Sodom and Gomorrah

I Introduction

            The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is short but it has multiple layers, implications and aspects and raises many questions. Among these questions are: why? Why these cities? Why was the destruction preceded by a negotiation with Abraham? What was the purpose and effect of this negotiation? Why were angels sent to “test” God’s theory on the transgressions? The Lot story appears to be quite odd and even raises questions regarding God’s word, what is the import of this story? What did God know when He was negotiating with Abraham and why was God even negotiating with Abraham at all? The Bible tells us that God sought to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because “The outrage of Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave!”; yet, Abraham saves these same cities in the Battle of the Kings told in Genesis Chapter 14 which clearly required God’s assistance since Abraham defeated multiple armies. It would be logical to assume that the citizens of these cities were sinners prior to the Battle of the Kings, yet in one instance God saves them while in the following instance God seeks to utterly destroy them. What happened and why did God appear to have a change of heart? In this episode, God agrees to save the cities if He can find ten righteous men, yet in Jeremiah 5:1, it only takes one man “acts justly, who seeks integrity- that I should pardon her.”

Furthermore, this reason has been the source of monumental mistreatment of homosexuals. It is this mistreatment that may be the basis for the mistrust and even hatred of organized religion by the homosexual community. For these reasons, it is imperative that we fully understand this episode and the reasons for the destruction of these cities.

            Note the difference between the criterion in Jeremiah and that in the Sodom and Gommorah story: in Jeremiah, the additional limitation of “seeking integrity” is added to the limitation of righteousness. It is the man who seeks integrity as well as being righteous. As discussed in the essay “Wisdom,” being pious is not sufficient to have wisdom. In fact, piousness along can lead to fanaticism. Wisdom requires knowledge as well as piety. Knowledge is required to understand what is required, what is true, and how to apply teaching to a particular situation. Knowledge can only be found by diligent and honest inquiry, both of your own ideas and deeds and those of others, including the ideas and deeds of those with whom you disagree (perhaps, the ideas and deeds of those with whom you disagree are more important than the ideas and deeds of those with whom you do agree since the disagreeing ideas will differ from your own and may show you where you are wrong; the ideas and deeds of those with whom you agree may be mere echo chambers for your own ideas and deeds; everyone has the ability to find knowledge if they want)[1]. The objective standard which lies outside of any one particular idea or deed might be a moral code and against which any particular conduct, deed or idea can be measured in an objective and disinterested manner. The Bible is a source of a moral code which can stand outside of any societial mores or ethos.

Why does it take ten to spare Sodom and Gomorrah yet only one to spare Jerusalem? The answers to these questions have impact on future actions taken by Abraham as well as by the entire Jewish nation. One answer is suggested by the above-noted difference between what Jeremiah was seeking and what Abraham was seeking. It is the fundamental difference between knowledge and opinion which was the focus of so many of Jeremiah’s teachings. Knowledge can be based only on truth and not on opinion. Opinions are subjective and subject to change according to situation and the individual; whereas knowledge is objective and unchanging. A consistent theme in the book of Jeremiah is the recognition that words cannot, in and of themselves, transmit ideas, and that words and their meaning can, and do, become corrupted by usage and misusage[2]. This applies to all, including priests, rabbis, prophets and others whom the people look to for understanding. How can one be sure the priest who is telling you how God wants you to act understands the true meaning of the Bible he is using to teach you? Is his understanding tainted by his character, his upbringing, current thought, what he has been taught? Jeremiah is railing against such “teachers” claiming they “know” what God wants from us[3].

            While these questions are extremely important, there is an overarching question: why does it appear that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were not provided any chance to repent? The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah apparently were and had been transgressing but it appears that they were summarily destroyed without any chance to repent or mitigate the decree. Cain[4] was punished for his transgression, but the punishment was mitigated; the Israelites were given the chance to repent after the Golden Calf episode; and even pagan Pharaoh was given the chance to repent. Even the pagan citizens of Nineveh were given the opportunity to repent. In Genesis, only the Nephilim and the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were seemingly punished (destroyed) without being given an opportunity to repent. Given the extreme importance that the Bible places on repentance, why does it appear in the story that the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were not given a chance to repent[5]?

            This essay will explore these questions and their implications. The answer to the overarching question leads to answers to the other questions.

II. Review of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah[6]

            The episode begins with three men visiting Abraham and Abraham treating them with utmost respect and hospitality (Gen 18:1-8[7]). The men then announce that Sarah will bear a child within the next year and Sarah scoffing at that prediction (Gen 18:9-12)[8]. The Lord questioned why Sarah laughed (Gen 18:13). Sarah had the temerity to actually lie to God (Gen 18:15) with God apparently overlooking such a transgression.

            Gen 18 raises several interesting questions. A question is immediately presented in Gen 18:1 “The Lord appeared to him….” Why didn’t Abraham die when he saw God (see Exodus 3:6 and Ex 33:20, but compare Num 12:8 where one can see God’s likeness)?

            God then has a soliloquy in which He debates whether or not to inform Abraham of His intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because “The outrage of Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave! I will go down to see whether they acted altogether according to the outcry that has reached me; if not, I will take note.” This raises the next question regarding Gen 18: Why is God questioning this decision? If Abraham is His partner, then God should inform him that He is about to interfere with Abraham’s area of the partnership. Was God afraid to tell Abraham He was about to infringe on Abraham’s portion of the partnership? If so, why? Perhaps God knew He was going to infringe on Abraham’s area and knew it was wrong and would violate the terms of the partnership. Perhaps God was still learning what a full partnership means, and only sensed this act would be wrong.

One of the arguments God makes to Himself concerns the charge to Abraham that he instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is just and right” Sodom and Gomorrah had not done what is “just and right” especially when it comes to strangers in their cities. This will be further discussed later in this essay.Therefore, perhaps the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was to be a teaching experience for Abraham on what happens when a human entity transgresses. But, again, this issue will be discussed in greater detail below. A better answer seems to involve the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah being a teaching experience for Abraham Perhaps God was questioning how best to conduct the teaching experience: telling Abraham so he would better know what was happening, in which case Abraham might not learn how to recognize evil ways on his own without being told, or not telling Abraham so Abraham would learn on his own to not only recongnize evil ways but to see the consequences of evil ways.The teaching lesson approach seems to be followed when Abraham negotiates with God regarding the pending destruction.

            Next follows the negotiation between Abraham and God regarding God’s intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.[9] Abraham contends that God should not punish the innocent along with the guilty Will You sweep away the innocent along with the guilty?” Gen 28:23….”Far be it from You to do such a thing, to bring death upon the innocent as well as the guilty, so that innocent and guilty fare alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” (Gen 18:25). God and Abraham then negotiate the number of innocent men that will be required to cause God to spare the cities. The number is negotiated down from fifty to ten, with God finally agreeing that “I will not destroy for the sake of ten.” Gen 18:32[10].

It is also worthwhile noting that Abraham’s arguments, especially the argument based on justice, seem to show that Abraham understands justice, guilt and innocence – the very lessons God wishes to teach Abraham.  By having Abraham argue for the citizens of these cities, God has forced Abraham to find reasons to save these cities. This forces Abraham to find justice, which forces him to understand it. This is the lesson God wanted to teach Abraham. This could be the reason God relented and agreed to save the cities if He could find ten good men, the lesson had been learned and there was no need for further teaching. In fact, it seems that Abraham went even further than God might have hoped. Abraham’s argument is not to destroy the guilty and/or save the innocent, but to save the entire population for the sake of a small number who are just. This argument has the underlying concept of a just or upright minority can bring deliverance to the entire community. This teaches one to be upright and righteous no matter what the majority does. This lesson appears to be much broader than what God ntended, especially since He apparently rejected it when He destroyed the entire community while saving Lot and his family, which would represent a small minority of upright and just among the greater community of evildoers[11].

                In Genesis 19:1- 5:”The two angels arrived in Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to greet them and, bowing low with his face to the ground….They had not yet lain down, when the townspeople, the men of Sodom, young and old, all the people to the last man – gathered about the house. And they shouted to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may be intimate with them. So Lot went out to them to the entrance, shut the door behind him, and said, ‘I beg you, my friends, do not commit such a wrong. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please; but do not do anything to these men, since they have come under the shelter of my roof.’ But they said, ‘Stand back! The fellow,’ they said, ‘came here as an alien, and already acts the ruler!’ Now we will deal worse with you than with them.’”

            Next the puzzling episode where Lot and his family are saved is related in Gen 19:15-22, and then the cities are destroyed in Gen 19:23-25 after Lot and his family flee. In Gen 19:17, they are specifically instructed not to look back, but in Gen 19:26, Lot’s wife did look back and was turned into a pillar of salt. The episode ends with Lot and his daughters hiding in the hill country after the statement in Gen 19:29: “Thus it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the Plain and annihilated the cities where Lot dwelt, God was mindful of Abraham and removed Lot from the midst of the upheaval[12].”

III. Observations

    A. Homosexuality

            One commonly propounded reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is the homosexual nature of those citizens. This reason will be explored later in this essay.

    B. Lot knew the visitors were angels

            It might be worth noting that Lot apparently identified these visitors as being angels because he bowed down with his face to the ground[13]. Perhaps this observation detracts and dilutes Lot’s later actions in protecting the visitors. If one knows he has angels in his care, one would be more aggressive in protecting them, certainly, one would be bolder as one would think the angels could return the protection. However, be that as it may, the story does not change.

    C. Further questions with regard to the story

            (1) The angels

            If God knew there was only one righteous man in Sodom, why did He go through the charade of sending angels to the city?

            (2) Even if there were ten righteous men in Sodom, why would God not simply remove them and destroy the remaining citizens without the charade of the angels?

IV. Reasons generally propounded for the story

    A. The text is ambiguous regarding the exact nature of the transgression

            The text does not provide any specifically-identified reasons for the destruction, citing only that “The outrage of Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave! I will go down and see whether they have acted altogether according to the outcry that has reached Me;” (Genesis 18:20-21). This ambiguity has given rise to many interpretations as to what the “outrage” and “sin” were[14].

    B. Possible reasons for the story[15]

            1. The people of biblical times had discovered ruins[16] that had indicia of being cities and developed this theocentered story to account for such ruins[17]. While this is a possibility, it does not account for the failure of archeologists to discover any archeological remains which could have been Sodom and Gomorrah[18]. However, even if the people of biblical times had identified a city, or cities, which were then in ruins but which ruins are now not identifiable to present-say archeologists, this story seems an odd way to justify such ruins. Even this latter view begs the question of why was this method used by God[19]? Therefore, the identification of ruins and the attempt to discover why the cities were destroyed does not seem to be an adequate basis for this story.

            2. The citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were greedy[20] and were afraid strangers would steal their goods. However, this view does not account for the fact that greed is an acquired trait and as such, can be corrected. Therefore, greed is the type of transgression that is amenable to repentance. Therefore, it would seem reasonable to conclude that greed alone, without more, was not the transgression which incited God’s anger sufficiently so He would not, or could not, provide the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah an opportunity to repent and thus stave off the harsh consequence reported in this story. Thus, it can be concluded that greed alone is not the “outrage” and “sin” for which Sodom and Gomorrah are being destroyed.

