jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/26/91)
In article <May.24.00.27.31.1991.29719@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes:
+
+I really don't think that Genesis means to imply that Lot's wife sinned
+by looking back, and that as a result she was turned into a pillar of salt.
There are a number of cases in the Bible wherein a person is struck
dead for various infractions. As to the 'sinfulness' of these
people, one can assume that the Diety would not strike non-sinners dead.
+son-in-laws had to hurry out of town. Lot's wife turned to look back,
+and in that moment of hesitation, she was lost.
As for the details of the 'looking back' the Bible is silent on
motive, duration, position.
As for why Sodom was distroyed, one Christian told me that it was
not due to the particular 'sins' involved but because, "everyone did
that which was right in his own eyes". Now I can not find this
seemingly 'biblical' quote which would verify this statement. Has
anyone else heard this line of reasoning and have some supporting
text for proof?
The reason this fellow brought it up was in critique of the modern
idea "well, we'll just do what we think is right".
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
[In Gen 13:13 it is simply said that the men of Sodom were wicked,
great sinners against the Lord. Sodom is referred to several other
times in the Bible. In most of them it is simply an example of what
will happen to God's people if they don't stop sinning. No specific
sin is mentioned. In Ez 16:49 it is said that they had pride and
prosperity, and did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty,
and did abominable things. In Wisd 19:13 they are condemned for their
hatred of strangers. In Mat 10:14-15 (= LK 10:11ff) and Mat 11:24
Sodom is associated at least indirectly with not recognizing God's
messengers (this would fit with mistreating the angels, and with the
Jewish tradition that their sin was a failure of hospitality) Jude 1:7
refers to fornication and "going after strange flesh" (which has been
taken to mean homosexuality, but seems like an odd expression for it.
Boswell takes it as a reference to a Jewish legend that the women of
Sodom had intercourse with the angels.) --clh]hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/27/91)
In article <May.26.02.55.45.1991.14279@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >Jewish tradition that their sin was a failure of hospitality) Jude 1:7 >refers to fornication and "going after strange flesh" (which has been >taken to mean homosexuality, but seems like an odd expression for it. >Boswell takes it as a reference to a Jewish legend that the women of >Sodom had intercourse with the angels.) --clh] The verse before does mention the angels that left their own habitat, and are reserved in chains of darkness (which is also mentioned, in a longer list of things, in II Peter 2.) Perhaps this is a reference to the sons of God who had children with the daughters of men. The next verse speaks of the Gomorrhans and Sodomites (a loaded word) who gave themselves over to fornication and went after strange flesh. maybe the reference refers to both going after angels and homosexuality (a double whamy: no wonder they were destroyed.) The men of the city did want to have homosexual relations with angels, according to the Scriptures. maybe this is what Jude is talking about. Is ther any Jewish tradition that the angels who took human wives were put in chains of darkness, or could that possibly be a teaching of Christ, that the apostles passed down in their letters. (or the apostle and the Lord's brother.) Link Hudson. [Sorry, I don't know anything more about the tradition than what I mentioned, although I can probably come up with a reference to track down if you want to. --clh]
yvonne@well.sf.ca.us (Yvonne Lee) (06/02/91)
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes: >Is ther any Jewish tradition that the angels who took human wives were >put in chains of darkness, or could that possibly be a teaching of >Christ, that the apostles passed down in their letters. (or the >apostle and the Lord's brother.) Link Hudson. There's a tradition called the Watchers that said sin entered the world when "The sons of god looked on the daughters of men, and saw that they were fair." This is mentioned briefly in Genesis, right before the flood. When you see the word "Nephilim" in scripture, it refers to the descendents of these unions. Although there is not much reference to the Watcher theory in scripture itself, it seems to be in other ancient literature, as scholars have studied it extensively. Jesus and his disciples were probably refering to this extracanonical literature when they talked about these angels being put in chains.
