Remember Lot's Wife

[posthuman]

So what is your point here?

that the sign of the pillar of salt is a lot more complex and meaningful than 'don't be like a dog that goes back to its vomit' & that the dog/vomit relationship possibly/probably is neither an appropriate nor correct understanding of the sign.


i want you to think about it. i'm not giving a sermon; i'm trying to get little sermons to appear in everyone's own minds as they ponder, ask, seek, knock & pray.

 

[Denadii]

that the sign of the pillar of salt is a lot more complex and meaningful than 'don't be like a dog that goes back to its vomit' & that the dog/vomit relationship possibly/probably is neither an appropriate nor correct understanding of the sign.


i want you to think about it. i'm not giving a sermon; i'm trying to get little sermons to appear in everyone's own minds as they ponder, ask, seek, knock & pray.

I have no problem with thinking/ praying about it. I'm wondering, though, why you think a the fact that she was turned into a pillar of salt is symbolic. Could you enlighten me? I mean, Not everything that happened/ happens in the bible is symbolic. There is a lot of cause and effect too.

At Pompeii thousands of people got turned into pillars of ash when a pyroclastic flow hit them. Not symbolic just simple cause and effect.

 

[posthuman]

I have no problem with thinking/ praying about it. I'm wondering, though, why you think a the fact that she was turned into a pillar of salt is symbolic. Could you enlighten me?

how could you think it isn't?

when do 'salt' or 'a pillar' not hold symbolic meaning in scripture?

the alternative is that the Holy Spirit inspired meaningless details. is that what you believe?

didn't Christ's advent and His Living Water open up the scriptures and show that He is written all over in them, and that no word Yah speaks falls to the ground or comes back to Him without achieving His purpose?

 

[Denadii]

how could you think it isn't?

when do 'salt' or 'a pillar' not hold symbolic meaning in scripture?

the alternative is that the Holy Spirit inspired meaningless details. is that what you believe?

didn't Christ's advent and His Living Water open up the scriptures and show that He is written all over in them, and that no word Yah speaks falls to the ground or comes back to Him without achieving His purpose?

They do not hold a symbolic nature when they do not.

the alternative is that the Holy Spirit inspired meaningless details. is that what you believe?

I believe that the Word said what happened. God was talking about a certain event. And all the parts of it. He was not talking prophetically. He was simply recounting that event.


"didn't Christ's advent and His Living Water open up the scriptures and show that He is written all over in them, and that no word Yah speaks falls to the ground or comes back to Him without achieving His purpose?"

Absolutely! But that is fact, not symbolic too. No Word of Yah goes back to Him without it accomplishes what it was sent to do. FACT Actually Every single word in the Book fits that criteria.

 

[MessageOfTheCross]

Jesus reminded the world of this episode by pointedly saying, "Remember Lot's wife" (Luke 17:32). Jesus also said: "No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God" (Luke 9:62).

Question? Was Lot's wife saved and became unsaved?


JSM bible commentary

 

[posthuman]

for every one with fire shall be salted, and every sacrifice with salt shall be salted. The salt [is] good, but if the salt may become saltless, in what will ye season [it]? Have in yourselves salt, and have peace in one another.
(Mark 9:49-50, YLT)
​

salt is good.
salt is necessary for every sacrifice that is not of blood:

Every grain offering of yours, moreover, you shall season with salt, so that the salt of the covenant of your God shall not be lacking from your grain offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt.
(Leviticus 2:13, NASB)​

Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
(Matthew 5:13-14)​

in Mark, the phrase is literally "if the salt is no longer salt" - which is not possible.
in Matthew ((and in the parallel verse in Luke 14)) this is not the same phrase.

"if the salt loses its savour" is probably not a good translation, although if you think about it in the right way, you will understand the right meaning -- but it is not a faithfully literal translation at all.

[TABLE="class: maintext, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: strongsnt"]1437[e][/TD]
[TD="class: translit"]ean[/TD]
[TD="class: greek2"]ἐὰν[/TD]
[TD="class: eng"]if[/TD]
[TD="class: pos"]Conj[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: strongsnt"]1161[e][/TD]
[TD="class: translit"]de[/TD]
[TD="class: greek2"]δὲ[/TD]
[TD="class: eng"]however[/TD]
[TD="class: pos"]Conj[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: strongsnt"]3588[e][/TD]
[TD="class: translit"]to[/TD]
[TD="class: greek2"]τὸ[/TD]
[TD="class: eng"]the[/TD]
[TD="class: pos"]Art-NNS[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: strongsnt"]217[e][/TD]
[TD="class: translit"]halas[/TD]
[TD="class: greek2"]ἅλας[/TD]
[TD="class: eng"]salt[/TD]
[TD="class: pos"]N-NNS[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: strongsnt"]3471[e][/TD]
[TD="class: translit"]mōranthē[/TD]
[TD="class: greek2"]μωρανθῇ,[/TD]
[TD="class: eng"]becomes tasteless,[/TD]
[TD="class: pos"]V-ASP-3S[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

