SODOM AND GOMORRAH Matthew 11:24 Great Conversation Starter

by objectivetruth 9 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  objectivetruth

  Matthew 11:24 is a Great Scripture to use, when speaking with Friends & Family, that are still "Blinded"

  "24 Consequently I say to YOU people, It will be more endurable for the land of Sod′om on Judgment Day than for you."

  The Current Understanding is that Jesus was using Hyperbole. Any one with a Brain knows that "Will Be" is not "Would Be".

  However the Org Massages the wording, so that people assume that its just Hyperbole.

  W88 6/1 30-31 Quotes : "

  A reexamination of Matthew 11:20-24, though, has brought into question whether Jesus was there discussing eternal judgment and resurrection. His point was how unresponsive the people in Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum were and how unlikely it was that they would reform even in the Judgment Day. Saying that it would be “more endurable” for Tyre/Sidon and Sodom/Gomorrah “on Judgment Day” was a form of hyperbole (exaggeration to emphasize a point) that Jesus need not have intended to be taken literally, any more than other graphic hyperboles that he used."

  Hence, Jesus’ saying that it ‘would be more endurable on Judgment Day for Tyre or Sodom’ did not necessarily mean that those people will be present on Judgment Day. He could simply have been stressing how unresponsive and culpable were most in Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum. We say most because some in Capernaum did accept Christ"

  It's amazing that they went so far as to use "Would be" Instead of "Will be"

  Some GREAT Russel quotes on this Topic :

  WT 1879

  "But let us read the prophecy further. After comparing Israel with Sodom and Samaria,
  and pronouncing her worse, vs. 53 says: "When I bring again the captivity [in death, all
  are captives and R8 : page 8 Christ came to 'set at liberty the captives and to open the
  prison doors' of the grave,] of Sodom and Samaria, then will I bring thy captives in the
  midst of them." (These will be raised together.) In vs. 55 this is called "a return to
  "Their Former Estate." --restitution. But some one, who cannot imagine that God really
  could be so good or just, suggests God must be speaking ironically to the Jews, and
  saying He would just as soon bring back the Sodomites as them, but has no notion of
  either."

  "Once more we read: "Jesus Christ, by the grace of God, tasted death for every man."How, Lord, we ask? If he tasted death for the one hundred and forty-three billions, andfrom other causes it becomes efficacious only to one billion, is not his death comparatively a failure?"

  Also you might Compare the Aid book under "Judgement" to the Insight Book.. The Wording is Identical.. The only Difference is the Insight Book states they wont be resurrected.
• 

  The Searcher

  If Jesus WAS using hyperbole when speaking of Sodom & Gomorrah, he was effectively saying that at least they "had a snowflake's chance in hell", as the following verses would confirm.

  (2 Peter 2:6) ...and by reducing the cities Sod´om and Go·mor´rah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons (not buildings) of things to come;

  (Jude 7) So too Sod´om and Go·mor´rah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before [us] as a [warning] example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire. [Gehenna]

  However, if Jesus actually meant that S & G (not Simon & Garfunkel!) would be resurrected, then Jude 7 must mean that all those wicked roads, buildings, and fields in those cities were destroyed forever - not the people!

  I don't know of any other towns or cities in the Bible which were consigned to Gehenna, because Jesus himself stated that Gehenna was for sinful creatures, not bricks and mortar!! (Matthew 25:41) "Then he will say, in turn, to those on his left, ‘Be on YOUR way from me, YOU who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels."
• 

  Bobcat

  The start of the problem is the NWT's rendition of hemera kriseos in Matthew 10:15; 11:22, 24; 12:36. For some explanation, see here. By "Judgment Day," more properly "day of judgment," Jesus is referring to the coming destruction of the nation at the hand of the Romans. The reference to Sodom & Gomorrah is an allusion to Lamentations 4:6 although the phrasing in Matthew sounds a bit awkward.

  By translating the phrase in Matthew as "Judgment Day," and developing a doctrine that differentiates it from "day of judgment" (although they are the exact same phrase in Greek), the Society created this problem of whether the people of Sodom would be resurrected or not. And thus, they waffled back and forth over the years about this, when in fact, it was their manufactured understanding about "Judgment Day" that created the problem, or at the least, kept it going over the years.

