The doctrinal delusions of Ronald Goetz

I have thought long and hard before beginning this thread. I have neither the time nor inclination to engage in this particular issue but I am appalled at the blatant publicising of Ronald Goetz's stand on homosexuality. I would much rather spend my time smelling the sweet scents of a perfume but sometime we have to spend our time examining poisons too. Poisons should be clearly marked. If someone then chooses to take the poison that is their choice but an obligation rests on us to make sure we understand that this is not just a slight variant on standard doctrine but a major and destructive perversion.

I am not a homophobe. I have worked side by side with homosexuals in business. We have a number of homosexuals in our wider family. I never have any problem with working with them as colleagues or embracing them as family members. The question is, however, what does the Bible teach about homosexual practice? Is there a gospel for the homosexual? Yes, there is…

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:9–11 NKJV

This passage makes it very clear that some in the church of Corinth had a history of homosexual practice, but the church in Corinth had no homosexuals within its covenant community. In the sentence, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." Paul switches from the Greek Imperfect tense to the Aorist tense. This is perhaps not so plainly seen in our English versions but that switch from one tense to the other is a dramatic disconnect in the original Greek text.

Here is my own translation…

AND some of you used to be such, BUT you became washed, BUT you became sanctified, BUT you became justified…

Three times that BUT rings out in Paul's statement. There had been a radical disconnect in the history of these people. That radical disconnect is what we mean by regeneration. Paul lists a number of 'patterns of life' and says 'this is how you used to be' and then boldly declares… but no longer!

Is there a gospel for the homosexual? Yes there is. We must reach out to them in the love of God and tell them that they, as we, can be washed, sanctified and justified. We do not need to continue in those old unrighteous patterns of life. More, in our evangelism we must make it plain that you cannot be a member of the covenant community of Christ and at the same time continue in..

sexual immorality, or idolatry, or adultery, or homosexuality, or sodomy, or theft, or covetousness, or drunkenness, or reviling, or extortion…

Let there be no doubt. Christ receives sinful men… BUT he will not allow them to continue as sinful men. He says to them …neither do I condemn you BUT go and sin no longer'. According to Paul's statement , by the Spirit, this list of patterns of life is a subset of 'the unrighteous' and people who remain in unrighteousness will not inherit the kingdom of God. We need to make that transparently clear in our evangelism.

Brother Ron (philologos),

Thank you for speaking the truth in love; your posts are most appreciated.

May the Lord bless you and keep you and make His face shine upon you.

Grace and peace,
Matthew

the origins of homosexuality

Where does this practice originate? Paul links it with idolatry and says that when the human race 'knew God' they refused to give him his rightful place and were ungrateful. Rom 1:21 In their foolishness they 'changed' something. They 'changed' their theology inasmuch as they became idolators and and "changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." Rom 1:23 NKJV Notice the downwards slide of this sequence; corruptible man, birds, four-footed beasts, creeping things. The slide began when they began to 'create God in their own image'. The Greek gods, as an example, were notorious for their promiscuous sexual activity.

As a result of this idolatry, which is the cardinal sin of humanity, God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, Rom 1:24 NKJV The result of a false view of God was a false view of man; "they dishonoured their bodies among themselves". God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Rom 1:26 NKJV Notice that we are following a clear history here. The women 'exchanged' the natural use for what is against nature. We are reading here in plain and unequivocal terms that lesbianism is 'un-natural'. And the men followed suit… "Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." Rom 1:27 NKJV So we have some more descriptions of homosexual activity here, it is un-natural and shameful.

They changed their theology (the concept of God) and consequently changed their behaviour.

The last verses of Roman 1 add a sobering comment; "who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. " Rom 1:32 NKJV. These sins, as all sins, carry a death sentence; those who practice such things are deserving of death. It goes on to speak of those who sanction such practices with a sense of increasing horror. Not only do they practice these things they actually 'approve'. To 'approve' these activities is at least equal to practising them.

This is why Ronald Goetz's teaching is so dangerous. Doctrine is more deadly than deeds. In the book of the Revelation we read of a group of people called Nicolaitines; no one now knows who they were or what they believed. However there is a development in the way they are referred to. Initially you have a group of people who 'behave" as Nicolaitans; But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hateThus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Rev 2:15 NKJV Now you have a group of people who 'believe' like Nicolaitans.

Doctrines are more dangerous than deeds. A deed may be an error in understanding but if that error is fixed in a 'doctrine' it becomes much more difficult to shake. This is why I have taken the step of beginning this thread. Ronald Goetz's doctrine is more dangerous than the practice of homosexuality itself.

edited to correct a Bible reference.

Thank-you, Ron for posting this.

Doctrines are more dangerous than deeds.

These people always couch their interpretation of this issue in how love is to be lived out. It sounds so sweet, so kind, so generous and to counter it can make you think you are a meanie, one who does not love the Lord at all, one who has no clue what love is.

Rosalind Rinker is one of those writers who wrote much about love. It is so attractive...until you find out she was the darling of the lesbian community. (Feel like I am beating a dead dog here.) (BTW, are you aware that according to polls taken by "Christianity Today" that she ranks among the most influential writers in the 20th century?)

Thanks, again, Ron, for your level-headedness in addressing this issue.

ginnyrose

"I am appalled at the blatant publicizing of Ronald Goetz's stand on homosexuality."

