Remember Lot's Wife

[Magenta]

i base my belief on the supposition that God does not send His angels on a military operation without the most basic intelligence, that the angels watch all things going on on the earth, and i believe that the elegant way it explains the math of Genesis 18 to be corroborative..

.. while admitting that it is inferential and suppositional.

And i still contend that the view i am opposing is equally suppositional but has less logigical suppor lt given the things that the text leaves no room for interpretation about.

Military operation? .

Military refers to the physicality of armed forces, their personnel, equipment, and the physical area which they occupy.

 

[posthuman]

Yes, I know .

Does not change the fact of who the Moabites were in relation to
Israel, and who fathered them. I simply answered your question.

i think that if God is doing this on purpose, allowing these things to play out on purpose with the free will of each of the people involved, and recording it all. in scripture, then these things are playing put in a very specific way that portrays Christ and His work of salvation and the work of Satan trying to oppose it.

ultimately all the interpretation of these people's actions become theological in the context of the whole thing being a typological testimony of the gospel

so it gets very complex, very quickly, and the understanding that makes sense to me in that context is that those removed from Sodom and prevented from being destroyed with Sodom are the saved. the church.

so Lot's daughters become a very enigmatic thing - they are part of the church, in type. what in the world does this mean??

 

[posthuman]

Military operation? .

Military refers to the physicality of armed forces, their personnel, equipment, and the physical area which they occupy.

They were there with a mission to blow up an enemy emplacement...

 

[cv5]

Does it make sense to you that God sends angels to save a man and they are completely ignorant of the most basic details of that man's family?

But in the garden, God asks Adam where he is - is it a logical inference that omniscient God doesn't know where Adam is?
on the basis that He asks?
Or do questions sometimes get asked for reasons other than ignorance?

Like any good prosecutor, God never asks questions that He does not already have the answers to.
Plus He is omniscient so he does not need to first conduct an investigation of the facts.

 

[cv5]

which is why Genesis 19:12 exists
((anyone else? get them! bring them!))

which lends credence to my view of what Mrs
Lot was thinking when she turned back.

Not about garlic. not about stuff.
about her children. about loved ones. souls.

Clearly.....

 

[Fundaamental]

Theres lots and lots and lots of information on the story of lot.

A lot more than I could of possibly imagined, 😁

There is the story that lot lost the plot.

Or that the lot was the garden of eden plot in a plot of lots of nots in sodom😊.

Ive always wondered if general sod of superman was from Sodom and gamora or if that's where the director's got the idea from

Or does the saying sod them all come from sodom and gamora.

Or sod this and sod that.

Then there's the gooey sods that keep turning up in my garden.

Definitely time to get the salt out with that one 😊 especially on the slugs, those are right slimy sods, especially when you stand on one.

Eeeeee yuck 🤮🤢

 

[reneweddaybyday]

Lot and his wife
= 2
+ their 2 unmarried daughters
= 4
+ their 2 unmarried sons
= 6
+ their 2 married daughters and 2 sons-in-law
= 10

This is the sum of all the direct relatives of Abraham in Sodom. he was pleading for his family's salvation. it's kind of a theme here =]

Yup I'm counting 10 also....Gen 19:12. Sons, daughters, sons-in-law......all plural.

in Gen 19:12, son-in-law is singular in the text ...

Genesis 19:12 And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law [Hebrew ḥāṯān - noun, masculine, singular], and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:

... so may need to reconfigure the family ... seems to me we've got only 1 married daughter and 1 son-in-law ... 2 unmarried daughters and 4 sons. Unless we want to consider that Lot may have had unmarried daughter(s) who had known man (vs 8) ... I don't believe that would be the case as Lot, being the just man God says he was, would probably have kept his daughters safe from the evils of Sodom/Gomorrha.

just sayin'
.

 

[Magenta]

They were there with a mission to blow up an enemy emplacement...

Blow it up? Such euphemisms do not sit well with me.

Change this a little and that a little and pretty soon you have a whole 'nother story.

That is how people are led away from Biblical truth.

 

[posthuman]

Blow it up? Such euphemisms do not sit well with me.

Change this a little and that a little and pretty soon you have a whole 'nother story.

That is how people are led away from Biblical truth.

Genesis 19:13
For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it.

i think the characterization of the angels mission as being militaristic in nature is justified. they are not evangelizing, they are not sent bringing news or sent teaching a truth, they are not primarily announcing something or appearing as emissaries.

their primary stated purpose is the destruction ((synonyms: demolition, eradication, annihilation, elimination..)) of Sodom & its associated area.

