Proverbs 14 v 15
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 26, 2022
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 20,550
66 in the UK
When God's Servants Moved
- Thread starter BibleLover
- Start date
BibleLover
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2023
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 929
One aspect of Jesus’ prophecy about fleeing from Jerusalem to the mountains that deserves deeper reflection is the importance not only of where the first-century Christians fled, but also when they fled.
History shows that the Christians who obeyed Jesus’ warning eventually fled to Pella, a city of the Decapolis east of the Jordan. But Pella was not simply chosen because it was outside Judea. It combined several important factors:
. It was outside the main Jewish war zone.
. It was not a center of Jewish nationalism or rebellion.
. It was unlikely to become a major Roman military target.
. Unlike fortified mountain strongholds such as Gamla or Masada, Pella was not militarized or symbolic of resistance.
This is very significant because Josephus records that after the massacre at Caesarea in 66 CE, Jewish reprisals broke out against Gentile cities of the Decapolis, including Pella itself. If Christians had fled too early, before Jesus’ sign was fulfilled, they might actually have arrived during the violence itself and placed themselves in grave danger.
Their survival therefore depended not only on knowing where to go, but also when to act.
Interestingly, after those reprisals, parts of Pella were weakened or depopulated, leaving abandoned homes, farmland and access to water. This may have made the city viable for peaceful Christian refugees. Yet this does not necessarily mean the remaining inhabitants welcomed Jewish Christians. Rather, the conditions simply allowed a small non-violent group to settle there without major organized resistance.
This strongly suggests that the first-century Christians acted, not out of panic, but with spiritual discernment and guidance. They neither fled too early nor too late. They waited until Jesus’ sign became evident, then acted decisively.
This raises an important question regarding the larger fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy.
Jesus connected Jerusalem’s desolation with a future great tribulation affecting the inhabited earth. He also directed readers to “use discernment” regarding the prophecy of Daniel where he repeatedly speaks about:
. the removal of the constant feature,
. the profanation of the sanctuary,
. and the placing of “the disgusting thing that causes desolation.”
In Daniel chapters 8 and 11, these themes appear connected with:
. the trampling of God’s holy place,
. the activity of the king of the north,
. and events linked to the time of the end.
What especially stands out from Jesus’ prophecy is that God’s servants were not instructed to act out of constant fear or speculation. The first-century Christians survived because they:
. remained spiritually alert,
. recognized the sign,
. waited for the proper moment,
. and acted decisively when the time arrived.
That balance between alertness and panic remains extremely important for Christians today.
History shows that the Christians who obeyed Jesus’ warning eventually fled to Pella, a city of the Decapolis east of the Jordan. But Pella was not simply chosen because it was outside Judea. It combined several important factors:
. It was outside the main Jewish war zone.
. It was not a center of Jewish nationalism or rebellion.
. It was unlikely to become a major Roman military target.
. Unlike fortified mountain strongholds such as Gamla or Masada, Pella was not militarized or symbolic of resistance.
This is very significant because Josephus records that after the massacre at Caesarea in 66 CE, Jewish reprisals broke out against Gentile cities of the Decapolis, including Pella itself. If Christians had fled too early, before Jesus’ sign was fulfilled, they might actually have arrived during the violence itself and placed themselves in grave danger.
Their survival therefore depended not only on knowing where to go, but also when to act.
Interestingly, after those reprisals, parts of Pella were weakened or depopulated, leaving abandoned homes, farmland and access to water. This may have made the city viable for peaceful Christian refugees. Yet this does not necessarily mean the remaining inhabitants welcomed Jewish Christians. Rather, the conditions simply allowed a small non-violent group to settle there without major organized resistance.
This strongly suggests that the first-century Christians acted, not out of panic, but with spiritual discernment and guidance. They neither fled too early nor too late. They waited until Jesus’ sign became evident, then acted decisively.
This raises an important question regarding the larger fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy.
Jesus connected Jerusalem’s desolation with a future great tribulation affecting the inhabited earth. He also directed readers to “use discernment” regarding the prophecy of Daniel where he repeatedly speaks about:
. the removal of the constant feature,
. the profanation of the sanctuary,
. and the placing of “the disgusting thing that causes desolation.”
In Daniel chapters 8 and 11, these themes appear connected with:
. the trampling of God’s holy place,
. the activity of the king of the north,
. and events linked to the time of the end.
What especially stands out from Jesus’ prophecy is that God’s servants were not instructed to act out of constant fear or speculation. The first-century Christians survived because they:
. remained spiritually alert,
. recognized the sign,
. waited for the proper moment,
. and acted decisively when the time arrived.
That balance between alertness and panic remains extremely important for Christians today.
BibleLover
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2023
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 929
Last week we considered Sarah during the book study meeting. The Organization insist that Abraham was right when he deceived Pharaoh. But if we examine it carefully, when Abram asked Sarah to say that she was his sister and not his wife, what worried him more? His life or that Pharaoh wouldn't sleep with his wife? Obviously his life, because if Sarah had claimed to be his wife, Pharaoh would have had to kill Abraham to marry her. What motivated him to do that? Just selfishness or something more important to justify it? He knew that God had promised him a big nation. As he hadn't yet had descendants, he might have thought that he needed to do something to protect his life, as if God would need us to deceive and put your wife on risk of commiting idolatry to fulfill his promise.
And here comes the greatest irony with the servant Hagar that Pharaoh gave him. Sarah wasn't worried about her husband sleeping with an egiptian woman; she might have also been interested in having the son God promised her husband. As if God needed adultery to fulfill His purpose.
Lessons:
1. We reap what we sow, selfish actions breed selfishness. Abraham made his wife Sarah to lie and put herself on risk of commiting adultery with an egiptian. His wife did the same, making her husband to commit adultery with an egyptian woman to have the promised son
2. Jehovah does not need us to sin to fulfill His purpose. He doesn't need us to lie, deceive or to commit adultery to fulfill his promises.
Last edited:
Patricia
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2021
- Messages
- 1,156
- Reaction score
- 5,899
Agreed!
I had so hoped this book we're now studying was gonna be worth something but so far, it's not.
My opinion is that some of the scriptures are included in the Bible to show us what not to do.
That's how I view these episodes with Abraham and Sarah. Was it a lack of understanding or a lack of faith? Regardless, the behavior was wrong. Why can't watchtower call it like it is?
I was yelling at my phone as I was listening in on the study when they were talking about Isaac's name meaning laughter. They have it in the book that Sarah was laughing with joy at overhearing the angel say that she would have a son.
Yeah right. I'm 90 and some guy is outside with my husband predicting that I'm gonna have a baby next year. Ya think I'm gonna laugh with joy?