"become tasteless" isn't literal either.

look:

STRONGS NT 3471: μωραίνω

μωραίνω: 1 aorist ἐμωρανα; 1 aorist passive ἐμωράνθην; (μωρός);

1. in classical Greek to be foolish, to act foolishly.
2. in Biblical Greek

​

a. to make foolish: passive Romans 1:22 (Isaiah 19:11; Jeremiah 10:14; 2 Samuel 24:10); equivalent to to prove a person or thing to be foolish: τήν σοφίαν τοῦ κόσμου, 1 Corinthians 1:20 (τήνβουλήν αὐτῶν, Isaiah 44:25).

b. to make flat and tasteless: passive of salt that has lost its strength and flavor, Matthew 5:13; Luke 14:34.
​

note that definition 'b' appears to be given only by human interpretation in order to make Matthew 5:13 and Luke 14:34 make sense.
in other words, this isn't the meaning of the word -- the word means "to be convicted of foolishness" or "to become foolish"
but the translators, not seeing that this made any sense to them, chose to invent a new definition that they thought 'fit' this saying.

literally, here Christ says:

"you are the salt of the earth; if the salt becomes foolish, what will you salt it with?"

thereby He is making it very plain that "salt" is symbolic.
NaCl does not possess qualities of wisdom/foolishness.
NaCl does not in any ordinary circumstance cease to be NaCl.

[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
why did Lot's wife become a pillar of salt?

 

[posthuman]

Question? Was Lot's wife saved and became unsaved?

she was taken by the hand, by angels, and removed from the place condemned to judgement.
the mercies of God were upon her.
she was not destroyed in the judgement of the city: Sodom was burned with brimstone; she became a pillar of salt.

• are the mercies of God removed capriciously?
  
• is the gift of God revocable?
  
• are those spared the condemnation of judgement "saved"?

if you believe salvation can be lost by glancing over your shoulder, i think you may not get the sign of Lot's wife right.

 

[posthuman]

**bump**

 

[justahumanbeing]

Don't have so much time with me to read through all the threads. As someone said, Lot's wife disobeyed. Jesus was simply implying not to look back but live in the present in that particular passage which you began this topic with.

Jesus was talking about those who follow Him to be at the ready.

He was always taking about "Being Ready". That He would come like a thief? No one knows the hour except God. Not even the Son. Only the Father knows.

Zeroing in on Lot's wife is unnecessary instead of absorbing what the passage really means and what Jesus is trying to convey.

Be ready. That's it.

 

[posthuman]

**bump**

@tourist because cv5 shared a sermon on the topic in a pm with a bunch of us.. and it was asked why not make a thread lol

 

[posthuman]

Don't have so much time with me to read through all the threads. As someone said, Lot's wife disobeyed. Jesus was simply implying not to look back but live in the present in that particular passage which you began this topic with.

That does not make any sense in the context of the passage.
He is answering questions about when the tribulation will take place, what will be the sign of the end of the age, and of His coming again. these are not about 'living in the moment' but about watching for what is yet to come, to be ready - and by telling us to remember her He is specifically instructing us to 'look back' recalling the past and learning from it.

He also says in this immediate context that those who seek to save their lives will lose it and those who lose their lives for His sake will be preserved. Lot's wife is clearly not trying to save her life - she's turning back to a burning building full of people who have just sworn to torture and murder her on sight.

And she is preserved, in salt, made a pillar and a sign to the Jews in the tribulation.

why is she running into certain death?
For a garlic and leek sandwich or to try to save her children?

What is the message to believing Jews in the tribulation, when the Antichrist will attempt to torture and murder them all?
go hide under a rock? try to preserve your life? or go preach the gospel and try to save as many as you can, even though doing so is almost certainly going to get you killed?

 

[posthuman]

Zeroing in on Lot's wife is unnecessary

Jesus said remember her.
so.

i am not ashamed to study the scripture seriously. it is exactly what we are supposed to do.

 

[posthuman]

As someone said, Lot's wife disobeyed

so did Lot. multiple times.

so if God kills people for so much as a glance over the shoulder why does 2 Peter 2 call Lot an example of righteousness but his wife is supposedly an example of great evil?

He flat out refused to go to the mountains and begged to stay in the plain, in direct contradiction to the angels command.
why isn't he destroyed on the spot if that's the supposed moral of the story? instead God spares the wicked city of Zoar because of Lot's disobedience. what's going on here?

That doesn't make sense.
so i contend it is not the 'moral' here.

 

[posthuman]

Lot's wife is clearly not trying to save her life - she's turning back to a burning building full of people who have just sworn to torture and murder her on sight.

she is willingly giving up her life, for someone's sake

 

[oyster67]

why Lot's wife?