            3. The citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were xenophobes[21]. However, xenophobia, like greed, is an acquired trait which is correctable. As such, it appears that xenophobia, alone and without more, was not the transgression which was so grave that God would not, or could not, provide an opportunity for the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah to correct and repent whereby the severe consequence of total destruction could be avoided.

            4. The citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were simply asking to interrogate the visitors to become better acquainted with them[22]. This interpretation seems to take the view that the way the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah chose to meet new arrivals and strangers was simply unusual, albeit harsh. Merely because the citizens had an unusual, even harsh, way of greeting strangers does not seem to rise to the level of a transgression severe enough to warren total destruction of the cities without an opportunity to correct the error. Furthermore, given the harsh realities of the times, it would seem that any city would wish to be careful about who it allowed in. Thus, it does not seem that this view will support the outcome.

            5. God used the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as a teaching lesson for Abraham about political justice[23]. This view adopts the position that Abraham already knew how to govern a tribe, but needed instruction in how to govern a nation if he was to be the leader of a great nation. The issue of Sodom and Gomorrah taught Abraham how to take a broad view of large numbers of people. That is, sometimes a leader must make a decision that sacrifices some innocent people for the greater good. However, this view fails to account for the fact that once Abraham learned his lesson, there was no longer need to destroy the two cities. Therefore, a “teaching moment” for Abraham does not appear to be reason enough for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

            6. The incident shows how man can work with God as partners[24]. However, again as above, once the result of a partnership is established, there would seem to be no further reason to destroy these cities. Therefore, showing indicia of a God/man partnership does not appear to be sufficient reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

            7. The citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, like the Nephilim, were guilty of exerting the rule of “Might Makes Right” to take what they wanted [25]. Again, this attitude is an acquired trait, and as such, can be corrected. As such, the trait seems to be amenable to repentance[26].

            8. The citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were pagans and idol-worshipers[27]. As before, this trait is an acquired trait and can be corrected. Thus, the trait of paganism and idol worship is amenable to repentance – as exemplified by the city of Nineveh in the story of Jonah.

            9. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is presented to show that Abraham understood justice and thus was worthy of being the progenitor of a great nation. See Genesis 18:19.

            10. God’s treatment of Lot presents a conundrum, and the conundrum of Lot will be further discussed below. However, another aspect of the story could be that the story is a plot device to eliminate Lot from being a potential rival with Isaac for leadership of the Abraham’s descendants. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah occurs immediately after the angels announce to Abraham and Sarah that Sarah will bear a child (Gen 18:10). Immediately after stopping at Abraham’s dwelling, the angels continued on to Sodom and Gomorrah to substantiate or disprove the rumors that God had heard about the outrages occurring in those cities (Gen 18: 20-22). Now that Abraham will have a clear descendant, Isaac, any question as to who the people should follow should be eliminated. Until this time, Abraham had bestowed special attention and blessings on Lot. This could be interpreted as Abraham choosing Lot to be his successor and could cause confusion as to who, Lot or Isaac, was the proper successor. This is a question that could cause a rift, or even a civil war, among Abraham’s descendants. Therefore, Lot must be removed from consideration (see, also, the story of David and Goliath which elevates David sufficiently to challenge Saul for Kingship and devalues Saul because he should have led the assault of Goliath himself). It would be unseemly for God to simply to kill off Lot; therefore, another approach was required. Plus, it might raise a question of whether God was interfering with Lot’s free will (this question with regard to the cities will be discussed in detail later in this essay). The destruction of the city in which Lot lived for transgressions in which Lot was innocent with Lot being collateral damage would be a possible way to eliminate Lot. Again, however, the killing of Lot, even as collateral damage, would appear to be a bit unseemly. By showing Lot to be a good and proper host (mirroring the actions of Abraham in hosting the men on their way) essentially absolves Lot from the iniquities of the other citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah. But since Lot does live there, he can be manipulated as is necessary for this plot. According to the story, because of Lot’s actions, he and his family are permitted to escape from the cities before their destruction which avoids the problem of an unseemly elimination of Lot from possible contention as a leader of Abraham’s descendants.

            However, this still leaves Lot there. How to eliminate Lot without raising a question of interference with Lot’s free will? As is done in other stories, the solution is to have Lot escape and engage in an act that would be repugnant to the audience (similar to Saul’s actions with regard to David when the plot wanted David to be the unquestioned leader of the Israelites). This was done in Genesis 19:20-38 when Lot and his daughters (his wife had been turned into a pillar of salt during the escape) are in the hill country near Zoar. Lot engages in drunken incest with his daughters. Furthermore, the offspring of these acts are the Ammonites and Moabites who are enemies of the Israelites. Lot is thus removed from any claim on leadership of Abraham’s descendants thus clearing the way for Isaac to carry on the line of descent.

            While this story effectively removes Lot from contention it also shows that God does not know the outcome of events[28]. If Lot would have been eliminated along with the other citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah per the agreement made between Abraham and God in Genesis 18:23-32 where God agreed not to destroy the cities if He found ten innocent men, Lot would not have fathered the people who would be enemies of Israel. This problem was not corrected until Ruth (a Moab) marries Boaz (a descendant of Judah) in the story of Ruth as a precursor to David.

            11. The incident is used to show that Abraham understood the meaning of justice and that it is wrong to spill innocent blood. Furthermore, the story is used to show that Abraham taught God the meaning of the sanctity of innocent blood and the wrongness in spilling innocent blood. This is extremely important because later, at Mt. Moriah, Abraham trusts God to have learned this lesson so that God will not allow the spilling of the blood of an innocent, Isaac, for the purpose of testing Abraham’s fidelity. This may have been the real test: would Abraham trust that God learned the lesson of the sanctity of innocents that was taught at Sodom and Gomorrah and not require the sacrifice of Isaac? By saving Lot, it appears the God did, indeed, learn the lesson.

            12. The discussion between Abraham and God was Abraham’s attempt to determine if God could be trusted to protect him (and, by extension, all humans) if they followed God’s rules. Thus, Abraham could stop the discussion when it reached ten innocent men (down from fifty innocent men being required to save the cities from destruction) as the point was made that God would, indeed, spare the innocent and even spare the guilty for the sake of the innocent. This faith that God could be trusted to protect the innocent was put to the test at Mr. Moriah with the binding of Isaac. Abraham’s faith in God’s protection of the innocent would outweigh his doubts regarding God’s view of the sanctity of an agreement which, as discussed in this essay, is violated when God saves Lot but destroys the remainder of the cities even though the agreement was that the cities would only be spared if ten innocent men were found.

            However, the point regarding trust between God and Abraham needs further discussion as it has significant implications in the Abraham/God story and hence in the story of the Jews. This discussion will be presented below.

            13. The citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were practicing homosexuality.

V. Homosexuality and Sodom and Gomorrah

    A. Introduction

            A frequently proposed reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the citizens were practicing homosexuality. This reason has gained some traction and may fit this discussion; however, as will be discussed, it is doubtful[29]. Furthermore, as mentioned in the introduction, this reason has been the source of monumental mistreatment of homosexuals. It is this mistreatment that may be the basis for the mistrust and even hatred of organized religion by the homosexual community. For these reasons, it is imperative that we fully understand this episode and the reasons for the destruction of these cities.

    B. What the text says

            While the text never specifically identifies what the outrage is that has enraged God, the story later relates that, with regard to Lot’s guests,  the people of Sodom demand Lot “bring them out that we may be intimate with them. “ (Genesis 19:5). As interpreted by JPS, “be intimate” means “to commit homosexual rape upon them[30].”Furthermore, Lot’s offer of his daughters[31] who “have not known a man” (Gen 19:8) seems to imply that sexual contact was desired by the citizens since the term “now” is usually associated with sexual contact. Thus, the story has been interpreted that God’s anger is raised because the people of Sodom commit homosexual acts and non-consensual homosexual acts at that and will go so far as to rape strangers seeking hospitality. The story thus has raised the question of homosexuality and this has made many modern readers uncomfortable[32].

    C. Discussion of homosexuality and Sodom and Gomorrah

            (1) Introduction

            Since homosexuality has often been cited as the sole reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, assume for purposes of discussion in this portion of the essay that the homosexuality of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah is the “wickedness” that has incensed God to destroy the cities.

            (2) The story as viewed through the lens of Biblical Times

            Perhaps the homosexual overtones should simply be faced for what they are and what they meant to the people of Biblical times. When reading the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, indeed as is the case with any and all of the other stories in the Bible, the story must be read in the context of the time the story was written and in the context of the time the story was intended to be heard and understood. Thus, any and all stories of the Bible must be read and understood in the context of biblical times, and specifically the Second Temple time, in accordance with the beliefs, morals and practices of that time. These stories must not be read through the lens of today’s beliefs, morals and practices. All of the above-mentioned reasons overlook, or seek to sugarcoat, the fact that the people of that time viewed homosexuality as a sin, and an abominable sin at that; thus, the statement of Leviticus 18:22  (“Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence.”) would appear acceptable to the people of that time. To distort this so that the story does not offend the sensibilities of today, is to do an injustice to the story and to the Bible itself. Simply because we have learned things that they did not know of, and have revised our attitudes and opinions accordingly, does not mean that those people were wrong, they may have been right for their times. Of course, we can read Bible stories as lessons for today, they are certainly amenable to that, but we must not distort those stories so they will fit into what we want to hear. People often do the same thing with history. It must be remembered that the times were what they were, and we must understand that the sensibilities of past times are not the same as they are today. If we try to impose our morals, views and sensibilities on the past we will miss historical facts and misinterpret those facts so they are no longer facts. Thus, we will miss the teachings that are available if we fail to study history as it was.

            (3) What the Bible says about homosexuality

            With regard to the view that the acts of Sodom were homosexual acts, it is noted that the story is fairly ambiguous about whether the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexual. However, elsewhere the Bible has not even the slightest hint of ambiguity about what is permitted or forbidden in this aspect of sexual conduct[33]. Biblical prohibitions are bright signposts that point people directly to the acts that are desired by the authors of the Bible and directly away from acts that the authors feel should be prohibited. The prohibited acts are intended to warn people away from spiritual and emotional detours, mires, quicksand, and cliffs. All sexual sins represent some failure on society’s part to stick to the path that the biblical authors felt God wanted people to follow. By being ambiguous, there is doubt as to whether the acts being punished were really sexual in nature, or were some other transgression.

            (4) God should not punish humans for the way He made them

            Homosexuality as the reason for the destruction of the cities seems to lack cogency and is not accepted by all. Therefore, perhaps there is another moral point being made and presented by the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Homosexuality also suffers from the drawback that it would be God punishing humans for the way they are (with genetic traits rather than learned traits, and we now understand that homosexuality is a genetic trait and not an acquired trait), and since God made man and his genetic makeup[34], it would appear that God is, at least partially, responsible for the way these people are. If we follow the line of reasoning that allows God to punish someone for being different, even though it was God who made them, it might follow that God would punish women for not being men. Gender inequality has been rejected by most, if not all, Jews. Likewise, sexual preference inequality does not seem to be a valid basis for God’s punishment.