What is this publicizing? Is it here on this site or is this an issue in general in the body of Christ at large throughout the world? I think I have heard the name before but not sure where.

I binged Ronald Goetz and I am totally appalled at what I found. It just about makes me vomit...

Lord have mercy! on Ronald and his kind....

Yes, Jeremiah, he had posted here - at least I think it was the one and same.

ginnyrose

EDIT: PS: Jeremiah, I just did a search and found Ronalds posts on this thread: "Luke 17:34-36". Just keep going down on this forum and you will find it.

Ron: "Initially you have a group of people who 'behave" as Nicolaitans; But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. Rev 2:6 NKJV but later you have a group of people who have fine-tuned their doctrine..."

Ron, you quoted Rev. 2.6 twice here. I think you meant your second reference to be Rev. 2.15: "So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate."

Thanks
you're right. I have edited the original post.

To get deeper down into Ronald Goetz's writing is something of a surreal experience. He piles supposition onto supposition, and conjecture onto conjecture. Not a single one of his interpretive efforts can be vindicated.

He suggests that the homosexual, the Samaritan, and the leper were ostracised because of biological constraints and that such prohibitions have now been superseded as "The words of Jesus trump the Torah". These 'biological' features are now no longer a reason for segregation; that is his claim.

Leaving aside the fact that Samaritans and lepers had no choice in their life patterns he also fails to notice another key issue. In the law of Sinai the homosexual was not ostracised, he was put to death, and the passage adds a detail which shows very clearly the sense of the homosexual's culpability in the matter, 'their blood shall be upon them'. They were guilty not biologically different.

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. " Lev 20:13 NKJV

The leper was quarantined, the Samaritan was excluded, but the homosexual was to be put to death. He was to be 'cut off' from Israel. The word 'covenant' does not appear in Ronald Goetz's thesis. Perhaps this is indicative. The homosexual had breached the covenant and so was permanently excluded from the congregation of the Covenant community. For the leper there was always the possibility of healing and restoration to community. The purpose of the death of the homosexual was not only in terms of personal punishment but in terms of keeping the people of the Covenant pure.

In the New Covenant communities known as local churches there could be no place for the practising homosexual. The practising homosexual cannot be a part of the covenant community.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor 6:9–10 NKJV

There is no basis for Ronald Goetz's claim that 'biological' features included homosexuality and that such are now abrogated.

RonaldGoetz, You have no respect for the Word of God, no respect for Christians, and no respect for the rules of these forums. Hence the link to your free book.

You come here to promote your agenda, and if people follow your agenda, they will be lead by you to the very gates of Hell.

Ronald W. Goetz, I rebuke you in the name of Jesus. I pray in Jesus name that you cease bearing false witness against our Lord, His written Word and the Spirit of God. I also pray protection over all who read your postings and your book. I pray that you repent of your wickedness and turn from your evil ways.

2 Timothy 4:3-4, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables."

Ronald,

I did more checking on the the web and here is what I found. (I used 'bing' - I binged your name).

At http://www.shuckandjive.org/2009/11/turning-tables-on-bigots.html . The introduction reads as follows:" Ronald Goetz, a "Proud PFLAG Dad" is proposing a lawsuit on behalf of clergy and churches whose rights are being violated because they cannot perform marriages for same-gender couples. This is a turn the tables approach on those Christians who argue that marriage equality somehow violates their freedom of religion. What do you think? Mr. Goetz is looking for advice and input."

On the same site a comment is made by a John Shuck: Ronald Goetz is the administrator for the facebook group Yes I am a Christian; yes I support gay marriage. Posted on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:47:00 AM

I checked on that link on Facebook and there was posted an email address. I compared it with the one you posted on your profile and, sir, it is the one and same.

What say, sir?

ginnyrose

I will try add another post later today but I wanted to underline my own intention in this thread. I am not trying to engage with Ronald Goetz, I am trying to engage with his teaching. I will not enter into personal abuse or rebuke in my posts. I want to examine what he is 'saying'. I believe that what he is saying is toxic because some who read it may think it legitimises their un-natural behaviour.

When Paul wrote to the Galatians he said they were 'bewitched' and yet he did not attempt to exorcise any 'spirits', he simply declared the truth and showed how their thinking was in error.

RG's ideas are wrong and can be shown to be wrong, very easily. If we can remove the foundations of his error we may save some from the net that has been spread to catch them.

Please do be restrained in how you post to the thread. It will be far more useful if we can keep it on a level keel. Thank you.

The Black Museum of Scotland Yard is a famed collection of criminal memorabilia kept at the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police in London, England. If ever someone creates a Black Museum for Hermeneutics I have some exhibits to pass on.

Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. It is the Greek word translated as 'translated' or 'interpreted' in John 1:38, 42; 9:7; Heb 7:2. Before we can apply a Bible precept we need to understand it. RG says, quite rightly, that the context of a passage is vital in understanding what it signifies. This is true but there is more, no only is the historical context important but the genre is important too. The parable is a special way of preaching truth. The allegory has several points of contact with the reality that it represents. The Good Shepherd theme of John is an allegory. A parable is different to an allegory; a parable has one main point that it seeks to convey but will often decorate that one point with incidental, and often valuable, details.

eg when Peter says " But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night… 2 Pet 3:10 NKJV" He doesn't mean that Christ is coming to steal the video, nor that his entrance is illegal, or even that his coming will be at night. He simply means he will come without warning. It is important to identify the key truth that the parable is illustrating so that that truth can become the controlling model for the interpreting of the remainder of the parable. This is not only true of strict parables but parabolic teaching in general.

