Actions and consequences of Lot’s wife vs. David

by Yesu Kristo Bwana Wangu 29 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Yesu Kristo Bwana Wangu

  Drearyweather

  The point you make about Genesis 19:17 is really nice. I think I missed this meaning while reading the chapter.

  For me, it does not matter whether Lot considered them as angels or mere strangers. But he considered their message as God’s command and diligently acted upon it. In fact, some Early Hebrew manuscripts render Genesis 19:18 as "Oh no, Yahweh, please!....", i.e Lot considered them messengers or spokesmen of God.

  I think our discussion comes down to this point. For me, it is vital to know whether Lot and his family were aware of the fact that these men were angels. In my view, if they took this message as a message from men, they could not have been held accountable by God for their actions, since they did not know whether it was a commandment made by God. God is not a God of confusion, He would bring his message as clear as possible. The problem I think, is that it can not be said with certainty how this event really took place.

  I still think this event is unjust and Lot's wife did not deserve to get the punishment that she received, if you compare this to the actions of David. It seems out of proportion to me.
  
• 

  Yesu Kristo Bwana Wangu

  Punkofnice
  Oh well, that's me out of the discussion. I don't believe the Bible is accurate and certainly not the word of god.....god cannot possibly exist.

  1. I don't believe the Bible is accurate and certainly not the word of god

  2. God cannot possibly exist.

  If point 1 is the reason for you to not believe in God, I do not think you have a strong case. Point 1 does not necessarily lead to point 2. Of course God can exist. I understand that people think the Bible is inaccurate and not the Word of God, but that does not solve the question whether God exists or not.

  God can reveal Himself through for instance nature. No Bible involved there.

  You can never be sure that God does not exist. What are your reasons for it?

  
  
• 

  FedUpJW

  How can these two things ever be reconciled with each other?

  Easy. One was a woman, and we all know what view of women is presented by WTB&T$ supposedly backed up by the Bible. The other was what today would be one of the governing body. And we all know what view of themselves they have!
  
• 

  Yesu Kristo Bwana Wangu

  David Jay
  

  Remember, the word "tradition" means "teaching" or "doctine" in a theological context (very different from what Jehovah's Witnesses teach).
  JWs interpret "tradition" to mean that which originates with humans and not God, which of course makes 2 Thessalonians 2:15 unreadable

  I actually was not aware of this.I must say the teachings of the witnesses are still affecting me. I have to do more research to get rid of their influence. It makes sense what you say.
  

  The sources are very numerous as they cover secular and Jewish history, include comments from both the Jewish religion and secular archeology. How would you like to proceed? We are talking thousands and thousands and thousands of years of history.

  Do you know of some good books that address this topic? I do not need to get into all the traditions of the Jews. However, in relation to Biblical topics such as the story of Lot, it can most certainly clarify certain things (on the condition that we can trust these traditions of course).
• 

  David_Jay

  Yesu, it can be done. But what to accept (or "trust") may not ever happen. You may be looking for something JWs taught you needs to be searched for that isn't there at all. And learning how Judaism processes it's religious teachings is a tall order.

  You might want to begin by making an Internet search on Judaism's take on Lot's wife. Make sure the sources you are reading from are not Christian reiteration of Jewish thought of even Messianic Judaism. This will require that you do research on the sites themselves to guarantee that they are authentically Jewish.

  Then you are going to need to learn how to decipher the references. There will be attributions to Jewish sages and rabbis, the Mishnah, the Talmud, critical scholarship and conventional. These will have their own references. It will not be easy as it will take learning not only what the various sources are but why they are of value.

  Lastly you are going to have to get a Jewish friend, someone who either practices or teaches, someone that can lead you through this world of Judaica. This means you will have to leave the security of the Internet and hidden identities to meet people. You will probably need to go talk to a rabbi of two, preferably get views from the three main branches of Judaism in the process. You have to do this face to face as it will entail learning how to think Jewish and understand how the logical building blocks fit together in Jewish thinking.

  And in the end you are going to have to accept that Jews may recognize multiple and even contradictory explanations as there are no definitives in Jewish theology. It is not about coming to the one, true answer as much as accepting that you might never get it or even need it.
• 

  steve2

  In what way can you make sense of and reconcile ancient stories of human behaviour and its consequences? As this discussion shows, there are many ways. Whether you can explain them in such a manner as to declare "Divine" involvement is another story - one requiring a huge leap of faith.
  
• 

  David_Jay

  Steve2,

  Whether you realize it or not, you just expressed why the Jewish approach often results in such a different result from the JW.

  As scholar Amy Jill-Levine often points out to her students (an Orthodox Jew who teaches collegiate New Testament theology), 'if it didn't bother the ancient writers or Jewish people of old to compose and collect stories that defy historical reconciliation, then we are the ones causing a problem when we read them to make modern sense out of them.'