Pretty sure she thought it was highly unlikely. Abraham didn't laugh with joy either, but fell on his face laughing. Something akin to roflol. I can just hear him say, "Surely you are joking, Lord."
I really don't understand how they come up with this stuff. Smh
BibleLover
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2023
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 929
Lot was also confronted with an extreme situation in Genesis 19. When the men of Sodom demanded that the visitors be brought outside, Lot offered his two daughters instead:
“Please, here are my two daughters who have never had relations with a man. Please, let me bring them out to you. Then do to them what seems good in your eyes.” — Genesis 19:8
His priority was protecting the male visitors, who were actually angels. From a human perspective, Lot may have considered this the lesser of two evils. But morally, he was willing to sacrifice the safety and sexual integrity of his own daughters.
Then, after the destruction of Sodom, his daughters made their own terrible decisions. They became convinced that there was no future for them except through their father, got him drunk, and had sexual relations with him. — Genesis 19:30-38.
The Bible does not say they did this because they consciously thought, “Our father sacrificed us, so now we will do the same.” But there is a remarkable family resemblance in the underlying mentality: When confronted with a crisis, preserve your future at any cost.
Lot was willing to sacrifice something morally precious to solve an immediate problem. His daughters later used a morally outrageous method to secure what they perceived as their only future. And this connects with the Abraham-Sarah discussion.
Abraham: “How do I preserve my life when God's promise seems threatened?”
Sarah: “How do we obtain the promised offspring when circumstances seem impossible?”
Lot: “How do I protect these visitors when the mob is demanding them?”
In each case, God's servants faced circumstances in which obedience appeared to conflict with immediate survival or the future. And human reasoning produced problematic solutions.
That gives us a broader principle:
When fear convinces us that we must secure the outcome ourselves, we can begin making compromises that we would never make under normal circumstances.
This is particularly relevant to our situation about famine, war and the coming tribulation. The danger is not simply being afraid. The danger is allowing fear to convince us:
“I have to do whatever is necessary to preserve my life, my family, my possessions or my future because God wants me to be part of the Great Crowd"
Jesus gave almost the opposite principle:
“Whoever wants to save his life will lose it.” — Matthew 16:25
That doesn't mean deliberately putting ourselves or others in danger. It means that preserving our present life cannot become more important than faithfulness to Jehovah.
And that gives us an interesting connection between Abraham, Lot and Jesus: Abraham and Lot sometimes tried to solve extraordinary threats through human reasoning, whereas Jesus, when faced with the ultimate threat to his life, refused to let even Peter's well-intentioned attempt to save him divert him from God's purpose.
“Please, here are my two daughters who have never had relations with a man. Please, let me bring them out to you. Then do to them what seems good in your eyes.” — Genesis 19:8
His priority was protecting the male visitors, who were actually angels. From a human perspective, Lot may have considered this the lesser of two evils. But morally, he was willing to sacrifice the safety and sexual integrity of his own daughters.
Then, after the destruction of Sodom, his daughters made their own terrible decisions. They became convinced that there was no future for them except through their father, got him drunk, and had sexual relations with him. — Genesis 19:30-38.
The Bible does not say they did this because they consciously thought, “Our father sacrificed us, so now we will do the same.” But there is a remarkable family resemblance in the underlying mentality: When confronted with a crisis, preserve your future at any cost.
Lot was willing to sacrifice something morally precious to solve an immediate problem. His daughters later used a morally outrageous method to secure what they perceived as their only future. And this connects with the Abraham-Sarah discussion.
Abraham: “How do I preserve my life when God's promise seems threatened?”
Sarah: “How do we obtain the promised offspring when circumstances seem impossible?”
Lot: “How do I protect these visitors when the mob is demanding them?”
In each case, God's servants faced circumstances in which obedience appeared to conflict with immediate survival or the future. And human reasoning produced problematic solutions.
That gives us a broader principle:
When fear convinces us that we must secure the outcome ourselves, we can begin making compromises that we would never make under normal circumstances.
This is particularly relevant to our situation about famine, war and the coming tribulation. The danger is not simply being afraid. The danger is allowing fear to convince us:
“I have to do whatever is necessary to preserve my life, my family, my possessions or my future because God wants me to be part of the Great Crowd"
Jesus gave almost the opposite principle:
“Whoever wants to save his life will lose it.” — Matthew 16:25
That doesn't mean deliberately putting ourselves or others in danger. It means that preserving our present life cannot become more important than faithfulness to Jehovah.
And that gives us an interesting connection between Abraham, Lot and Jesus: Abraham and Lot sometimes tried to solve extraordinary threats through human reasoning, whereas Jesus, when faced with the ultimate threat to his life, refused to let even Peter's well-intentioned attempt to save him divert him from God's purpose.
BibleLover
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2023
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 929
It could be interesting to examine why the Organization moved its world headquarters from Brooklyn to Warwick, and to compare that decision with the biblical examples we have been discussing about migration and seeking security.
The move itself is not necessarily wrong. God's servants have moved many times for legitimate reasons. The more important question is what motivated the move and what kind of environment they chose for themselves.
There is quite a contrast between the biblical pattern and the situation that developed at the new headquarters.
Abraham went to Egypt because of famine, apparently seeking security, and his decision brought complications. Isaac was specifically told not to go to Egypt during a famine because Jehovah wanted him to remain in the land and depend on His provision. David spent years in the wilderness, where his survival depended directly on Jehovah, but later decided to seek security among the Philistines and found himself involved in deception and other complications.
The wilderness, therefore, is an interesting biblical contrast with the great political and economic powers. It was difficult to survive there, but it forced God's servants to depend upon Jehovah rather than upon a powerful human system.
This makes the choice of a headquarters location worth examining.
Warwick is not simply another ordinary urban location. It provides a secluded and affluent environment, surrounded by considerable natural resources and away from the pressures of a major city. The headquarters can also depend heavily on the voluntary labor of our brothers and sisters who perform agricultural and other practical work. One could therefore ask:
Why should an organization that repeatedly emphasizes simplicity and warns against materialism establish its headquarters in such an environment?
This becomes even more interesting when compared with the example of Jesus and the first-century Christians. Jesus did not establish himself in an affluent enclave. He said:
“The Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.” — Matthew 8:20.
His disciples left businesses and possessions to follow him and remained among ordinary people. Their objective was not to establish a protected community with a comfortable lifestyle, but to preach the Kingdom.
There is an interesting parallel here with what can happen on a much smaller scale in local circumstances. For example, moving from a large city to a rural property can be motivated by fear and the desire for security—or it can simply be a practical decision to live more simply and have greater opportunities to serve Jehovah. The location itself doesn't determine whether the decision is spiritually good or bad; the motivation and the way the property is used matter.
That is why I think the question about Warwick deserves examination rather than simply assuming that the move was either good or bad.