RG's thesis is based on his interpretation of Luke 17
“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. Remember Lot’s wife. Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. 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. Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left. Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left.” Luke 17:31–36 NKJV

Notice that the passage, as quoted, begins with 'in that day' and about half way through this quotation uses the phrase 'in that night'… RG makes an assertion about the phrase 'in that night'. He says "
In Luke 17 a signal that something unusual is afoot is the phrase “in that night.”

He quotes the passage from the KJV as follows…

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.
Two women shall be grinding together;
the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Two men shall be in the field;
the one shall be taken, and the other left.
(Luke 17:34-36, KJV)

In fact, as far, as I can make out this is not a quotation from the KJV but a quotation based on the KJV but significantly altered in its punctuation. I have found no version of the KJV that has this punctuation. The Cambridge University Press version of the KJV is often accepted as the definitive version. The CUP KJV has…

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.
Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Luke 17:34–36 KJV

Can you see what RG has done? He has substituted semi-colons for the KJVs periods (full stops, as we say over here) and set 'I tell you, in that night' on a line all by itself. By doing so he has attached the phrase 'in that night' to all three stories. He needs to do this because he wants to prove that the phrase 'in that night' has sexual connotations and by doing so he will create a controlling model for the rest of the passage. In fact, the Greek NT does not use punctuation at all so even the punctuation is a vital part of hermeneutics. RG has effectively created his own Bible version which he then goes on to expound. This is a reckless hermeneutic.

To understand why it is so reckless to make this statement let me illustrate.

Suppose I set you a math problem... ok I will not prolong the pain…

if I start off with the wrong number and then feed that error into the rest of a calculation I cannot get the right answer. This was the danger with the Y2K bug as it was called. If a single error is fed into further calculations each stage will be further from the truth.

So to recap, at this foundational level of his thesis RG makes two massive assumptions; he assumes that all three events took place at night, and he assumes that the phrase 'in that night' introduces a coded sexual theme. On this hang all his later conclusions. This is a reckless hermeneutic and has no place in a serious attempt to understand the teaching of the passage.

I will later take each one of these three events and show how the poison spreads through the remainder of the interpretation.

Ronald,
I have my CUP KJV here by my side. There are no semi-colons at the end of verse 34 or 35.

The Accordance Bible Software KJV has
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.
Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Luke 17:34–36 KJV

The Bible Gateway has
Luke 17:34-36 (King James Version)
34I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
35Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
36Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

StudyLight website also has periods at the ends of verses 34 and 35.

I cannot find an online version of the KJV that has your punctuation.

I apologise. You are right.

The point I was wanting to make is that you have altered the formatting of the verse to make 'in that night' a controlling model for the other three stories of your so-called same-sex triptych. There is absolutely no justification for attaching the words 'in that night' to the two women grinding at the mill, nor the two men in the field.

RG claims that the abrupt introduction of the phrase 'in that night' 'alerts the reader to the presence of something unusual.' Not to this reader it doesn't. Peter, who was present at this point, later wrote…

"But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up." 2 Pet 3:10 NKJV

The purpose of 'in the night' is simply to introduce a scenario in which a surprise event interrupts a normal sequence. The divisions of judgment will take place whether people are sleeping, working or walking. RG is disparaging about the objections that have been raised along the lines of men sharing a bed without sexual connotation. My father and his 5 brothers shared one bed until the older ones married and left home. In many simple homes that I have visited in poorer parts of the world there is no designated 'bedroom' at all, the members of the family simply sleep altogether on blankets.

This kind of setting is clearly seen in an earlier parabolic passage in Luke's gospel.

And He said to them, “Which of you shall have a friend, and go to him at midnight and say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves; for a friend of mine has come to me on his journey, and I have nothing to set before him’; and he will answer from within and say, “Do not trouble me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give to you’? Luke 11:5–7 NKJV

On the RG principle what should we make of this? Is this coded paedophilea? Of course not, it is simply a reflection of the poorer homes that most of Christ's listeners lived in.

There is really no hermeneutic necessity for this conjecture at all. It is not found in the text but imported into it by someone already highly sensitised with regard to homosexuality. RG suggests that homosexuality was a fact of life in the 1st century world; so it was… but not among Jews. I know of no known examples of open homosexuality among the Jewish community. They knew too well the admonitions and prohibitions of the Sinai Covenant. No one could pretend to be a devout Jew and be a practising homosexual at the same time.

In one section of his these acknowledges the weakness of his thoughts. He writes :

"In other words, if context meant nothing, it could legitimately be translated “two men” or “two people.” (he emphasises the words 'if context meant nothing' by italicising them). But the context that he is referring to is a context of his own invention for which there is no textual basis.

