Sodom Revisited: Was Lot SUPPOSED to be viewed as a "righteous man"?
The Contradictory Assessment of Lot in Genesis and 2nd Peter
In the Genesis account of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot serves his daughters up to an angry mob to protect two male strangers who'd arrived in Sodom only hours before (unbeknownst to Lot, the two men were actually angels, disguised as men).
Here's the scripture on which the picture above is based:
Genesis 19:8
"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.”
Unless one is morally-bankrupt, Lot's puzzling offer to the crowd should immediately raise some questions in the reader's mind:
Is offering one's daughters up to a 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 total strangers (or his reputation as a gracious host) above his responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of his family?
Yes or No?
(You can write your answer on a piece of paper, and check it after reading the article to see if you want to change it. Go grab a pencil/piece of paper: we'll wait right here for ya'.)
Now, MOST parents would do ANYTHING within their power to protect their children from the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse delivered at the hands of a frenzied mob (and yes, that includes one's daughters, too, who likely were viewed as somewhat disposable within a misogynistic culture in which the story is set).
MOST parents certainly wouldn’t VOLUNTEER to hand their daughters over to a mob, or dangle them out as if bait, simply to protect complete strangers; most certainly wouldn't do so to protect their reputation as a generous host. That's hardly "righteous".
But if you're a Christian, there's no need fretting over what your answer would be, since the Bible has already done the strenuous work of determining your moral values for you: simply flip over to 2nd Peter 2:6 to find your answer:
2 Peter 2:6-9 (KJV):
6 "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly; 7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) 9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished"
2nd Peter declares Lot to be a "righteous man" with a "righteous soul" (the word 'righteous' is repeated, just in case the reader missed it the first time around). 2nd Peter even proclaims Lot to be "just" and "Godly". From the way 2nd Peter describes him, Lot is clearly "one of the good guys" of the Old Testament.
Lot's deliverance from Sodom is certainly in keeping with the concept of God punishing evil-doers and delivering the righteous from destruction; since Lot was saved from the fiery sulfurous wrath visited upon Sodom and Gomorrah, the reader can safely conclude that Lot was indeed a "righteous man", since he was saved. Right?
But is that conclusion really warranted, based on the original depiction of Lot that's found in the Genesis account? Was Lot intended by the author of Genesis to be viewed as a "righteous man", as 2nd Peter declares?
This article will re-examine the Genesis account by reviewing clues offered in the Bible's depiction of Lot's interactions with others, seeing if 2nd Peter's assessment of Lot's "righteousness" is truly warranted.
Genesis 13 opens with Lot and Abram (and their herdsmen) in the arid hill country of Canaan, quarreling over the limited water and grasslands needed to care for their livestock. In an attempt to resolve the dispute, righteous Abram suggests that he and Lot should part ways, his young nephew spreading his wings to make his own way in the World, putting some distance between their respective camps (Lot had been under Abram's wing ever since leaving Chaldee after the death of Lot's father, Haran).
Genesis 13:8-9 (NIV):
8 "So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herders and mine, for we are close relatives. 9 Is not the whole land before you? Let’s part company. If you go to the left, I’ll go to the right; if you go to the right, I’ll go to the left.”
Abram is likely being diplomatic here, saying the conflict is arising from both sides; however, the reader knows if there's any contention arising between these two, it's almost certainly coming from Lot and NOT from righteous Abram (who's the patriarchal protagonist of the story, the forefather who was blessed by Jehovah and told how his descendants would become the Children of Israel, the Chosen Ones).
Thus Lot is failing to make a favorable first impression on the reader, since Lot seems not to realize he's only an extra who's getting into squabbles with the male lead of the story; this pissing contest is NOT likely to end well for him (as we'll soon see).
Strike 1: in the opening scene, Lot is cast in the role of a quarrelsome bickerer. "Righteous"?
Genesis 13:10-11 (NIV)
10 "Lot looked around and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan toward Zoar was well-watered, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt. 11 So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordan and set out toward the east."
Althoughnot explicitly stated, Lot chose the option that lies to the left (Sodom), and not to the right (Hebron).
Here's a map to confirm the geography (from http://www.generationword.com):
In Jewish mysticism, 'right' and 'left' are symbolic of the opposing currents of pure and impure powers flowing though the world, dividing all between the Godly and sinful (Zohar Bereshit 73b., 53 et seq). Lot's choice is symbolic of that which is impure, evil, sinister. And although it's significance is not explicitly stated (i.e. verse 11 DOESN'T say, "Lot picked the one to the left: this means he's leaning towards sin"), an ancient Hebrew audience would likely be familiar with the geography of the region, understanding the significance of Lot's choice. And although a single choice is hardly compelling evidence for making the case against Lot, it's one subtle hint that foreshadows what's to follow in a story chock-full of symbolism.
