Interesting text

[Stan]

“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49).

Made me stop and think...

[Amelia]

Who were her daughters?

And FYI here is the web site for the Ezekiel bread compnay.

http://foodforlife.com/index.asp

[NormF]

As I understand it, Chapter 16 is an allegory about unfaithful Jerusalem. Sodom is being referred to as her sister city. "Sodom's daughters" seems best to represent those who lived there. There are additional references to Sodom as the chapter goes along.

But as you read through that chapter, it seems that, unlike the Christendom of the last several centuries, including our time, God is a good deal more worked up over Jerusalem's sins than Sodom's, according to Ezekial anyway (v32-48). When you read that whole thing, there's some heavy stuff against Jerusalem in that section. In fact, God says she makes Sodom look good; and never in the whole diatribe is what Sodom's done referred to with anything close to the terms brought against Jerusalem.

Is it possible we've gotten things skewed in our time and aren't weighing the balances rightly? ... a bit more concerned about what we think He said about those Sodomites than what He said He was unhappy with? This Biblical author sure presents a different take on it than what is currently presented by most. If it was the same kind of issue back then that it is now, and burned with the same intensity in that era as now, somehow Ezekial didn't seem to know about it. Either that, or he was pretty good at ignoring it.

Jesus did recommend that we should be more concerned about the weightier things, yet even if our take and His were both correct, which is doubtful ... I don't think I want to go down this road either. This latter notion smacks of being a doubly doubtful assumption in my mind (at best!).

Evidence like this, in Ezekial, shoots down a whole string of post-Biblical, current assumptions about Sodom and her children.

It's food for thought.

Regards,

Norm

[Tom Wetmore]

The traditional belief that the sin of Sodom was homosexual sex really is not well supported by Scripture. The Lord's conversation with Abraham gives no indication of specific sins. It is too easy to assume that the conduct of the gang of men towards Lot's angelic guests was the primary sin of Sodom. All of us good heterosexuals are much more comfortable seeing such extremely harsh and final judgment executed on a sin for which we haven't even the slightest temptation. Now a callous and arrogant disregard for the poor cuts a little too close for comfort... Oddly, the conduct of Lot offering his own daughters to the men seems to go quite unrebuked by the angels. One would assume that such a callous regard for ones own daughters would have taken Lot off the Sodom rescue list. And if those save-worthy daughters were so sexually pure, they certainly didn't show it after leaving Sodom with their father... (See "the rest of the story"...)

Since the sin of Sodom identified in Ezekiel is more consistent with a theme that is repeated throughout Scripture, especially as articulated and exemplified by Jesus, I would say that it comes closer to the heart of God and more clearly explains why he was so grieved at Sodom. Jesus' description, as recorded in Matthew 25, of the final judgment hinges on this very idea. If, as has been clearly indicated elsewhere in Scripture, that very end of time will be as it was in Sodom, we should be far more concerned about mercy and compassion toward others and less concerned about homosexual sins.

Tom

:2cents:

[Bravus]

Two more cents: the actions of the gang of men toward the angels was about rape, not about consensual, loving relationships. Rape is something we'd all decry, so the case of Sodom alone tells us basically nothing about how God regards homosexuality.

It's also interesting to note that:

The issue the Bible talks about most often, over and over again, is how you treat the poorest and most vulnerable in your society. That’s the issue the prophets raise again and again, and Jesus talks about it more than any other topic, more than heaven or hell, more than sex or morality. (Jim Wallis)

[DaveM1936]

Ezekiel is one of the most difficult books in the Bible to understand. I have avoided it for a long time. Recently I decided to not only read it through but to study it. A careful look causes to find a long list of sins that makes God "angry".

Murder.

Theivery

Sleeping with a mother, sister, or a neighbor's wife.

Worshiping idols instead of God

Depending on Eygpt instead of God.

Not obeying the terms of the peace treaty with Babylon.

Crimes of violence on the part of the leaders of the nation.

Taking advantage of widows, the poor.

Mistreating the strangers who unsuspectedly entered the nation.

The arrogance of the strong.

They listened to false prophets who predicts peace.

Killing their children on heathen altars.

They had outsinned their heathen neighbors.

The constant theme of God's messages is "They shall know that I am the Lord."

The basic problem was that their minds were set on themselves. They would do to anyone whatever was needed to get what they wanted. God cares a great deal about how loving we treat others, forgetting our own needs.

Does this sound like present day society?

Your friend,

Dave M

[NormF]

This is becoming a fruitful thread, Dave. That's more food for thought ...

[NormF]

As an aside, one wonders why Ezekiel made the distinction of enunumerating mother, sister, or a neighbor's wife instead of just anyone not your wife? Or in less gender-loaded terms "wife/husband."

(If this pulls the thread off-topic, Bravus, dig it up and replant it.)

Regards,

Norm