RG chooses to call the Luke 17:28-32 'the Sodom Details' and adds "Two men in one bed, at night, continues the theme of homosexuality begun in the preceding verses". But there is NO theme of homosexuality in the preceding verses. The preceding verses refer to the suddenness of the separation between Lot and his wife, there is no reference of any kind to homosexuality. Technically we should call the single verse 'the having left Sodom details'. Christ makes no mention of the behaviour of the men of Sodom; it is not the topic of the story. The topic of the Lot and his wife story is the same topic that does indeed spread through to v32, but the subject is NOT homosexuality but sudden separation. The theme began in Luke 17:26 and is the theme of impending judgment that arrives suddenly.

There is then no reason to believe that the two people in a bed are in a sexual relationship at all, and no reason to believe that 'in that night' is an alert to a secret passage on homosexual activity which was too hot for the people of his day to handle. RG says 'context must not be ignored'. True, and it must not be invented either.

RG has made homosexuality the controlling model for this section of scripture but it is not. The controlling hermeneutic model for this passage of scripture is the suddenness of judgment which comes when least expected.

Last night I looked over RG's online book. I couldn't actually read it through. I have to say that for perverting and twisting Scripture, I've only read one other book in my life that I felt was worse.

One thing I'd like to point out is that in his book Goetz does not address other New Testament passages that clearly show Jesus Christ calls homosexuality sin. I speak particularly of 1 Cor. 6.9-11. In his book he makes much of what he calls his same-sex tryptic, and tries to teach that in the Luke passage Jesus is "trumping the Torah," which speaks against homosexuality.

He does make mention of 1 Cor. 6.9-11, but just to say that Christians have used it as a club to beat homosexuals with.

I don't accept for one second that Jesus "trumped the Torah" so as to put his approval on same-sex relationships, but the thing I want to emphasize is that Goetz seems to think that the Christ of the Gospels is the "real" Christ: loving, kind, tolerant, accepting of homosexuals and lesbians... I suppose Goetz would like us to believe that the Christ of the Gospels is "trumping Paul" also, who said, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor (I'll just go over to the NKJV here) homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

Let no one suppose that this statement is "just" the apostle speaking. These are the words of the same Christ of the Gospels NOW ASCENDED, and speaking through the mouth of His apostle by the Holy Spirit. The SAME Christ. And he says that, along with a host of those who sin in other ways, homosexuals shall not inherit the kingdom of God. It can't be more clear.

And so Goetz' whole edifice, built upon a false foundation-- his twisted interpretation of Luke 17.34-36-- comes crashing down.

...I just want to add something for any looking on who may be troubled with homosexual temptations. Dear ones, don't be deceived by Goetz' open arms. He's one of those who are "deceiving, and being deceived." What he's doing... it's not love for homosexuals... but hate, actually. For he would see you embrace your sin... and die in your sin! That's HATRED, not love. If you want to see the true LOVE... you'll see it in the Cross of Jesus Christ, who loved you and me, and died for you and me, and for our sins, that we might live unto righteousness, and unto HIM. THAT's where our liberty is found!

I realize there are many out there these days who are struggling with this kind of temptation. For it's a very dark hour. I think (from something Ginny posted on the other thread) that Goetz has someone in his own life who struggled with this... to the point of suicide, if I recall correctly. A son, I think?

(Edit: I think it was attempted suicide, and not actual.)

That's grievous... heart rending. But going over to the enemy is not the answer! What is the answer? We all need to be seeking God earnestly in this dark hour for a greater LIGHT to shine! THAT's the answer! You who are tempted in this way, and struggling with this... don't give up! Seek God earnestly... flat out... with everything you've got! Great LIGHT is about to be revealed, and it is being resisted vehemently.

Dear Ronald, thank you SOOOOO much for opening our eyes! We can now see the light, and you are absolutely correct. Two men, and two women together, in one place, at night, surely they were homosexuals! And the apostles, why, they were all men, and surely spent many nights together, they were homosexuals too! In fact, Jesus was a male, and picked males to spend all his time with, so what does that say about him? Oh, this is so exciting! And Paul and Timothy, and Peter and the others in prison (and we all know what happens in prisons!). And Mary and the other women...they came early in the morning to the tomb, which means they were together the night before...they surely were lesbians, right? and Jesus was as close and accepting of them as anyone else, apostles included. So even if Jesus himself was heterosexual (can we know for sure?), he clearly accepted, yea, expressly taught that homosexuality was fine, and even welcome!

Oh this is such wonderful news!

And, as you say, law and sin has been done away with, so I can be an idolater, fornicator, adulterer, effeminate, drunkard, covetous, reviler, murderer, extortioner, liar, thief, envious, greedy, and God just winks at all of it! Wait until I go tell my wife that we can sleep with whomever we want...it just doesn't matter! God has done away with all guilt associated with sin. In fact, there is no such thing as sin.......................................

Oh, except the fact that Paul and James and John say that such HATE God, and will not enter the Kingdom of God, but rather will go to the lake of fire. Or maybe we should just cut those parts out of the Bible, because surely that isn't what it really says or means.

----------------------------------------------------------

[I will pause to make statement about the tone of the above: Obviously it is riddled with very sharp sarcasm. Ronald is clearly not open to honest reason with regards to the scriptures, so I felt it time to bring out a different knife. This knife was used by Paul when dealing with unreasonable, unrepentant people, such as in his second letter to the Corinthian church. Clearly, Ronald's "intellect" cannot be touched. Maybe something else can be, with a different knife. Knowing how hurtful sarcasm can be, it is wielded rarely, and carefully, and of course, with love in hopes of pricking to the point of repentance]

----------------------------------------------------------

Ronald, you have made it abundantly clear that you don't care what God says, and not only do you wrest the scriptures to your own destruction, but you are leading countless others down the same path by your perversion of God's word.