And if the audience failed to catch the laterality hint, the author reinforces by saying that Lot "sets out to the East": such directional symbolism is indicative of one's alienation from God (whereas headed West is associated with seeking God). This directional symbolism is also seen in the Adam and Eve account, when they headed East of Eden after being banished from the Garden).
Strike #2: Lot chooses the option to the left (heads to the East), indicating his desire to sin; Lot is not depicted as a "Godly man".
When Lot was asked by Abram which choice he preferred, Lot broke cultural taboos by declining to accept first-choice:
Genesis 13:10-11 (NIV)
10 "Lot looked around and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan toward Zoar was well-watered, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt. 11 So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordan and set out toward the east."
Even though the offer to choose had been extended to him by Abram, Lot violated cultural norms by not deferring the decision back to the elder Abram: instead, Lot picked what HE desired (as confirmed by the phrase, "Lot chose for himself").
Instead, Lot was expected to show respect for the family patriarch, letting him consider what is in the best interests of BOTH parties, and then deciding. Abram was being polite by offering the choice to Lot, but Lot was rude by taking advantage of Abram's manners; thus Lot is demonstrating a lack of respect for Abram's greater wisdom and judgment, putting his own interests ahead of time-honored cultural traditions.
Strike #3: Lot has little respect for cultural traditions, including those of his own family. Lot is not "just".
Instead, Lot picks the more-desirable fertile plains of Jordan below, which means more opportunities for material riches and wealth. Lot left the arid highlands, the 'leftovers' as it were, to Abram.
Strike #4: Lot is selfish and materialistic (not "just"), thinking only of his own materialistic best-interests.
And what does Lot's choice tell us about his "Godliness"?
The conversation takes place in the hill country, where Abram previously had built an altar to YHWH. Higher elevations (Hebrew word bamot, 'high places') were desired by 'Godly' men, since they afford an opportunity to be closer to God (eg Moses ascended Mt Sinai to be in the presence of God). Even the name of Lot's deceased father, Haran ('mountaineer' in Hebrew) suggests he was a "Godly" man, like his brother Abram; Lot apparently is not following in his father's or uncle's footsteps, instead taking the path leading away from God.
After Lot chose the plains, Abram leaves the hill country to head for Hebron, where he constructs an altar near the Great Trees of Mamre (elev: 3,000 ft). And what is Sodom's elevation? 1,360 ft.
Oh, I should clarify that's 1,360 ft. BELOW sea level. It's the lowest spot on Earth.
Hence, Lot is depicted as choosing the greater material wealth afforded by living on the fertile well-watered plains, over enjoying a closer relationship with God.
Strike #5: Lot's choice of the lower elevation signifies he is not a "Godly" man, but indicates his decision to move as far away from God as possible.
In the passage above, note how the plain of Jordan is compared to not just one, but TWO locations:
i) 'the Garden of the Lord'
ii) 'the land of Egypt'
Is this double-comparison accidental? Hardly.
The wording conveys that the fertile plain below offers an opportunity to maintain a relationship with God (the first is a reference to YHWH's gardens, eg 'the Garden of Eden', where Adam "walked with YHWH") while offering greater prospects for material wealth (the 2nd referring to the opulent riches of Egypt).
Thus Abram potentially would've been able to live down on the plain without sacrificing his relationship with God, since he'd still be able to "walk with God" in the 'Garden of the Lord'. However, since Lot already chose the plain, the point is moot, and the die has been cast.
Notice how the story hasn't even mentioned the city of Sodom yet, but describes Lot seeing far-away Zoar, the tiniest and most-distant of the five cities sitting on the plain. And why would Zoar deserve mentioning?
In the story of Lot, ALL five cities located on the plain serve as metaphors for sin, offering different 'levels' of sin, as it were, from the smallest (Zoar, meaning ''little') to the greatest (Sodom).
From Wikipedia:
The name 'Sodom' stems from early Semitic language and ultimately may be related to the Arabic sadama, meaning "fasten", "fortify", "strengthen"; Gomorrah could be based on the root gh m r, which means "be deep", "copious (water).
Hence Sodom represents the Big Leagues of Sin, being the most fortified and inhabited by the most recalcitrant and unrepentant of sinners; Gomorrah represents deep, copious and prolific sin, right up there with Sodom.