            (5) The issue of homosexuality will be further discussed below in other contexts.

VI. Lot’s family

    A. Lot and his daughters

            One of the striking acts of this story is Lot offering his daughters to the citizens in place of his guests. While hospitality was certainly a prized trait (see how Abraham treated these same travelers before they set off for Sodom and Gomorrah), it certainly could not possibly outweigh loyalty and protection of one’s own daughters. Even considering that daughters were held to be beneath sons, this does not seem sufficient to warrant or justify offering them to citizens to do with as they pleased. One possible explanation is that Lot knew the homosexual nature of the people and knew they would refuse his daughters. It is interesting to note that Lot offered his daughters, but did not offer himself.

            It might be observed that the daughters later revenged themselves on Lot while they were residing in the hill country near Zoar. They got him drunk and lay with him (thereby causing him to participate in the sin of incest) causing him to impregnate both of them (see Gen 19:30-38). Of course, this episode could also show in how low a regard Lot held his daughters thereby diluting any good deed which may have been attributed to him when he offered his daughters to the men of Sodom to protect the strangers in his house.

    B. Lot and his wife

            (1) The story does not tell us anything about Lot’s wife

            Nowhere in this story is there any report about what Lot’s wife thought about the situation. Especially what she thought about Lot offering his (and her) daughters to the men of Sodom and Gomorrah. As discussed in the section on women of the Bible in this book of essays, it should always be assumed that the men and their wives discussed events which were important to their marriage and to their family. Thus, it might be assumed that Lot discussed this matter with his wife. Did she agree? Was she overruled? Was there even an opportunity for her to provide input into the decision?

            Like Eve and Sarah, God did not directly contact Lot’s wife regarding His plan. Like the other two women, Lot’s wife had to exercise a multi-step faith process: she had to first believe that the entity giving the instructions was, indeed, God; and second she had to believe that Lot correctly understood the instructions and correctly relayed them to her. It is little wonder that she did not follow the instructions. In fact, it might even be assumed that, since Lot’s wife was a resident of Sodom and Gomorrah, she was of their religious belief, which may not have been a Jewish belief. Hence, she may not have wanted to live under the tenants of this foreign religion, especially under these circumstances. Hence, it is little wonder that she committed suicide rather than leave her home under these vague instructions.

            Maybe Lot’s wife simply did not believe in Lot’s god and the chain of instructions, so she looked back in spite of the instructions that had been relayed to her by her husband.

            (2) Lot’s wife agreed

            If she agreed, then she probably knew that the men outside her house would refuse the daughters. This means that she knew the men. This means that she probably was from Sodom. This is likely since we are not told in Genesis 13 that Lot had a wife and family. It is likely that he met his wife while he lived in Sodom. Thus, we can conclude that Lot’s wife was born and reared in Sodom and had their mores, attitudes and outlooks. This means that she likely knew about and accepted male homosexuality and saw nothing wrong with it.

            This could explain why Lot delayed in Genesis 19:12: his wife did not want to leave her home. It could also explain why she deliberately looked back after she was specifically instructed not to and threatened with death if she did so when they left the city: she did not want to leave and would rather die than live elsewhere, especially since she now knew that she would have to totally abandon the lifestyle, mores and ethos of her upbringing in Sodom. She committed suicide rather than living in such a world.

            (3) Lot’s wife disagreed and was overruled by Lot

            If Lot’s wife had disagreed with Lot’s decision to offer his daughters to the men of Sodom and had been overruled, it is easy to understand that she would not wish to continue living with such a man. Thus, she wanted to remain in Sodom and be destroyed with the others (see Gen 19:15), but was again overruled in Gen 19:16[35]. However, there was no chance for anyone to overrule her during their flight from Sodom so she deliberately turned around and died with the others in Gen 19:26. Again, it would appear that she committed suicide rather than continue living with such a man.

            (4) Lot did not discuss the action with his wife

            While the essays in this collection generally assume that husbands generally discussed important decisions with their wives, it may be that the events in this story were unfolding so fast that Lot did not have a chance to discuss the actions with his wife and simply reacted. In this case, it becomes quite speculative as to what she would have done. Would she have agreed? Would she have disagreed? We cannot answer either question in the situation where events were unfolding too fast for consultation and required only a rapid and immediate response.

            However, we can speculate that she would grieve about the events. She would grieve that she was leaving her home and her home was being totally destroyed. And she would grieve that she was being forced to flee her home and become a homeless refugee and helpless foreigner (and she had a clear idea in her head how such people were treated because she knew how they were treated in Sodom so she was likely to assume that all helpless foreigners were treated the way they were treated in Sodom and she wanted no part of that) in a strange land with strange (to her) customs and strange people. She would grieve that her husband offered her daughters in place of strangers. In these cases, her suicide by disobedience makes sense.

            There seems to be only one scenario where Lot’s wife would be happier away from Sodom and with her husband and daughters: if she was unhappy in Sodom and understood her husband’s actions regarding her daughters and felt that she would be better off living away from Sodom, and turned around on an impulse[36]. There is nothing in the text that would indicate this to be the case, and much to indicate that this is not the case.

    C. Conclusion

            (1) Lot’s wife

            Playing the odds, there seems to be reasonable support for the conclusion that Lot’s wife decided that she simply could not live the life she was facing and deliberately committed suicide by disobedience.

            (2) Lot

            Certainly there seems to be reasonable support for Lot believing he would be better off living away from Sodom because he knew his uncle Abraham would take care of him. So there would be no reason for Lot to commit suicide as his wife did. Lot presents a conundrum, and Lot will be further discussed later in this essay.

            (3) Lot’s daughters

            There would also be support for the daughters choosing to live because they felt they would be protected by their father, especially after they became pregnant with his children/grandchildren who would represent his progeny.

VII. The discussion between Abraham and God

    A. The negotiation

            In Genesis 18:20-32, Abraham argued God down from a total destruction of the cities to saving the cities if ten innocent men could be found “I will not destroy, for the sake of the ten.” (Gen 18:32). This occurs right after Abraham had asked “You will sweep away the innocents along with the guilty?” (Gen 18:23). This seems to imply that God will sweep away the innocents along with the guilty unless He finds a certain number of innocents (ten in Gen 18:32) and will save the guilty along with the innocents if He finds just ten innocents. God never says that He will save the innocents. Reading the negotiation between Abraham and God might further enhance the conclusion that God had agreed to spare the cities if ten innocent men could be found because He negotiated down from a much higher number to ten. Since God stopped at ten, it can be concluded that ten was what He wanted. Yet, as events later showed, this negotiation was ignored. As discussed above, this negotiation leads to serious questions regarding faith: Abraham’s faith and the faith of the Jewish Nation in God’s sincerity during negotiations or in God even being able to fulfill His duties under the terms of an agreement between Him and human beings.

            This “negotiation” was quite odd because the number of innocents required to save the city went down from Abraham’s opening bid. Generally, in such a “negotiation,” the number would be expected to go up as it would be expected that Abraham initial offer would be lower than he would expect. This reversal of negotiation may have tipped Abraham off that something else was beneath the action. Abraham was versed in the art of negotiation (see, e.g., Gen 23:3-16 where Abraham negotiates with the Hittites for a burial cave in Hebron), so he would surely have noticed the reversal of the negotiation. As will be discussed below, God did indeed have something else in mind.

            Furthermore, comparing Abraham’s actions in this episode to his actions at Mt. Moriah raises the question of why Abraham would plead for the lives of innocents in Sodom and Gomorrah, yet never raise any objection, let alone plead, for the life of his son, Isaac? One answer might be that Abraham will plead for others, but not for himself or his family (and if Isaac dies, Abraham’s family dies with him). Another possible answer might be found in the following discussion.

    B. What Abraham knew when he negotiated with God

            It might first be noted that the story of the Battle of the Kings is the only event in which Abraham engages in military battle. This observation might confirm the might of God which allows this pastoralist-shepherd-nomad-merchant otherwise peaceful man who would rather negotiate than fight, the ability to defeat four titanic kings who have just put down a revolt by five vassal kings. The fact that no strategy is given for Abram’s defeat of the kings is given, only a simple “At night, he and his servants deployed against them and defeated them;” (Gen 14:15) seems to show that Abram did little or nothing on his own thereby seemingly confirming that it was God who won the battle. God’s promise in Gen 12:3 to Abram that He will “curse those who curse you” seems to be fulfilled and honored just as it was when God sent a plague to Pharaoh’s house when he captured Sarai[37].

Abraham was a very perceptive man, and it is not unreasonable to assume that he knew what the angels would find in Sodom and Gomorrah, especially since it is reasonable to assume that he knew about these cities from his experiences in the Battle of the Kings. Such an assumption sheds a very different light on Abraham’s negotiations with God. If Abraham knew that the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were “grave sinners,” why was he defending them to God? And what did he expect God to do?

            Since Abraham stopped the negotiation at ten, did that imply that he knew there were at least ten innocent men in Sodom and Gomorrah? If Abraham knew there were at least ten innocent men in Sodom and Gomorrah, it is reasonable to expect that he would stop the negotiation at ten believing that the cities would be spared according to the agreement not to destroy if ten innocent men are found. Since Abraham’s nephew, Lot, was a citizen of Sodom, it would be reasonable to believe that Abraham stopped the negotiation at ten because he believed that he achieved his goal of saving the cities, and hence saving Lot, as soon as God agreed to spare the cities if ten innocent men were found. Abraham stopped at ten because he was satisfied that his goal would be achieved and he expected God to spare the cities, and Lot, because he knew there were at least ten innocent men in the cities.

            On the other hand, even if Abraham was powerful and knew a great deal about what God would find in Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham did not know for sure how many innocent men there were in Sodom and Gomorrah, he could only make an educated guess. Therefore, he stopped the negotiation at ten because he may have thought that is as far down as he could get God to agree. He gambled that there would be ten or more innocent men.

    C. What did God know when He negotiated the matter with Abraham?

            (1) All the men except Lot were involved

            It is noted that the text states: “They had not yet lain down, when the townspeople, the men of Sodom, young and old – all the people to the last man – gathered about the house” (Genesis 19:4). This clearly implies that all the men of Sodom were involved. The agreement between God and Abraham was clear on the point that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah would be saved if there were ten righteous men found (“I will not destroy, for the sake of ten” Genesis 19:32). It appears from the statement that “all the people to the last man gathered about the house” that of the men of Sodom only Lot was righteous. And Lot was spared. Abraham may well have known that all the men of Sodom were “sinners” and he may well have also known that not all the men of Gomorrah were sinners. In fact, Abraham may have known that there were at least ten innocent men in Gomorrah so that his agreement with God would require God to spare both Sodom and Gomorrah due to the innocents found in Gomorrah. Did God know about the men of both cities? It appears from the text that He did not because he had to send angels to the cities to determine the state of the morals of the cities (see below for more on what God may have known)[38].