Ronald YOU KNOW that what you are teaching is frank heresy. You have a conscience. My fear is that you have hardened yourself to the point that God has given you over to your delusions and hardened you permanently (a la Romans 1). What began as a blatant misleading of people, has become "truth" to you because you preached it loud enough for long enough, that now you actually do believe it, and have no conscience left.

Make no mistake, God hates homosexuality, as he also hates murder, envy, adultery, greed, etc. I won't say they are "equal" sins, because God clearly judges certain sins more harshly than others, and Paul said, by the Spirit, that sexual sin is unlike all other sin you commit (1 Cor. 6:18-20). But God so LOVES homosexuals, that he gave his only Son, that whosoever REPENTS and believes the gospel, he has promised his Spirit to give new life SO THAT THEY NO LONGER HAVE TO LIVE IN THEIR SIN!!!!! THIS IS THE WONDERFUL NEWS OF THE GOSPEL!!! The homosexual has HOPE!!!! He can repent, and come to God through Christ, and God will give him the FREEDOM to STOP HIS SIN AND WALK NO LONGER THEREIN!!!! HALLELUJAH!!!

This will be my final word. I will not return to this thread, or any other dealing with RonaldGoetz, so long as he remains in his delusions. What he preaches is so full of poison, it should be avoided at all cost. May God deal mercifully and graciously, both with Ronald, homosexuals, heterosexuals, murderers, fornicators, idolaters, Jews, Greeks, and all men everywhere. May he lead us to repentance, and protect us all from the sins that so easily entangle.

RG acknowledges that without his 'context' of homosexuality the first of the scenarios would not necessarily involve two 'men'. This deserves more examination.

As RG has acknowledged the passage…

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. Luke 17:34 KJV

would just as legitimately be translated as does the ESV

I tell you, in that night there will be two in one bed. One will be taken and the other left. Luke 17:34 ESV

This is a feature of the Greek language. The word 'two' is what is known as a cardinal adjective and is masculine plural. Now for folks not familiar with other languages let me make it very clear that 'masculine' is NOT the same as 'male'. 'Male' is sexual gender but the adjective is not 'male' as regards sexual gender but is 'masculine' as regards its grammatical gender. The word 'two' is in the masculine gender, grammatically. It might be thought that this implies that the 'two' refer to 'males' but that is not the way the Greek language works.

If there were two males on the bed the cardinal adjective would be masculine gender.
If there were two females on the bed the cardinal adjective would be feminine gender.
BUT if there were a male and a female in the bed the cardinal adjective would be MASCULINE gender.

This is just an idiom of the Greek language. Other languages that have feminine and masculine do something similar.

Having given the masculine gender to the cardinal adjective 'two' the Greek language now really has to stick with this pattern and when it uses 'one' it puts it into the masculine case and when it uses the word 'other' it must also put that into the masculine. This is the way that the Greek language works. It is NO indication AT ALL that there were two males on a bed and one male was taken and the other male left. It just does not work that way.

But RG has set his 'context'. He is convinced that there is a hidden agenda here and that Christ is veiling his words so as not to offend his hearers but declaring in code that he is comfortable with same sex unions. This is so preposterous that it is difficult to take it seriously but it has a serious consequence because RG is building his case. To his self-chosen context of sexual activity, based on the phrase 'in that night', he now adds this further conjecture that this is a same sex union. The danger is that if you repeat a lie frequently enough you will believe it and so may others.

So, onto the false foundation of 'sexual context' he adds the next course of stones of a homosexual union. He will continue to add false courses on top of false course. In the end the building may look quite substantial but it is all a phantom; not one part of it is proven.

I think the natural interpretation is that this is just two people on a bed. But there is another possibility. The word 'bed' here is the Greek word 'klinE' which can mean both a 'bed' and a 'couch'. The Jews at this time re-kline-d to eat their meals; this is where the word 'recline' and 'clinic' actually come from. The word is translated as 'couch' in the NKJV as in…

"When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and COUCHES." Mark 7:4 NKJV

It is just possible that this was an evening meal which was interrupted by the division of judgment. That is speculation, I will not pursue it further. As I have said the most natural interpretation to this is that 'two' people were on a bed and one was taken and the other left. It is just another parabolic emphasis that judgment will come without warning and will divide families.

Even if we were to go far out on a limb, and say that people are born biologically homosexuals (which by the way, there is zero proof for such), I still believe that even if people were born that way, Jesus still teaches them that they "must be born again" yet another way. Though I do not believe men and women are born homosexuals, as Scripture plainly teaches otherwise, I believe the injunction to be born again would still be applicable to them. For the new birth is about transforming sinners into saints, and making dead men come to life.

I've personally known at least two Christians who were formerly homosexuals. One of them is now married and just celebrated the birth of their first child. I went to Bible college with them, and they are actively involved in the ministry of the Church. Another individual, who I fellowship with at my present Church, was a lesbian for over 20 or 30 years, and the Lord finally got a hold of her and set her free from the bondage she was in. She is a firebrand for the Lord, and wins souls to the kingdom and fills the pews of our church up.