The narrative mentions Lot's noticing tiny Zoar before naming any of the other towns, as Zoar signifies Lot's entry into a sinful lifestyle; Lot is contemplating committing just a 'little sin'. Thus Lot experiences temptation while it's still far off in the distance, but he chooses to approach, placing himself in greater proximity to the cities behind who's doors sin lying crouching in wait, as if to pounce.
Lot's desires are thus depicted as neither "just" or "Godly", but the exact opposite: he's taking tiny steps further away from God.
And with the entire fertile plain of Jordan as an option to choose anywhere to live, where does Lot decide to take up temporary residence and pitch his tent? Right NEXT to the town of Sodom, right by the City that contains the epitome of "wicked sinners".
Genesis 13:12:
12 "Abram lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot lived among the cities of the plain, but pitched his tents near Sodom. 13 Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord."
Note Abram's living in the 'land', while Lot is living amongst the 'cities' (perhaps so Lot can ping-pong amongst varying levels of sin, as if to sample).
Some translations render the Hebrew word 'ad' (translated above as 'near', in bold) not to convey a sense of Lot's physical proximity to Sodom, but to describe the tent's orientation, serving as a metaphor for the desires of Lot's sinful heart, eg, "Lot pitched his tent's leaning TOWARDS Sodom".
Either way, the message is basically the same: Lot is approaching the city of greatest sin in the ancient World as if drawn to it by a magnet; he's living right outside it's walls, in verse 12.
Also notice the lack of any mention of Lot's proximity to the "Garden of the Lord" since the focus of the narrative is entirely on Lot's position relative to SIN, but not to GOD; Lot is not mindful of his position to GOD (and while the distance is increasing, he's not even aware of it).
Strike #6: Lot is depicted as ever-increasing in his "Ungodliness", moving ever-closer towards sin, as if unaware of his increasing alienation from God.
The account in verse 14 makes a point of mentioning that YHWH only reappears to speak to Abram AFTER Lot departs:
Genesis 13:14
14 And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
The distinct impression is given that YHWH won't be in the presence of someone who chose to alienate themselves from Him; God seemingly waits for Lot to leave.
Strike #7: God is depicted as snubbing "Ungodly" Lot, just as Lot is snubbing God.
When we next encounter Lot in Chapter 19, it's now many years later, and we see Lot 'seated at the gate', now living inside the fortified walls of Sodom:
Genesis 19:1 (KJV):
And there came two angels to Sodom at evening; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
By this time, Lot has completely abandoned the pastoral nomadic lifestyle that's favored by God-fearing men like Abram (who is now called 'Abraham'). Lot has long-since abandoned the tent lifestyle (perhaps he sold it on Sodom's "used tent and camel" lot?), enjoying the benefits afforded those living INSIDE the walls of Sodom so he could revel amongst fellow 'wicked sinners'. Lot's shift from pastoral to urban life is one also loaded with symbolism, given the Hebraic romanticizing of the more-Godly pastoral life (much like modern men objectifying the cowboy of the Wild West as a symbol of freedom, living underneath wide open skies, driving doggies across sprawling ranges, eating beans around the campfire, etc).
Lot thus is fully-engulfed in Sodom, and has completely abandoned his prior Godly ways.
Most Bible translations change the word order of Genesis 19:1 to create the impression that Lot was already seated at the gate when the angels arrived, THEN arose to greet the angels. However, the King James Version is more faithful to the original Hebrew text, since it has the angels arriving BEFORE Lot, who arrives and sits at the gate and THEN arises to greet the angels and start up his 'gracious host' act. That's a subtle clue which conveys a very different message, allowing for the possibility of the angels having been 'screened' by city elders who were 'on-duty' at the gate at all times (the responsibility typically involved determining which travelers were to be allowed to enter the city, advising them of the local rules and customs, etc).
The narrative remains mute whether Lot HAD been appointed to sit at the gate in any official capacity, so it bears remembering that not only elders and judges conducting official city business would sit at the gate, but townspeople ALSO may be sitting there to gossip, get the latest news from travelers, etc.
Also remember that Lot was an immigrant, an alien, a foreigner residing within the walls of Sodom. And while sitting at the gate was an honor bestowed on local elders, Lot remained an OUTSIDER, someone who perhaps fancied himself worthy to serve in the capacity of an elder or judge, but was frustrated when Sodom's citizens didn't acknowledge his great wisdom.
Thus when a member of the mob later accuses Lot of 'acting as if he were a judge', the mob member probably WAS RIGHT: it's unlikely Lot WAS a judge, but only acting as if he had authority (when everyone in the town knew he didn't).
Notice how Lot doesn't defend himself by saying he IS a judge; his silence is damning.