If the purpose was genuinely to facilitate the preaching work and operate more efficiently, that is one thing.
But if the organization has increasingly sought security, isolation, comfort and a privileged lifestyle, while ordinary Witnesses are encouraged to endure increasingly difficult economic conditions, then we have a very different situation.
The Bible repeatedly warns against putting confidence in human security. And Jesus' own example was not one of surrounding himself with material protection.So perhaps the question is not simply “Why did the Organization leave Brooklyn?” but:
“What does the choice of Warwick—and the lifestyle made possible there—tell us about where the Organization itself places its confidence and priorities?”
The move itself is not necessarily wrong. God's servants have moved many times for legitimate reasons. The more important question is what motivated the move and what kind of environment they chose for themselves.
There is quite a contrast between the biblical pattern and the situation that developed at the new headquarters.
Abraham went to Egypt because of famine, apparently seeking security, and his decision brought complications. Isaac was specifically told not to go to Egypt during a famine because Jehovah wanted him to remain in the land and depend on His provision. David spent years in the wilderness, where his survival depended directly on Jehovah, but later decided to seek security among the Philistines and found himself involved in deception and other complications.
The wilderness, therefore, is an interesting biblical contrast with the great political and economic powers. It was difficult to survive there, but it forced God's servants to depend upon Jehovah rather than upon a powerful human system.
This makes the choice of a headquarters location worth examining.
Warwick is not simply another ordinary urban location. It provides a secluded and affluent environment, surrounded by considerable natural resources and away from the pressures of a major city. The headquarters can also depend heavily on the voluntary labor of our brothers and sisters who perform agricultural and other practical work. One could therefore ask:
Why should an organization that repeatedly emphasizes simplicity and warns against materialism establish its headquarters in such an environment?
This becomes even more interesting when compared with the example of Jesus and the first-century Christians. Jesus did not establish himself in an affluent enclave. He said:
“The Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.” — Matthew 8:20.
His disciples left businesses and possessions to follow him and remained among ordinary people. Their objective was not to establish a protected community with a comfortable lifestyle, but to preach the Kingdom.
There is an interesting parallel here with what can happen on a much smaller scale in local circumstances. For example, moving from a large city to a rural property can be motivated by fear and the desire for security—or it can simply be a practical decision to live more simply and have greater opportunities to serve Jehovah. The location itself doesn't determine whether the decision is spiritually good or bad; the motivation and the way the property is used matter.
That is why I think the question about Warwick deserves examination rather than simply assuming that the move was either good or bad.
If the purpose was genuinely to facilitate the preaching work and operate more efficiently, that is one thing.
But if the organization has increasingly sought security, isolation, comfort and a privileged lifestyle, while ordinary Witnesses are encouraged to endure increasingly difficult economic conditions, then we have a very different situation.
The Bible repeatedly warns against putting confidence in human security. And Jesus' own example was not one of surrounding himself with material protection.So perhaps the question is not simply “Why did the Organization leave Brooklyn?” but:
“What does the choice of Warwick—and the lifestyle made possible there—tell us about where the Organization itself places its confidence and priorities?”
Spoilmerotten
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2023
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 477
One thing we know for sure, is Jehovah and Jesus Christ are reading their hearts and thoughts at all times. Just as they are searching and reading our hearts at all times. 1Corinthians 2:10 (Holy Spirit) “For the Spirit searches into all things, even the deep things of God.” For whatever reason the Watchtower Society does anything, or we do anything, rest assured Jehovah and Jesus see it and knows all. We need as individuals to keep working out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Keeping the commands by God that are given to us. Including preaching the “Good News Of God’s Kingdom.” Zephaniah 2:3 Seek Jehovah, all you meek ones of the earth, who observe his righteous decrees. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably you will be concealed in the day of his anger.
BibleLover
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2023
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 929
It is interesting to see the contrast between Abraham’s actions before Pharaoh and his later willingness to risk his life to rescue his nephew Lot. In Egypt, Abraham was primarily concerned with saving his own life, even though this meant exposing Sarah to the possibility of becoming Pharaoh’s wife. But later, when Lot was taken captive, Abraham was willing to risk everything to rescue him, fighting against the kings who had invaded the region. By doing so, he could even have put himself in a position where returning to the life he had left behind in Mesopotamia would have become impossible.
It seems that Abraham learned an important lesson from his earlier experience: he did not need to preserve his own life at all costs in order for Jehovah to fulfill His promises.He could overcome his fear and trust Jehovah completely.
There is another striking contrast in Abraham’s life. He accepted Sarah’s proposal to have a son through Hagar, apparently trying to obtain the promised offspring through a human arrangement. But years later, Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac—the very son through whom Jehovah had promised to fulfill His purpose.
The difference is profound. With Hagar, Abraham and Sarah tried to make God's promise happen themselves. At Mount Moriah, Abraham was willing to surrender the very thing God had promised, trusting that Jehovah could fulfill His word even if Isaac died.
Hebrews 11:17-19 shows that Abraham had come to believe that God could even resurrect Isaac. In other words, Abraham had learned that Jehovah does not need us to manipulate circumstances, compromise his principles, or preserve the outcome ourselves.
Perhaps this is one of the greatest lessons from Abraham's life: faith is not merely believing that Jehovah will fulfill His promises; it is trusting Him enough not to compromise in an attempt to make those promises come true ourselves.
It seems that Abraham learned an important lesson from his earlier experience: he did not need to preserve his own life at all costs in order for Jehovah to fulfill His promises.He could overcome his fear and trust Jehovah completely.
There is another striking contrast in Abraham’s life. He accepted Sarah’s proposal to have a son through Hagar, apparently trying to obtain the promised offspring through a human arrangement. But years later, Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac—the very son through whom Jehovah had promised to fulfill His purpose.
The difference is profound. With Hagar, Abraham and Sarah tried to make God's promise happen themselves. At Mount Moriah, Abraham was willing to surrender the very thing God had promised, trusting that Jehovah could fulfill His word even if Isaac died.
Hebrews 11:17-19 shows that Abraham had come to believe that God could even resurrect Isaac. In other words, Abraham had learned that Jehovah does not need us to manipulate circumstances, compromise his principles, or preserve the outcome ourselves.
Perhaps this is one of the greatest lessons from Abraham's life: faith is not merely believing that Jehovah will fulfill His promises; it is trusting Him enough not to compromise in an attempt to make those promises come true ourselves.
Spoilmerotten
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2023
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 477
Abraham had a unique, intimate relationship based on faith and obedience to Jehovah. James 2:23 and the scripture was fulfilled that says:”Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness,”and he came to be called Jehovah’s friend.
BibleLover
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2023
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 929
I completely agree with you Patricia: the scriptures are included in the Bible not only to show us what to do but also to show what not to do. And you make a very important question: Why can't Watchtower call it like it is?Agreed!