As we all know, Lots wife was and is infamous for disobeying the command of the Lord and looking back towards Sodom. When we flee from sin and darkness, it needs to be a heart thing as well as a foot thing.

in this specific context, why Lot's wife?

Let's look at the specific context (as you yourself posted)...

but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.
On that day, the one who is on the housetop and whose goods are in the house must not go down to take them out; and likewise the one who is in the field must not turn back. Remember Lot’s wife.

Note the context directly preceding, "must not turn back". It will be a similar situation when "the Son of Man is revealed."

what is it about her that we should remember?

That her heart was not right with God. Her heart still longed for the ways of the world - to the point that she even disobeyed a direct command from the Lord.

something specific to her, specific to what these Hebrew men would have known immediately about her, right?
not something that could have been said about anyone else, but something about Lot's wife in particular?

Sadly, this was not specific to her. Many perished that day. It is just that she was the one who was memorialized as a warning to future generations.

what is it about Lot's wife we should remember, and why?
in the context of what Christ is saying and who He's saying it to?

On the day of our Lord's return, it is imperative that our hearts be right with God.

 

[oyster67]

she is willingly giving up her life, for someone's sake

You must be thinking of the story of Esther. We can't mix and mingle Bible stories like drinks at a bar. These are real historical events (not to be confused with the Christian Fiction that some pastors like to entertain their congregations with on Sunday morning.)

 

[posthuman]

That her heart was not right with God. Her heart still longed for the ways of the world - to the point that she even disobeyed a direct command from the Lord

The text does not say any of this about her, and it makes no sense at all unless she is a complete idiot. just moments before this her home is surrounded by all the men of the city and they are promising to torture and murder her on sight. she has just been supernaturally carried out of the city by an angel, right after witnessing them supernaturally blind the men.

There can be no reasonable doubt in her mind that the angels will in fact destroy the whole city and that if any man in the city finds her she will be horribly and mercilessly slain by them.
What possible 'way of the world' could she be running knowingly to certain death for? one last leek smoothie? does she want to go dancing? did she forgot her cigarettes?
none of this makes sense.

The only thing that makes sense is that she is a mother willing to risk her life to try to save her children that remain in the city.
Lot never spoke to their other daughters, only their husbands. and they clearly have also two sons that he didn't speak to either, even though the angels told him to.
This is the only reasonable motive for Mrs. Lot to do what she is doing.


And of disobedience, we can say the same thing about Lot, who not only failed to witness to his children, and not only hesitated when the angels ordered him to flee, but also refused the direct commandment to get out if the plain and flee to the mountains. he instead contradicts the commandment, refusing to obey it, claiming he will die if he obeys it as though God cannot preserve him, and begs to go to one of the wicked cities about to be destroyed.

Lot seeks to preserve his life.
his wife is 100% willing to give hers up.

 

[cv5]

That her heart was not right with God. Her heart still longed for the ways of the world - to the point that she even disobeyed a direct command from the Lord.

Untrue. This disobedience was similar to the INTENTIONAL disobedience of Adam, who knew salvation was certain. It was in fact a self-sacrificing disobedience. I wonder if Lot was doing something similar in his disobedience as well? I mean it's not like the whole region of the plain was not totally wrecked and unlivable.

Sadly, this was not specific to her. Many perished that day. It is just that she was the one who was memorialized as a warning to future generations.

And that is the standard latter day interpretation......which is utterly wrong. Similar to the error of espousing that Adam was a weak, blithering idiot, and that Jesus at Gethsemane was full of fear (even for an instant) and sought (even for an instant) to preserve His life.

 

[cv5]

Jesus said remember her.
so.

Remember her in a positive reaffirming way. As are the rest of the "remember" statements made to the disciples.
This "remember" issued to the Jews in the future tribulation. The typology is intentional and irrefutable.
Flood = Babel =Sodom = Tribulation

 

[posthuman]

I wonder if Lot was doing something similar in his disobedience as well? I mean it's not like the whole region of the plain was not totally wrecked and unlivable.

i wonder if they didn't have a plan.
The angels tell Lot they can't destroy the city until he reaches Zoar. how long does this take? is he buying time for his wife to try to reach their children?

Because what he does makes no sense on the surface. why disobey the command to go to the mountains? he ends up their anyway with his daughters in the next part of the narrative. he doesn't stay in Zoar.

so what is he doing? why is he hesitating while he's in Sodom? why is he refusing to obey outside the city? why is he giving the ridiculous excuse that he doesn't think he can make it the mountains when an angel has literally teleported him out of Sodom a whopping 90 seconds ago??


asking basic questions like this helps us to understand what's really happening here, why God is giving us this account. it is never so simple as 'sin is bad' - - this is a complex testimony of Christ, teaching us about salvation and the person of God.