(One midrash suggests that Lot was only a figurehead, having been given an honorary title without having any real power, much like cities that give away gigantic useless "keys to the city", given only to stroke some rich person's ego.
See http://www.aishdas.org/midrash/5765/vayeira.html#n7 for more information on this topic.)
Thus, the foreign-born Lot was likely not trusted by Sodom's wicked townspeople to sit at the gate in any official capacity, and the story actually paints him out to be a poseur, a wanna-be, someone who acts like he has responsibility when he doesn't.
Perhaps this is a good time to mention the fabled reputation of Sodom and Gomorrah amongst ancient Hebrews, in order to better understand the background context in which the story was understood:
According to legends, Hebrews believed the land surrounding Sodom had once been blessed with an overwhelming abundance of natural resources, making it's inhabitants wealthy due to the bountiful land on which they dwelt. One fable says that if a citizen of Sodom wanted to buy a vegetable, he'd simply pull it out of the ground, shake off the dirt, picking the bits of gold from the dirt to have more than enough to pay for the vegetable! Likewise, the ground was said to sprout warm loaves of bread, as if taken fresh from the oven.
Legend says that as a result of such easy-living, Sodomites soon became spoiled by their abundance, losing a fear of the Heavens: they became materialistic, greedy, selfish, inhospitable to their poor and to travelers, and worshiped their native pagan Gods (which was an abomination in the eyes of YHWH, even though YHWH was a foreign deity to the Sodomites).
These were the sins for which Sodom was destroyed, which is more nuanced than the modern overly-simplistic trope that says Sodom was destroyed for homosexuality.
This point is made in Ezekiel 16:49-50 (KJV):
"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."
And as philosopher Susan Neiman points out in her book, 'Moral Clarity', the Sodomites were depicted in folk tales as not just being materialistic and immoral, but portrayed as being deliberately ANTI-MORAL; Sodomites were said to have intentionally inverted the rules of law, tipping the lemonade cart upside down:
"According to one Jewish tale, gang rape of strangers wasn't an accidental occurrence, but was actually prescribed by Sodom's laws. According to another legend, helping strangers was punishable by death--a fate suffered by one of Lot's daughters who (in a slightly different version of the story than that found in the Bible) was burned at the pyre for giving bread to a poor man, and by another nameless maiden who was smeared with honey and left on a bee-infested rooftop for doing the same.
Even it's taxes were claimed as perversely regressive: owners of two oxen were liable for one day's civil service, while those with one ox were assessed for two. Sodom's crimes were all the worse for being thankless, for the city was showered with wealth. Sapphires lined the streets in place of stones, and each street was shaded by seven types of trees: grape, pomegranate, fig, walnut, almond, apple, and peach. Sodomites were reportedly so stingy that singing birds weren't heard within the city walls, as the inhabitants didn't want them to peck even a single grain of their abundant stores."
So instead of simply ignoring social law, Sodom inverted it.
But even when considering what clearly is Jewish folklore (perhaps the Hebraic equivalent of "The Tall Tales of Paul Bunyanevitz"?) we may find a kernel of truth within it's core; the question arises as to what might lead Hebrews to believe that the ancient inhabitants of Sodom had decided that hospitality to strangers was such a bad idea that it might lead them to discard the ancient hospitality code and abandon the practice? I have a strong suspicion of how that sequence of events might've come about, as discussed in part 3 of this series.
The Lot account doesn't suggest that Sodomites completely barred strangers from entering their town, since the undercover angels were allowed in the gates; instead, the angels likely were told by an elder that they were required to sleep in the town square, where all the paranoid citizens could keep an eye on them. Above all, they were told NOT to sneak into the private houses of foreigners that may have virgin daughters inside!
Remember, Lot was an outsider who chose to live under Sodom's topsy-turvy rules, knowing full-well of it's reputation; he could've moved elsewhere if he didn't want to abide by their rules. The account shows that Lot even returned to Sodom AFTER having been delivered from captivity by his Uncle Abram, who defeated the Edomites with an armed raid to bail Lot out of a tight jam. But despite the bad experience, Lot apparently returned to Sodom!
That's a BIG HINT that apparently was missed by the author of 2nd Peter, who ironically even quotes the aphorism from Proverbs only a page earlier, saying how "a dog returns to it's own vomit", missing how Lot is a prime example of just such a dog!
So even though Lot was a foreigner living in a strange land with it's odd laws, he's trying to impose his standards of moral behavior as an outsider.