I had so hoped this book we're now studying was gonna be worth something but so far, it's not.
My opinion is that some of the scriptures are included in the Bible to show us what not to do.
That's how I view these episodes with Abraham and Sarah. Was it a lack of understanding or a lack of faith? Regardless, the behavior was wrong. Why can't watchtower call it like it is?
I was yelling at my phone as I was listening in on the study when they were talking about Isaac's name meaning laughter. They have it in the book that Sarah was laughing with joy at overhearing the angel say that she would have a son.
Yeah right. I'm 90 and some guy is outside with my husband predicting that I'm gonna have a baby next year. Ya think I'm gonna laugh with joy?
Pretty sure she thought it was highly unlikely. Abraham didn't laugh with joy either, but fell on his face laughing. Something akin to roflol. I can just hear him say, "Surely you are joking, Lord."
I really don't understand how they come up with this stuff. Smh
If Abraham's deception is presented as acceptable because he was afraid, we might unconsciously learn: “When the circumstances are sufficiently dangerous, deception becomes acceptable.” And that principle can spread very easily. For example:
. “I'm protecting myself.”
. “I'm protecting Jehovah's organization.”
. “The person doesn't deserve to know the truth.”
. “The circumstances justify withholding or distorting information.”
. “The objective is good, so the method is acceptable.”
That is precisely why the negative side of these Bible accounts can be so valuable.
The consequences for the Organization are even worse. For example, if 1914 is regarded as the beginning of the last days, then Matthew 24:34 when it talks about the generation that will not pass away creates an enormous chronological problem as the people alive in 1914 disappeared.
If a prophetic interpretation appears to be failing because the expected generation is disappearing, do they trust the biblical text enough to reconsider their interpretation, or do they create an increasingly elaborate explanation to preserve the original expectation?
The evidence is clear. Instead of reconsidering the underlying premise, the overlapping-generation doctrine provides a mechanism for extending the deadline without abandoning 1914.
I wouldn't claim that we can know the motives of the men who developed the teaching. But we can examine the effect of the doctrine:
It preserves the 1914 chronology while allowing the predicted end to remain indefinitely in the future.
Proverbs 14 v 15
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 26, 2022
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 20,550
Is this not exactly what Rahab did for Jehovah?
Patricia
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2021
- Messages
- 1,156
- Reaction score
- 5,899
You have a point. She lied to protect the men who had been sent out to spy out the landIs this not exactly what Rahab did for Jehovah?
or did she lie to protect herself and her family? Regardless, she lied. I was thinking that at the time, Rahab wasn't a servant of Jehovah. She had heard of how the Israelite's God had done mighty feats for them. So she had faith that her people were no match for such a God.
Another thing I 'm thinking is Jehovah didn't send out the spies did he? He allowed it. What would he have done if Rahab hadn't hid the spies? Or perhaps he steered the men to her in order to spare her, knowing her heart.
Very complex situation.
She was rewarded for her actions but was it Jehovah's idea or did he create good out of a bad situation in order to benefit his people?
I don't think we have enough information to say for sure one way or the other.
Just my thoughts
Proverbs 14 v 15
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 26, 2022
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 20,550
She lied because she feared Jehovah (in a good way) I think Jehovah chose to look into the future and used Rahab in order to teach us a few things, including that he chooses who HE wants to save, not just those who are called his people. Also, he saved her family/household which gives us hope and faith, and he saved her physical home, t'was the only one left standing after the chaosYou have a point. She lied to protect the men who had been sent out to spy out the land
I was thinking that at the time, Rahab wasn't a servant of Jehovah. She had heard of how the Israelite's God had done mighty feats for them. So she had faith that her people were no match for such a God.
Another thing I 'm thinking is Jehovah didn't send out the spies did he? He allowed it. What would he have done if Rahab hadn't hid the spies? Or perhaps he steered the men to her in order to spare her, knowing her heart.
Very complex situation.
She was rewarded for her actions but was it Jehovah's idea or did he create good out of a bad situation in order to benefit his people?
I don't think we have enough information to say for sure one way or the other.
Just my thoughts
there was no doubt at all who saved her and her household. If Rahab, a prostitute had that reverence, fear and faith in Jehovah how much more can WE, and how much more should the GB have had in 2020 and every day since.. they are cowards compared to Rahab. She used the knowledge she had gained about Jehovah to risk her's and her household's lives for the true God, obviously her faith in him outweighed her fear of dying or being killed 
BibleLover
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2023
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 929
Is this not exactly what Rahab did for Jehovah?
In Rahab’s case, telling the truth would have meant delivering innocent men to death. Lying, on the other hand, was an act of protection driven by faith and respect for God’s purpose. Thus, love for one’s neighbor and faith in God guided her choice (Matthew 22:36-40).
Even Paul wrote: “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law…
This means that true obedience to God’s law is not merely rule-following, but acting with genuine love and without causing harm.
So, when telling the truth would bring harm to innocent people or support evil, love may require silence—or even concealing the truth—if the intention is to protect, not to deceive for selfish reasons.
Abraham's case was different, as the danger he feared was possible, but not certain. He worried that Pharaoh might kill him to take his wife, but unlike Rahab, who faced certain death for treason if discovered and specially the two israelites as spies would have been executed immediately, Abraham’s fear was based on what might happen only to him exposing his wife to adultery with Pharaoh
Moreover, God had called Abram to Canaan and not to Egypt, so his
earlier choice to leave the land and go to Egypt because of the famine already showed weakened faith, since God had called him to leave his home and promised to care for him.
BibleLover
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2023
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 929
Rahab teaches us about courageous protection of innocent life and faith in Jehovah. Abraham's experience teaches us something different: when fear threatens our security, we should not protect ourselves at another person's expense or assume that we need to manipulate circumstances to preserve God's promises.
In both cases, the underlying issue is not simply “Did they tell the truth?” but “Whom were they protecting, what motivated their action, and whose interests were they putting first?”
Those questions are much more useful than simply asking: “Did they lie?” Because otherwise Rahab and Abraham both concealed the truth.
But morally, their situations were very different.
Rahab: She was protecting people whose lives were in immediate danger from those who intended to kill them, while identifying herself with Jehovah's people despite putting herself and her family at risk.
Abraham: He was protecting himself from a danger he feared might happen, while putting Sarah in a potentially dangerous situation.
And there is another subtle point: Rahab had something to lose by helping the spies. If the king discovered what she had done, she could have been punished along with her family. Abraham's deception, by contrast, was specifically designed to reduce his personal risk. That makes the direction of the sacrifice very different.
Rahab essentially said: “I will put myself at risk to protect these men.”