  Now, as the link above mentions, they never use these verses in Matthew when they talk about "Judgment Day," even though these verses in Matthew are the only ones in the NWT which have the term "Judgment Day."

  Concerning Matthew 11:23, Barnes Notes on the NT says, " This has been strictly fulfilled. In the wars between the Jews and the Romans, Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum, etc., were so completely desolated that it is difficult to determine their former situation. " I imagine Josephus has some on this but I don't have time at the moment to look it up.
• 

  Band on the Run

  Do people really go around talking about this in their private lives? I don't recall it when I was active. Maybe I knew my place which was to not question. I've been out for many decades. I can't recall a single social conversation, work discusscions, where Sodom and Gomorrroah was raised. People don't care. In fact, it would be a great way to lose friends and acquaintances. I would lose my job.

  Don't people discuss TV, films, books, the weather........My discussions are not to score points. No one should be a winner or loser. I wonder if being in the Witnesses doesn't make people needlessly adversarial. The most I would say is that i have a different understanding. This triggered me b/c my gm and father were extremely adversarial. My father was in deep trouble at work for preaching. He would stay up all night preparing anti Catholic statements from Rutherfords' hey day. He had to go back to Rutherford b/c Knorr had nothing so full of hate. He thought he garnered all sorts of points. Well, he led his coworkers to hate the Witnesses with a vengeance.

  They complained to management, their wives called my mom, and somehow a Jesuit trained former priest entered the fray. My father was so certain he could take down a Jesuit, Not so easy. My father returned and agreed the RC Church was correct about some understanding of soul. He was depressed. A taste of his own medicine. My uncle was his best pal at Bethel. His coworkers remarked what a fine person he was. It was kind of sad to watch. He did not know how to interact with them socially. They truly admired him.

  I believe in Christ. Is it worth harsh feelings to debate details? I don't think so.
• 

  objectivetruth

  The Searcher..

  This is a helpful commentary from Barnes :

  Suffering the vengeance of eternal fire - The word rendered “suffering” ( ὑπέχουσαι hupechousai) means, properly, “holding under” - as, for example, the hand; then to hold toward any one, as the ear - to give attention; then it is used as denoting to hold a discourse toward or with any one, or to hold satisfaction to any one, to make atonement; and then as “undergoing, paying, or suffering punishment,” when united, as it is here, with the word δίκην dikēn(punishment, or vengeance). See “Rob. Lex.” Here it expresses the idea of undergoing punishment. The word properly agrees in the construction with “cities,” ( πόλεις poleisreferring to Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them; but the things affirmed relate to the “inhabitants” of those cities. The word “vengeance” means punishment; that is, such vengeance as the Lord takes on the guilty; not vengeance for the gratification of private and personal feeling, but like that which a magistrate appoints for the maintenance of the laws; such as justice demands. The phrase “eternal fire” is one that is often used to denote future punishment - as expressing the severity and intensity of the suffering. See the notes, Matthew 25:41 . As here used, it cannot mean that the fires which consumed Sodom and Gomorrah were literally eternal, or were kept always burning, for that was not true. The expression seems to denote, in this connection, two things:

  (1)That the destruction of the cities of the plain, with their inhabitants, was as entire and perpetual as if the fires had been always burning - the consumption was absolute and enduring - the sinners were wholly cut off, and the cities forever rendered desolate; and,

  (2)that, in its nature and duration, this was a striking emblem of the destruction which will come upon the ungodly. I do not see that the apostle here means to affirm that those particular sinners who dwelt in Sodom would be punished forever, for his expressions do not directly affirm that, and his argument does not demand it; but still the “image” in his mind, in the destruction of those cities, was clearly that of the utter desolation and ruin of which this was the emblem; of the perpetual destruction of the wicked, like that of the cities of the plain. If this had not been the case, there was no reason why he should have used the word “eternal” - meaning here “perpetual” - since, if in his mind there was no image of future punishment, all that the argument would have demanded was the simple statement that they were cut off by fire.

