Sodom Revisited: Was Lot SUPPOSED to be viewed as a "righteous man"?
The Contradictory Assessment of Lot in Genesis vs 2nd Peter
In Part One, I challenged the reader to consider the following moral question:
Is offering one's daughters to an angry mob, so they can "do to them as is good in (their) eyes", the act of a "righteous" man?
Would a "righteous" man place the protection of complete strangers (and more likely, protection of his reputation as a gracious host) above his responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of his own family?
Yes or No?
Have you changed your answer yet?
Before you answer: did I ever mention what the name 'Lot' means in Hebrew?
Lot (Hebrew: לוֹט, Modern Lot Tiberian Lôṭ ; "veil"; "hidden, covered") is a person in the Bible.
Like most names in the Bible, Lot's name has a symbolic meaning, containing a clue that serves as dramatic foreshadowing of his ultimate fate: living in a cave and hidden from God's presence, Lot is already dead in God's eyes. It's not a name given him by his parents at birth; rather, the author of the Genesis account uses Lot's name as the archetype of unrighteousness, serving as the antitype of Abraham.
Why then was Lot saved from the destruction of Sodom?
There's absolutely NO NEED to engage in any speculation or to 'read between the lines' on this point, since the Bible itself provides the answer in black-and-white, in Genesis:
"So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow when he overthrew the cities in which Lot had lived."
There it is, in three simple words: "God remembered ABRAHAM".
In the language of the Bible, the word 'remembered' doesn't carry the more-modern meaning (where 'forgetting' and 'remembering' are a function of memory); rather, the phrase suggests God takes action on behalf of the named individual, eg God 'remembered' Noah while in the Ark and acted on his behalf by causing the flood-waters to recede and bringing the Ark to rest on Mt Ararat.
Considered in that light, the meaning of Genesis 19:29 becomes crystal-clear:
Lot was spared, NOT on account of Lot's personal righteousness, but as an act of God showing consideration and mercy for righteous ABRAHAM, due TO Abraham's righteousness.
God showed mercy towards Lot as a favor TO Abraham, even IN SPITE OF the questionable (and at times, despicable) behavior exhibited by Lot in the account; the story concludes with not just one, but TWO incidents of drunken incest.
So while Lot and family were shown undeserved grace by literally being dragged out of town by angels before Sodom was destroyed, their having been saved does NOT mean the reader can conclude Lot and his family were "righteous": that would be unwarranted, and worse, it's contrary to what the Bible actually tells us in Genesis 19:29.
'Peter' apparently didn't understand the Hebrew author intentionally depicted Lot as an unrighteous character, the paragon of a morally-reprehensible weasel who's cast in the role of 'the prodigal nephew'.
If you remember the cartoon characters from Reader's Highlights, the author of Genesis meant Lot to be his Goofus, and Abraham to be his Gallant:
Lot was type-cast in the role of the rule-breaker who flaunts social conventions, just like poor Goofus is trapped in the same role for an eternity (unless some future comic strip cartoonist takes mercy on poor Goofus and decides to give his reputation a make-over, just like 'Peter' did for Lot). Abraham is the respecter of traditions and laws.
To show this, think back to the prior interaction between Abraham and YHWH in Genesis Chapter 18, where Abraham bargained with God, lowering the number of righteous souls needed to be found in Sodom to spare it from destruction down to ten men. Abraham's interceding on behalf of the unnamed and unknown righteous Sodomites was included to demonstrate the behavior of a righteous person, and notice that at no point does Abraham plead on behalf of Lot by name: Abraham certainly wouldn't dare to lie to YHWH by claiming Lot WAS righteous. He knew better.
But even without Abraham explicitly asking for Lot to be spared, God delivered Lot and his family from destruction, knowing that Abraham felt a strong sense of familial responsibility for his nephew (as was demonstrated by his rescuing Lot from Elamite captivity). Abraham was someone who respected cultural traditions (ie the responsibility to care for one's kin), even if his nephew didn't reciprocate!
After all, that's what 'righteous men' do: they follow the rules and respect familial traditions, even when those about them don't.
Of course, this message of "transferable righteousness" isn't exactly headline news to Jews, since they've understood for over three millenia that God sometimes spares the undeserving to protect the righteous from the grief of their deaths.