Abraham's fear led him toward: “I need to protect myself, even if Sarah is exposed to danger.”
And I think Patricia is right to call the whole thing complex. Perhaps that's exactly why the Bible preserved the account. It doesn't give us a simplistic morality tale. It gives us a difficult situation involving faith, fear, life, deception, incomplete knowledge, and Jehovah's ability to accomplish his purpose despite human limitations.
That makes it much more useful for us today—because our own difficult decisions are rarely as simple as “always tell everything” or “lying is acceptable if you have a good reason.” Instead, we have to examine the motive, the danger, the people being protected, and whose interests we are really putting first.
In both cases, the underlying issue is not simply “Did they tell the truth?” but “Whom were they protecting, what motivated their action, and whose interests were they putting first?”
Those questions are much more useful than simply asking: “Did they lie?” Because otherwise Rahab and Abraham both concealed the truth.
But morally, their situations were very different.
Rahab: She was protecting people whose lives were in immediate danger from those who intended to kill them, while identifying herself with Jehovah's people despite putting herself and her family at risk.
Abraham: He was protecting himself from a danger he feared might happen, while putting Sarah in a potentially dangerous situation.
And there is another subtle point: Rahab had something to lose by helping the spies. If the king discovered what she had done, she could have been punished along with her family. Abraham's deception, by contrast, was specifically designed to reduce his personal risk. That makes the direction of the sacrifice very different.
Rahab essentially said: “I will put myself at risk to protect these men.”
Abraham's fear led him toward: “I need to protect myself, even if Sarah is exposed to danger.”
And I think Patricia is right to call the whole thing complex. Perhaps that's exactly why the Bible preserved the account. It doesn't give us a simplistic morality tale. It gives us a difficult situation involving faith, fear, life, deception, incomplete knowledge, and Jehovah's ability to accomplish his purpose despite human limitations.
That makes it much more useful for us today—because our own difficult decisions are rarely as simple as “always tell everything” or “lying is acceptable if you have a good reason.” Instead, we have to examine the motive, the danger, the people being protected, and whose interests we are really putting first.
Last edited:
Proverbs 14 v 15
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 26, 2022
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 20,550
Yes, a bit like when Lot offered up his daughters to the crowd who were after the angels!
a believer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2022
- Messages
- 1,601
- Reaction score
- 7,771
I have to be brief with this (I have several things I could add from my own research over the years, but time is pressing right now), as I am presently working on the German translation of Jehovah Has Become King at this moment (been a busy week! with this), but as I am working on chapter 21, I caught this from Robert concerning Rahab, and wanted to drop it in this ongoing discussion for everyone:
On the other hand, Rahab, a prostitute in Jericho, acted upon what she had heard by hearsay concerning what Jehovah had done to the Egyptians more than 40 years before. It is quite possible that Rahab was not even born when Jehovah wrecked Egypt and led the Hebrews out. Rahab, the Canaanite, had more faith than most of the Israelites, whose carcasses dropped in the wilderness during the 40 years of their wandering. She knew God would overthrow Jericho even though no city in Canaan had yet fallen to Joshua. She must also have had faith that Jehovah was merciful and just, and that God would recognize even someone like herself if she aided the Israelite spies. And she acted upon her faith and secured Jehovah’s blessing for herself and her family. The name of the Canaanite prostitute is even mentioned in the Christian Scriptures as an outstanding example of a person who acted in faith. —Chapter 21 of Jehovah Has Become King, Robert King
—Timothy,
a believer.
On the other hand, Rahab, a prostitute in Jericho, acted upon what she had heard by hearsay concerning what Jehovah had done to the Egyptians more than 40 years before. It is quite possible that Rahab was not even born when Jehovah wrecked Egypt and led the Hebrews out. Rahab, the Canaanite, had more faith than most of the Israelites, whose carcasses dropped in the wilderness during the 40 years of their wandering. She knew God would overthrow Jericho even though no city in Canaan had yet fallen to Joshua. She must also have had faith that Jehovah was merciful and just, and that God would recognize even someone like herself if she aided the Israelite spies. And she acted upon her faith and secured Jehovah’s blessing for herself and her family. The name of the Canaanite prostitute is even mentioned in the Christian Scriptures as an outstanding example of a person who acted in faith. —Chapter 21 of Jehovah Has Become King, Robert King
—Timothy,
a believer.
Proverbs 14 v 15
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 26, 2022
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 20,550
"She knew God would overthrow Jericho" because she used her reasoning skills and critical thinking ability, something that is being discouraged both inside and outside of Jah's org. In fact, if we do use our reasoning and thinking abilities it's almost becoming that we are slandered as being a conspiracy theorist. Oh well, so be it, tis all good practice for what's coming down the line..
By the way, so you speak German then Timothy?
a believer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2022
- Messages
- 1,601
- Reaction score
- 7,771
No, although I am of Dutch and German descent.
We are using AI to handle the translations directly from the original manuscript. German translation is nearly done; Portuguese will be next. Took some training to get the AI to consider Robert's tone and intent, but we have a pretty decent system down at least. And notes will be included for the reader because carrying things over into German (or, any language) is rarely a one-to-one equivalent.
—Timothy
BibleLover
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2023
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 929
Yes, and they all paid consequences for their mistakes.
Abraham exposed his wife Sarah to the possibility of adultery with an Egyptian man. Later, Sarah convinced him to commit adultery to have a child with Hagar, an Egyptian woman.
Lot exposed his daughters to the possibility of being raped in order to protect the three angels. Later, his daughters got him drunk and had sexual relations with him in order to have offspring, since they apparently believed there was no one else available to them.
Isaac also sought refuge in Gerar and exposed his wife Rebekah to the possibility of adultery with a Philistine man. Later, Jacob deceived Isaac by pretending to be his older son.
Jacob himself pretended to be his older brother in order to receive his father's blessing. Later, Laban deceived him by giving him Leah, the older sister, instead of Rachel, the younger one.
There seems to be a recurring principle here: people can reap consequences from actions that they initially believed were justified or necessary.
As one of my students once told me, “It's not that they had bad intentions; they thought they were doing the right thing to fulfill God's promise as they had learnt from their leaders. Sarah learnt from Abraham, Isaac from Abraham, Jacob from Isaac, Laban and Leah from Jacob."
And perhaps that is one of the most important lessons from all these accounts. Good intentions don't automatically make a decision right. We can sincerely believe that we are protecting ourselves, our family, or even helping God's purpose, and still choose a wrong method.
That is why these accounts are so valuable. They teach us not only to examine our intentions, but also to ask whether the means we are using are consistent with God's principles.
