noticed that in Luke 17:34 two men are in one bed (as in Sodom)?

Joe King
May 26th 2008, 06:01 AM
p.s. - Has anyone else noticed that in Luke 17:34 two men are in one bed (as in Sodom)?


Then they will both be left behind.:(

calidog
May 26th 2008, 08:20 AM
p.s. - Has anyone else noticed that in Luke 17:34 two men are in one bed (as in Sodom)?
Luk 17:34 I tellG3004 you,G5213 in thatG5026 nightG3571 there shall beG2071 twoG1417 men inG1909 oneG3391 bed;G2825 theG3588 oneG1520 shall be taken,G3880 andG2532 theG3588 otherG2087 shall be left.G863

the translaters inserted men.

Nihil Obstat
May 26th 2008, 08:37 AM
Luk 17:34I tellG3004you,G5213in thatG5026nightG3571there shall beG2071twoG1417meninG1909oneG3391bed;G2825theG3588 oneG1520shall be taken,G3880andG2532theG3588otherG2087shall be left.G863

the translaters inserted men.


Huh. I wonder why?

calidog
May 26th 2008, 08:39 AM
Yeah, that's strange.

literal translation is:
Luk 17:34 I say to you, In that night two will be on one bed; the one will be taken and the other will be left.
Luk 17:35 Two will be grinding together; one will be taken and the other will be left.
Luk 17:36 Two will be in the field, the one will be taken and the other will be left.
Luk 17:37 And answering, they said to Him, Where, Lord? And He said to them, Where the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.

9Marksfan
May 26th 2008, 01:06 PM
Then they will both be left behind.:(

Thats what I thought too - the original Greek simply says "two" will be in a bed - which in a sense creates a different problem - an unequal yoke?

Nihil Obstat
May 26th 2008, 01:48 PM
Wow, my post script sure is receiving a lot of attention...
but what of the main body of my post - are there any thoughts on that?

Literalist-Luke
May 26th 2008, 02:51 PM
This is so interesting, and I've been meaning to share this, but it was something discovered and shared by a fellow classmate of mine, so I cannot take credit for this, but I have done the research myself and she is right: to be taken is good, and to be left is bad.

I had always read Matt. 24:37-42, specifically vv.38-39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:38-39&version=50), that the ones taken were those swept away in judgment by the great Flood, leaving Noah and his family alive and safe. This is true, as the word "took / away" there means to be snatched away from life into death. However, I had then incorrectly believed that when Jesus immediately after said one would be taken and the other left to mean that one would be taken / killed and the other left / saved. Not true.

The actual word "taken" in vv.40-41 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:40-41;&version=50;) is not the same as "took / away" in vv.38-39, though in the English it is similar. What this different word means is to be received unto one's self. And what's more, the word for "left" is very similar to "took / away", in that it means to be rejected or denied.

Basically, when Jesus says in Matt. 24:40-41 and Luke 17:34-36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:34-36;&version=50;) that "the one will be taken and the other left", He means that the one will be taken inside the ark, and the other will be left outside of the ark; the one will be taken outside of the city, and the other will be left inside the city. This phrase, then, is not about the resurrection at all (especially seen by Luke 17:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:32;&version=50;)), but is about being kept through the great tribulation! Will you be covered by God's hand and the shadow of His wing in those days, or will you be left to your own devices? This is the true meaning of this phrase. It may very well change your eschatological perspective on many things!So you're saying this supports post-trib?

Brother Mark
May 26th 2008, 03:02 PM
Guys, the two in the bed thing does not have to necessarily be sexual in nature. Keep in mind that we should not always view scripture from our cultural perspective. I went on a mission trip to Africa and saw two men holding hands. In my culture, that would be a HUGE no no. In their culture, it was perfectly fine. These men were not sexually deviant. Nor were they sissies. Shoot, they killed lions with spears. No, they were just showing affection for a close friend and brother.

It would not surprise me to learn that people share beds in 3rd world countries in ways the western world, with all it's wealth, would not do.

resbmc
May 26th 2008, 03:56 PM
This is so interesting, and I've been .11

p.s. - Has anyone else noticed that in Luke 17:34 two men are in one bed (as in Sodom)?

Where did this come from, My Bible says nothing about 2 men.

danield
May 26th 2008, 04:58 PM
I think the Bible was just showing you how that there will be two men sleeping, resting after a hard day of work in bed and one will be taken while the other will be left behind. I have never thought of this passage as those men being sinful, but rather, I think the passage is telling us that we will be doing everyday activities when the day of our lord comes. Just as the following passage describes two women at the mill working when the day of the lord occurs. It may be that those men are so poor that they can not afford separate sleeping areas. Their bed could be on the floor for all we know.