Genesis 19:2-3 (KJV):
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. 3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
Although a superficial reading might lead one to view Lot as a generous person, there's clues to indicate that Lot is actually a pretentious vainglorious bore, selfishly seeking to gain prestige and status as a gracious host only to impress. Jesus later says not to make a showy display of one's charitable works, for those persons are getting their reward in full: Jesus may have been thinking about Genesis' depiction of Lot when he said that. The warning against public displays goes DOUBLE if you're voluntarily living in a town in a foreign land where local law expressly prohibits such behavior!
Having previously been advised of Sodom's rules, the angels likely declined Lot's illegal offer at first, saying they'd "abide in the street" to obey (i.e. abide with) local laws that required visitors to stay in the town square. However, Lot GREATLY PRESSED UPON THEM to stay in his house, and they finally relented (likely only to get Lot to quiet down, and not have Lot draw further attention to the threesome). Notice Lot telling the angels they 'could rise up early and go on their way', as if sneaking out the back door before sunrise in order to avoid getting caught red-handed.
So instead of looking like the gracious host, Lot is more-and-more scripted as a foreigner who's violating local laws by smuggling complete strangers into his home (and doing it rather sloppily, to boot: his gratuitous bowing in full view of the town's inhabitants in the square is only asking for trouble, which is exactly what he gets).
So Lot's unquenchable thirst for ego gratification and his attempts to seek status in the eyes of complete strangers means he's willing to break the city's rules.
Strike #8: Lot has no respect for the laws of his adopted land; Lot is not "just".
The townspeople likely viewed Lot as a pretentious self-absorbed blowhard, trying to impress everyone with HIS customs, which ran completely counter to THEIR laws.
That likely explains why the mob insisted on learning the identity of these total strangers whom the foreigner smuggled into his house against their rules, hence placing the entire town at risk. The mob wanted to question the men to determine their motives (and translating "to know" as "having sexual intercourse with" is really a forced interpretation, but not out of the realm of possibility: in a subsequent article, I'll present another more-likely explanation that may explain the mob's wanting to rape the male strangers, and their motivation is NOT homosexuality, but trying to determine if they're actually 'fallen angels', Sons of God who abandoned the Heavens to assume mortal form).
The attempts of the town's mob to question the strangers is all the more ironic, since their suspicions WERE correct: the visitors actually WERE angels sent by YHWH with orders to destroy Sodom! In a sense, the strangers were terrorists sent from Heaven!
It's hard to excuse Lot's utter disregard for local laws and customs, as he's depicted as someone who thinks the rules don't apply to him, paralleling his lack of respect for cultural norms (first, by not respecting the family patriarch's right of first-refusal, and now, by flaunting his disregard of Sodom's laws, even in front of their faces).
However, Lot continues to behave badly, now lying to the mob about his daughter's virginal status:
Genesis 19:8
Lot said: “Please, my brothers, do not act badly. Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man.
The lie is revealed when son-in-laws (!) briefly appear in the narrative (only to be killed in Sodom's destruction, a convenient turn of events for allowing Lot's later incest to occur). So not only was Lot LYING, but it was a bald-faced LIE, one that probably insulted the intelligence of everyone the crowd: wouldn't they KNOW that Lot's daughters were married?
Do "just" men lie?
Strike #9: Lot has no honor, but lies at will. Lot is not "just".
(And YES, I've seen attempts to excuse Lot's lie by claiming the sons-in-laws were fiances or betrothed, or that there were actually four daughters, etc: it's really stretching to attempt to cover-up for "righteous" Lot, but I'll grant that it's possible, as there are midrashim that speak of other daughters and the angels make a reference to Lot's other relatives living in the city, as well.)
But even if NOT a lie, Lot publicly touted his daughters' status as virgins, thus talking publicly (before a mob, no less) about personal, private matters (well, in most cultures; at least, those that value keeping personal matters private).
In fact, marriage customs at the time actually ALLOWED young people to sleep together BEFORE marriage, and if the young man desired to take the women as his wife, the young man was to seek marriage via his patriarch who negotiated with the girl's patriarch (eg Dinah and her young husband, a Schechemite, from Genesis).
Regardless, indiscretion is NOT a trait associated with a "righteous man". Lot has added the insult of public humiliation to the emotional and physical injury of placing his daughters in harm's way.
Strike #10: Lot is indiscreet, a trait not associated with "Godliness".
Lot is revealed as a hypocrite, asking the mob not to sin in order to protect HIS honor and reputation, but THEN compels the mob to sin by raping and/or killing his daughters:
Genesis 19:8
"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.”