Proverbs 14 v 15
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 26, 2022
- Messages
- 5,417
- Reaction score
- 20,550
All very interesting eh? Always lots to think about on this forum
BibleLover
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2023
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 929
One thing I find particularly interesting about Rahab is how her experience could become very relevant when we will face persecution (Mathew 24:9)
Imagine that an anointed brother is being hunted by the authorities and takes refuge in your home. Then the police arrive and ask you directly whether you know where he is. What would you do? Would fear for your own safety make you hand him over, or would you protect him by refusing to reveal that he is in your home?
Rahab faced a somewhat similar dilemma. The men who came to her house were being hunted by the authorities, and she knew that handing them over would put their lives in danger. Yet protecting them put her own life and the lives of her family at risk.
What is especially interesting is that the Bible doesn't present Rahab's account simply as a lesson about whether lying is right or wrong. Hebrews 11:31 emphasizes her faith, and James 2:25 emphasizes what she did to protect the messengers.
This makes me think that, in such situations, there are more important questions than simply, “Did she tell the truth?”
Whom was she protecting?
What motivated her action?
Whose interests was she putting first?
Jesus actually warned that persecution could become so severe that even family members would betray one another:
“Brother will deliver brother over to death, and a father his child.” — Mark 13:12.
He also told his followers:
“Do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.” — Matthew 10:28.
So Rahab may give us something to meditate on for the future. The real test during persecution may not simply be whether we know what the correct rule is. It may be whether fear causes us to put our own safety first when someone loyal to Jehovah is depending on us.
Of course, I don't think Rahab's account should be turned into a simple rule that Christians are free to lie whenever they believe they have a good reason. But it certainly shows that protecting innocent people from those who intend to harm them is a very different situation from deceiving someone for selfish advantage.
Perhaps the question we should remember is the one Rahab's example raises: When fear puts us under pressure, whose interests will we put first?
Imagine that an anointed brother is being hunted by the authorities and takes refuge in your home. Then the police arrive and ask you directly whether you know where he is. What would you do? Would fear for your own safety make you hand him over, or would you protect him by refusing to reveal that he is in your home?
Rahab faced a somewhat similar dilemma. The men who came to her house were being hunted by the authorities, and she knew that handing them over would put their lives in danger. Yet protecting them put her own life and the lives of her family at risk.
What is especially interesting is that the Bible doesn't present Rahab's account simply as a lesson about whether lying is right or wrong. Hebrews 11:31 emphasizes her faith, and James 2:25 emphasizes what she did to protect the messengers.
This makes me think that, in such situations, there are more important questions than simply, “Did she tell the truth?”
Whom was she protecting?
What motivated her action?
Whose interests was she putting first?
Jesus actually warned that persecution could become so severe that even family members would betray one another:
“Brother will deliver brother over to death, and a father his child.” — Mark 13:12.
He also told his followers:
“Do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.” — Matthew 10:28.
So Rahab may give us something to meditate on for the future. The real test during persecution may not simply be whether we know what the correct rule is. It may be whether fear causes us to put our own safety first when someone loyal to Jehovah is depending on us.
Of course, I don't think Rahab's account should be turned into a simple rule that Christians are free to lie whenever they believe they have a good reason. But it certainly shows that protecting innocent people from those who intend to harm them is a very different situation from deceiving someone for selfish advantage.
Perhaps the question we should remember is the one Rahab's example raises: When fear puts us under pressure, whose interests will we put first?
BibleLover
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2023
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 929
Matthew 25:31-46 makes the Rahab example even more significant.
Jesus' illustration of the sheep and the goats doesn't present support for his brothers as merely an abstract attitude. The sheep are commended for what they actually did when his brothers were in need:
“I was hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably, naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.” — Matthew 25:35-36.
And Jesus then gives the key principle:
“To the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” — Matthew 25:40.
That becomes particularly striking when combined with the persecution passages.
If, during the final persecution, Christ's brothers are hunted, imprisoned or forced into hiding, supporting them could involve genuine personal risk. It would no longer be merely a question of saying that we sympathize with them. We might have to decide whether we are willing to help them when doing so could bring consequences upon ourselves.
This makes Rahab a fascinating precedent. She didn't merely believe that Jehovah's people were right. She acted in their behalf when doing so endangered her own security.
And Jesus' warning about betrayal makes the test even more serious:
“You will be hated by all people on account of my name.” — Matthew 10:22.
So there could be a profound connection between the two accounts:
Rahab:
She protected God's servants when doing so endangered herself.
Matthew 25:
The sheep are distinguished from the goats by how they treated Christ's brothers when they were vulnerable.
Matthew 10 / Mark 13:
Jesus warns that persecution will test people's loyalty and that even close relationships may break down.
That gives a very different perspective on the question of physical security we've been discussing throughout this thread.
If someone deliberately isolates himself because he wants to make sure that he survives a coming crisis, he might actually be putting himself in a position where he has fewer opportunities to help anyone else.
By contrast, remaining sufficiently connected to other people could expose a Christian to greater risk—but it could also put him in a position to show the kind of practical love that Jesus specifically identifies as evidence of genuine loyalty to him.
There is also a sobering irony here. The sheep aren't commended because they successfully protected themselves from the crisis. They are commended because they didn't turn away when Christ's brothers were suffering.
That fits remarkably well with the principle we've been developing:
Christian faith is not ultimately about finding the safest place. It is about remaining faithful when doing what is right may no longer be the safest option.
And that makes Matthew 25 particularly relevant to our whole discussion about whether Christians should isolate themselves in anticipation of future wars, famine and persecution.
Jesus' illustration of the sheep and the goats doesn't present support for his brothers as merely an abstract attitude. The sheep are commended for what they actually did when his brothers were in need:
“I was hungry and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger and you received me hospitably, naked and you clothed me. I fell sick and you looked after me. I was in prison and you visited me.” — Matthew 25:35-36.
And Jesus then gives the key principle:
“To the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” — Matthew 25:40.
That becomes particularly striking when combined with the persecution passages.
If, during the final persecution, Christ's brothers are hunted, imprisoned or forced into hiding, supporting them could involve genuine personal risk. It would no longer be merely a question of saying that we sympathize with them. We might have to decide whether we are willing to help them when doing so could bring consequences upon ourselves.
This makes Rahab a fascinating precedent. She didn't merely believe that Jehovah's people were right. She acted in their behalf when doing so endangered her own security.
And Jesus' warning about betrayal makes the test even more serious:
“You will be hated by all people on account of my name.” — Matthew 10:22.
So there could be a profound connection between the two accounts:
Rahab:
She protected God's servants when doing so endangered herself.
Matthew 25:
The sheep are distinguished from the goats by how they treated Christ's brothers when they were vulnerable.
Matthew 10 / Mark 13:
Jesus warns that persecution will test people's loyalty and that even close relationships may break down.
That gives a very different perspective on the question of physical security we've been discussing throughout this thread.