As Jewish scholar Nicolas Sarna puts it:
“This ‘doctrine of merit’ is not an infrequent theme in the Bible and constitutes many such incidents in which the righteousness of chosen individuals may sustain other individuals, or even an entire group through its protective power.”
It works both ways, though, since Jews also believe in the 'doctrine of shared guilt', wherein the sins committed by the few threaten the well-being of ALL the fellow inhabitants of the Land of Israel: if the sins of wrongdoers go unpunished, then ALL inhabitants risk being "vomited out of the promised land" whether they're righteous or not (any elementary school child knows how this principle works, where ALL kids have to bear the consequences of the misbehavior of a few ne'er-do-wells).
This principle of "transferable righteousness" was likely viewed by early Christians with a jaundiced eye, since the ongoing debate was whether individuals could be saved by "faith, alone" or by "faith and works". However, the account of Lot seemingly offers a THIRD means of avoiding God's wrath: NEPOTISM, being saved due to one's familial relationship with the righteous!
The Lot account implies sinners are sometimes sheltered from God's wrath by having relatives in high places (which literally was the case for Lot, since his choice of Sodom meant Abraham had to take leftovers, ascending to the higher-elevation, more-Godly Mt Hebron region).
Note if Lot were alive today, he'd be analogous to the unbaptized family member of Jehovah's Witnesses who is inactive, doesn't attend meetings or go in field-service, chases worldly women, material wealth, drinks, smokes, uses drugs, etc. He's dissociated himself, yet he STILL could be saved from destruction in Armageddon (where Sodom and Noah's flood are considered previews of Armageddon), thanks to the works of his righteous family members!
One can imagine why the story of unrighteous Lot being spared due to the merits of others MIGHT'VE been seen as somewhat problematic for early orthodox Christians, since they believed all souls were expected to stand before God on their own two feet, being judged based solely on THEIR works, THEIR deeds, and THEIR righteousness.
Then as now, some groups of Christians accepted Jesus' command of Matt 28 ("Go therefore and make disciples, baptizing them in all the Nations....and then the end will come."), where proselytizing was viewed as an opportunity to demonstrate one's righteousness, since 'faith without works is dead'.
However, you can almost hear early Christians (esp. Jewish converts who knew the story of Lot, or the followers of the gnostic leader Valentinus) being troubled over how unworthy Lot was spared, despite not being a worshipper of YHWH and failing to go house-to-house to warn of the impending doom: instead, he stayed home, got drunk, and later knocked up his daughters!?
As Gnostic expert Prof. Elaine Pagels points out in her book, "Beyond Belief", members of early Christian gnostic sects HAD noticed how the immoral Lot was saved and were bothered by it, such that the issue of Lot's righteousness became a point of contention within the early Christian community. Early church leaders (like Bishop Irenaeus) felt that something must be done to protect the flock from such heretical thoughts and teaching of the gnostics.
(The gnostics apparently retained their ability to exercise independent morality, since it's impossible to imagine under what light anyone could view Lot's amoral behavior as "righteous" without inverting morality, which ironically is the charge of which ancient Hebrew legends accused the Sodomites, as previously explained in Part 1).
Hence, a divide between Judaism's 'doctrine of group merit' and Christianity's blossoming concept of 'individual merit' was becoming apparent; a fix, a patch-job was needed.
Since it wasn't possible for early Christians of 2nd Century CE to rewrite the Hebrew Torah (!), the obvious solution was for unknown author who was a follower of Irenaeus to give Lot a posthumous upgrade by writing the book of 2nd Peter. Although a new book suddenly arising a century past St Peter's death might be suspicious at first, no one would be any the wiser after a few centuries passed and the heretics were squashed.
(It wouldn't be the first time such an event happened in religion, eg the Deuteronomic Code was claimed to have been 'lost', only to be 'rediscovered' in the Temple, as documented in 2nd Kings.)
But the question remains: how did this misreading of Genesis occur in the first place? What led 'Peter' off-kilter to attempt a make-over of Lot's reputation (which the Hebrew author of the account did his very best to tarnish, as if writing the Old Testament's version of 'the parable of the wayward nephew')?