I also feel that the Lord will call the Godly to him and meet him in the sky. This is the description of the rapture.

wombat
May 26th 2008, 05:03 PM
Guys, the two in the bed thing does not have to necessarily be sexual in nature. It would not surprise me to learn that people share beds in 3rd world countries in ways the western world, with all it's wealth, would not do.
Hello, Brother Mark! I agree with you on this. I remember my grandparents and great-grandparents speaking about life in the days when they were young, and they talked about how the women and girls of the family, as well as their girl friends who might be visiting or female farm helpers would share the few beds they had at home, and the men did the same thing. I see no reason to view this Bible verse as indicating the men were sharing the bed in a sexual nature.

Nihil Obstat
May 26th 2008, 06:33 PM
The context was that of Sodom and Gomorrah. So of course there's evidence from the text that these could be two men sharing one bed in an abominable nature. But again, that was just the post script, and not at all the point of this thread. Thank you to calidog for pointing out that this was an editor's decision to place the word "men" in the text. Discussion complete, I should think.

I wrote this thread to share with you all that the one taken is *covered* through the tribulation, or *removed* from the city where the wrath of God will be poured out and taken into the wilderness. It's not about being taken in judgment, nor is it about being taken in a rapture. The one left is not left behind, as if he missed the rapture, nor is it they who are left alive in the wake of God's wrath. Rather, it is those who are *denied* the covering of God's hand, or those who are *not* forcefully removed by angels from cities which are about to be destroyed.

Does this support post-trib? In a word, yes. Mainly, though, having been enlightened to the actual meaning of these passages, I just felt this to be a very misunderstood phrase by all camps, and so felt urged to share here the true meaning. If anything, we can all walk away with the correct understanding of Jesus' meaning, and see how it affects our eschatology, if at all. Blessings!

Merton
May 26th 2008, 11:28 PM
This is so interesting, and I've been meaning to share this, but it was something discovered and shared by a fellow classmate of mine, so I cannot take credit for this, but I have done the research myself and she is right: to be taken is good, and to be left is bad.

I had always read Matt. 24:37-42, specifically vv.38-39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:38-39&version=50), that the ones taken were those swept away in judgment by the great Flood, leaving Noah and his family alive and safe. This is true, as the word "took / away" there means to be snatched away from life into death. However, I had then incorrectly believed that when Jesus immediately after said one would be taken and the other left to mean that one would be taken / killed and the other left / saved. Not true.

The actual word "taken" in vv.40-41 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:40-41;&version=50;) is not the same as "took / away" in vv.38-39, though in the English it is similar. What this different word means is to be received unto one's self. And what's more, the word for "left" is very similar to "took / away", in that it means to be rejected or denied.

Basically, when Jesus says in Matt. 24:40-41 and Luke 17:34-36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:34-36;&version=50;) that "the one will be taken and the other left", He means that the one will be taken inside the ark, and the other will be left outside of the ark; the one will be taken outside of the city, and the other will be left inside the city. This phrase, then, is not about the resurrection at all (especially seen by Luke 17:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:32;&version=50;)), but is about being kept through the great tribulation! Will you be covered by God's hand and the shadow of His wing in those days, or will you be left to your own devices? This is the true meaning of this phrase. It may very well change your eschatological perspective on many things!

Lk.11

p.s. - Has anyone else noticed that in Luke 17:34 two men are in one bed (as in Sodom)?

This is correct because the gathering here is of mortals who remain mortal into the time of the saints reigning.

Heb 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.


Noah and sons types Christ and His ministers who throughout the past 2000 years has been preparing a house by which the household of faith of the endtimes is preserved through the coming vials of the wrath of God upon the earth.

The ark itself types the Bride of Christ, Ephesians ch 2b. Rev.7a Rev.14:1 Rev.21.

The destination of those taken, gives the answer to just who the taken are---

Luk 17:36 Two will be in the field, the one will be taken and the other will be left.
Luk 17:37 And answering, they said to Him, Where, Lord? And He said to them, Where the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together.


Those gathered from the field, are not the eagles who are with Christ by resurrection.

The same answer is given in--

Mat 24:21 For there will be great affliction, such as has not happened from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever will be.
(vials of wrath)

Mat 24:22 And except those days were shortened, not any flesh would be saved. But on account of the elect, those days will be shortened.
( If the saving of the elect who remain mortal was not important to God then why would He say this?)