I believe in the power of our risen Lord to cause men to be born again to a living hope, and to bring them from darkness into His marvelous light.

Let's move onto the next scenario. RG still wants this to be 'in that night' although the text does not require such a rendering. I have more that a dozen translations to hand and only Youngs links this phrase with the 2nd and 3rd scenarios and then only by its punctuation.

"Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left." Luke 17:35 NKJV

Now you might have thought that that was simply enough to understand, but if you have already committed yourself to the sexual union controlling model of interpretation you will want to find another explanation.

RG continues in his fantasy hermeneutic. He declares that 'grinding' here is a metaphor for lesbian sexual activity and that this is another coded message that Christ is not uncomfortable with lesbian relationships. I will pause for the gasps of unbelief!

Now it just so happens that we have Matthew's eyewitness report of this too.

"and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect." Matt 24:39–44 NKJV

Notice this time there can be no possible mistaking of what these women are doing; they are not 'grinding' in a sexual activity, they are 'grinding at the mill'. For most people that would have ended the matter but RG is locked into his self invented 'context' of same sex activity and has to find another way out. He concludes that Luke made a choice in which he chose 'the deliberate elimination of the word 'mill' which is present in Matthew's parallel account'. RG claims that Luke has deliberately altered what Christ said in order to build in coded message about Christ's acceptance of same sex unions.

What are we to say about such gymnastics of hermeneutic? It is genuinely almost unbelievable to me that someone could suggest Luke's falsification of the record in order to carry a hidden meaning. But it is believable if we understand the corner that RG has painted himself into. He is so locked into his same sex union hermeneutic that he must search for an interpretation that confirms the verdict he has already given. It is a classic case of 'don't confuse me with the evidence, I have made my mind up'.

RG dedicates several pages to 'proving' that 'grinding' can have a sexual connotation in various languages and in the Old Testament scriptures. The OT references are , the word grind as an acceptable euphemism for sexual activity appears in at least three places: Job 31:10, Judges 16:21, and
Lamentations 5:13

"Then let my wife grind for another, And let others bow down over her." Job 31:10 NKJV
As evidence he brings forward the Targum, a Jewish commentary on the text, that concludes that this couplet in both parts is referring to others having sexual union with Job's wife. Concerning this passage the NET bible adds…"in the Targum of Job interpreted the verb NAjDf (takhan, “grind”) in a sexual sense, and this has influenced other versions and commentaries. But the literal sense fits well in this line. The idea is that she would be a slave for someone else. The second line of the verse then might build on this to explain what kind of a slave — a concubine (see A. B. Davidson, Job, 215)." The point Davidson is making and which sits easily to the rest of the passage is that the first half of this couplet should simple be interpreted in its literal sense. It is simply conjecture to say that Job 'meant' sexual union by grinding.

" 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." Judg 16:21 NKJV

The conclusion that RG comes to here is that " … Samson was “put out to stud” for the wives of Philistine nobles who wanted offspring who would inherit Samson’s amazing strength." Again RG is following the Jewish Targum of Judges. (the Targum was an Aramaic translation/paraphrase with comments built into the text). I am almost speechless. The Targums were notorious for their fanciful interpretations and RG is in good company here. The simplest and most obvious interpretation is that Samson was made to grind corn, but RG is still locked into his sexual activity controlling model of Luke 17.

"Young men ground at the millstones; Boys staggered under loads of wood." Lam 5:13 NKJV
This time RG has to take refuge in the Roman Catholic Douay Rhiems version to make the point that this is another sexual euphemism, this time for male rape of war captives. It is actually Jerome's Vulgate that came to this conclusion and the Douay has simply followed its lead.

These 3 examples will show the desperate lengths that RG must go to maintain integrity with his sexual union controlling model. This is becoming a sheer fantasy of hermeneutics.

…and finally onto the last scenario of our 'Fantastic Journey'. (I am away for a few days now)

"Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left.” Luke 17:36 NKJV

Can you imagine how this will be transformed into a coded signal that Christ is not opposed to same sex unions?

RG writes…"First, notice that Jesus mentions three same-sex couples and that all the action occurs at night." Can you see how he has built the answer into the question. First we conjecture that this is about same sex couples and then we conjecture that 'in that night' necessarily means sexual activity. When you have narrowed down your choices by those self imposed parameters what other conclusion could you come to?

"Considering the poetic parallelism of Luke 17:34-36, what two men are doing in a field at night might be fairly obvious. But we are not left with mere inference or speculation." RG is totally imprisoned by his same sex union hermeneutic. This time he delves into the Old Testament to declare that there is an allusion here to sexual union between a man and woman 'in the field' . This allusion he contends shows that Christ had a sexual union in mind and that the presence of these two 'men' in a field… at night… could only be for one purpose…

Let me remind you of the way Greek works. What we have here is another example of that cardinal adjective in the masculine plural. We said earlier that this does not imply that these were two MALES, it could equally have been a man and a woman. The rest of what we said in the first scenario works here too.

We have now a clear idea of RG's hermeneutic methodology.