Some of you may be aware that the authorship of the epistle of 2nd Peter is widely acknowledged by New Testament scholars to be pseudonymous, i.e. written by an unknown author who 'borrowed' Peter's name in order to support his own doctrinal agenda (after all, no one pays attention to "The Epistle of Joe Schmoe", but an audience WILL pay close attention to words attributed to Simon Peter, the Jewish disciple and "the Rock" upon whom Jesus was to build the church). Think of pseudonymity as religion's version of ID theft, a spiritual bait-and-switch scheme carried out by impersonating the spirit-driven voice of another.
The majority of New Testament scholars suspect the unknown author of 2nd Peter was an educated native Greek-speaking Christian, living in 2nd Century CE. There's many indications he exclusively relied on the Greek Septuagint, which partly explains his (mis)readings of the original Hebrew Torah. Of course, the "real" Simon Peter was an uneducated Jewish fisherman who would be intimately familiar with Old Testament characters, and wouldn't need to rely on Greek translations or other intertestamental pseudo-canonical works. St Peter was said to have been crucified in 68 CE, long before 'Peter' wrote 2nd Peter.
The real apostle Peter is the victim here, and you'd think defenders of the faith would be clamoring to clear his name, since it would be a SIN not to avenge the stealing of his identity, right?
Ever since it's emergence over a half a century after St. Peter's death, the authenticity of 2nd Peter has been widely questioned; however, the text proved useful enough to address then-current issues in the early orthodox church e.g. it's passages countered the growing disappointment over Jesus' delayed 2nd coming, explaining it away by saying God was giving people more time to repent of their evil ways and giving the an opportunity to find salvation through "righteous works", using the examples of Noah and Lot to support the idea. The book also allowed an opportunity to polemicize the "false teachings" of the gnostics, eg by elevating Lot to the status of a righteous man to explain his salvation.
Despite intense debate amongst early church leaders (some of whom rejected its authenticity), the epistle was eventually accepted as the genuine writing of St Peter, and later canonized in the 4th Cent CE at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage.
If you're not familiar with the controversy surrounding the authenticity of the epistle of 2nd Peter, here's a good start:
By all appearances, 'Peter' was heavily inspired by 'Book of Wisdom' (AKA 'Wisdom of Solomon'), a deuterocanonical work included in the Greek Septuagint, although it was never canonized as part of the Hebrew Tanakh (hence why the error of 'Peter' could be made made). Bible scholars believe the 'Book of Wisdom' was written circa 1st Cent BC by a Hellenized Jew in Alexandria, Egypt.
Here's the likely source for Lot's promotion, from the 'Book of Wisdom' 10:6-7
6 When the ungodly perished, she delivered the righteous man, who fled from the fire which fell down upon the five cities 7 Of whose wickedness even to this day the waste land that smoketh is a testimony, and plants bearing fruit that never comes to ripeness; and a standing pillar of salt is a monument of an unbelieving soul.
(Sodom and Gomorrah were part of a five-city complex, translated in Greek as "the Pentapolis".)
Another passage from 'Book of Wisdom' 19 offers this:
17 Therefore even with blindness were these stricken, as those were at the doors of the righteous man: when, being compassed about with horrible great darkness, every one sought the passage of his own doors.
Without saying his name, the 'Book of Wisdom' indirectly refers to Lot as a "righteous man". Likely relying on these passages as his source of inspiration, 'Peter' decided to promote Lot into the ranks of the righteous men of the Old Testament, ushering him past the red-velvet-roped barriers to enter the VIP section of Heaven, so Lot could rub shoulders with such illustrious figures as his Uncle Abraham, cousins Jacob and Joseph, etc.
Hence the morally-flawed and failed would-be successor to Abraham's blessing is bestowed an honor he never earned in Genesis (which later makes it clear that Abraham's blessing went instead to his natural-borne son Isaac, conceived by Sarah as a blessing from God)!
As a start, here's more background on the "Book of Wisdom":
The 'First Epistle of Clement' is a late 1st Cent/early 2nd Cent CE work that's also favorable of Lot: although not explicitly declaring Lot as "righteous", 'Clement' (which is likely also a pseudonymous work) refers to Lot's "Godliness", crediting his hospitality to the angelic visitors as the reason he was delivered from Sodom (an act which apparently made up for his later drunken incest):
1 And particularly such as have been eminent for their kindness and charity to their neighbours.
BY 6 hospitality and godliness was Lot saved out of Sodom, when all the country round about was 7 destroyed by fire and brimstone:
2 The Lord thereby making it manifest, that he will not forsake those that trust in him; but 8 will bring the disobedient to punishment and correction.