Mat 24:23 Then if anyone says to you, Behold, here is the Christ! Or, Here! Do not believe.
Mat 24:24 For false christs and false prophets will rise up. And they will give great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.
Mat 24:25 Behold, I tell you beforehand.
Mat 24:26 Then if they say to you, Behold, He is in the wilderness; do not go out. Behold, He is in the inner rooms; do not believe.
(There can be no saint of the resurrection tempted into looking for Christ in inner rooms or desert places previous to Christs return. This can only apply to the mortal elect who are young children of Zion and due to the fact that Christ has returned or no one can be tempted to look for Him somewhere on earth.)

Mat 24:27 For as the lightning comes forth from the east and shines as far as the west, so also will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Mat 24:28 For wherever the dead body may be, there the eagles will be gathered.
(This can only refer to the day of light which begins at Armageddon and it is not so that all mortals who obeyed the messages of Rev.14 are gathered to be with Christ and His eagles in Jerusalem where He came to first to deliver them, Though all will see Christ's coming from Heaven, He arrives in a cloud, light above but very dark underneath until the day of light which destroys the wicked and banishes satan from Armageddon on)

Merton.

RogerW
May 28th 2008, 06:49 PM
This is so interesting, and I've been meaning to share this, but it was something discovered and shared by a fellow classmate of mine, so I cannot take credit for this, but I have done the research myself and she is right: to be taken is good, and to be left is bad.

I had always read Matt. 24:37-42, specifically vv.38-39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:38-39&version=50), that the ones taken were those swept away in judgment by the great Flood, leaving Noah and his family alive and safe. This is true, as the word "took / away" there means to be snatched away from life into death. However, I had then incorrectly believed that when Jesus immediately after said one would be taken and the other left to mean that one would be taken / killed and the other left / saved. Not true.

The actual word "taken" in vv.40-41 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:40-41;&version=50;) is not the same as "took / away" in vv.38-39, though in the English it is similar. What this different word means is to be received unto one's self. And what's more, the word for "left" is very similar to "took / away", in that it means to be rejected or denied.

Basically, when Jesus says in Matt. 24:40-41 and Luke 17:34-36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:34-36;&version=50;) that "the one will be taken and the other left", He means that the one will be taken inside the ark, and the other will be left outside of the ark; the one will be taken outside of the city, and the other will be left inside the city. This phrase, then, is not about the resurrection at all (especially seen by Luke 17:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:32;&version=50;)), but is about being kept through the great tribulation! Will you be covered by God's hand and the shadow of His wing in those days, or will you be left to your own devices? This is the true meaning of this phrase. It may very well change your eschatological perspective on many things!

Lk.11

p.s. - Has anyone else noticed that in Luke 17:34 two men are in one bed (as in Sodom)?

Greetings Astrongerthanhe,

It’s been quite some time since I was given this study. I have long ago forgotten where this came from, but it is very convincing (at least to me). I hope you also find it helpful.
Who's Taken and who's left?

Matthew 24:37-39 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days that were before the flood, THEY (the wicked) were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark. And THEY (the wicked) knew not until the flood came and took THEM (the wicked) ALL AWAY; so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be.

THEY and THEM are the WICKED (ungodly unbelievers).
Verse 40-41 - Then shall two be in the field, the (wicked & just together) one SHALL BE TAKEN, and the other left. Two shall be grinding at the mill; the (wicked with the just) one SHALL BE TAKEN and the other left.

Luke 17:26, 27 As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the day of the Son of Man. THEY did eat, THEY did drink, THEY married wives, THEY were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed THEM (the WICKED) all.

Verse 34-36...I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed, the (wicked & just) one SHALL BE TAKEN (destroyed) and the other left. Two women shall be grinding together; the (wicked & just together) one SHALL BE TAKEN (destroyed) and the other left. Two men shall be in the field; the (WICKED) one SHALL BE TAKEN (destroyed) and the other left.

RAPTURE believers think THEY will be the ONE TAKEN. If you think YOU will be TAKEN, lets see what Jesus says will happen to you.

Luke 17:37, Jesus answers the disciples question of what happens to the TAKEN ONES. Jesus said, WHERE THERE IS A DEAD BODY, THERE THE VULTURES WILL GATHER.

2 Peter 2:5 (God) saved (kept safe) Noah...bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly (WICKED).

Luke 17:29,30 ...(in) Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from Heaven and destroyed THEM ALL. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.
ALL THE WICKED are destroyed, once again.

Matthew 13:47-50 Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like unto a net that was cast into the sea and gathered of every kind, which, when it was full, they drew to shore; and they sat down and gathered the good into vessels, but THREW THE BAD AWAY. So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and SEVER THE WICKED from among the just, and cast them into the furnace of fire...

Once again the GOOD remain and the BAD are thrown away. THE WICKED TAKEN and destroyed "from among the just," who remain on the earth.