Lot starts by pleading with the mob not to "act badly" (based on Lot's desire to be seen as a gracious host, a value not shared with the people of Sodom), but offers to hand over his daughters to do "as is good in YOUR eyes". That's a betrayal of his daughters' trust, but also a betrayal of YHWH, since the Sodomites are NOT supposed to independently exercise mortal free-will agency in order to decide what they should do ("what is good in their eyes"); in fact, God is about to wipe them out for doing EXACTLY THAT very thing!
So Lot is depicted as encouraging the mob to use their own flawed sense of morality, as if begging them to sin. The people of Sodom are portrayed as wicked sinners, and he's trusting the lives of his daughters to their sense of morality?
Strike #11: Lot is compelling others to do what is good in their eyes. Lot is not "Godly".
The story implies Lot allowed his daughters to marry pagans, since the sons-in-laws were later killed in the destruction of Sodom (along with all the other unrighteous evil-doers). And while those laws didn't apply to Lot (they were handed down as Mosaic Law, much later), the moral principles which underlies those laws existed, since God's morality is unchanging.
Strike #12: Lot allowed his daughters to marry pagans: Lot is not "Godly".
Speaking of the sons-in-law, the account makes it clear that they were offered an opportunity for salvation by the angels (i.e. the two men):
Genesis 19:
12 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here--sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”
All Lot had to do was convince them of the serious situation:
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because the Lord is about to destroy the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.
The son-in-laws thought Lot was playing a prank on them when he warned them of the coming destruction in the middle of the night, so they didn't take him seriously and blew him off (they likely thought their father-in-law had been hitting the bottle, yet again). Lot is viewed by the son-in-laws as a man not to be taken seriously, someone who often acts the fool, as if a court jester.
Think of it: Genesis 19:14 is the VERY PASSAGE in which Lot is serving as a 'preacher of righteousness' and warning the son-in-laws of the coming destruction of Sodom, offering them an opportunity for salvation. Instead, Lot's prior behavior and shenanigans led his son-in-laws to conclude that he was playing a joke.
And note they clearly weren't guilty of participating in whatever crimes warranted the destruction of Sodom, since the angels had invited them to escape it's destruction as members of Lot's family. They died ONLY due to not taking Lot seriously, when honesty the question must be asked: would YOU listen to someone like ungodly Lot, prone to drunkenness and debauchery?
Strike #13: Lot is not taken seriously even by his own relatives: Lot is not "Godly".
The angels TOLD Lot that he WOULD be swept away when the city was punished, if he didn't flee:
Genesis 19:15 (NIV)
15 With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished."
With that in mind, review the words offered in the chapter before, where Abraham was addressing YHWH:
Genesis 18:25 (NIV)
25 "Far be it from you to do such a thing--to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
The angels were telling Lot that he would be swept away along with the wicked if he didn't flee, which implies Lot and family weren't seen as righteous: killing "righteous" Lot would mean that God was doing exactly what Abraham said would be unjust, "treating the righteous and wicked alike".
The angels words indicate that Lot is NOT being saved due to his own "righteousness", but for some other reason (which will be revealed shortly).
Strike #14: The angels don't say that Lot is "righteous", but indicates the exact opposite; there ARE NO righteous men in Sodom (or at least, less than TEN).
The offer of Lot and family being saved from Sodom is conditional on their following angelic instructions to a tee. But when ordered to leave, Lot lingers, not wanting to part with his accumulated wealth, forced to flee with only the clothes on his back.
Genesis 19:15-16
15And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city. 16And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.
The Bible says Lot and family had to be "hastened", FORCIBLY REMOVED from their home by the angels, who dragged them by their hands away from Sodom before it was destroyed. And while YHWH is described as "showing mercy to him (Lot)" in verse 16, God's motivations behind the display of mercy is not revealed (yet).
Strike #15: "Righteous men" don't cling to their material wealth, valuing it over their very lives.
Genesis 19:17-19:
17 And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed. 18 And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my Lord: 19 Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die:
Notice Lot doesn't claim to be righteous in the passages above, but only "having found grace in the thy sight", so Lot acknowledges having been shown mercy. But interestingly, Lot has no illusions of being a "righteous" man.
Strike #16: Even Lot doesn't claim to be a "righteous man" .
Rather than strictly complying with angelic orders, Lot asks the angel for permission to stay in the nearby town of Zoar:
Genesis 19:20-22:
20 Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live. 21 And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken. 22 Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do any thing till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.
By now, Lot is really pushing the limits of God's undeserved mercy, since apparently seeing his wife turned into a salt lick for disobeying a direct angelic order didn't deliver the message that he's being saved ONLY due to God's undeserved grace and mercy, and not due to Lot's "righteousness". Lot thus requests a last-minute change of itinerary (the general rule is, it's always better to ask for permission BEFORE doing something that runs contrary to orders, a lesson lost on Lot's wife).