3 For his wife who went out with him, being of a different mind, 9 and not continuing in the same obedience, was for that reason 10 set forth for an example, being turned into a pillar of salt unto this day.
4 That so all men may know, that those who are double minded, and distrustful of the power of God, are 11 prepared for condemnation, and to be a sign to all succeeding ages.
What we see here are tell-tale signs of syncretism, the blending of different philosophies to create a combined theology. The 'Book of Wisdom' reveals influences of "Worldly" philosophers like Plato, with evidence of use of logical forms associated with Stoicism; these ideas in turn influenced 'Peter' to subtle doctrinal shifts, such as declaring Lot as "Righteous".
Let's review, just so we don't lose track of the forest for the trees:
- Genesis 19:29 clearly claims Lot was delivered from destruction on account of ABRAHAM'S righteousness.
- 2nd Peter 2:6 clearly claims Lot was delivered from destruction due to LOT'S OWN righteousness, declaring him to be 'Just and Godly'
THAT'S the irresolvable contradiction between Genesis and 2nd Peter.
Both can't be correct, since they're polar opposites.
The glacial-like shift occurred over decades (even centuries), where movement can be detected in a number of ancient extra-Biblical writings; the end result is that 2nd Peter ended up in the NT and accepted as official doctrine, whereas the prior attempts didn't. Hence Lot got his promotion to the ranks of the righteous, and the rest is history.
Christians face a moral dilemma:
* Do you throw out 2nd Peter, acknowledging it to be the product of "lying scribes", influenced by rejected uninspired intertestamental literature and thus the work of 'uninspired' men?
This involves coming to the painful realization that not ALL scriptures are 'God-breathed' (2 Tim 3:16), and admitting that the "perfect" Bible is susceptible to tampering.
(That shouldn't be a big deal: Jesus even WARNED that this kind of thing would happen when he described those "lying scribes". The episode could even be written off as an example of another of Jesus' fulfilled prophecies!)
* Do you continue to ignore your individual sense of morality and continue to make excuses for Lot's inexcusable behavior, when EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET who possesses even a shred of human decency can recognize morally-questionable behavior when they see it?
Isn't the Bible SUPPOSED to be a record of God's "perfect" unchanging morality, refusing to concede to ever-changing secular mores? (And note that ideas appearing in the Book of Wisdom are clearly influenced by 'Worldly' and secular philosophies, such as Platonism and Stoicism.)
Pure and simple, the book of 2nd Peter demonstrates the tell-tale signs of syncretism in action, the blending of old ideas with the new, needed to support one's desired doctrine. It's unavoidable. It's part of the human experience.
But perhaps the most important question to ask is this:
How could so many Christians miss a clear-cut depiction of immorality when it's staring them in the face?
(I'm reminded of Jesus' words about those who have eyes, but cannot see?)
Rather than questioning Lot's behavior, most simply nod their heads in agreement, accepting some unknown author's definition of righteousness without, experiencing the least twinge of cognitive dissonance over the disconnect between Genesis and 2nd Peter?
Well, if there's any "good news" to be found here, Jesus referred to the destruction of Lot's WIFE in Matthew, but NEVER declared Lot himself to be righteous (as 2nd Peter does). The same can be said for Paul's "Faithful Hall of Fame" found in Hebrews 11, where the absence of Lot's name now becomes obvious, nowhere to be found on the list (and perhaps because as a Jew, Paul was more aware that Lot was a questionable figure in the eyes of Palestinean non-Hellenized Jews).
(Although, it is rather curious that Jesus didn't use Lot as an example in his teachings, offering Lot as an example of someone who was delivered from destruction via a mediator, when is that the kind of thing Jesus was claiming to do for humanity via his imputed righteousness? The story of Lot would seem to be a PERFECT example to use?)
An interesting factoid to consider is that Jesus Christ is a descendant of Haran (Lot's father, Abram's brother) through David's great-grandmother Ruth (a Moabitess), and hence Jesus is a descendant of Lot. One might suspect early Christians felt it unacceptable to have an alcoholic incestuous forefather in Jesus' blood-line, and wanted to try and sanitize the unflattering characterization on the back-end by patching it up with the words of 2nd Peter. Thus the author would settle the issue of Lot once and for all, ignoring the diatribe of Genesis and declaring Lot to be "righteous", thinking the interpretation would remain buried under the shifting sands of time (which largely HAS occurred).