I Thessalonians 5:3 For when THEY (THE WICKED) shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction shall come upon THEM...and they shall not escape.

Matthew 24:21,22 and Mark 13:19,20 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved (survive); but for the elect’s sake whom He hath chosen, He hath shortened the days.

How can there be THE ELECT during this time IF they went in THE RAPTURE?

ELECT is also mentioned in Luke 18:7; Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12; Titus 1:1

Proverbs 2:21, 22 For the upright shall dwell in the land, and the perfect shall REMAIN in it, but THE WICKED shall be cut off (taken/destroyed) from the earth and the transgressors shall be rooted OUT of it.

Psalm 145:20 The Lord preserveth ALL that love him; but ALL THE WICKED He will destroy.

Proverbs 11:31 The righteous shall be recompensed IN the (world) earth...
Psalm 101:8 I (God) will early (first) destroy THE WICKED of the land...
Psalm 119:119 All THE WICKED of the earth you discard (throw away) like dross.
Proverbs 25:4,5 Take AWAY the dross from the silver...Take AWAY THE WICKED from before the King...

Isaiah 5:24 and 29:5 The flame consumeth the chaff (WICKED).

Job 21:18 THEY (THE WICKED) are as stubble before the wind, and as chaff that the storm carrieth AWAY.
Job 38:13 ...take hold of the ends of the earth that THE WICKED might be shaken OUT of it.

Malachi 4:1 For behold the day cometh...and all that do WICKEDLY, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up...

Psalm 37:29 The righteous shall inherit the land (earth) and dwell therein FOREVER.

Psalm 37:9-11 For evildoers (WICKED) shall be cut off (destroyed); but those that wait upon the Lord shall inherit the earth.

Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger...and He shall destroy the sinners thereof OUT of it (the earth).

Psalm 52:5 God shall likewise destroy THEE (THE WICKED) forever; He shall take THEE AWAY, and pluck THEE OUT of thy dwelling place.

The above are just some of the Scriptures that make it CLEAR that the righteous STAY, and THE WICKED GO.

Ezekiel 9:4-6 and Revelation 9:3,4 talk about THE WICKED being destroyed in the midst of the RIGHTEOUS.

Many Blessings,
RW

Nihil Obstat
May 28th 2008, 07:24 PM
Many Blessings,
RW

Actually, the Greek word for "taken" in Matt. 24:40-41 differ greatly from the Greek word for "took" in v.39, though the English words are very similar. But that's why I wrote this thread: to dispel the two main incorrect interpretations of this passage, the two being 1) that this is speaking about the rapture (which you agree it is not), and 2) that this is speaking about the wicked being taken away in judgment (which your study attempts to prove). What this passage is actually saying is that one will be taken into the ark (or outside the city), and one will be left outside the ark (or inside the city), the topic then being not salvation or judgment, but covering through the tribulation, likely in context to v.22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:22;&version=50;). See my opening post (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1651072&postcount=1) for the Greek definitions of the words used in the passage, and how they relate to one another and the days of Noah (or of Lot, in the case of Luke 17).

cheech
May 28th 2008, 07:52 PM
Guys, the two in the bed thing does not have to necessarily be sexual in nature. Keep in mind that we should not always view scripture from our cultural perspective. I went on a mission trip to Africa and saw two men holding hands. In my culture, that would be a HUGE no no. In their culture, it was perfectly fine. These men were not sexually deviant. Nor were they sissies. Shoot, they killed lions with spears. No, they were just showing affection for a close friend and brother.

It would not surprise me to learn that people share beds in 3rd world countries in ways the western world, with all it's wealth, would not do.

It is the same with Middle Easterners as well :)

RogerW
May 28th 2008, 09:01 PM
I had always read Matt. 24:37-42, specifically vv.38-39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:38-39&version=50), that the ones taken were those swept away in judgment by the great Flood, leaving Noah and his family alive and safe. This is true, as the word "took / away" there means to be snatched away from life into death. However, I had then incorrectly believed that when Jesus immediately after said one would be taken and the other left to mean that one would be taken / killed and the other left / saved. Not true.

The actual word "taken" in vv.40-41 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:40-41;&version=50;) is not the same as "took / away" in vv.38-39, though in the English it is similar. What this different word means is to be received unto one's self. And what's more, the word for "left" is very similar to "took / away", in that it means to be rejected or denied.

Vs 38 ...until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Vs 39 ...And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away;

What I know about Greek would fit in a thimble. The way "took" is defined I wonder if vs 38-39 is saying that Noah and his family were taken away in the ark. In other words Noah did not know when the flood would come to take them (Noah and his family) away, until the moment it happened?