  In other words, as Steve2 points out, if they don't reconcile or make sense to modern logic, the the stories weren't meant to be reconciled or interpreted employing logic.

  No one complains that Aesop's fables cannot be reconciled with history or are unscientific. His work, "The North Wind and the Sun" is totally impossible. But does that mean that Aesop doesn't teach truths? He definitely does teach truths, very universal ones. He just doesn't use factual reports to teach truths.

  Judaism and Catholicism often agree that literalist interpretations of Sacred Scripture have done more damage than good. Demanding blood from turnips never results in blood. Sometimes it's not the fable that is at fault for being a fable, but the reader that demands that truth can only be reaped from the literal who creates the real problem.
• 

  punkofnice

  Bwana. God doesn't exist, never has, never will. Therefore, all so called Holy books including the Bible are just the writings of men and nothing more. I won't even give wiggle room for the possibility of a god; I can't, the god concept has been one huge let down.

  As for why god doesn't exist....l have far too much to say on that, so much so, I'd die of old age before I finish.

  If there was a world without god, what would it be like? Oh, wait a minute, we're living in that exact same scenario.

  Thanks for including me
• 

  tepidpoultry

  What I'm getting from David_Jay's last comment is that it has historically

  been a serious mistake to take accounts/stories from the Torah literally,

  To some degree Catholicism agrees with you

  Accounts such as the Noah-sian Deluge are generally treated as allegory

  The suggestion was made to treat such stories much as one might with

  Aesop's Fables,

  I am in agreement

  Cheers

  :0)
• 

  Drearyweather

  Thanks Yesu. For your comments:

  For me, it is vital to know whether Lot and his family were aware of the fact that these men were angels.

  I can understand your point here. There are many instances in the Bible where God’s people were not sure whether the messengers were angels or men. Even the angels themselves did not identify themselves while bringing God’s messages.

  For example, you can find Manoah’s Wife’s dilemma in Judges 13:6, “Then the woman went to her husband and told him, “A man of God came to me. He looked like an angel ….” Then Manoah’s question at verse 11, “Are you the man who talked to my wife?”. Even though they were still confused about this, they still believed what the angel told. In fact after the angel ascended in the flame to the heavens, did they realize as said in verse 21, “Manoah realized that it was the angel of the Lord.”. Throughout the incident, the angel did not reveal his name or his identity, but Manoah came to the right conclusion by the events that happened.

  Genesis Chapter 19 tells some interesting things for me to consider. As it happened in Manoah’s case, the messengers during Lot’s time did not identify themselves as angels. But three things that happened in the chapter that stood out for me:

  First, Gen. 19:11: “Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness.” This act by the visitors of Lot was the first indication that they were not ordinary men, but angels. Only angels were capable of doing such an act. In fact, after this particular incident, Lot used the name of God, Yahweh or Jehovah while telling about these men to his son in laws.

  Second, Gen. 19:21: “He said to him, “Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of.” It seems that Zoar was in the list of cities that God was to destroy. But God showed mercy and greatly reduced Lots running time and spared an entire city for their safety. Did Lot’s wife realize this mercy shown by God?

  Third, Gen. 19:24 “Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens.” Sulfur started raining down on Sodom as Lot and his family reached Zoar. In verse 21, the angel told, "I will not overthrow the town" With Sodom's destruction happening behind, and the town she was standing spared, did she not realize that those men were actual angelic messengers? Did she realize that she was now in a town that was destined for the same fate as Sodom? With all the destruction now taking place behind them, did Lot’s wife still doubt whether those men were angels or mere men? Did she realize that what those two men told was actually coming true? Was she still confused if the message was actually from God? If she still doubted after all this, I see a serious lack of faith here. Almost to the point of absurdity.

  
  

  they could not have been held accountable by God for their actions, since they did not know whether it was a commandment made by God.

  With all the events happening that day, were they still confused whether it was a commandment by God? What more should have God done apart from what he had already done for them?

  
  

  I still think this event is unjust

  For me, in the entire episode mentioned in Genesis 19, God showed mercy four times:

  1. · First, he saved Lot by blinding those who came to his door.
  2. · Second, even in such an urgent time, he gave Lot the opportunity to take along with him his son-in-laws (possibly Sodomites) and other relatives, if any.
  3. · Third, he safely brought them out of the city in time.
  4. · Fourth, he allowed them to go to Zoar (which was nearby) rather than to the mountainous region.

  
  

  In return, they were expected to follow only one command, “Do not look back.” Was this unjust? Not for me.

  In any case, Lord Jesus gave the command to "Remember the wife of Lot". and I remember her for her disobedience.

  But you can have your opinions and I respect it. Thanks Yesu, for the wonderful discussion.