We begin with a foundation of sheer conjecture; in that night implies sexual activity.

and add to that the sheer speculation that the next scenario involves two men in a bed having sexual intercourse...

and add to that the insane suggestion that two women grinding at a mill really means a passionate lesbian encounter…

and add to that the sheer speculation that two men in a field at night could only have been there for one purpose…

and what do you have? A Walt Disney Fantasy Castle built on clouds. If it didn't contain such deadly toxic notions it would be laughable. But it does contain those notions and Ronald Goetz's gentle manner and soothing words contain a deadly poison. If one single soul continues on their path of same sex union as a result of this teaching, Ronald Goetz will have a fearful price to pay on the day that Christ comes suddenly to separate companions for judgment or blessing.

Although I have been at pains to test Ronald Goetz's teachings line by line there is an easier route to test his theory. RG says that context is important and it is. The final context is the entire Scripture and we only have to take RG's conclusions and see if they fit into a simple passage of Scripture to see if it works.

RG says that Christ approves of same sex unions.

"Jesus said same-sex attractions are acceptable to God. Gay and lesbian sex is not intrinsically sinful." Ronald Goetz

All we need to do to test RG's thesis is to ask how this statement squares with Paul's in 1 Corinthians.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Cor 6:9–11 NKJV

"...you used to be homosexuals, sodomites... BUT you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God."

Bravo philologos. Bravo.

I praise God for you, your wisdom and your knowledge of Scripture. May the Lord bless you mightly and keep you as the apple of His eye.

R.G.: In the time of Christ, the "grind" euphemism was used in both Latin and Greek, by Horace and Plutarch respectively. Horace wrote in Greek in the decades just before Christ's birth, and Plutarch wrote during the exact same time as Luke wrote this gospel.

You are wresting the passages (στρεβλοῦσιν II Peter 3:16) by imposing ex-post-facto a questionable euphemism into an Old Testament context that knew nothing of such modern American or profane Greek or Latin euphemisms. The primary O.T. euphemism is ἔγνω or יָדַע meaning 'to know' or 'have known' for sexual relations. This moderate concept has a history and it is first found in Genesis 4:1.

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. (4:1)

Αδαμ δὲ ἔγνω Ευαν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, καὶ συλλαβοῦσα ἔτεκεν τὸν Καιν καὶ εἶπεν Ἐκτησάμην ἄνθρωπον διὰ τοῦ θεοῦ.

And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: (4:17)

And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: (4:25)

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known a man; (19:8)

And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her (24:16)

and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her. (I Samuel 1:19)

This is the terminology employed in euphemism to describe the dreadful homosexual deeds of the inhabitants of Sodom:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. (Genesis 19:5)

It is superfluous to mention the concept 'to lie with' a person.

It is speculation built on conjecture to suggest that 'grinding at a mill' was ever understood by the ancient Hebrews to mean sexual relations. Talmudic writings are in no way to be trusted. These are men that also said Samson's shoulders were sixty cubits (90') wide. They were descendants of the pharisees and the academy at Yavneh. The Mishnah dates to 200 AD and the Gemara to 500 AD. That is way too far removed from any of the events to 'speculate' like the Rabbi's have done.

We know that ἀλήθω (alēthō) is a rare verb found only twice in the N.T., indicating the action of “grinding” at a mill (ἄλευρον ).

Matt. 24:41 δύο ἀλήθουσαι ἐν τῷ μύλωνι· μία παραλαμβάνεται, καὶ μία ἀφίεται.

Luke 17:35 δύο ἔσονται ἀλήθουσαι ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό· ἡ μία παραληφθήσεται, καὶ ἡ ἕτερα ἀφεθήσεται.

This is clearly meant as 'grinding at a mill' which was common for women of the time:

Matt. 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

Luke 13:21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

This is what women did to please their man- they ground the grain and they cooked for him. This is what Job is talking about in 31:10-

Then let my wife grind unto another, and let others bow down upon her.

Have you not read where Tamar baked for her brother before he raped her?

Amnon said unto the king, I pray thee, let Tamar my sister come, and make me a couple of cakes in my sight, that I may eat at her hand. (II Samuel 13:6)

'Grind' may be some sick move some adulterous woman does clubbing out on a dance floor some place, but back in the day women pleased their man by cooking him a good meal. So for Job to say 'let my wife grind for another' he is saying let her do for another man what Tamar did for Amnon. Sampson ground for the pleasure of showing him to be a slave or a woman- because that's who usually was doing the 'grinding'. In either case it was an extreme insult for a man of such reputation.

As for Lamentations 5:14 adulescentibus inpudice abusi sunt et pueri in ligno corruerunt (Vulgate) This is an interpretation- not a translation. It is my view that this passage suffered the leaven of the pharisees as it was no doubt influenced by the Rabbi's. The whole reading is non sequetor. This is what I call the N.E.C version of Lamentations 5:14- the 'Not Even Close' version. They lifted the young men to the hand mill, and the youths stumbled at the wood. (Green's literal) How could any translator in good conscience render the passage "young men were sexually abused"? D.R. Hillers even admits the translation does not follow with the context.

Where does the error begin? With Job 31:10. Why? Because scholars wanted to link grinding to bowing down over. Error begets more error. Pretty soon someone associates the modern profane and suggestive urban concept of 'grind' to this misconception and it's a match made in hell.

RonaldGoetz on 2010/8/28 2:09:22
To characterize my conclusions as "sheer speculation" and "insane speculation" is quite inaccurate. Rhetorically effective, but incorrect.

