Remember Lot's Wife

Military operation? .

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

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??

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

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.

Clearly.....

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 🤮🤢

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'
.

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.

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.

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'

"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.

“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

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.

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

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

how about the vernacular,

'splode ?

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


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?