            When He negotiated with Abraham, did God know that He would spare Lot? Did God know how many innocent men there were in Sodom and Gomorrah? Or more specifically, did God know that there were fewer than ten innocent men in Sodom and Gomorrah? God appears to promise one thing, (destroy all if less than ten innocent men are found) yet does another (saves one, thereby not destroying all). What God knew when He negotiated with Abraham is crucial to the God/man relationship as it goes to the issue of trust: can humans trust what God says and promises[39]?

            (2) The possibilities

            There are only two possibilities: either God knew there were no innocent men in the cities, or God did not know. In either case, the negotiation raises significant questions.

                        (a) God knew there were no innocent men in the cities

            If God knew there were no innocent men in the cities, why did He go through the charade of allowing Abraham to negotiate Him down from fifty to ten innocent men? And why did God even agree to ten if He knew there were none? If God knew there were no innocent men in the cities yet allowed Abraham to believe he had successfully negotiated with God and perhaps even taught God a lesson about justice, can we ever trust God when He agrees to a contract? Along this line, if God knows something we do not know, how fair is any negotiation with God? Ordinarily, these questions are meaningless. However, there are two situations in which the questions are so important as to be dispositive of the question: (1) at Mt Moriah where God had previously promised Abraham that his progeny would be a great nation but it appeared that God was asking Abraham to sacrifice (murder) Isaac who was the only connection Abraham had with his progeny and Abraham had to rely on God’s word; and (2) at Mt. Sinai, after negotiation between Moses and God, the Jewish Nation entered into a contract (covenant) with God based on actions that God took in freeing them from slavery and having a quid pro quo: protection and land for the humans in return for their fidelity to God. If God had knowledge that He withheld from the humans, then the negotiation was a sham and perhaps any agreement arising from such negotiation was a sham and not to be trusted.

                        (b) God did not know if, or how many, innocent men were in the cities[40]

            If God did not know that there were no innocent men in the cities, his agreement to only forego destruction if He found at least ten innocent men was rendered false because God had previously represented Himself in such a way as to lead Abraham to believe that he was omnipotent and future-omniscient[41]. This representation, if God did not know what the situation was in Sodom and Gomorrah, was a false representation thereby rendering agreements between God and Abraham, and specifically this agreement, subject to doubt because Abraham (and later at Mt. Sinai the entire Jewish Nation) was relying on a belief which was false.

            Again, this is generally not an important consideration. Except at Mt. Moriah and at Sinai. In each case, God made an agreement with the humans based on their assumption that God was all-powerful and all-knowing thus causing them to negotiate under the false pretense that God was omnipotent and future-omniscient and would protect them and be able to fulfill His duties for all time.

            (3) Mt. Moriah and the Akedah

            While the answers to the questions regarding what God knew about the status of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah when He was negotiating with Abraham and how much trust men can have in God, His representations to men, and God’s word are of utmost importance to the covenant at Sinai, the answers also have significant impact on Abraham’s conduct at Mt. Moriah. If God did not adhere to His agreement with Abraham regarding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah if fewer than ten innocent men could be found then it might be reasonable for Abraham to doubt that God would be true to His word to make a great nation from Abraham and perhaps choose to not go through with the sacrifice of Isaac at Mt. Moriah.

            On the other hand, if Abraham had reason to believe that God did not have full knowledge, then, again, he might reasonably believe that God might not be omnipotent and future-omniscient and might not be able to fulfill His portion of the contract, i.e., that God might not be able to make a great nation from Abraham’s progeny and thus choose not to sacrifice Isaac as a way of taking matters into his own hands.

            By negotiating with God regarding the innocents in Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham may have been testing God. Would God save innocents? What was God’s view of punishment? Of justice? Could a human even negotiate with God? As will be understood from the following discussion, the answers to these questions were to prove vital at Mt. Moriah.

            (4) Mt. Sinai

            The same considerations regarding the powers of God are present at Mt. Sinai where the people are asked to adopt God as their god and swear fealty to Him in return for His promise of land and protection. If God was not omnipotent and future-omniscient and led the people to believe that He was, then perhaps the covenant made at Mt. Sinai was based on a false belief by one of the parties (the Jewish Nation) and could be nullified. This is a very serious question indeed[42].

VIII. The conundrum of Lot

            This saving of Lot presents a conundrum regarding whether or not God will abide by a bargain He strikes with a man. God apparently agreed not to destroy the cities if ten innocent men could be found, yet He allowed one (Lot) to escape. The agreement was binary: either save everything and everyone (even the guilty) if ten innocent men could be found, or destroy everything and everyone (even the innocent) if fewer than ten innocent men could be found – “Yes” or “no” – period. The agreement did not include a clause that allows the escape of the innocents, the agreement was to destroy the innocents along with the guilty if fewer than ten innocent were found and to save the guilty along with the innocents if ten or more innocents were found. The interpretation of the agreement that the cities would be saved only if ten innocent men could be found and destroyed if fewer than ten were found seems to be supported by the discussion in Jeremiah 5:1 “Roam the streets of Jerusalem, search its squares, look about and take note: you will not find a man, there is none who acts justly, who seeks integrity – That I should pardon her.” It is noted that this statement is made by Jeremiah whereas the statement regarding ten innocent men is attributed directly to God. Therefore, the support provided by this citation may not be as cogent as it initially may appear to be. However, it is still instructive to compare this to the Sodom and Gomorrah agreement. The Jeremiah-reported agreement seems to imply that if one just and truth seeker be found, the entire city would be spared. Therefore, if God intends to spare a city if fewer than the stated number of men satisfying the stated criteria can be found, then He clearly says so. God said that in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, it required ten innocents to warrant pardon of the cities; therefore, if fewer than ten innocents are found, the entire city (similar to fewer than one just truth seeker in Jeremiah’s Jerusalem) would be destroyed.

            There is no report in this story of finding ten innocents, (apparently) only one – Lot. Again, remember, God sought one in Jerusalem and said  He would spare Jerusalem if one just truth seeker could be found; whereas, God stated that it required ten innocents to save Sodom and Gomorrah – one would not suffice, it required ten: fewer than ten equals destruction of the entire city and its entire population, the innocent along with the guilty. God destroyed the cities yet saved Lot. Therefore, it appears that God ignored the agreement He made with Abraham and did what He wanted to do. It does not matter that an innocent was saved and that is a good thing; what matters is the sanctity of agreements made by God. Even though God would have to destroy an innocent, He had agreed to do so. The true test of the sanctity of an agreement is forcing one party to do what that party would not want to do to in order to fulfill the agreement. One must overlook the fact that an innocent was saved (although how innocent is in question due to Lot’s actions with his daughters both in the cities where he offers them to the crowd and in the hills where he commits incest with them – could Lot be a misogynist?)[43] which would be generally considered a good thing. The issue is sanctity of God’s agreements. God was in a very difficult situation: He had been taught about the sanctity of innocent lives, yet in order to follow this teaching, God would have to violate the sanctity of His agreement with Abraham. The answer is provided in that God chose to spare Lot and ignore His agreement with Abraham. The question thus must be asked, if God could ignore His agreement with Abraham, who was specifically chosen by God for special treatment, could He be trusted in any of His agreements? The answer to this question has profound repercussions, especially with regard to the agreement at Sinai between God and the Hebrew Nation as well as at Mt. Moriah.

            Taking the view that the agreement was that God would spare the cities only if ten innocent men could be found leads to another implication. In Genesis 18:15-16 it is stated “As dawn broke, the angels urged Lot on, saying, ‘Up take your wife and your two remaining daughters, lest you be swept away because of the iniquity of the city.’ Still he delayed. So the men seized his hand, and the hands of his wife and two daughters – in the Lord’s mercy on him- and brought them outside…” There is no further details of the angels saving anyone else. Therefore, it appears that only these four people were saved. However, God had argued that the cities would be destroyed if ten innocent men could not be found. It seems that only these four were found (or only this one if you only count men). It appears that God went back on his word to Abraham or to himself: He destroyed the cities yet saved four people when He had promised that He would save the cities only if He found ten innocent men. God never promised Abraham that He would allow all innocents to avoid the decree, He specifically agreed to save the cities if He could find ten innocent men clearly thereby specifically implying that He would destroy innocents and guilty alike if He could not find ten innocent men and would save the guilty and innocent alike if He could find ten innocent men. It was a binary choice: destroy all if ten innocent men could not be found or spare all if ten innocent men could be found. Yet the story reports only one innocent man, Lot, saved. All should have been destroyed, including Lot. Can we believe God if He tells us one thing and does another?

            In Gen 19:29, it is stated that God spared Lot because “God was mindful of Abraham.” How can God state one thing: destroy the city unless ten good and righteous men are found and go against this, yet do another which appears to go against this: spare one because “He was mindful of Abraham”? It appears that God is either inconsistent or forgetful – neither of which places God in good light, especially if Abraham is to rely on God to not harm Isaac in the Akedah episode.

            One explanation might be that Lot was living in Sodom and Gomorrah, but not by his own choice. Early in the story of Geneisis God promises to give the land of Canaan to Abraham’s descendants. However, Lot is not one of Abraham’s descendants. Therefore, a problem is presented because Lot cannot inherit the land that he and Abraham are sharing.  Note that Genesis 13 states Abraham’s desire for him and Lot to separate but says nothing about Lot’s desire to separate. But Lot agrees to move away. Perhaps as an incentive, Abraham permitted Lot first choice. Being a practical man, Lot chose the land with the best water sources as well as land that was as far away from Abraham’s herds as possible so conflicts would be minimized. Sodom and Gomorrah satisfied all the criteria. Hence, Lot moved to Sodom and Gomorrah as an amicable settlement with Abraham in which Lot gave up any claim he might have to Abraham’s land as a concession to both God and to Abraham. God may have been honoring this concession when He agreed to save Lot and his family even though God did not find ten upright men in the cities and hence was required to destroy all, including Lot.

There may yet be another explanation.

            Perhaps there is something else going on in this story that transcends whether or not the discussion between Abraham and God was about the effect of God’s actions on innocents and does not depend on a legal reading of the agreement.

IX. Another view of the story – the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was a teaching tool

    A. Introduction

            Perhaps it is best to view the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as a teaching tool rather than a story about God’s punishment of the two cities, with the object being taught being much broader than the story itself. It is also helpful to view the story in the context of the other stories of Genesis to see how it fits in with those other stories. We should return to the question posed at the beginning of this essay: “why were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed without giving an opportunity to repent?”

             It is the thesis of this essay that the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were given an opportunity to repent but did not avail themselves of that opportunity and therefore God inflicted the punishment that they did not inflict upon themselves when He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

            The interpretation of this story in this section will thus be presented through the lens of repentance.

    B. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah and Repentance

            (1) Background

            At first blush, it appears that the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were given no opportunity to repent.