You have simply rehashed all your arguments from your paper. I am fully aware of patterns of exegesis and hermeneutic but simply to decide that 'in the field' is a sexual encounter based entirely on the law relating to virgins and espoused women is foolhardy.

"Perhaps you are different, but most people think of homosexuality when they think of Sodom."

I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Your own expositions arise because of your obsession with homosexuality. Only someone subconsciously looking for a justification for homosexual and lesbian practice would have linked the passages the way that you have.

Brethren,
I see that the devil is doing some harm in this forum as well, so I feel the need to copy my comments from the other forum (I do appreciate, however, the substance of many of your posts):

From the beginning of time, the devil has been defiling God’s word; it is no different today. It is pointless to try to reason with the enemy, or his agents, because they are bent on doing evil. When Jesus was tempted in the desert, He did not engage in a debate with the devil. For instance, when Satan tempted Him to turn a stone into bread, Jesus replied, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone’” (Luke 4:4). I can just imagine what the devil could have replied: “That verse doesn’t say that you do not have the right to turn this stone into bread!” Jesus did not engage in a debate with the devil, because it would not have accomplished anything good. Instead, he just rebuked the devil with the Word of God.

Brethren, I do not wish anyone to fall into the trap of Satan, who is using one of his agents to provoke you to anger. We could spend some time arguing against the way this man is twisting a passage and drawing farfetched conclusions from words that do not even appear in the original text (i.e., the original Greek just says “two in one bed”, and not “two men in one bed”). However, it is unlikely that this would accomplish anything good. The man bent on evil would simply find some deceitful way to justify his interpretation. This man’s heart is corrupt; it does not love the Lord or His word (though he claims the opposite). This man’s heart has sadly been turned over to the devil. His heart is defective. The devil has blinded his mind so that he cannot understand, but his own heart bears witness that it is diseased. Brethren, please pray for him, so that the Holy Spirit would convict him and show him how his own heart has been testifying that he is under the bondage of the devil. Brethren, please pray that his heart’s own cry would become unbearably loud, so that he might admit his own lost state. His heart is already torn; let us pray for deliverance. His heart is injured; let us pray for healing. His heart is screaming right now; let us pray that his ears be opened. His heart is bleeding; let us pray that he might see.

Brethren, we all know that God’s word clearly says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God unless they repent (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). We also know that Jesus did not minimize sexual standards, but rather amplified them (Matthew 5:19-20, 27-30). Therefore, we do not need to defend these issues. Rather, we must pray for this man, whose heart is corrupt and diseased due to sin. God has already called him to repent, rebuking him and showing him that his way of twisting scripture is evil. God has already told him that he has neglected the greater things (like the Pharisees), by exchanging the Word of God for his own rules of interpretation. So far, he has suppressed the truth. However, please pray for a miracle: Pray that the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ would shine upon him (2 Corinthians 4:6). Pray this for his own sake, for the sake of others who are being misled, and for the glory of God Almighty.

Pray that God would cause him to fear these words of scripture: “No one who abides in Him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen Him or known Him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as He is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.” (1 John 3:6-10) “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.” (James 3:1)

Pray that God would show this man that although it is “believing in Jesus” that saves, he must also ask himself the following question: How do I know that I believe? “Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you, unless indeed you fail the test!” (2 Corinthians 13:5)

His heart is dying; let us fervently pray for this man before it is too late. His heart is already failing; it is only a matter of time before he steps into eternity.

by RonaldGoetz on 2010/8/28 5:51:15
"Ron, I answered all three of your critiques of my interpretation of verses 34-36, where you allege insane and sheer speculation, but you only addressed verse 36.

Does that mean that you accept my protest that verses 34 and 35 are indeed grounded with Old Testament backgrounds, contrary to your assertion that they are "insane" and "sheer speculation"?"

I refute that any of these scenarios are grounded with Old Testament backgrounds as you will have understood if you have read my previous posts.

The most bizarre of your expositions is the two women grinding at a mill, but your exposition of the third scenario has its own brand of folly.
You claim that 'in the field' is a clear link to the passage in Deut 22 which, of course, is dealing with heterosexual union and clearly has nothing to do with same sex unions.

The construction 'in the' and the Hebrew word 'saday' is used over 80 times in the Old Testament but you have chosen to see the words in Luke 17 as an 'allusion' only to the Deut 22 passage.Why? Because you have already decided, again without substance, that 'in that night' introduces a series sexual scenes, and because you have chosen to believe that the 'two' in the third scenario are both male, you are hedged in to this most peculiar hermeneutic. It is sheer recklessness or conscious perversity.

'saday' is translated variously in the KJV; field 292, country 17, land 11, wild 8, ground 4, soil 1, it is simply a term for land outside the village. The BlueLetterBible listing in Gesenius gives a good idea of its usage. The Greek word in Luke 17:36 is argos and is again variously translated in the KJV field 22, country 8, land 4, farm 1, piece of ground 1. It simply means a place outside the village. There is nothing of a sexual connotation in this either the Hebrew word or the Greek, nor in the phrase 'in the field'. It simply means what it says "Two will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left." Luke 17:36

I have already dealt with the earlier two scenarios.

I think it is time for you to tell us how you accommodate your interpretations into the 1 Cor 6 passage. You seem somewhat shy to engage with this section of scripture.