Jews also have motivation to downplay the unflattering depiction of Lot: Solomon's wife Naamah, mother of Rehoboam and ancestress to all of Judah's subsequent kings, was an Ammonitess and thus also descended from Lot. The future Jewish messiah thus would carry the burden of Lot's blood coursing through his veins (although marrying Ammonite women was excused in the same verse that blocks Jewish daughters from marrying Ammonite males).
It bears mentioning that the majority of Jewish rabbis have ALWAYS read Lot as a reprehensible character (one moral rabbi declared Lot as "evil", due to his materialistic sinful nature), but a few have attempted to clean up Lot with Talmudic eisegesis, perhaps feeling pressure from Gentiles who point to Lot as a prime example of the shady characters populating the Torah. Lot now serves as the example used in many Temples of the dangers of drinking to excess.
Here's a link from the 1908 Edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia discussing the rabbinical view of Lot:
Irony in the epistle of 2nd Peter is, note that just a paragraph earlier, 'Peter' dared to include this warning about false doctrines arising amongst the early Christians (he's referring to the many sects of gnostic Christians):
2 Peter 2:1-3
1 But there were also false prophets in Israel, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will cleverly teach destructive heresies and even deny the Master who bought them. In this way, they will bring sudden destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their evil teaching and shameful immorality. And because of these teachers, the way of truth will be slandered. 3 In their greed they will make up clever lies to get hold of your money. But God condemned them long ago, and their destruction will not be delayed.
Most scholars see this as the author's attempt to lend credibility to his attempts, pointing the finger at others (referring to the heretical gnostics) to obfuscate, to put up a smokescreen. Methinks 'Peter' doth protest too much....
It's unfortunate the author of 2nd Peter placed his desired doctrinal goals above what the Genesis account actually says, since his attempted rehabilitation of Lot's reputation is a PERFECT 2,000 yr old example of 'eisegesis' in action: he's forcing the Hebrew scriptures to conform to his desired doctrinal mold, instead of letting the policies arise from the scriptures.
At any rate, it's clear that Jesus' incessant warnings ("woe to you lying scribes") fell on deaf ears, since 'Peter' apparently thought the not-so-subtle warnings applied to all the OTHER scribes, but NOT him.
Perhaps 'Peter' has the excuse of being one of Lot's immoral descendants, too?
This is only one ONE example of the "evolution" of Christian theology to be found in 2nd Peter: the same analytical approach can be used to challenge 2nd Peter's statement that Noah preached to mankind before the Flood to offer his contemporaries an opportunity for repentance and salvation (which is an even MORE contradictory claim to the original Genesis Flood account AND Jesus' words: see my prior article on that topic).
At this late date, the issue of unworthy Lot being saved is theologically-resolvable for Christianity, a solution apparently overlooked by early Church fathers.
Ancient Hebrews implemented the legal concept of redemption (go'el, in Hebrew) wherein a relative could serve as a redeemer of one's kin, paying off the debts of an impoverished relative to creditors on their behalf, so they wouldn't have to become a slave (due to strict usury laws, Jewish law stipulated the redeemer HAD to be a blood relative: non-relatives were not allowed to make loans).
That's the concept of redemption that Jesus often spoke of, and the account actually portrays Abraham playing the role of a familial mediator acting on behalf of his nephew, Lot, first rescuing him from Edomite captivity (via use of military force), and then when unrighteous Lot is delivered from Sodom's destruction due to Abraham's righteousness.
And to those Christians who always say you need to know Jesus to gain salvation, the proper reading of the Lot story validates that idea! For just as Lot had a relationship (albeit rocky) with his uncle that compelled Abraham to bail Lot out of a tight jam, Christians believe that Christ will appeal to God on their behalf, pleading with YHWH to show them mercy, thus bailing them out of a tight jam!
In fact, God lamented the lack of a mediator to act as a go-between for Him and His people in Ezekiel 22:30, a scripture Christians interpret as a prophecy pointing to Jesus.
Hence a scripturally-accurate reading of Lot in could be used an example of how even the most ungodly and morally-reprehensible characters could be saved due to the transferable righteousness of others, including the righteous Jesus.