            While God destroyed His creation of the Nephilim, as was discussed in the essay “Who Were the Nephilim?” these entities were a test model of the human race and were not yet humans. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah were fully developed humans and thus were different from the Nephilim. It would seem unfair for God to punish for humans in this manner. There must be some other point being made by the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Based on the text itself, it does not appear that the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were given an opportunity to repent in the story. Unlike stories such as the story of Jonah at Nineveh, the text certainly never specifically says that the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were given an opportunity to repent for their transgressions.

            As previously observed, in the story, it appears that the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were never given a chance to repent. Even Pharaoh was given a chance to repent. Why not the people of Sodom and Gomorrah?

            (2) Repentance

            Before seeking an answer to this question, it might be instructive to quickly review the concept of repentance.

(a) Aspects of repentance

            As discussed in the essay titled “Forgiveness,” with regard to repentance and teshuvah: there are many parts and steps, and it is a process: leaving the sin; making anyone harmed by the sin whole; repentance and regret, confession and resolution for the future, with a final step which shows completion of the process being a turning away from the sin. That is, once the sinner has left the sin, made anyone harmed by his sin whole, repented and regretted, confessed and resolved to do better in the future, if he (or she) is placed in a situation again that would cause them to repeat the sin, and they refrain from committing the sin, then that person has completed his (or her) journey.

            Further, a person who has transgressed and has completed teshuvah has been viewed by some as standing in much higher esteem that someone who has not transgressed. (“Where a ba’al teshuvah stands, a totally righteous person [who has not transgressed] cannot stand” (Babylonian Talmud (b.) Brachot 34b). ).

                        (b) Repentance as applied to the homosexuality aspect of the Sodom and Gomorrah story

                                    (i) Background           

            The aspects and steps of repentance can be applied to the other situations with regard to actors such as Cain, the Israelites at Mt. Sinai, the pagan citizens of Nineveh, and even to pagan Pharaoh. They will also be enlightening with respect to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

                                    (ii) Repentance in the Bible

            The concept of repentance and teshuvah is so strong in the Bible, one must wonder why it appears in this story that these people were not given a chance to repent. God had apparently made up his mind to destroy these cities and it was only His conversation with Abraham that resulted in saving at least Lot and his family. What is going on?

                                    (iii) The ability of a homosexual to repent according to the views of a biblical audience

             With regard to the view that has homosexuality being the wickedness which God is avenging, repentance requires the person to actually change from the person they were before the transgression into a new person who will not repeat the transgression. Modern science has shown that a person is born with homosexual tendencies which, therefore, are an inherited trait and not an acquired trait. As an inherited trait, homosexuality cannot be changed, suppressed perhaps, accommodated perhaps, but not changed. As such, repentance for such a trait would be useless and worthless at best and wrong at worst. Repentance is best fitted for acquired and learned traits which can be altered.

            As discussed above, it is sometimes suggested that the transgressions of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were homosexuality, and non-consensual homosexuality with strangers at that. Adopting this view might lead to the following reasoning. In view of the way homosexuality was viewed at the time of the Bible, it might be argued that the authors believed that since repentance requires the person to change their ways and turn away from the error, and since homosexuality is so repugnant to these authors, even if they want to, homosexuals are irredeemable via repentance and teshuvah because they will not turn away from their transgression and will not change who they are and they will repeat the transgression. Thus, taking this view, it might be argued that the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were not given the chance to repent because repentance was not possible or inappropriate for this situation. Thus, God, under this assumption, need not offer the people a chance to repent.

            Therefore, based on this view, if it can be concluded that the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah engaged in homosexual acts[44] and the authors of this section of the Bible deemed homosexuality a trait which is of the type that God would destroy entire cities without providing any chance for repentance, then the story makes sense. In this view, the moral of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah seems to be: homosexuality is of the type of trait that will be punished by God by destruction without the chance of redemption or repentance. Whether we accept this moral today is up to us.

            However, as mentioned above, the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah was carried out because, some, many, most or even all of the men practiced homosexuality seems to be a bit forced and the question is presented as to what is being taught by the story if homosexuality is a trait that will not be changed, and entire cities are destroyed by God for the practice of homosexuality.

                                    (iv) The transgressions of Sodom and Gomorrah need not be homosexual acts

            Based on the above, an argument can be made that the transgression for which the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were punished was not homosexuality.  However, as will be discussed later in this essay, the particular transgression is not important to the story and to what the story teaches. It is only important that some transgression occurred and the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah did not repent. The transgression could have been any of the above-enumerated transgressions (xenophobia, greed, might-makes-right, idol worship, paganism, and homosexuality) – the only requirement being that there was some unrepented transgression. This aspect will now be discussed.

1. The Battle of the Kings

            The repentance aspect of the analysis will use the context of the story and its place in the overall story being told in Genesis.

            This interpretation will begin with the citation of another story that is generally labeled as being enigmatic and is often glossed over or simply interpreted for its historical accuracy and not for what it means. This story is commonly referred to as the “Battle of the Kings” and is presented in Genesis 14:1-24.

            It should be noted that the story of the Battle of the Kings appears to be an accurate representation of something that actually happened[45]. Whether the account tis accurate or not,  the more pertinent question with regard to the story is: why was it included in Genesis? One simple answer is that it was included because it presents additional aspects of Abraham’s character and further details of his leadership ability. Another reason might be that the battle was included to serve as a charter for the possession of Canaan[46].While this may be a reason, it does not seem sufficient to warrant inclusion of such an enigmatic story in the long tale of the Hebrew people. Other, less enigmatic stories could easily show these traits.

            Yet another reason for including this story is that it shows that God will keep His promises to Abram. It might be noted that the story of the Battle of the Kings is the only event in which Abram engages in military battle. This observation might confirm the might of God which allows this pastoralist-shepherd-nomad-merchant otherwise peaceful man who would rather negotiate than fight, the ability to defeat four titanic kings who have just put down a revolt by five vassal kings. The fact that no strategy is given for Abram’s defeat of the kings is given, only a simple “At night, he and his servants deployd against them and defeated them;” (Gen 14:15) seems to show that Abram did little or nothing on his own thereby seemingly confirming that it was God who won the battle. God’s promise to Abram that He will curse “him who curses you” (Gen 12:3) seems to be fulfilled and honored just as it was when God sent a plague to Pharaoh’s house when he captured Sarai. Certainly, God keeping His promise to Abram and Abram knowing that he can rely on God keeping His promises will play a pivotal and crucial role later in the Akedah.

While these reasons are good, they do not seem sufficient to have this story placed in a prominent location just before the story of the covenant between God and Abram, and certainly its position before the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, God decides to destroy those cities because “The outrage of Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave.” Gen 18:20.  These are the cities that God had assisted Abram in saving. It seems that either God had missed something about what was going on in those cities (otherwise He would not have saved them in the Battle of the Kings), or God changed His mind about them. In either case, it does not fit with the Bible’s characterization of God. Therefore, there must be another reason for including the story of the Battle of the Kings in Genesis.

            This essay will view the Battle of the Kings through the lens of repentance and will will also help solve the mysteries and questions surrounding the story of Sodom and Gomorrah raised above and with regard to why these cities were destroyed without (apparently) providing an opportunity to repent.

            It should also be noted that further context will have to be used to fully understand these questions. Thus, a short review of several stories in Genesis will be presented. The several stories that should be considered in answering this question should all have something in common. The stories which will be considered all have one thing in common: the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

            According to Genesis 13:10-13, after Lot and Abraham agreed to split up, Lot chose to move into the plain of the Jordan and settled near Sodom. As stated in Genesis 13:13, “Now the inhabitants of Sodom were very wicked sinners against the Lord.”

            Later, in Genesis 14:2-11, kings made war on Sodom and Gomorrah and “seized all the wealth of Sodom and Gomorrah and all their provisions and went their way.” (Genesis 14:11). Thus, Sodom and Gomorrah were in danger of being completely overturned. However, Abraham, with the help of God (“Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. Who has delivered your foes into your hand.” Genesis 14:20)[47], defeated the foes of Sodom and saved Sodom. When offered all of the booty of war, Abram refused swearing to God not to take anything thus implying that he had a higher purpose than spoils of war and implying that there was another purpose to this battle[48]. This “higher purpose” was Abram acting for God and this “higher purpose” will be significant as will be discussed below.

            Later, the story of God’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah for their wicked ways is told in Genesis 18:16 – 19:29. Thus, the destruction of these cities occurred after the story of the Battle of the Kings. This is a significant fact for this analysis.

    D. Interpreting the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the context of the narrative

            Given this short review of the interrelated stories revolving around the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, a fresh look at Genesis 18:16-29 will now be taken.

            The overturning of Sodom and Gomorrah by the kings was stopped by Abraham with God’s assistance. The attack by the kings occurred after it had been disclosed that the citizens of Sodom were wicked (Genesis 13:13, “Now the inhabitants of Sodom were very wicked sinners against the Lord.”) and had already committed transgressions.  It could be argued that the sacking of the cities by the kings was God’s warning to the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah to repent from their wicked ways. It is not important at all to this analysis of the story what the “wicked ways” were, it is sufficient for the story that the people of these cities were doing something that found disfavor in God’s eyes and that God felt needed correction. Thus, there is no need to determine or speculate as to what they were doing, just accept the fact that they were doing something wicked prior to the Battle of the Kings in Genesis 13, and that the citizens were saved by Abraham with God’s assistance. It could be concluded that God spared the citizens.

            The people of Sodom and Gomorrah had not changed their ways and, even after they were saved from destruction by the kings by Abraham and God, they continued their wicked ways (Genesis 18:20: “Then the Lord said. “The outrage of Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin so grave!”). Thus, it can be concluded that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah had transgressed and had been warned during the Battle of the Kings, but failed to heed the warning and failed to repent and thus were destroyed in the story told in Genesis 18:16-29. The people failed to repent and self punish so God inflicted the punishment Himself. By comparing this story to the story told in Jonah where God observes the wickedness of the citizens of Nineveh in Jonah 1:2, instructs Jonah to warn them to repent, and they do and thus they are spared. One city (Nineveh) is warned and heeds the warning and is spared; and one entity (the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah) is warned and fails to heed the warning and fails to repent and is destroyed. This is consistent with the actions taken by God in Exodus where Pharaoh is given numerous warnings and chances to repent and fails to do so, hence Pharaoh, through his army, is destroyed. The pursuit of the fleeing Hebrews to the Sea of Reeds is evidence that Pharaoh has failed to repent and is thus deserving of punishment, even punishment as severe as was given to Sodom and Gomorrah, that is, overturning[49].

            Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that the comparison of the actions of the citizens of Nineveh in the story of Jonah to the actions of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah shows that it is repentance and forgiveness that is being taught and shown by the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

            This appears to be a much more tenable and reasonable interpretation of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah than any of the above-mentioned reasons. Using the teaching of repentance as a common thread among all the stories: the Battle of the Kings, Sodom and Gomorrah and Jonah, makes sense and is consistent throughout.

            The fact that the text does not specifically state what that “something” was seems to support the theory that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about repentance from a (any) transgression and not a story about wrath against some particular transgression. The story is about repentance.

