GENESIS: Week 3
Genesis 19 really makes things difficult for us!
It is, in a sense, a story about Lot. But, actually, there are three stories to contrast here.
Lot in Genesis 19, Abraham in Genesis 18 and Noah in Genesis 9.
And the account of Lot can be split into three – the ‘hospitality incident’ (v.1-11), the ‘sulfur and fire rain’ (v.12-29) and the ‘no other men situation’ (v.30-38). (You won’t find those headings in any bibles anywhere, but I wanted to create intrigue and/or be more polite than the stories are...)
It is the first section which plays against the account of Abraham from the previous chapter, and and final section which connects with Noah, and so we’ll try to unpack those points of similarity and difference, as well as bringing up some of the harm that these stories have caused people through particular interpretations over the years.
Lot, Abraham and Angels
In two chapters, one directly following on from the other, we are presented with two different accounts of hospitality and welcoming divine visitors. Suitably enough, given our current Sunday Sermon Series on Hebrews, there is a verse which summarises the key take away from these stories;
Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it. -Hebrews 13:2 (NRSVue)
Abraham, in chapter 18, excels, demonstrating ideal hospitality. He seems to spare no expense, rushing about after his guests. It appears as though some of those three guests could be the same angels that Lot encounters in chapter 19, and the greeting they recieve in Sodom is stark in difference. Whilst Lot starts in a similar way, encouraging them to stop and rest at his home, the people of Sodom spoil things.
There is no nice way of putting what they intend to do with the angelic visitors, but it appears that they wish to seriously sexually assault the visitors, as a group. We’re told that all the men of Sodom gathered at the house – depicting a violent group, whose culture couldn’t be further from hospitality, with an expectation that they could freely exploit the guests.
This is as appalling as it sounds. But Lot’s response isn’t great either.
He starts to beg for the safety of the visitors, offering instead his two daughters, described as not having ‘known’ a man, I think to highlight their youth and innocence. And again, this is willingly offering his own children to become victims of extreme sexual violence. It’s unthinkable, and yet it appears the lesser of two evils for Lot.
There isn’t any indication that Lot was aware that these were angelic visitors, so in theory this was a choice made to sacrifice his daughters in place of some strangers. In one sense, an extreme attempt to prioritise the safety of visitors above his family, but also a powerful example of the inhospitality of the men of Sodom and Lot’s own lack of ethical integrity.
When he is contrasted with Abraham, who is promised to be the ‘father of many nations’, Lot come across as inept, or even dangerous, as a father. He is unworthy of playing a part in the promise made to his Uncle.
Sodom and Gomorrah
I wouldn’t be surprised if this passage was one of the best known in the bible that is least read. The names Sodom and Gomorrah transcend biblical reading, and if people know anything about them, it’s possibly that God rained down fire on them and destroyed them for their sin.
But there have been differing ideas about what the ‘Sin of Sodom’ was.
In a way that has been particularly damaging, many preachers and teachers, particularly in the past, have identified Homosexuality as the ‘Sin of Sodom’. This is an interpretation of Genesis 19 centred on the men of Sodom desiring to have sex with the male guests.
Much more likely, and reasonable as an explanation, is that the ‘Sin of Sodom’ has to do with what we just read. A mixture of extreme violence and lack of hospitality. This isn’t just a different way to read Genesis 19, but its what other parts of the bible suggest too.
Ezekiel 16:49–50 emphasizes pride, wealth, neglect of the poor, and abominable behaviour.
Isaiah 1 compares Jerusalem to Sodom in terms of injustice and corruption.
Jeremiah 23 associates Sodom with moral and social wickedness.
There is also a story in Judges 19 which has a lot of similarities to the account of Lot and the Angels in Genesis 19. So many similarities, in fact, that we should be thinking that one of these stories has likely borrowed from, or drawn from, the other. Given the connection between Abraham and Lot’s stories in Genesis, and given understanding of potential dates for their writing, it’s reasonable to think Genesis 19 came first and that Judges is using that story to make a point.
It does so by making the outcome worse – by a woman being assaulted, and then dying. And the message behind that passage appears to be “Israel has become as bad as Sodom."
This is a judgement on their immorality and lack of justice, and so it tracks back that the ‘Sin (or sins) of Sodom’ were injustice and immorality.
Lot and his Daughters
We reach the final chapter in this unfortunate and visceral tale in Genesis 19.
This story echoes one we read recently, with Noah and his sons. There are some key parallels;
1. Alcohol and loss of awareness
Noah: drinks wine and becomes drunk (Gen 9:21)
Lot: gets drunk (twice) in the cave (Gen 19:33, 35)
2. Exposure / compromised status
Noah: “uncovered himself inside his tent”
Lot: ends up isolated in a cave after the destruction of Sodom
3. Sexual violation or impropriety while vulnerable
Noah: his nakedness is seen by his son Ham (the exact act is debated, but exposure is key)
Lot: his daughters initiate incest while he is intoxicated
4. Family division and moral failure after deliverance
Noah’s episode leads to the curse of Canaan and fractured family relations
Lot’s episode leads to the origin of Moab and Ammon (nations later portrayed as Israel’s rivals)
5. “Post-salvation” failure pattern
Both stories occur immediately after divine rescue:
Noah is after the flood
Lot is after Sodom’s destruction
With another quick pitstop to consider how the bible can be used in damaging ways, Noah’s story brought about the idea of ‘The curse of Ham’. The ‘curse of Ham’ was historically misused to claim that Black Africans were descended from Ham’s son Canaan and therefore divinely destined for slavery, even though the biblical text only curses Canaan and says nothing about race.
Lot’s story serves as a kind of etiology, or origin story, for some of Israel’s closest rivals – the Moabites and the Ammonites. They are to be identified as having started with this story of incest.
So, all in all, Lot doesn’t cover himself in glory here. He is contrasted with Abraham (and comes out extremely poorly from that comparison), he is explained to be the father of enemies to Israel, and his wife is turned into a pillar of salt.
Whilst it’s too late for Lot to learn his lessons, we can learn lessons about how to approach stories like this with caution, not seeking to take big sweeping ideas away from them, and how the bible interacts with itself in ways which should enlighten and inform our own reading now.