And as you remember from earlier, 'Zoar' means 'little' in Hebrew, so you should be able to figure out on your own the meaning behind Lot's request to stop in Zoar: Lot is asking for permission to slowly withdrawal from sin, rather than going 'cold turkey' (he rationalizes his request by pleading with the angels, "is it not a little sin?").
Surprisingly, the angel grants Lot's request, but Lot has a change of heart, deciding it might be better to flee to the mountains (symbolic for seeking a closer relationship with God). Lot's change of heart paradoxically reflects Lot's lack of faith in the angels, as if THEY might ALSO have a change of heart and destroy Lot along with Zoar for having the unmitigated gall to request permission to sin just a "little bit".
So that request is a no-winner, either way you cut it!
It also counts as two strikes:
Strike #17: "Righteous men" don't ask for permission to sin "just a little bit",
AND,
Strike #18: "Godly men" don't display a lack of faith in God and his angels
BTW, this decision to flee directly to the mountains is the only slightly God-fearing act we've seen out of Lot (unless you count the failed attempt to preach of the coming destruction to his sons-in-law), as if it's finally dawned on him that asking angels for permission to sin might be pushing his luck, as if he were intentionally trying their patience.
Genesis 19:30
30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
A cave is a definite step down from Abram's tent-living within the Godly mountains, or even living in an urban setting within Sodom's wall. Hence the story of Lot is seen as a "rags (Ur) to riches (Egypt) to even greater riches (Sodom) but back to rags (cave)" story. Lot has absolutely NONE of his former material wealth, or prestige amongst men (with no neighbors), and is now living in a cold, damp, spider-filled cave with his two daughters. It's enough to drive someone to drink!
So even though Lot is living in the mountains (closer to God), cave-dwelling is symbolic of being hidden from God's view, as if already dead (where the dead were buried in caves in antiquity). So although Lot's mortal shell was spared from the destruction of Sodom, as the story winds down to the final scene, he's living in a tomb, a sepulcher. Lot is spiritually dead to God.
Strike #19: "Godly men" don't live in caves, and aren't symbolized as being dead to God.
Genesis 19:32:
32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
And of course, Lot is soon back to his old tricks again, drinking to the point of blacking out. Note the attempt to blame the daughters ("let us MAKE him drink wine"), as they could've forced Lot to get falling-down drunk against his will. The story is set over four millenia before the invention of Rohypnol (the 'date rape' drug that could be slipped into his wine), so Lot doesn't have that as an excuse for passing out!
And this didn't happen just ONE night, but TWO nights in a row! The implication is clear: Lot is an alcoholic. That's one reason why Jewish synagogues still typically offer a reading of the Lot account during Rosh Hashana to warn of the dangers of over-indulgence.
So what's the count? 20?
Strike #20: "Godly men" aren't alcoholics who experience drunken black outs.
So up to this point, EVERY DETAIL offered in Lot's story is unflattering, intentionally designed to create the image of a selfish, vainglorious, skeezy, oafish, morally-reprobate alcoholic Ungodly fool. Is there any sin which Lot hasn't been committing?
Well, there's one more....
The REAL reason for this relentless barrage of character assassinations against Lot is FINALLY revealed, just before the curtain descends on this "uplifting" story of Lot:
Genesis 19:38:
36 "So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi ; he is the father of the Ammonites of today."
There it is: the ending you didn't see coming, the literary trope that suddenly explains everything else that came before, building up to it (like the cliched ending, "and then he woke up"....).
The story concludes when it's revealed that the offspring of Lot's incestuous relations with his daughters are the FOUNDERS of the Ammonite and Moabite tribes. They're the products of Lot's INCESTUOUS sexual relations.
Strike #21: "Righteous men" don't commit incest. Certainly not TWICE!
The entire depiction of Lot was DESIGNED to be a series of thinly-veiled slurs aimed at the Children of Israel's inbred distant kin-folk, the Ammonites and Moabites. The account is INTENDED to be as a string of insults, in a culture where to suggest someone was conceived by a drunken incestuous forefather is inflammatory, meant to rile up an angry mob. The story is NOT MEANT to be read as "righteous Lot" who is seen as a "good guy".
So why does this diatribe against Lot's character appear in Genesis?