            The only story in which God destroys that does not appear to fit this mold of repentance appears to be the story of the Nephilim and the flood. However, even this story can be understood in this light. It might be remembered that in one view of the Nephilim, the giants, were proto-humans, and were not the final version settled on by God. As such, in this view, this version was created with the distinct possibility that it might be discarded – like any prototype. Thus, repentance was not envisioned, and hence no chance to repent was necessary or provided. Still further, it might be argued that the fatal flaw in this prototype was the lack of the capacity to repent. Perhaps, this is why God regretted making man (Genesis 6:6) and why He decided to “blot out from the earth the men whom I have created.” (Genesis 6:7). The Nephilim form did not have the ability to repent. Hence, this form of man could not learn from mistakes and would not progress. Even if the Nephilim had imaginations, without the ability to repent and hence change, the gift of imagination is useless. Since imagining a result but without the ability to change one’s ways to avoid undesirable results renders this imagination useless, and even frustrating. God had actually created a model that He now considered faulty and destroyed it and created a model that could repent. On the other hand, however, the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were part of the model of humankind that followed and replaced the Nephilim model and, as such, had been given the ability to repent. Their failure to do so therefore warranted punishment so the rest of mankind could learn from the mistakes made by the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah. Certainly, the lesson was that, given the opportunity to repent you should do so – when God tells you to do something, it is always wise to listen[50]. This lesson is certainly emphasized when the actions taken by God with respect to Sodom and Gomorrah are compared to His actions with respect to Nineveh.

    E. An explanation for the conundrum of Lot

            (1) The episode was a teaching experience about the effect of repentance

            The interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah being a story of repentance also explains the saving of Lot and his family. Lot’s actions clearly showed that he was innocent or had repented. See Genesis 19:1-11 when he tried to protect the strangers.

            The answer to the quandary is that repentance is even stronger than God’s word. God had promised Abraham that He would destroy the cities if He could not find ten innocent men, yet He allowed Lot (and his family) to go when they should have been destroyed (the innocent along with the guilty).

            Lot had moved to Sodom in Genesis 13:13 even though he probably knew of the lifestyle; or if he did not know of it when he initially moved there, he certainly knew of it before the angels came to the city. So it might be concluded that prior to the incident reported in Genesis 18, Lot either did not care or that he agreed with the lifestyle of Sodom. In either case, Lot could be held guilty of either condoning transgressive behavior or of actively adopting it. Either way, Lot would be held responsible for the actions.

            Lot’s actions toward the angels in Genesis 19 appear to show that he had repented his transgressions after the Battle of the Kings (Genesis 14).

            God had given His word to Abraham that the cities would be destroyed if He did not find ten innocent men. By saving Lot and not destroying the entire population as He had agreed to do if He could not find ten innocent men, God appears to have violated His word. Because Lot had repented God could not punish him and had to “go back on His word” and save only one because repentance and repentance (and teshuvah) is stronger than even God’s word. This concept will allow humans to depend on God’s word, especially if repentance is involved. God has given His word that a clean slate will be provided every single time repentance is made for a transgression – every single time, no matter how many times a person transgresses. Humans can count on this infinite patience and thus repentance will always be available and will always outweigh any other consideration. In allowing Lot to escape, God determined that the integrity of the concept of repentance is more important than even His word in a particular agreement.

            Furthermore, God would have counted on humans being intelligent enough to learn that repentance is paramount and thus will accept God at His word, including God’s word that repentance is paramount and humans will know that and be able to plan accordingly. If there has been no transgression, then God’s word will be reliable and humans can count on it. If repentance is involved, then even God cannot make an agreement that will vitiate or negate the effects of proper repentance.

            This is the lesson that God had in mind when He allowed Abraham to negotiate with Him regarding the fate of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. As will be discussed later in this essay, the lesson was not lost on Abraham and he was better able to trust that God would keep His word when he was tested at Mt. Moriah.

            (2) Through repentance and teshuvah Lot was a different person

            As stated in the above quote from the Babylonian Talmud, a person who has sinned and has completed teshuvah has been viewed by some as standing in much higher esteem that someone who has not sinned. (“Where a ba’al teshuvah stands, a totally righteous person [who has not transgressed] cannot stand” (Babylonian Talmud (b.) Brachot 34b). ). Thus, in connection with the concept of repentance and teshuvah, because he went through teshuvah, Lot had become a different person and thus was no longer a citizen of Sodom and Gomorrah and thus would not be included in the people slated for destruction. This interpretation allows God to keep His word to Abraham to save the cities only if He finds ten innocent men. In this case, apparently God did not find ten innocent men so He destroyed the cities; however, the saved Lot was not a citizen of Sodom and Gomorrah because the Lot that was saved by God was not the Lot that was a citizen of Sodom and Gomorrah because the new Lot was changed by teshuvah into a new person and thus was not counted among the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah slated for destruction.

            This explanation is not nearly as cogent as the explanation in which repentance is viewed as being stronger than God’s word because this explanation appears to turn on a technicality and God’s actions are much more important than technicalities. However, it is offered in the interest of completeness.

            (3) God does not know the outcome

            Adopting the view that the episode of Lot’s escape from Sodom and Gomorrah is a tool to teach that repentance is stronger than even God’s word, renders the question of whether or not God knows the future a moot consideration. Based on the teaching view, it is not at all important what God knows or does not know about the future in this story. The lesson taught is the important consideration. Once this lesson is learned, humans will be able to rely on God’s word as they will understand which situations will give rise to exceptions and will be able to plan accordingly.

X. Review of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in light of the treatment of the Nephilim

            If it is assumed that homosexuality is a design flaw (it militates against propagation of the human race), then God should be held responsible for the flaw. If it is assumed that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality, then it appears that God would be punishing the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for His error. There is precedent for this. God destroyed the Nephilim for design flaws. Neither the Nephilim nor the homosexuals of Sodom and Gomorrah could change who they were. As was discussed in the essay “Who Were the Nephilim,” these giants were destroyed because they believed that “might makes right,” and such an ethos will violate one of the basic ground rules that requires all of us to live together.

            Question: did the people of Sodom and Gomorrah violate a ground rule in the same way as the Nephilim and thus warrant destruction? A related question is: why were the people of Sodom and Gomorrah given a chance to repent but the Nephilim were not? When answering these questions, it should be remembered that there are remnants of both entities in us today. We are still inclined to do evil by exerting our power over those weaker than ourselves and thus there is some remnant of the Nephilim in all of us. Furthermore while not strong and generally repressed, there are some sexual feelings in nearly everyone that could be identified as being homosexual. Thus, there are remnants of both design flaws in all of us today.

            The stories in the Bible has both models being destroyed. The only difference seems to be that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were given an opportunity to repent (after the warning that was issued via the Battle of the Kings) whereas the Nephilim were not. Thus, the following discussion will focus on the difference between the two models based on the concept of repentance.

            There is no story preceding the flood story which indicates that a warning had been given to the Nephilim. As discussed in the essay “Who Were the Nephilim,” the Nephilim were not given an opportunity to repent before they were destroyed. This implies that either they were not capable of repentance or that the Nephilim were a prototype and thus need not be treated as humans and thus repentance was not relevant. Neither of these observations seems to apply to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. There is no discussion in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah that could lead to a conclusion that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were prototypes in the manner of the Nephilim. Therefore, God would treat the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah differently from the Nephilim, and He did. He gave the people of Sodom and Gomorrah a chance to repent (and they did not) while He did not offer the Nephilim a chance to repent.

            A further reason for the difference in treatment between the Nephilim and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah with regard to repentance can be found in the Ground Rules. The design flaw for homosexuality is far less dangerous with regard to the ground rules than the design flaw of might makes right. We can all co-exist with homosexuals; but we cannot co-exist with those who feel that might makes right. Therefore, it would seem that the destruction of the Nephilim should be more complete than the destruction of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.

            It seems that from the Bible’s perspective, both the Nephilim and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah represented models with design flaws, they were treated differently with regard to an opportunity to repent because there were differences. Perhaps it was because the human race had evolved and developed between the time of the Nephilim and the time of Sodom and Gomorrah and thus, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah had developed and evolved into “humans” while the Nephilim had not.

            With regard to God’s actions being an interference with the free will of those who were the subject of those actions, it should be noted that the Nephilim were pre-humans and thus not subject to the requirement of having free will; whereas, the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were human and thus were subject to the requirement of having free will. As discussed in this essay, God’s actions with regard to Sodom and Gomorrah were punishments for unrepented transgressions. As such, God’s actions were not an interference with the free will of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah – they had free will to undertake the transgressions and free will to ignore God’s warning and free will to refrain from repenting. God in no way interfered with such free actions. God’s actions were punishment for freely taken actions, not an interference with free will.

            With regard to Lot, God gave Lot freedom to stay in Sodom and Gomorrah. Even though the angels “seized his hand…” in Gen 19:16. Lot could have refused. There is nothing in the text to indicate that the angels forced Lot to follow. Thus, Lot’s free will was not infringed.

XI. Punishment of innocents

1. Problem

            It should be assumed that the children of the Nephilim and in Sodom and Gomorra did not participate in whatever activities God found to be abominable and were not in any position to dissuade the adults from participating in such activities[51]. One theory of punishing “innocents” states that the so-called “innocents” had a duty to teach the transgressors the proper path and by not doing this, they were as guilty as the transgressors and will be punished in like manner[52]. As such, at first blush, it might be assumed that these children were innocent of the transgressions of their elders. However, God destroyed those children along with the elders. In such a situation, the question must be asked: “how can God punish the innocent”? Or to quote Abraham, “Will you sweep away the innocent along with the guilty” (Gen 18:23), and “shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” (Gen 18:25). Still further, how does the statement in Exodus 20:5 “For I the Lord your God am an impassioned God, visiting the guilt of the parents upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generations of those who reject Me.” Again, it appears that God seeks to punish children for the sins of their predecessors and for which these children are innocent. The answer to this question profoundly affects Abraham at the Akedah. As discussed in this essay, Abraham had many reasons to believe that God would not punish an innocent and he knew Isaac was innocent and thus Abraham and Isaac had faith that God would not allow harm to come to Isaac. However, if God did punish innocent children in Sodom and Gomorrah and during the flood, then this assumption is severely vitiated and perhaps is totally abrogated.

• Possible answers

• The Nephilim

            The answer with respect to the children of the Nephilim is slightly easier since these children would be part of the failed experiment and thus would be beta+ models. As such, they were not yet truly humans, but proto-humans and not eligible for the protections provided to humans. However, even this view is not entirely satisfactory and completely fails with regard to the case of the children in Sodom and Gomorrah. Therefore, we are still left with the question: did God destroy innocents along with the guilty in both instances? If so, why?

• Repentance

            The concept of repentance was used as an overarching theme that is so strong that it can overrule even God’s word, and thus was used to explain the saving of Lot in spite of God’s word that both cities would be destroyed in their entireties if fewer than ten innocent men could be found and yet only one, Lot, was found and that one was spared. Yet, this explanation stops at the boundary of the innocent and the guilty as the innocent have no reason to repent. So the question remains. Also, while the concept of repentance can be used as was done previously to explain the difference between the Nephilim and the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, this concept does not apply to children who may not have transgressed in the manner for which the adults are being punished. So we must continue looking.