And if nothing else, the aforementioned Worldly relative might be motivated to not stand in the way of their uber-righteous JW family members, since they know they just might get into the 'New System' by riding on the coat-tails of others!
BTW, I'm including the Jehovah's Witnesses' attempt to defend "righteous" Lot (below), which is found in the Feb 2005 Watchtower article, "Jehovah Always Does What Is Right":
w05 2/1 pp. 23-27
Jehovah Always Does What Is Right
Why Did Lot Offer His Daughters to an Angry Mob?
11 In Genesis chapter 19, we find the account of what happened when God sent two materialized angels to Sodom. Lot insisted that the visitors stay in his home. That night, however, a mob of men from the city surrounded the house and demanded that the visitors be brought out to them for immoral purposes. Lot tried to reason with the mob, but to no avail. Seeking to protect his guests, Lot said: “Please, my brothers, do not act badly. Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man. Please, let me bring them out to you. Then do to them as is good in your eyes. Only to these men do not do a thing, because that is why they have come under the shadow of my roof.” The mob would not listen and almost broke down the door. Finally, the angelic visitors struck that frenzied crowd with blindness.—Genesis 19:1-11.
12 Understandably, this account has raised questions in the mind of some. They wonder: ‘How could Lot seek to protect his guests by offering his daughters to a lustful mob? Did he not act improperly, even cowardly?’ In view of this account, why would God inspire Peter to call Lot a “righteous man”? Did Lot act with God’s approval? (2 Peter 2:7, 8) Let us reason on this matter so that we do not draw the wrong conclusion.
13 To begin with, it should be noted that rather than condoning or condemning Lot’s actions, the Bible simply reports what took place. The Bible also does not tell us what Lot was thinking or what motivated him to act as he did. When he comes back in the “resurrection of . . . the righteous,” perhaps he will reveal the details.—Acts 24:15.
14 Lot was hardly a coward. He was placed in a difficult situation. By saying that the visitors had “come under the shadow” of his roof, Lot indicated that he felt compelled to provide protection and refuge for them. But this would not be easy. Jewish historian Josephus reports that the Sodomites were “unjust towards men, and impious towards God . . . They hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices.” Yet, Lot did not shrink back from the hateful mob. On the contrary, he went out and reasoned with those angry men. He even “shut the door behind him.”—Genesis 19:6.
15 ‘Still,’ some may ask, ‘why would Lot offer his daughters to the mob?’ Instead of assuming that his motives were bad, why not consider some possibilities? First of all, Lot may well have acted in faith. How so? No doubt Lot was aware of how Jehovah had protected Sarah, the wife of Abraham, Lot’s uncle. Recall that because Sarah was very beautiful, Abraham had asked her to identify him as her brother, lest others kill him in order to take her.* Subsequently, Sarah was taken to the household of Pharaoh. Jehovah, however, intervened, preventing Pharaoh from violating Sarah. (Genesis 12:11-20) It is possible that Lot had faith that his daughters could be similarly protected. Significantly, Jehovah through his angels did intervene, and the young women were kept safe.
16 Consider another possibility. Lot may also have been trying to shock or confuse the men. He may have believed that his daughters would not be desired by the crowd because of the homosexual lust of the Sodomites. (Jude 7) In addition, the young women were engaged to men of the city, so relatives, friends, or business associates of his prospective sons-in-law might well have been in the crowd. (Genesis 19:14) Lot may have hoped that by reason of such ties, some men in that mob would speak up in defense of his daughters. A mob thus divided would not be nearly so dangerous.*
17 Whatever Lot’s reasoning and motives, we can be sure of this: Since Jehovah always does what is right, he must have had good reason to view Lot as a “righteous man.” And judging from the actions of the crazed mob of Sodomites, can there be any doubt that Jehovah was fully justified in executing judgment upon the inhabitants of that wicked city?—Genesis 19:23-25.
Do any of those arguments seem compelling to you, now that you know "the Truth" about "Righteous" Lot? Is it just me, or does it seem like a boat-load of wild speculation they're offering, as if they're just making it up as they go along?
In the last article of the series, I'll be offering an alternative hypothesis which may explain the actions of both Lot AND the "crazed mob of Sodomites" (as the Watchtower puts it above), using real-world physiological and psychological phenomena that hopefully will give us insight into the origins underlying the account.
Thanks for reading!