If someone deliberately isolates himself because he wants to make sure that he survives a coming crisis, he might actually be putting himself in a position where he has fewer opportunities to help anyone else.
By contrast, remaining sufficiently connected to other people could expose a Christian to greater risk—but it could also put him in a position to show the kind of practical love that Jesus specifically identifies as evidence of genuine loyalty to him.
There is also a sobering irony here. The sheep aren't commended because they successfully protected themselves from the crisis. They are commended because they didn't turn away when Christ's brothers were suffering.
That fits remarkably well with the principle we've been developing:
Christian faith is not ultimately about finding the safest place. It is about remaining faithful when doing what is right may no longer be the safest option.
And that makes Matthew 25 particularly relevant to our whole discussion about whether Christians should isolate themselves in anticipation of future wars, famine and persecution.
BibleLover
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2023
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 929
There is another interesting contrast in the Bible regarding isolation in mountains as a place of refuge.
Revelation 6:15-16 describes a time when “the kings of the earth and those of high position”, together with military commanders, rich and powerful people—and even ordinary people, “every slave and every free person”—will hide themselves in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They will say to the mountains and rocks:
“Fall over us and hide us from the face of the One seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb.”
The irony is striking. These people will finally recognize that something far greater than human power is happening, and their reaction will be to seek refuge in the most isolated places they can find.
But the mountains won't save them.
This creates an interesting contrast with Matthew 24:16, where Jesus told his disciples:
“Let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains.”
The same mountains can therefore represent obedient refuge for God's servants and a desperate hiding place for those who have rejected God.
The difference isn't the mountain. It's whom the person trusts.
The powerful will discover that their wealth, political influence and military power cannot protect them. Ordinary people will discover that neither their houses nor isolated places can protect them. Even caves and remote mountains will not provide an escape from Jehovah.
This connects with the migration theme we've been discussing. The Bible never teaches that a particular geographical location is automatically safe. Jacob and his family were safe in Egypt when Jehovah directed them there; Moses, David and Elijah were protected in wilderness areas; the first-century Christians were protected when they fled to the mountains in obedience to Jesus.
But someone can also flee to the mountains because he trusts the mountains rather than God.
So perhaps the ultimate lesson is:
The safest refuge isn't a city, a farm, a wilderness or a mountain. It is Jehovah.
And if that is true, then our decisions about where to live should not ultimately be driven by fear of what might happen to us, but by faith and a willingness to follow God's direction when it becomes clear.
Revelation 6:15-16 describes a time when “the kings of the earth and those of high position”, together with military commanders, rich and powerful people—and even ordinary people, “every slave and every free person”—will hide themselves in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They will say to the mountains and rocks:
“Fall over us and hide us from the face of the One seated on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb.”
The irony is striking. These people will finally recognize that something far greater than human power is happening, and their reaction will be to seek refuge in the most isolated places they can find.
But the mountains won't save them.
This creates an interesting contrast with Matthew 24:16, where Jesus told his disciples:
“Let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains.”
The same mountains can therefore represent obedient refuge for God's servants and a desperate hiding place for those who have rejected God.
The difference isn't the mountain. It's whom the person trusts.
The powerful will discover that their wealth, political influence and military power cannot protect them. Ordinary people will discover that neither their houses nor isolated places can protect them. Even caves and remote mountains will not provide an escape from Jehovah.
This connects with the migration theme we've been discussing. The Bible never teaches that a particular geographical location is automatically safe. Jacob and his family were safe in Egypt when Jehovah directed them there; Moses, David and Elijah were protected in wilderness areas; the first-century Christians were protected when they fled to the mountains in obedience to Jesus.
But someone can also flee to the mountains because he trusts the mountains rather than God.
So perhaps the ultimate lesson is:
The safest refuge isn't a city, a farm, a wilderness or a mountain. It is Jehovah.
And if that is true, then our decisions about where to live should not ultimately be driven by fear of what might happen to us, but by faith and a willingness to follow God's direction when it becomes clear.
BibleLover
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2023
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 929
Something has been on my mind lately.
Many Jehovah's Witnesses speak enthusiastically about the Paradise. They look forward to a world without pollution, crime, stress, sickness, and the pressures of the present system. They imagine beautiful surroundings, gardens, animals, peace, and a simpler way of life.
Yet I have noticed something interesting.
Many who have spent their entire lives in cities have very little attraction to rural life. Some spend their vacations only in cities or tourist centers. Others complain about expensive rent, the cost of living, noise, and the pressures of urban life, but if they are offered the possibility of living in the countryside, perhaps on a small farm where they could grow some of their own food, they immediately find many reasons why they wouldn't like it.
This reminds me of the Israelites. They left Egypt, but leaving Egypt physically was much easier than getting Egypt out of their hearts.
When conditions became difficult in the wilderness, they began remembering Egypt. They remembered the food and the things they had become accustomed to, even though Egypt had been the land of their slavery.
That seems very human. Imagine someone who has eaten junk food his entire life. One day he realizes that his diet is harming him and decides to eat healthy. He knows intellectually that fresh, natural food is better, but his body, habits, tastes, and routines have become accustomed to the old way of living. The transition can be surprisingly difficult.
Perhaps something similar happens spiritually. We can sincerely believe that the present system is temporary and that God's promised new world will be vastly better. But at the same time, we can become so accustomed to the values, conveniences, comforts, and patterns of the present system that we don't actually want to give them up.
And this makes me think about the larger Biblical picture. From the account of Nimrod and Babel onward, the Bible repeatedly shows mankind organizing itself around human power, human achievement, concentrated civilization, commerce, and ultimately pride. Later, Babylon becomes a powerful Biblical symbol of a human system opposed to God.
The modern world has taken this concentration and consumerism to an extraordinary level.
Most of us live in environments where practically everything is provided by an enormous system: food comes from supermarkets, water comes from pipes, electricity comes from a grid, entertainment comes through a screen, transportation comes from infrastructure, and almost everything we need can be purchased.
And then there is the constant message: Work. Earn. Buy. Consume. Upgrade. Repeat.
Perhaps Satan doesn't need to convince people that God doesn't exist. Perhaps it is enough to make them so comfortable and absorbed in the present system that they find it difficult to imagine wanting anything different.
That brings me back to the Israelites. They were being taken from Egypt to the Promised Land, but the journey required them to learn a completely different way of life. They had to learn dependence on Jehovah, patience, contentment and responsibility. And eventually they would live from the land itself cultivating fields, caring for animals, harvesting crops, planting vineyards and olive trees.
In other words, the Promised Land wasn't simply Egypt without slavery. It was a fundamentally different way of life.
Does this mean we should all move to the countryside now?
