by brotherdan 116 Replies latest watchtower bible
there is a case to be made that it is a retelling of a Moabite legend about the origin of the Dead Sea which is a desert variant of the flood myth.
And there is a case to be made that the Moabite legend is a retelling of Lots story and a retelling of the flood.
The original story in Genesis 19 does not hold up Lot as a moral example. However later writers interpreting the story drew different conclusions about the character of Lot. There is a diference between justifying Lot's sin and categorizing Lot as either a righteous or wicked person. Later Judaism took a dualistic view of morality (e.g. the Two Ways ethical instruction), dividing the world into the righteous and the wicked. Lot was an ambiguous figure in terms of morality...which side did Lot fall on? Most writers seemed to view Lot in rather negative terms but it was difficult to outright classify him as among the wicked when he was not, in fact, destroyed with them. At the same time, many could not classify him as righteous, for this would put him on the same level as Abraham.
The original story in Genesis 19 does not hold up Lot as a moral example.
It upholds Lot as someone respected by God. God sent his angels to save Lot and his family. Lot was spoken of as being righteous. He did some pretty bad things, but comparing him to the rest of the city, he was righteous.
Most writers seemed to view Lot in rather negative terms but it was difficult to outright classify him as among the wicked when he was not, in fact, destroyed with them.
And he had angels specifically sent TO him. You can't argue this point. And I think that is why the later writers said he was righteous. God did not send angels to save wicked men.
It upholds Lot as someone respected by God.
What I mean is that it doesn't hold him up as a moral example or lesson. That was done in later interpretation.
God sent his angels to save Lot and his family... And he had angels specifically sent TO him. You can't argue this point.
Actually I can, nowhere does the story say that the mission of the angels was to save Lot and his family. When the angels describe their mission, it is this: "We are going to destroy this place. The outcry to Yahweh against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it" (19:13). Yahweh similarly says in the previous chapter that they were being sent so Yahweh would know whether the place is as bad as the outcry against it has made it out to be. They are sent on their way to the city before Abraham makes his appeal to Yahweh to relent from his planned destruction. Nor is there any specific promise made to save Lot. Rather it is Lot who happens upon the angels when he was sitting near the city gate (not realizing their divine mission) and invites them to his house, and saves them from assault. Had Lot not been there and the angels spent the night in the square as they had planned, he would not have met them. Thus some early interpreters felt that Lot was saved on account of this deed: "Because of his hospitality and piety, Lot was saved from Sodom" (1 Clement 11:1).
When the angels describe their mission, it is this: "We are going to destroy this place. The outcry to Yahweh against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it" (19:13).
Touche' Leolaia.... Very good point!
And I'll concur with Lot as not being a good MORAL example. But really, there are many that are declared righteous without being good moral examples. Again, the point about Rahab. She was even in the line of Jesus. But she was a prostitute.
"Genesis is a history book".
Oh dear!!!!
Come on whereiam. I know your views. You don't have to come on to all of the Christian threads and say "Oh come on" or "How ironic" or whatever. If you don't agree with it, give your argument or don't read the thread. Simple as that.
Yes, there is a good parallel with Rahab, who was saved on account of how she treated the spies. It was Rahab's good luck that she came upon them as opposed to someone else in the city. And whether Lot's deed in saving the angels from harm was moral was also ambiguous in Jewish tradition. For a negative view, see for example this midrash:
"Lot says to the men of Sodom, 'Behold, I have two daughters....' Normally, a man will sacrifice himself for his daughters or his wife. Either he kills or is killed. But Lot was ready to turn over his daughters to them for iniquity! Said God to him: Well then, you can keep them for yourself, and eventually little schoolchildren will laugh about you when they read, 'And Lot's two daughters became pregnant from their father' " (Midrash Tanhuma, Wayyera 12).
I agree with you on this point too. It was shamefull of Lot for what he did and for what his daughters did. But getting back to things, he was still considered righteous even though he was so wrong in many of these things.
I find that comforting. Hopefully none of us have done anything close to what Lot and his daughters did. But even with extreme past sin, God CAN forgive and declare us righteous.
brotherdan and Leolaia- thank you very much! I agree with your posts 100%. And thank you too Passwordprotected.
The point was very well proved- Genesis 19 does NOT condemn homsexuality.
Thank you very much for all of the information on how unhospitable Sodom was and that it was RAPE that is the issue.