Vs 38 took - airo a primary root; to lift up; by implication, to take up or away; figuratively, to raise (the voice), keep in suspense (the mind), specially, to sail away (i.e. weigh anchor); by Hebraism (compare 5375) to expiate sin:--away with, bear (up), carry, lift up, loose, make to doubt, put away, remove, take (away, up).

... the one shall be taken, and the other left.

Here the definition agrees with you. So it doesn't seem this is taking of the wicked and leaving the just.

Vs 40-41 taken - paralambano from 3844 and 2983; to receive near, i.e. associate with oneself (in any familiar or intimate act or relation); by analogy, to assume an office; figuratively, to learn:--receive, take (unto, with).

3844 - a primary preposition; properly, near; i.e. (with genitive case) from beside (literally or figuratively), (with dative case) at (or in) the vicinity of (objectively or subjectively), (with accusative case) to the proximity with (local (especially beyond or opposed to) or causal (on account of):--above, against, among, at, before, by, contrary to, X friend, from, + give (such things as they), + that (she) had, X his, in, more than, nigh unto, (out) of, past, save, side...by, in the sight of, than, (there-)fore, with. In compounds it retains the same variety of application.

2983 - a prolonged form of a primary verb, which is use only as an alternate in certain tenses; to take (in very many applications, literally and figuratively (properly objective or active, to get hold of; whereas 1209 is rather subjective or passive, to have offered to one; while 138 is more violent, to seize or remove)):--accept, + be amazed, assay, attain, bring, X when I call, catch, come on (X unto), + forget, have, hold, obtain, receive (X after), take (away, up).



Basically, when Jesus says in Matt. 24:40-41 and Luke 17:34-36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:34-36;&version=50;) that "the one will be taken and the other left", He means that the one will be taken inside the ark, and the other will be left outside of the ark; the one will be taken outside of the city, and the other will be left inside the city. This phrase, then, is not about the resurrection at all (especially seen by Luke 17:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:32;&version=50;)), but is about being kept through the great tribulation! Will you be covered by God's hand and the shadow of His wing in those days, or will you be left to your own devices? This is the true meaning of this phrase. It may very well change your eschatological perspective on many things!

Seeing how "took" is defined and also how "shall be taken" is defined, I agree this is speaking of those taken in the ark and those left outside the ark. Can you see how the conclusion I make regarding "took" in vs 39 actually serves to give greater confirmation to your conclusion? But, I cannot, according to the definition posted above agree that "took" in vs 39 means "to be snatched away from life into death." Thank you for posting this, it has been very enlightening.

Many Blessings,
RW

The Village Idiot
May 29th 2008, 04:45 AM
People, people--we're being silly!

The "two" in bed means the same thing as the two in the fleld. We're ALWAYS running amok because we insist on reading all kinds of things into a text that simply isn't there. Luke had no intention of addressing homosexuality whatsoever.

By the way--why does that particular sin always get the attention whenever Sodom is mentioned?


"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. "Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it" (Eze 16:49-50).

We're very good on so-called "private" morality issues. Aren't we. Like gay sex. And abortion--brother/sister--just don't get me started!

But the prophets seemed to reserve their worst rhetoric for issues of public justice. Indeed, Ezekiel had it that Sodom fell not because of gay sex, but because of indolence, abundance and arrogance on the part of one class, while the needy were denied such basic items as a meaningful protein count and health care. Does any of this sound familiar?

But back to Luke. I think that we get some help in v 20:


"Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst" (Lu 17:20-21).

"in your midst" just might inform the fact that one is taken and one is left--be it in the fleld at mid-day, or in bed at nightl. It is among you. It is in your midst.

But there is another image as well.


"they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came" (Lu 17:27).

The picture I get is of people going about the normal activities of life. They ate and drank, they married and were given in marriage (having children and raising families)...planting, building, fishing, working--and doing all that is a part of living life. What is the difference?

That the kingdom is in your midst means that as people went about their normal activities--SOME did so with faith and as subjects of God's kingdom.

In all that they did, SOME "saw" the kingdom--without signs, without observation.

OTHERS saw only their work--the mending, the leveling, the digging, the carrying.

Then the flood came.

And it is the same now.

Whether or not we see the kingdom in our midst is an issue of faith. Those who "see" it without sign or observation are ready when the flood comes.

haybark
May 29th 2008, 02:54 PM
[quote=The Village Idiot;1654236]People, people--we're being silly!

The "two" in bed means the same thing as the two in the fleld. We're ALWAYS running amok because we insist on reading all kinds of things into a text that simply isn't there. Luke had no intention of addressing homosexuality whatsoever.

By the way--why does that particular sin always get the attention whenever Sodom is mentioned?