The "Children of Lot" remained an ongoing source of trouble and territorial conflict for the "Children of Israel" (who are the DIRECT descendants of Abraham via Isaac's son, Jacob). The "Children of Lot" are NOT members of the 12 tribes of Israel, NOT the Chosen Ones, but only distant kin-folk: they're the Unchosen People, the Also-Rans, the ones who were disinherited in the Old Testament.
That's not an overstatement or hyperbole: the Bible indicates Lot was in line to inherit the estate of Uncle Abraham:
Genesis 15:2 (NIV):
"But Abram said, "Sovereign LORD, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?"
Eliezer is Abraham's head servant, one of who's duties was to act as executor of his master's estate upon his death, distributing his holdings amongst relatives. Note that Abram cannot even bring himself to mention Lot's name, but he only refers to the name of his head servant. As the closest-related male heir, his nephew Lot was expecting to inherit Abraham's wealth (who was, unlike Lot, one to respect cultural norms and traditions). However, the birth of Isaac dashed Lot's hopes, and brought great joy to Abraham and Sarah since they now had an direct descendent to whom they could leave their accumulated material wealth.
However, hatred and exclusion requires a bit more justification than Lot's disinheritance, so the story provides plenty of other reasons for Israelites to exclude their kin from certain activities:
Genesis 23:3-4:
"3: No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation. 4: For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you."
The Children of Lot are accused of having failed to display hospitality to the Children of Israel when they were emerging from captivity in Egypt, failing to meet the Israelites out in the wilderness to offer them bread and water. They are accused of being inhospitable, just like their Sodomite ancestors were, who failed to offer bread and water to weary travelers who passed through Sodom. Hence, the insinuation is the trait of selfishness still survives in the Ammonites and Moabites, and the trait clearly survived through "unrighteous" Lot and his daughters. Add THAT one to the list....
As seen in Genesis 23, the account of Lot was used to bar the Israelite's distant relatives from the Temple in Jerusalem, since they cannot simply be slaughtered in genocidal military campaigns to take away their lands (as other inhabitants of Canaan were): after all, they ARE still distant kin (as Abram said to Lot).
And as Genesis shows in a few chapters, even Abraham's own direct offspring are not safe from such polemics, demonstrated when Abraham rejects his son Ishmael (borne by his slave girl, Hagar) when they both were no longer needed, after God blessed his wife Sarah with a son, Isaac. So cast out and left to die in the desert, God showed mercy by letting both mother and son live. Of course, Ishmael is said to be the forefather of the Saudi Arabians, and like the descendants of Lot, an example of non-Jews, AKA God's non-chosen people.
But aside from explaining the origins of various national groups appearing the Bible, the tale also explains how the Dead Sea region came to have it's present-day appearance of an arid, low-altitude desert, with undrinkable salty water in the basin. Per the story, it once was a fertile region, but was smitten by God to appear as the 'wasteland' as seen today.
So three birds are killed with one stone in the story, serving up a morality play, an 'origins of nations' tale, but also explaining the current appearance of geographical traits of the region (just like the Noah account explains where rainbows come from, wrapped in a bow sitting atop a morality tale).
It's hard NOT to think of Sodom as existing as an arid desert region, since that how artists have traditionally depicted the landscape. In fact, notice how the WT's Illustrated Bible Stories slips up (the picture is shown in Pt 3 of this series), showing a dry and barren landscape BEFORE Sodom was destroyed! Of course, the proper mental image of the region pre-destruction. per Genesis, is account that of a well-watered prosperous land of plenty.
Speaking of continuity errors, 2nd Peter's mischaracterization of a "righteous Lot" and daughters makes YHWH appear as a blundering boob, since the question arises: if Lot were indeed 'righteous' due to showing hospitality (per 2nd Peter), then why are the inhospitable traits of Sodomites still found in the progeny of Lot, if all the "unrighteous" Sodomites were killed off?
Thus 2nd Peter's faulty assessment of Lot introduces many such 'continuity errors' that only creates more problems than it resolves, since modern Christians are forever condemned to defend the actions of a clearly-immoral Lot via engaging in an equally-endless string of apologetics, forever sentenced to argue unconvincingly that Lot was saved due to his own "righteousness".
However, two questions remain:
1) If Lot wasn't a "righteous man", then WHY was he saved from the destruction of Sodom?
(HINT: the answer is found in three simple words appearing in the Genesis account, completely overlooked by most readers.)
2) Where did 'Peter' get the inspiration to proclaim Lot as a "righteous man", when there's pretty overwhelming evidence that Lot was NEVER intended by the author of Genesis to be viewed as such?
I'll address both of these questions in Part 2 of my article, examining the roots that led to the contradictory characterization of Lot existing in Genesis vs 2 Peter.
Adam G.