Not necessarily. There are very good reasons why many Christians choose to live in cities. Cities provide employment, transportation, medical care, education, services, and perhaps especially relevant for Jehovah's Witnesses, proximity to congregations and people who need to hear the good news.
In fact, living in a city can sometimes make it possible to simplify our lives in other ways and devote more time and energy to preaching and serving Jehovah.
So the point isn't that rural life is spiritually superior to city life. The point is something deeper:
Wherever we live, are we becoming attached to the lifestyle of the present system?
A person can live on a farm and be completely materialistic. Another person can live in a city and have a remarkably simple life, using the advantages of the city to devote himself to spiritual things. The issue isn't really geography, It's what has captured our heart.
What if circumstances force us to leave?
There is another reason this deserves our attention.
We are repeatedly warned that difficult times are ahead. We don't know exactly what circumstances may arise or what practical decisions God's servants may have to make. But if a person has become deeply dependent upon the comfort, convenience, possessions, routines, and security of city life, would it make a sudden change of circumstances harder for him?
That makes Jesus' reminder especially interesting:
“Remember the wife of Lot.” — Luke 17:32.
Jesus didn't simply say, Remember Lot. He specifically told his disciples to remember his wife. She physically left Sodom, but her heart apparently remained attached to what she was leaving behind. Perhaps that is one reason this warning is so powerful.
The challenge may not always be getting out.
The challenge may be being willing to let go.
We don't need to abandon our homes, move to a farm, or reject the useful advantages of modern cities in order to prepare ourselves.
But perhaps we can practice now by learning to live more simply, becoming less attached to material possessions, appreciating God's creation, developing practical skills, and most importantly, making sure that our sense of security doesn't depend upon the present system.
Because if circumstances eventually require us to leave something behind, we don't want to discover that our feet are moving forward while our heart is still looking back.
The Israelites teach us that it is possible to leave Egypt while still longing for Egypt.
Lot's wife reminds us that it is possible to leave a place physically while still being attached to it emotionally.
Perhaps one of the greatest challenges isn't getting people out of the present system.
It is getting the present system out of people's hearts.
Many Jehovah's Witnesses speak enthusiastically about the Paradise. They look forward to a world without pollution, crime, stress, sickness, and the pressures of the present system. They imagine beautiful surroundings, gardens, animals, peace, and a simpler way of life.
Yet I have noticed something interesting.
Many who have spent their entire lives in cities have very little attraction to rural life. Some spend their vacations only in cities or tourist centers. Others complain about expensive rent, the cost of living, noise, and the pressures of urban life, but if they are offered the possibility of living in the countryside, perhaps on a small farm where they could grow some of their own food, they immediately find many reasons why they wouldn't like it.
This reminds me of the Israelites. They left Egypt, but leaving Egypt physically was much easier than getting Egypt out of their hearts.
When conditions became difficult in the wilderness, they began remembering Egypt. They remembered the food and the things they had become accustomed to, even though Egypt had been the land of their slavery.
That seems very human. Imagine someone who has eaten junk food his entire life. One day he realizes that his diet is harming him and decides to eat healthy. He knows intellectually that fresh, natural food is better, but his body, habits, tastes, and routines have become accustomed to the old way of living. The transition can be surprisingly difficult.
Perhaps something similar happens spiritually. We can sincerely believe that the present system is temporary and that God's promised new world will be vastly better. But at the same time, we can become so accustomed to the values, conveniences, comforts, and patterns of the present system that we don't actually want to give them up.
And this makes me think about the larger Biblical picture. From the account of Nimrod and Babel onward, the Bible repeatedly shows mankind organizing itself around human power, human achievement, concentrated civilization, commerce, and ultimately pride. Later, Babylon becomes a powerful Biblical symbol of a human system opposed to God.
The modern world has taken this concentration and consumerism to an extraordinary level.
Most of us live in environments where practically everything is provided by an enormous system: food comes from supermarkets, water comes from pipes, electricity comes from a grid, entertainment comes through a screen, transportation comes from infrastructure, and almost everything we need can be purchased.
And then there is the constant message: Work. Earn. Buy. Consume. Upgrade. Repeat.
Perhaps Satan doesn't need to convince people that God doesn't exist. Perhaps it is enough to make them so comfortable and absorbed in the present system that they find it difficult to imagine wanting anything different.
That brings me back to the Israelites. They were being taken from Egypt to the Promised Land, but the journey required them to learn a completely different way of life. They had to learn dependence on Jehovah, patience, contentment and responsibility. And eventually they would live from the land itself cultivating fields, caring for animals, harvesting crops, planting vineyards and olive trees.
In other words, the Promised Land wasn't simply Egypt without slavery. It was a fundamentally different way of life.
Does this mean we should all move to the countryside now?
Not necessarily. There are very good reasons why many Christians choose to live in cities. Cities provide employment, transportation, medical care, education, services, and perhaps especially relevant for Jehovah's Witnesses, proximity to congregations and people who need to hear the good news.
In fact, living in a city can sometimes make it possible to simplify our lives in other ways and devote more time and energy to preaching and serving Jehovah.
So the point isn't that rural life is spiritually superior to city life. The point is something deeper:
Wherever we live, are we becoming attached to the lifestyle of the present system?
A person can live on a farm and be completely materialistic. Another person can live in a city and have a remarkably simple life, using the advantages of the city to devote himself to spiritual things. The issue isn't really geography, It's what has captured our heart.
What if circumstances force us to leave?
There is another reason this deserves our attention.
We are repeatedly warned that difficult times are ahead. We don't know exactly what circumstances may arise or what practical decisions God's servants may have to make. But if a person has become deeply dependent upon the comfort, convenience, possessions, routines, and security of city life, would it make a sudden change of circumstances harder for him?
That makes Jesus' reminder especially interesting:
“Remember the wife of Lot.” — Luke 17:32.
Jesus didn't simply say, Remember Lot. He specifically told his disciples to remember his wife. She physically left Sodom, but her heart apparently remained attached to what she was leaving behind. Perhaps that is one reason this warning is so powerful.
The challenge may not always be getting out.
The challenge may be being willing to let go.
We don't need to abandon our homes, move to a farm, or reject the useful advantages of modern cities in order to prepare ourselves.
But perhaps we can practice now by learning to live more simply, becoming less attached to material possessions, appreciating God's creation, developing practical skills, and most importantly, making sure that our sense of security doesn't depend upon the present system.
Because if circumstances eventually require us to leave something behind, we don't want to discover that our feet are moving forward while our heart is still looking back.
The Israelites teach us that it is possible to leave Egypt while still longing for Egypt.
Lot's wife reminds us that it is possible to leave a place physically while still being attached to it emotionally.
Perhaps one of the greatest challenges isn't getting people out of the present system.
It is getting the present system out of people's hearts.