We're very good on so-called "private" morality issues. Aren't we. Like gay sex. And abortion--brother/sister--just don't get me started!

But the prophets seemed to reserve their worst rhetoric for issues of public justice. Indeed, Ezekiel had it that Sodom fell not because of gay sex, but because of indolence, abundance and arrogance on the part of one class, while the needy were denied such basic items as a meaningful protein count and health care. Does any of this sound familiar?

Dude, you haven't a clue of God's thoughts on justice if you think abortion is a "privet morality" issue. You should check out the doctrine of blood guilt. God has bound Himself to avenge the shedding of innocent blood when established offices of authority deny justice.



Gen 9:5-6

And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.


KJV


Rom 13:1-4

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.... 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.


KJV

The Village Idiot
May 30th 2008, 03:36 AM
Hey Haybark!

Good to see you back! We’ll have to continue our discussion from the older thread!

Just to clarify–the private/public morality dichotomy doesn’t work especially well for me either; I use it because that is how our culture references them. And oddly enough, the church buys into it precisely by reacting so quickly to so-called "private morality" issues, while overlooking so-called "public justice" issues.

Nor will I contest that YHWH avenges the shedding of innocent blood, or that he can do so without the use of human agents. And I offer some thoughts on Ro 13 here (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1652486#post1652486).

You should check out the doctrine of blood guilt. God has bound Himself to avenge the shedding of innocent blood when established offices of authority deny justice.

Good idea!

What we find is that YHWH does not distinguish issues of "private morality" (so-called) and public justice. With such language as we might decry "private" morality (abortion [bloodshed], etc.)–YHWH uses in condemning "public injustice." Isaiah paints an absurd scene where religious leaders officiate temple worship. Priests raise their arms and lo –their robes and hands are splattered with blood! That is what Isaiah says of those temple leaders who have not sought justice, defended orphans, or spoken for widows. Therefore we read:


"when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; Yes, even though you multiply prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood. "Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Reprove the ruthless, Defend the orphan, Plead for the widow" (Is 1:15-17).

Set at the beginning of Isaiah’s vision, this passage is the theological backdrop against which the prophet intends for his vision to be read. The next text addresses these issues from the commercial perspective.


"Hear this, you who trample on the needy and bring the poor of the land to an end, saying, "When will the new moon be over, that we may sell grain? And the Sabbath, that we may offer wheat for sale, that we may make the ephah small and the shekel great and deal deceitfully with false balances, that we may buy the poor for silver and the needy for a pair of sandals and sell the chaff of the wheat" (Am 8:4)?

Note–the Sabbath is resented as a regulation that hinders dishonest dealings in the marketplace. This includes anything which is "like" these sins in kind. But more than that–Amos represents the Sabbath as a check against slavery; when the Sabbath is ended, they will be able to "sell" the needy. This implies slavery, and effectively returns to Egypt even though living in the land. Confirmation that the Sabbath was to function as a median standard of public justice is seen in the second giving of the law. In Ex 20, the the Sabbath is rooted in God’s work of creation. But in Dt 5, the Sabbath rationale is grounded in the deliverance from Egypt.


"You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and YHWH your God brought you out of there by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore YHWH your God commanded you to observe the Sabbath day" (Dt 5:15).

But don’t forget the political class! Micah lambasted public officals because they spurned policies to protect the weak. His charge is not only offensive; it is shocking. Whereas Jewish persons were forbidden to touch dead things, Micah had the unholy audacity to accuse the ruling class of nothing less than cannibalism–political cannibalism.


"Hear, you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel! Is it not for you to know justice?- you who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin from off my people and their flesh from off their bones, who eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones in pieces and chop them up like meat in a pot, like flesh in a cauldron" (Mi 3:1-3).

Failure to enact public justice is depicted in terms that are deliberately shocking. The Psalmist and Jeremiah joined in this disgusting theme.


"Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread and do not call upon the LORD" (Ps 14:4)?

"Pour out your wrath on the nations that know you not, and on the peoples that call not on your name, for they have devoured Jacob; they have devoured him and consumed him, and have laid waste his habitation" (Je 10:25).

"Eating the flesh" of the needy was an idiom for a refusal of justice. It is equated with the most barbarous deeds imaginable. In the prophetic perspective–when the poor are denied even a minimal share in earthly goods–that in God’s sight is murder and cannibalism. It is also equated with a denial of the Sabbath and effectively returned to Egypt.