That's a context of authoritative power sending powerful agents expressly to utilize physical force with the goal of physically removing an unfriendly/threatening target.

i.e. blow up the enemy's wicked city.

 

[posthuman]

in Gen 19:12, son-in-law is singular in the text ...

Genesis 19:12 And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law [Hebrew ḥāṯān - noun, masculine, singular], and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:

... so may need to reconfigure the family ... seems to me we've got only 1 married daughter and 1 son-in-law ... 2 unmarried daughters and 4 sons. Unless we want to consider that Lot may have had unmarried daughter(s) who had known man (vs 8) ... I don't believe that would be the case as Lot, being the just man God says he was, would probably have kept his daughters safe from the evils of Sodom/Gomorrha.

just sayin'
.

i don't know Hebrew well enough to comment intelligently.

v. 14 `who had married' is in plural form but 'sons in law' and 'daughters' (sic) take singular form.

It may be that Hebrew requires these objects to take the same case as the singular 'Lot' because in the grammatical structure he is performing an action on them ((speaking to them)) regardless of whether they are singular or plural, but the verb that is associated with they themselves ((had married)) remains plural because it doesn't associate with the singular Lot.

in any case I have not seen any translation anywhere that renders the verse as 'son in law' singular and I expect that actual linguistic experts have reasons for why they translate it as plural sons in law.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

The idea of Lot's wife being on some "mission of mercy" is ludicrous. Completely off the wall and unprecedented.[/QUOTE

Are you saying Lot was trying to save the people of Sodom? I would disagree. Lot had joined the people of Sodom.
And the angels didn't need his protection. They were perfectly able to care for themselves. He needed their protection.

Lot was so far gone that he offered his daughters. Not exactly the actions of a righteous man. In fact, if the NT doesn't refer to him as righteous Lot, it is within reason to wonder concerning him. Even after being spared we soon find him in a drunken estate.

“Lot was so far gone that he offered his daughters. Not exactly the actions of a righteous man. In fact, if the NT doesn't refer to him as righteous Lot, it is within reason to wonder concerning him.”

actually brother Peter says lot was the only one right

“and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

and delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (for that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds

the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭2:6-9‬ ‭KJV‬

for lot existing on n a place like soddom and Gomorrah was torture to his soul daily it bexed him to see all the wickedness of lot was like the others he would have also perished and his daughters were offered in place of gods servants he put Gods things above even his own children

 

[posthuman]

actually brother Peter says lot was the only one right

“and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

note that Peter tells us it is the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah that are examples to us that we should keep ourselves from sin; Peter does not say Lot's wife is the example.

Lot's wife is evidently a very different example -- if the Lord had meant, we should remember examples of wickedness so that we do not repeat it, He might have said, 'remember Sodom & Gomorrah!' -- instead He said remember Lot's wife.
this is subtle, but it is different -- it is not the simple refrain of 'sin is bad'

 

[SomeDisciple]

i.e. blow up the enemy's wicked city.

"Blown up" is actually probably an accurate description. Large chunks of sulfur raining from heaven would shatter on the way through the atmosphere or on impact, creating dust/gas that would be ignited by the fire causing an explosion.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

note that Peter tells us it is the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah that are examples to us that we should keep ourselves from sin; Peter does not say Lot's wife is the example.

Lot's wife is evidently a very different example -- if the Lord had meant, we should remember examples of wickedness so that we do not repeat it, He might have said, 'remember Sodom & Gomorrah!' -- instead He said remember Lot's wife.
this is subtle, but it is different -- it is not the simple refrain of 'sin is bad'

“note that Peter tells us it is the cities of Sodom & Gomorrah that are examples to us that we should keep ourselves from sin; Peter does notsay Lot's wife is the example.”

Yeah Peter is hiding the example of soddom and Gomorrah as an ensample of the coming end and how God is able to deliver the righteous and reserve the wicked for punishment

lots wife os used in different areas as the e sample of not heeding Gods warnings so it’s two different subjects

lots wife refused to heed the warning given her

The people of soddom and Gomorrah are an example of corrupt people

It’s sort of two subjects what Peter is talking about is the day of the lord at the end he’s simply using lot and those that perished as an illustrator

 

[posthuman]

warning: big block of text to follow.

i want to quote Irenaeus on this subject, from around ~180AD

it is the earliest example of interpretation the happenings recorded about Lot & his family, and it is very useful to see how the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John the apostle, viewed these things.

i am not only quoting it here because it in fact supports my side of this discussion, but because it is germane in a greater way:
Irenaeus says a couple of key things separate from his analysis of Genesis 19-20:

• that where scripture records sin among the patriarchs and prophets, we should not join in accusation or imagine ourselves their judge, but rejoice that their sin is forgiven - just as they themselves rejoiced looking forward to the salvation we have in what was not yet revealed to them but what we have believed, in the gospel.
• that where scripture is not specifically condemning sin in a record, that record is not purposed to condemn sin, but for another reason. we should seek to interpret it typologically: seeing it as teaching us testimony of Christ, of the gospel, and prophetic of the age of the church.

this is a very different approach to scripture than our modern era typically takes. we look at things in the OT like they are examples of how we ought to act, even when the scripture is not saying 'so-and-so was very wicked in the sight of God, this is what he did..'
we immediately take an accusatory stance and look at it in a very simplistic way, thinking, these people were stupid, they should have done such and such. we imagine - are taught to imagine by the regular preaching of our time - that the only reason for example Genesis 19 is recorded is so that we could know sin is bad and God destroys all who practice sin.

Irenaeus however does not take this approach at all; he explicitly cautions against it. when the scripture is trying to tell us something is wicked, something is an example of wickedness, pay attention, don't do this -- it is explicit saying 'this is wicked' -- but in Genesis 19 that is not the case. what the people of Sodom did was wicked, and it says so emphatically -- as Peter points out they are the example.

however the text does not condemn Lot even though it gives us details of him acting contrary to and rebuffing at the commandments of angels sent by God. the text does not condemn his wife even though it tells us she met her physical end in a very peculiar way in a very peculiar circumstance. it does not say anything condemning about Lot's daughters when they essentially drug and rape him; it simply records the facts dryly.
we should not be reading this as though we are these people's judges and evidence is being presented before us for us to issue condemnation and accusation. the text is not giving us that; the text is giving us factual record for us to consider.

Irenaeus, perhaps the most ancient commentaries on this passage, only 1 generation removed from the direct teaching of the apostle John, tells us in no uncertain terms we should be looking at this as typology, as symbols of the gospel and prophesy of the church age, testifying of Christ and of the work of God in this age.

that is very important and pertinent -- not only because it supports my view, and gives an example that i am not the only one to have ever thought these things nor is it simply out of left field or thin air, but because the point of view of seeing these things as deep teachings and theological symbology is as ancient as the church itself is.

we should not be glossing over this subject matter and seeing it as nothing more than simple object lessons.
we should be looking at it as pictures of Christ and looking for Christ symbolized in it








TLDR:

it is important, pertinent, and right that we study the OT looking for pictures of Christ. that point of view comes directly from the earliest Christian writings, and it is very different than the way the OT is now typically taught, that we probably all grew up hearing.

 

[posthuman]

from 'Against Heresies' by Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of the apostle John, ~ 180 AD
book IV chapter 31

1. When recounting certain matters of this kind respecting them of old time, the presbyter [before mentioned] was in the habit of instructing us, and saying: With respect to those misdeeds for which the Scriptures themselves blame the patriarchs and prophets, we ought not to inveigh against them, nor become like Ham, who ridiculed the shame of his father, and so fell under a curse; but we should [rather] give thanks to God in their behalf, inasmuch as their sins have been forgiven them through the advent of our Lord; for He said that they gave thanks [for us], and gloried in our salvation. With respect to those actions, again, on which the Scriptures pass no censure, but which are simply set down [as having occurred], we ought not to become the accusers [of those who committed them], for we are not more exact than God, nor can we be superior to our Master; but we should search for a type [in them]. For not one of those things which have been set down in Scripture without being condemned is without significance. An example is found in the case of Lot, who led forth his daughters from Sodom, and these then conceived by their own father; and who left behind him within the confines [of the land] his wife, [who remains] a pillar of salt unto this day. For Lot, not acting under the impulse of his own will, nor at the prompting of carnal concupiscence, nor having any knowledge or thought of anything of the kind, did [in fact] work out a type [of future events]. As says the Scripture: And that night the elder went in and lay with her father; and Lot knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Genesis 19:33 And the same thing took place in the case of the younger: And he knew not, it is said, when she slept with him, nor when she arose. Genesis 19:35 Since, therefore, Lot knew not [what he did], nor was a slave to lust [in his actions], the arrangement [designed by God] was carried out, by which the two daughters (that is, the two churches ), who gave birth to children begotten of one and the same father, were pointed out, apart from [the influence of] the lust of the flesh. For there was no other person, [as they supposed], who could impart to them quickening seed, and the means of their giving birth to children, as it is written: And the elder said to the younger, And there is not a man on the earth to enter in unto us after the manner of all the earth: come, let us make our father drunk with wine, and let us lie with him, and raise up seed from our father. Genesis 19:31-32​