tblake@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Tom Blake) (06/03/91)
In article <May.26.02.55.45.1991.14279@athos.rutgers.edu>, jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: |>In article <May.24.00.27.31.1991.29719@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake, That's Me!) writes: |>+ |>+I really don't think that Genesis means to imply that Lot's wife sinned |>+by looking back, and that as a result she was turned into a pillar of salt. |> |>There are a number of cases in the Bible wherein a person is struck |>dead for various infractions. As to the 'sinfulness' of these |>people, one can assume that the Diety would not strike non-sinners dead. Why can one assume that? God can cause a man to be born blind in order that the grace of God might be shown. God can send his son (who was without sin) to die a violent, painful death on a cross to serve his purposes. Why can't a just non-sinner be struck dead? (Were Job's family all sinners?) Genesis 19:12-17 12 The two men said to Lot, "If you have anyone else here - sons, daughters, sons-in-law, or any other relatives living in the city - get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The Lord has heard the terrible accusations against these people and has send us to destroy Sodom." 14 Then Lot went to the men that his daughters were going to marry, and said, "Hurry up and get out of here; the Lord is going to destroy this place." But they thought he was joking. 15 At dawn the angels tried to make Lot hurry, "Quick!" they said, "Take your wife and your two daughters and get out, so that you will not lose your lives when the city is destroyed." 16 Lot hesitated. The Lord, however had pity on him; so the men took him, his wife, and his two daughters by the hand and led them out of the city. 17 Then one of the angels said, "Run for your lives! Don't look back and don't stop in the valley. Run to the hills, so that you won't be killed. (TEV) So, basically it seems that if Lot or his family had stayed in Sodom, they would have been killed. (Period) This was not a selective death like the death of the first-born in Egypt. The cities in the valley were reduced to smoking ruins. The devestation was so great, that Lot's daughters apparantly thought the three of them were the only ones left alive in the whole world! The message to me seems quite clear. Get out of town, get as far away as you can, and get shelter, 'cause this whole place is going sky high! |>+son-in-laws had to hurry out of town. Lot's wife turned to look back, |>+and in that moment of hesitation, she was lost. |> |>As for the details of the 'looking back' the Bible is silent on |>motive, duration, position. Well, I think we can draw some conclusions from what it does say though... Gensis 19:23-25 23 The sun was rising when Lot reached Zoar. 24 Suddenly the Lord rained burning sulfur on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah 25 and destroyed them and the whole valley, along with all the people there and everything that grew on the land. 26 But Lot's wife looked back and was turned into a pillar of salt. (TEV) Okay, so the Lord was going to destroy the valley, whether or not Lot made it to safety. Just as he makes it to shelter, the valley is destroyed, completely and utterly. But his wife, (who "looked back"), was killed instantaneously. Sounds to me like a race against the clock. Lot and his daughters won, Lot's wife lost, and the only explanation of why she lost was that she "looked back". To go along with my nuclear device analogy, imagine this. Maybe, Lot's wife made it to Zoar. Maybe she made the mistake of looking out the gate when the city was destroyed. (With the flash from a nuclear device, this could be a fatal mistake.) Jesus seems to make it quite clear in the Gospels, (I can't find the citation, sorry, perhaps one of you with your fancy on-line bibles can help me), that sometimes people are just killed. Not, because they were bad, just because things happened to work out that way. (I'm thinking of his explaining about the people who were killed in the collapse of a tower... Chuck, can you help me out on this one?) Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton [You're thinking of Luke 13:1 ff, but it's not clear that Jesus was saying their death was random. While Jesus says that they weren't worse sinners than anyone else, he uses their death (as well as another case) as a warning. The obvious meaning is that they died because of their sins, and if you don't repent you'll get yours too. The Anchor Bible commentary manages to defuse this warning: repent now, because a similar catastrophe might happen to you, and if you hadn't repented by then you'd be in trouble. The obvious interpretation raises so many problems that I'm sympathetic with this reading, but I'm not sure it's what the passage really meant. --clh]
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (06/04/91)
In article <Jun.3.00.10.51.1991.27655@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Tom Blake) writes: + +Why can one assume that? God can cause a man to be born blind in order that +the grace of God might be shown. God can send his son (who was without sin) +to die a violent, painful death on a cross to serve his purposes. Why can't +a just non-sinner be struck dead? (Were Job's family all sinners?) Was it the Diety or the Adversary who caused the death of the sons and daughters? +So, basically it seems that if Lot or his family had stayed in Sodom, >they would During the barganing session between the Diety and Abraham, why wasn't Lot considered as a 'resident' of Sodom? It would seem that if Lot lived there then at least one 'righteous' person who lived there and hence would fufil the bargan. But Lot is not considered so Lot is not righteous or Lot did not live there. -- John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu [The bargaining ended with 10. The people saved were Lot, his wife, and their two daughters. This is fewer than 10, and so not enough to justify saving the city under the terms of the bargain. In fact there's no reference to this bargaining in the account of Lot or the actual destruction. Those who believe in such things may well believe that there are two different sources involved. But there's no real contradiction. --clh]