  The passage, then, cannot be used to prove that the particular dwellers in Sodom will be punished forever - whatever may be the truth on that point; but that there is a place of eternal punishment, of which that was a striking emblem. The meaning is, that the case was one which furnished a demonstration of the fact that God will punish sin; that this was an example of the punishment which God sometimes inflicts on sinners in this world, and a type of that eternal punishment which will be inflicted in the next.
• 

  objectivetruth

  Bobcat - I agree that there is only one "Judgement Day"

  The main goal of the organization is to maintain current membership, and increase as we'll.

  It seems to me that the GB realized how the Hell Doctrine works for other churches, so they decided to create the same type of fear inducing belief.

  At a recent public Talk, the Speaker concluded his talk like this.... So it is clear to see that there are only two sides.. You are either on Gods side in his earthly organization, or you are opposed and on Satan's side.. In the world. Thos on Satans side will perish at Armageddon.

  With out this scare tactic.. there numbers would without a doubt dwindle, quickly.
• 

  objectivetruth

  Band on the Run - The issue is that witnesses DO Not discuss these types of things EVER, most witnesses most likely have never even noticed Matthew 11:20-24

  The general conversation now is all Organizational and status related.

  And I agree with you that all of the discussion and argument over doctrine or interpretations is Un-Christian.

  Many witnesses, who have decided to leave the organization, are faced with never speaking with their friends and family again, and for this reason they have to fight for their new beliefs, and they have to figure out ways to sew seeds of doubt in their immediate circle of friends and family.

  May I ask how you have kept your faith strong? Have you associated with another church group or anything?
• 

  adamah

  Another point often overlooked is the original account of S&G in Genesis reflects the old concept of shared communal responsibility, with entire towns being punished for the sins of the majority. It was only later when the concept of each person standing before God on Judgment Day emerged, being judged on his merits and his alone (which actually reflects an older belief from Egyptian religion of having one's heart weighed on the scales after death).

  That sense of communial shared guilt for the sins of the other inhabitant is the reason for the scene in Genesis, where Abraham bargained with God on behalf of the unknown righteous men of Sodom, getting God to agree to spare the city, if only 10 righteous men could be found (where the starting number was 50; sucks if there were only 9 righteous men killed, since apparently thwo 'angels of death' lacked surgical precision, so there was alot of "collateral damage" and God needed some 'wiggle room'). That shared sense of responsibility for sins also applied to the Nation of Israel, where sins and bloodshed that wasn't handled properly in accord with Levitical law was said to leave a stain on the promised land, where the Children of Isreal faced being 'vomited out' (which is the explanation for why they were exiled to Babylon).

  So when Jesus was condemning these cities that refused to listen to his disciples, it would be analogous to Jesus condemning entire cities (LA, NY, etc) after a few-too-many doors were slammed on their faces, even though they might have left some literature at a few of the houses.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I am Anglican, high church. Sodom and Gomorrah is not a topic most people worry about today. I use mass transit and I don't know when I last heard someone say"Sodom and Gomorrah....."

  Within the past year, I read Karen Armstrong's book on Genesis. I don't recall what she had to say about S and G.

  I feel sorry for S and G. YHWH should go on a war crimes trial for S and G. YHWH has his super heroes in the Bible. They are not good people. Others aren't worth anything. Women and children are destroyed, too. It is hard to equate S and G with Jesus as God. The Bible is extremely racist. More than ten years ago, someone destroyed around 3,000 people b/c they were not pure. I was termed a crusader. It makes me wonder about S and G.
• 

  adamah

  BOTR said-

  YHWH has his super heroes in the Bible. They are not good people

  I thought you were going to the case of Samson, the prototype for radical extremist suicide bombers of all faiths, as the original 'Jihadist for Jehovah'.

  As a superhero of YHWH who was granted superhuman strength by God (as a Nazarite with long hair), Samson committed suicide by toppling the pillars of a pagan temple, taking the lives of the many Philistines gathered inside.

  In a day before anyone ever conceived of back-packs filled with C4 plastic explosives, Samson was the original terrorist suicide bomber. Same effect, right? Kiling in the name of God?

  PS Oh, did I mention that 'Paul' even mentions Samson specifically BY NAME (in the Chapter of Hebrews referred to as the "heroes of faith"), at Hebrews 11:32?

  Adam