• Other possible answers

            An easy answer would be that God will correct the injustice in the next world. However, this answer is quite unsatisfying, especially to the innocents who are caught up in the net. So, the question still remains. Another answer might be that God sees the big picture and children are part of the overall picture that is being changed. In this scenario, God might be considered to be like an artist who destroys an entire picture, both the offending brushstrokes and the good brushstrokes, when he has determined that the overall picture is unsuitable and wishes to start over. However, it would seem that God is better than a simple human artist; furthermore, God would want to encourage proper behavior (which one would assume would be associated with an innocent) and destruction of an innocent would be counter to this. So the question still remains. Furthermore, neither of these answers accounts for God’s proclamation in Exodus 20:5 regarding the prospective punishment of the children of evil doers. We need another answer.

• The criterion for an answer

            The answer lies in finding some concept or overarching theme which can overrule even God’s word, like above-discussed theme regarding the power of repentance. As stated above, repentance is even stronger than God’s word. Could there be another theme that is so powerful that it overrules even God’s word? Of course, God would recognize this theme and be aware of it and thus its application would serve as a teaching tool for the audience.

• The answer

The answer lies in the statement in Deuteronomy: “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. Take to heart these instructions with which I charge you this day. Impress them upon your children….” Deuteronomy 6:4-9. The Nephilim and the adults of Sodom and Gomorrah were so corrupt that they probably taught their children to follow them and their ways and not the ways of God. Thus, the children were “incipient evil doers”. As such, they were not innocent and had to be destroyed. As long as there was such corruption in the world, all children brought into that world would learn evil ways and thus become evil. God stated in Exodus 20:5 that he will destroy such children as long as the parents and the society in which the parents live continue to teach those children evil ways, i.e., “reject” God[53].

Thus, it is parental teaching that overrules God’s prohibition against punishing innocents and it is parental teaching that may disqualify a child from being in the class of innocents and subject the children to punishment along with their parents. If the children are taught evil ways, they are no longer innocent. Even though the children are not in a position to resist the teaching or to teach the adults the right way, they are so corrupted that they cannot, and should not, be saved[54].

Parents teaching their children the right way is an overarching theme that actually outweighs God’s word. This concept is quite reasonable since the best way to continue a religion is for parents to teach the religion to their children and indoctrinate them in the ways of the religion. Thus, the destruction of children in Sodom and Gomorrah and in the Flood serves as a teaching tool to teach adults to not only follow the ways of God, but to teach those ways to their children.

It should also be noted that God’s destruction of Egyptian children follows this thesis. These children were children of pagans and idolaters and hence did not “follow the ways of God” and were being taught by their parents to be pagans and idolaters. As such, the Egyptian children destroyed in Exodus 12:29 were not innocent.

• Implications of the answer

            God’s declaration in Jonah that He would not punish persons “who do not yet know their right hand from their left” (Jonah 4:11), also does not apply because these children do, indeed, know their right hand from their left, it is the wrong hand that they know.

            This conclusion fits perfectly into the story of the Akedah. Abraham knew, he absolutely knew, that he and Sarah had taught Isaac the correct way and thus Isaac was, indeed, an innocent whom God would not destroy. Abraham had learned the lesson of Sodom and Gomorrah well and thoroughly: children are punished for the sins of their parents who sinned by not teaching them the right way, and God would not harm children of parents who taught them the right way. There is evidence in the conversations that Abraham knew Isaac would not be killed. In Gen 22:5, Abraham said, “The boy and I will go up there; we will worship and we will return to you”; in Gen 22: 8, in reply to Isaac’s question of “where is the sheep for the burnt offering,” Abraham replied, “God will see to the sheep for His burnt offering, my son.”These two answers are too specific to imply that Abraham merely had faith that God would not allow completion of the sacrifice. Unless we can consider Abraham to be a liar to his son, of which there is absolutely no evidence[55], it must be concluded that Abraham knew that God would supply a sheep and that he and “the boy” would return.

XII. Applying the repentance view associated with Sodom and Gomorrah to other stories

    A. Introduction

            Viewing the stories of the Battle of the Kings, Sodom and Gomorrah and Jonah through the lens of stories teaching the value of repentance, its necessity and requirements renders stories that are otherwise enigmatic and inconsistent into stories that are consistent and make sense to the overall story being told in Genesis.

    B. Revisiting the debate between Abraham and God regarding the destruction of the cities

            Now that the concept of repentance has been applied to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, it will be instructive to revisit the debate that occurred between Abraham and God. As discussed above, there appears to be a disagreement between God and Abraham regarding the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah: God seeks to destroy everything, and Abraham argues that justice requires not punishing the innocents because of the transgressions of the guilty; and they appear to agree that the cities will be saved if God finds ten innocent men. However, God saved only Lot (and Lot’s family) thereby seemingly violating the agreement as fewer than then innocents were found, yet those innocents were saved when the agreement appears to require God to destroy everything, including innocents, if fewer than ten innocents are found. This incongruity appears puzzling and has significant implications at Mt. Moriah as discussed above.

            If we now apply the concept that the cities were destroyed because they did not repent after being warned, one explanation for the debate  might be that by engaging in the negotiation, initially Abraham simply did not understand what God was doing. God was punishing the cities because they chose not to repent or self punish; whereas, by negotiating with God and even challenging Him regarding the administration of justice, it appears that Abraham did not understand this and believed that the destruction was because at least some of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were transgressing. He was correct in his belief, but did not go far enough: they were being punished for transgressing and not repenting. Abraham missed the repentance part of the story. Hence, Abraham missed the point.

            Even if Abraham knew what the angels would find in Sodom and Gomorrah, and knew that there were at least ten men who were innocent of the sin, he did not understand that it was failure to repent that was being punished and not the specific transgression. The innocents would be punished along with the guilty[56] because, in this situation which demanded self-punishment and repentance, none, including those who did not participate in the sin, were innocent because there was no evidence that anybody had repented. Perhaps Lot’s actions (albeit somewhat diluted by some evidence that Lot knew to whom he was speaking at the city gate) showed repentance and thus saved him. However, as discussed elsewhere, the concept of collective guilt could have been applied here to destroy Lot, an innocent, as well because there was no evidence that anyone repented. However, Lot’s actions in the episode may have proved to God that Lot tried to correct the actions of the other citizens, but failed. In such a situation, it would seem reasonable that the innocent would not be punished because he at least tried to correct the transgression. Generally, punishment of innocents occurs because they did not do anything to correct the errors of the transgressors and thus were guilty as well.

    C. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has implications for the Akedah.

            (1)Several things need to be pointed out regarding God sparing Lot in this story:

                        (a)  If Lot had repented and was thus innocent, it appears that repentance is even stronger than God’s word;

                        (b) If Lot was spared because he was innocent[57], then it shows that God considers innocence to be more important that His word;

                        (c) Regardless of the precise nature of the transgression, God will punish those that transgress and do not repent after being warned.

                        (d) In Gen 18:29, it is stated that Lot was spared because “God was mindful of Abraham.” This clearly shows that God was loyal to His partner, Abraham. This proves to Abraham that God is loyal to His promises and would not harm someone who was dear to Abraham, and would give Abrahm basis for relying on God to not harm an innocent, Isaac.

            (2) The issue was not simply punishing those that had transgressed as it would appear from a superficial reading of this story. It was much broader than that and had much greater implications for Abraham later at Mt. Moriah. These implications were not discussed in the text, but as he demonstrated at Mt. Moriah, they were not lost on Abraham.

            (3) Applying this to Abraham’s actions at Mt. Moriah, shows the Akedah in entirely different light. The question that must be asked is what occurred that would persuade Abraham to trust God at Mt. Moriah? Events either persuaded Abraham that he did not fully understand what was happening at Sodom and Gomorrah and hence realize his limitations and thus trust God’s word, or events helped him understand what happened and thus reinforce his trust. Of course, either way, it was clear that Abraham totally trusted God and thus passed the severe test as reported in Genesis 22. This trust was so complete that Abrahm persuaded Sarah to allow the event to proceed (what mother would allow her husband to take her only son to sacrifice unless she was convinced that it would not reach fruition?). This total trust was reflected in Abraham’s conversations on the way to and up the mountain: Gen 22:5 “Then Abraham said to his servants, ‘You stay here with the ass. The boy and I will go up there; we will worship and we will return to you.’” And later when Isaac asked Abraham where the sacrificial sheep was, Abraham answerd “God will see to the sheep for His burnt offering,”. In both cases, either Abraham was lying to hide what was really going to happen, or he has total faith in God that God would not allow harm to come to Isaac, who was totally innocent. Based on the story and the events preceeding this story, it seems that Abraham, and Sarah, truly believed that God would not allow harm to come to Isaac.

            (4) Several events are reported which show that by the time of his test at Mt. Moriah, Abraham had comprehended what God taught at Sodom and Gomorrah and thus could totally and unreservedly trust that God would not destroy Isaac, who was an innocent. The events that occur which reinforce the lessons taught at Sodom and Gomorrah are: (1) the interaction between Abraham and Pharaoh; (2) the interaction between Abraham and Abimelech; and (3) the events with Hagar[58].

     (a) The episode with Pharaoh

The episode is related in Genesis 12:10-20 and states that Abraham said to his wife, Sarai, “I know what a beautiful woman you are. If the Egyptians see you, and think ‘She is his wife,’ they will kill me and let you live. Please say that you are my sister, that it may go well with me because of you, and that I may remain alive thanks to you.” The Egyptians did, in fact, take Sarai into Pharaoh’s house. “But, the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his household with mighty plagues on account of Sarai, the wife of Abraham.” (Gen 12:17). This caused Pharaoh to return Sarai to Abraham.

                 (b) Sarai/Sarah had trusted both Abraham and Abraham’s God to protect her, and He did.

                 (c) The episode with Abimelech.

            During the incident with Abimelech, Abimelech specifically states: “O Lord, will You slay people even though they are innocent?” (Gen 20:4). God replies, “I knew that you did this with a blameless heart, and so I kept you from sinning against Me. That is why I did not let you touch her.” (Gen 20:6). God protected the innocent[59].

                 (d) The Hagar episode

            The Hagar episode is discussed in the essay on Sarah. However, the episode also applies to this essay. When Hagar first conceived, Sarah wanted to drive her out (“Then Sarai treated her harshly and she ran away: Gen 16:6). While she was away, an angel of the Lord[60] told Hagar to return and the Lord would protect her and her son (Gen 16:9-12). Hagar trusted in this promise and returned to Abraham’s camp. As related in Genesis, after the birth of Isaac, Sarah wanted to remove Ishmael and Hagar from Abraham’s clan (“She said to Abraham, ‘Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.’” (Gen 21:9)). Abraham did not want to do this, but was reassured by God: “Do not be distressed over the boy or your slave; whatever Sarah tells you, do as she says, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be continued for you. As for the son of the slave-woman, I will make a nation of him, too, for he is your seed.” (Gen 21:12-13). Accordingly, Abraham complied and allowed Sarah to exile Hagar and Ishmael. Abraham gave Hagar some bread and water and allowed her to leave. Soon the food and water ran out, and Hagar was sure that both she and her son would perish. However, God heard Ishmael’s cries and provided water (Gen 21:17-20). The boy and his mother were saved.