​

2. Thus, after their simplicity and innocence, did these daughters [of Lot] so speak, imagining that all mankind had perished, even as the Sodomites had done, and that the anger of God had come down upon the whole earth. Wherefore also they are to be held excusable, since they supposed that they only, along with their father, were left for the preservation of the human race; and for this reason it was that they deceived their father. Moreover, by the words they used this fact was pointed out — that there is no other one who can confer upon the elder and younger church the [power of] giving birth to children, besides our Father. Now the father of the human race is the Word of God, as Moses points out when he says, Is not He your father who has obtained you [by generation], and formed you, and created you? At what time, then, did He pour out upon the human race the life-giving seed — that is, the Spirit of the remission of sins, through means of whom we are quickened? Was it not then, when He was eating with men, and drinking wine upon the earth? For it is said, The Son of man came eating and drinking; Matthew 11:19 and when He had lain down, He fell asleep, and took repose. As He does Himself say in David, I slept, and took repose. And because He used thus to act while He dwelt and lived among us, He says again, And my sleep became sweet unto me. Jeremiah 31:26 Now this whole matter was indicated through Lot, that the seed of the Father of all — that is, of the Spirit of God, by whom all things were made — was commingled and united with flesh — that is, with His own workmanship; by which commixture and unity the two synagogues— that is, the two churches — produced from their own father living sons to the living God.​

​

3. And while these things were taking place, his wife remained in [the territory of] Sodore, no longer corruptible flesh, but a pillar of salt which endures for ever; and by those natural processes which appertain to the human race, indicating that the Church also, which is the salt of the earth, Matthew 5:13 has been left behind within the confines of the earth, and subject to human sufferings; and while entire members are often taken away from it, the pillar of salt still endures, thus typifying the foundation of the faith which makes strong, and sends forward, children to their Father.​

​

​

 

[posthuman]

Irenaeus, only one generation removed from the direct teaching of John the beloved, sees Lot's wife as a picture of the true church.
saved.
a sign of unity and pureness.
a symbol of lasting preservation and an enduring foundation of faith.

even though i am at great odds with the modern church and the ubiquitous, simplistic & accusatory interpretation of this topic,
i am not in poor company with my view on this matter

 

[Magenta]

Genesis 19:13
For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown
great before the face of the LORD, and the LORD has sent us to destroy it.

i think the characterization of the angels mission as being militaristic in nature is justified.
they are not evangelizing, they are not sent bringing news or sent teaching a truth, they
are not primarily announcing something or appearing as emissaries.

their primary stated purpose is the destruction ((synonyms: demolition,
eradication, annihilation, elimination..)) of Sodom & its associated area.

That's a context of authoritative power sending powerful agents expressly to utilize
physical force with the goal of physically removing an unfriendly/threatening target.

i.e. blow up the enemy's wicked city.

Blow up is not among the synonyms. Destroy, yes. And of course, the final end of of the wicked is
their destruction, repeated throughout Scripture from beginning to end, but few accept it as such.

 

[posthuman]

Blow up is not among the synonyms. Destroy, yes. And of course, the final end of of the wicked is
their destruction, repeated throughout Scripture from beginning to end, but few accept it as such.

how about the vernacular,

'splode ?

 

[posthuman]

the final end of of the wicked

Mrs. post pointed this out to me this morning, btw:

“Samaria did not commit half of your sins; but you have multiplied your abominations more than they, and have justified your sisters by all the abominations which you have done. You who judged your sisters, bear your own shame also, because the sins which you committed were more abominable than theirs; they are more righteous than you. Yes, be disgraced also, and bear your own shame, because you justified your sisters.​

“When I bring back their captives, the captives of Sodom and her daughters, and the captives of Samaria and her daughters, then I will also bring back the captives of your captivity among them, that you may bear your own shame and be disgraced by all that you did when you comforted them. When your sisters, Sodom and her daughters, return to their former state, and Samaria and her daughters return to their former state, then you and your daughters will return to your former state. For your sister Sodom was not a byword in your mouth in the days of your pride, before your wickedness was uncovered. It was like the time of the reproach of the daughters of Syria and all those around her, and of the daughters of the Philistines, who despise you everywhere. You have paid for your lewdness and your abominations,” says the Lord. For thus says the Lord God: “I will deal with you as you have done, who despised the oath by breaking the covenant."​

(Ezekiel 16:51-59)​

​

​

there seems to be a promise of restoration to Sodom here?
and a direct coupling with Samaria?
has Sodom been restored already, if so when?
will Sodom be later restored, if so how?

is it physical Sodom ((bottom of Dead Sea currently)) or is it speaking of a spiritual Sodom?

​