To the above witnesses, we can add Le 25:39-42, Ne 5:1-5, Ez 22:27, Isa 1:23, Pe 82:3, Je 22:3, Joe 3:3-6, Zec 7:9 and other texts as they affirm Isaiah, Amos and Micah in their description of the religious, commercial and political classes at their worst. Clearly, this is not an eccentric reading. The textual attestation is both too broad (spanning early to late years) and strong for that. Moreover, Jesus’ words go even further. Jesus said:


"...tax collectors and prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you" (Mt 21:31).

It isn’t difficult to see why he was hated by the priestly, commercial and political classes. Jesus stood in the tradition of the same prophets who equated public and economic injustice with slavery in Egypt, the repudiation of the Sabbath, murder and cannibalism, and profligate rituals led by priests with blood-splattered faces, hands and robes.

Abortion is an attack on God’s very image, and gay sex repudiates creation itself. I have no problem affirming that these are great crimes. But where is the recognition of a faithful church that in the prophetic view–public injustice is bloodshed. Do we agree? If so, where is our churchly witness against injustice that is commensurate to our rhetoric against gay sex/abortion?

It is cheap religion that allows us to pride ourselves in our "private" morality (I’m pro-life, pro-marriage, etc.), while exempting ourselves from confronting the socio-economic and political powers of this age. And however it is denied–we at that point find ourselves opposed by the prophets who, as a point of justice, demand preference for the poor and needy on the premise that the wealthy and powerful will be able to care for themselves. In the prophets’ view, that is blood-guiltiness.

It is precisely because of the Biblical teaching on blood-guiltiness that I have to stand by my words.

Blessings!

Diggindeeper
May 30th 2008, 04:11 AM
This is so interesting, and I've been meaning to share this, but it was something discovered and shared by a fellow classmate of mine, so I cannot take credit for this, but I have done the research myself and she is right: to be taken is good, and to be left is bad.

I had always read Matt. 24:37-42, specifically vv.38-39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:38-39&version=50), that the ones taken were those swept away in judgment by the great Flood, leaving Noah and his family alive and safe. This is true, as the word "took / away" there means to be snatched away from life into death. However, I had then incorrectly believed that when Jesus immediately after said one would be taken and the other left to mean that one would be taken / killed and the other left / saved. Not true.

The actual word "taken" in vv.40-41 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:40-41;&version=50;) is not the same as "took / away" in vv.38-39, though in the English it is similar. What this different word means is to be received unto one's self. And what's more, the word for "left" is very similar to "took / away", in that it means to be rejected or denied.

Basically, when Jesus says in Matt. 24:40-41 and Luke 17:34-36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:34-36;&version=50;) that "the one will be taken and the other left", He means that the one will be taken inside the ark, and the other will be left outside of the ark; the one will be taken outside of the city, and the other will be left inside the city. This phrase, then, is not about the resurrection at all (especially seen by Luke 17:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2017:32;&version=50;)), but is about being kept through the great tribulation! Will you be covered by God's hand and the shadow of His wing in those days, or will you be left to your own devices? This is the true meaning of this phrase. It may very well change your eschatological perspective on many things!

Lk.11

p.s. - Has anyone else noticed that in Luke 17:34 two men are in one bed (as in Sodom)?

Astrongerthanhe, it seems to me that your eyes are being opened to deeper revelation! You are so, so-o-o-o right, you and your friend.

Here's another scripture reference that fits with that, like a glove fits a hand!

Matthew 13: 36-43, 47-51
36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.


47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:

48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.

49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,

50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

51 Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.

See especially verses 40-42 and also verses 48 and 49! Even the fish in the net are "sorted", with the bad ones taken out and discarded! Burned in the fire! And, verse 40 is definitely worth looking at again:

"As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world."

Jesus was SO precise, but we can only see that as we begin to study on our own, (like you are obviously doing!) rather than just listening to what we have been taught, which is often quite contrary to what the scripture really is saying! May God bless you double, friend!

haybark
May 30th 2008, 04:27 AM
Hey Haybark!

Good to see you back! We’ll have to continue our discussion from the older thread!

Just to clarify–the private/public morality dichotomy doesn’t work especially well for me either; I use it because that is how our culture references them. And oddly enough, the church buys into it precisely by reacting so quickly to so-called "private morality" issues, while overlooking so-called "public justice" issues.

Nor will I contest that YHWH avenges the shedding of innocent blood, or that he can do so without the use of human agents. And I offer some thoughts on Ro 13 here (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1652486#post1652486).

You should check out the doctrine of blood guilt. God has bound Himself to avenge the shedding of innocent blood when established offices of authority deny justice.

Good idea!

What we find is that YHWH does not distinguish issues of "private morality" (so-called) and public justice. With such language as we might decry "private" morality (abortion [bloodshed], etc.)–YHWH uses in condemning "public injustice." Isaiah paints an absurd scene where religious leaders officiate temple worship. Priests raise their arms and lo –their robes and hands are splattered with blood! That is what Isaiah says of those temple leaders who have not sought justice, defended orphans, or spoken for widows. Therefore we read:



Set at the beginning of Isaiah’s vision, this passage is the theological backdrop against which the prophet intends for his vision to be read. The next text addresses these issues from the commercial perspective.



Note–the Sabbath is resented as a regulation that hinders dishonest dealings in the marketplace. This includes anything which is "like" these sins in kind. But more than that–Amos represents the Sabbath as a check against slavery; when the Sabbath is ended, they will be able to "sell" the needy. This implies slavery, and effectively returns to Egypt even though living in the land. Confirmation that the Sabbath was to function as a median standard of public justice is seen in the second giving of the law. In Ex 20, the the Sabbath is rooted in God’s work of creation. But in Dt 5, the Sabbath rationale is grounded in the deliverance from Egypt.



But don’t forget the political class! Micah lambasted public officals because they spurned policies to protect the weak. His charge is not only offensive; it is shocking. Whereas Jewish persons were forbidden to touch dead things, Micah had the unholy audacity to accuse the ruling class of nothing less than cannibalism–political cannibalism.



Failure to enact public justice is depicted in terms that are deliberately shocking. The Psalmist and Jeremiah joined in this disgusting theme.



"Eating the flesh" of the needy was an idiom for a refusal of justice. It is equated with the most barbarous deeds imaginable. In the prophetic perspective–when the poor are denied even a minimal share in earthly goods–that in God’s sight is murder and cannibalism. It is also equated with a denial of the Sabbath and effectively returned to Egypt.

To the above witnesses, we can add Le 25:39-42, Ne 5:1-5, Ez 22:27, Isa 1:23, Pe 82:3, Je 22:3, Joe 3:3-6, Zec 7:9 and other texts as they affirm Isaiah, Amos and Micah in their description of the religious, commercial and political classes at their worst. Clearly, this is not an eccentric reading. The textual attestation is both too broad (spanning early to late years) and strong for that. Moreover, Jesus’ words go even further. Jesus said:



It isn’t difficult to see why he was hated by the priestly, commercial and political classes. Jesus stood in the tradition of the same prophets who equated public and economic injustice with slavery in Egypt, the repudiation of the Sabbath, murder and cannibalism, and profligate rituals led by priests with blood-splattered faces, hands and robes.

Abortion is an attack on God’s very image, and gay sex repudiates creation itself. I have no problem affirming that these are great crimes. But where is the recognition of a faithful church that in the prophetic view–public injustice is bloodshed. Do we agree? If so, where is our churchly witness against injustice that is commensurate to our rhetoric against gay sex/abortion?

It is cheap religion that allows us to pride ourselves in our "private" morality (I’m pro-life, pro-marriage, etc.), while exempting ourselves from confronting the socio-economic and political powers of this age. And however it is denied–we at that point find ourselves opposed by the prophets who, as a point of justice, demand preference for the poor and needy on the premise that the wealthy and powerful will be able to care for themselves. In the prophets’ view, that is blood-guiltiness.

It is precisely because of the Biblical teaching on blood-guiltiness that I have to stand by my words.

Blessings!


The imagery you bring out about the priest is messing with me a bit- that was powerful. I believe that there is just as great socio-political injustice in the land. And the language used by the prophets was graphic in thier discription for sure. But there is something demonizing about physical blood shed, and it's ability to bring reproach on a land. blood sacrifice is a principal used on both sides for it's power to bring blessing or cursing.

I had heard what you had said about abortion is the attack on the image of God Himself before, but the light went on this time. For in the image of God we were created... Wow.

i think that the church can have it's "pet deviants" they love to attack, and many times not in a right spirit. there should be an equal distain for any sin or corruption in our sociey- but our means of engaging these ills I think have been misguided. Change starts with me. I submit myself to the soverign God and dedicate my life in a rich pursuit of Him, expecting Holiness to be my committment. I then seek for the kingdom to be established in and then through me. I give my self to be a watchman standing upon my wall. I see the enemies approach in my land, I cry out to God. I do warfare, I pray and fast. If we each took our rightful place on the wall, then there would be the closing of teh gaps that the enemy has exploited.(I am not limiting our activism to just this, but this is the most neglected part of and should be the genesis of what we do. It is the place all strategy should be birthed in engaging these strongholds in our scociety. By intimacy and fellowship with the Eternal God. But we have replaced it with programs and political agendas favoring the "right" etc...)

resbmc
Jun 1st 2008, 09:09 PM
often wondered, If this was not a rapture, but really about a great trib, when they come get YOU?