            Abraham could learn several things from this episode. First, Abraham was a very powerful man (as he proved during the battle of the Kings) and thus probably had eyes and ears everywhere (including in Sodom and Gomorrah, so he probably knew what the angels would find there before they did, which might taint Abraham’s negotiations with God). Therefore, it is quite likely that Abraham was well aware of both the initial promise to Hagar made when she first ran away (see Gen 16: 9-12) and the rescue later in Gen 21:17-20). Thus, Abraham likely was aware of the promise and that the promise was kept. Next, Abraham likely learned that God would not punish an innocent child – even one who was the child of an Egyptian.

            Because Hagar and Ishmael and Sarah were all innocents and God protected them from harm, these episodes reinforce the lesson of Sodom and Gomorrah where the innocent Lot was saved in apparent contradiction of God’s agreement, Abraham learned that God would not allow harm to come to an innocent. Thus, Abraham learned that God will not harm an innocent.

            In all of these events, God clearly showed that He would not punish innocents or allow harm to come to innocents even if it meant that He might have to violate an agreement[61]. That would lead Abraham to either re-evaluate the Sodom and Gomorrah episode and understand that it was not about punishing transgressions alone, but punishing, through destruction, un-repented transgressions (hence punishing those who were not innocent) and saving those who either never transgressed or who had repented (and thus who were innocent), or simply understand that God will not destroy innocents. As Abraham felt that he was innocent and that Isaac was innocent, it appeared that he had basis to believe that God would not destroy either him or Isaac. From the Hagar episode, Abraham would have learned that God will honor His promises unless a clearly overriding principle is involved. Since God had promised Abraham to make a great nation from him, Abraham would have faith in that promise and believe that God would not allow him to destroy the only link, and an innocent link at that,  he would have with the promised great nation.

            However, Job was innocent and had received no warning and he still received extreme treatment, including the deaths of his children. It is not as clear cut as it might seem and Abraham’s actions had to be based on faith that God would not destroy Isaac or break His promise to Abraham of being the father of a great nation. Thus, Abraham’s faith was indeed great, even despite the evidence provided by the Pharaoh, Abimelech and Hagar episodes discussed above. The facts of these episodes do not, per se, mean that Abraham read them correctly or that, per se, he understood God well enough to have total confidence in his conclusions. In spite of the factual evidence he had, Abraham still had to ultimately rely on his faith.

                (e) If Abraham was acting based on an understanding of repentance as shown to him at Sodom and Gomorrah, he was still demonstrating great faith that God would not destroy or harm someone who was innocent (see the Pharaoh story, Abimelech story and the Hagar story) because God did allow an innocent Job to be harmed, and like Job, there might be a question in Abrahams’s mind that he or Isaac may have transgressed in a way that was not readily apparent to them or that God had sent some warning that he had missed. Abraham demonstrated great faith that he and Isaac had followed God’s desires and hence were innocent and were not in need of repentance. In this instance, Abraham would believe that God did not violate an agreement that He had made.

                (f) God’s actions at Sodom and Gomorrah were interpreted by Abraham as teaching that God only punishes when a transgressor has not repented or self-punished after being warned to repent. At Mt. Moriah, Abraham felt that neither he nor Isaac had in some way transgressed, and that God had issued no warning to repent. Abraham also felt he had not missed such a warning. Therefore, based on what he learned from the episode of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham had reason to believe that God would not punish either himself or Isaac. This view may dilute the impact and power of the Akedah, but it must still be remembered that Abraham did not know this for a fact (remember, Job did not believe he had in any way transgressed but was still being tormented by God) and had to rely on his trust in both himself (that he had correctly interpreted the lesson) and God to keep His word. In no way is Abraham’s act of faith diluted.

                (g) On the other hand, if Abraham was acting without fully understanding the repentance implications of Sodom and Gomorrah, he was demonstrating even greater faith in God because as far as Abraham was concerned, God acted in ways that he could not understand, and may even act in ways that appeared to Abraham to violate an agreement, yet he still had faith that God would not destroy or cause the destruction of an innocent. God’s instruction to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac would be God causing the destruction of an innocent.

                (h) In any case, Abraham demonstrated complete faith in God and hence passed the test.

                (i) Furthermore, one might question why God consulted with Abraham prior to destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, He certainly did not need Abraham’s approval. From the above, it can be concluded that God consulted with Abraham because He wanted Abraham to learn many important lessons (justice (both individual and collective), treatment of innocents, the power of repentance, collective guilt, faith, loyalty, etc.), and it appears that Abraham learned all of these lessons well.

    D. The lesson and Mt. Sinai

            (1) The people at Mt. Sinai were aware of preceding events

            Since the episode at Mt. Sinai occurred after the above-discussed events in Abraham’s life, it seems to be a fair assumption that these people were aware of the lesson taught at Sodom and Gomorrah. To wit: God’s word can be trusted, but if repentance is involved, then repentance will take precedence.

            (2) The episode of the Golden Calf

            This conclusion was clearly tested and confirmed in the Golden Calf episode. The people transgressed, and until they properly repented, God would make no agreement with them. However, once they properly repented, God granted them a clean slate and went forward with the covenant.

    E. Comparing the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to the story of Gibeah

            A story similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah appears in Judges 19-21, where the men of the town of Gibeah were “a depraved lot” had “gathered about the house and were pounding on the door” and demanded of the home owner to “Bring out the man who has come into your house, so that we can be intimate with him.” (Judges 19:22). This story ends with the Israelites, themselves, with great losses and difficulties inflicting great losses on the citizens (Benjaminites) of Gibeah. There was no need for God to inflict punishment as the people themselves corrected the transgression; whereas, in Sodom and Gomorrah, the people did not correct or repent for their transgressions. Perhaps the Israelite people in the story of Gibeah had learned their lesson from Sodom and Gomorrah and did not make the mistake of transgressing and failing to repent or correct the transgression. In fact, the first king of Israel, Saul, is from Gibeah (I Samuel 10:21) which seems to indicate that after punishment, the people of Israel were willing to accept the punished people back.. Thus comparing and contrasting the stories seems to support the interpretation of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as being an illustration of the need to repent for transgressions.

XIII. Conclusion

            It can be concluded that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is the story of repentance and the overarching importance of repentance. Viewing the story through the lens of repentance answers all the questions concerning this story and provides clear guidance to later actions by Abraham as well as by God and to actions which concern and affect the God/Man relationship.

            This conclusion is echoed in the famous statement in the famous prayer Un’taneh Tokef:

On Rosh Hashanah it is written,

on Yom Kippur it is sealed;

How many shall pass on, how many shall come to be;

who shall …..

But REPENTANCE, PRAYER and CHARITY

temper judgment’s severe decree.

            As we learned in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, even if God decrees something, repentance can overrule that decree.

SODOM AND GOMORRAH

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is one of the most controversial stories in the entire Bible. The attitude toward this story changes as society’s attitude toward homosexuality changes. The essay suggests that this story is not about homosexuality per se, but is really about repentance and thus the exact nature of the transgression is not important. If this is correct, why has this story been read for so long as being about homosexuality and meaning only that God punishes homosexuals. There may be some reference in the text that can be interpreted as referring to homosexuality, but it is not such a clear reference as to be unambiguous. Why has this story taken on such a tone and meaning? What is the difference between the homosexuality in Sodom and Gomorrah and the practices of other people, such as the Greeks, where men with men was not so unusual?
2. Why didn’t Abraham try to persuade God to change His mind? Why did Abraham go through the charade of negotiating the number of innocent men as the key to whether or not God destroyed the cities? Why not simply try to persuade God to change His mind? Moses persuaded God to change His mind, why not Abraham?
3. What do you think would have happened if Abraham would have persuaded God to change His mind and not destroy the cities?
4. The story has Lot being innocent. However, there are many stories where God destroys the innocent along with the guilty, plus, his actions in the hill country of Zoar shows that he is not so innocent after all. What was the difference here? The essay suggests that the difference is that Lot repented and repentance will save one from destruction and is even stronger than God’s word or God’s intention. Does this make sense to you?
5. Where do you think the pillar of salt story originated? Did the biblical authors find some artifact and build the story around that?
6. What purpose does the pillar of salt story serve in the overall story being told here?
7. The story has the offspring of the incestuous relationship between Lot and his daughters punished (as stated in the essay: “the offspring of these acts are the Ammonites and Moabites who are enemies of the Israelites). Why weren’t the daughters, themselves, punished, after all, they were the ones who initiated the act, and may have been prime movers in getting Lot drunk so he would engage in an act he otherwise would avoid? Some have suggested that the daughters thought they were the last people on earth and it was their responsibility to re-populate the earth. If this were so, why did they have to get their father drunk in order to have intercourse with them?
8. Do you think there is a parallel between Noah and Lot? Both are singled out to be spared, but Noah is stated as being a righteous man whereas Lot is not. In Gen 18:29, it is stated that Lot is spared because “God was mindful of Abraham”.
9. In Mysterious Stranger, Mark Twain makes ironic reference to Lot’s escape as an example of the “progress” of the human race in which every act of divine favor (Eden, Noah’s Ark and Lot’s escape) is followed by human betrayal – Cain’s murder, Noah’s drunkenness, and Lot’s incest. Do you agree with Twain’s suggestion that humans are ungrateful?
10. Do you think Lot’s wife turned back to make sure her children were coming with her and were safe? If so, should she be condemned?
11. Maybe Lot’s wife simply did not trust Lot and turned back to confirm or deny the truthfulness of Lot prediction that the cities would be destroyed? If this is the case, wouldn’t her ears tell her whether this was indeed happening without needing her sight?
12. Do you think there is a parallel between Lot offering his daughters to the mob and Abram offering Sarai to the Egyptians in order to save himelf, and he to Abemelech? It would seem that both men are reprehensible.
13. Compare the story of Sodom and Gamorrah to the story of Gibeah (Judg. 19-20). What are the differences?
14. In Gen 18:8, Lot describes his daughters as not having known a man, yet in Gen 18: 14, it is stated that “Lot when out and spoke to his sons-inlaw, who had married his daughters” Which is it? Are the daughters virgins who have been married (in the manner of Mary and Joseph in the Christian Bible), or did Lot lie to the townsmen?
15. Note that the sons-in-law do not believe Lot when he tells them that God is about to destroy the city. Why do they not believe him (see Gen 18:14)?
16. Lot, his wife, and his daughters are saved, what happened to the sons-in-law?
17. In Gen 18:16, it is stated that Lot delayed leaving even after being warned. Why did he delay? Why did he warn his sons-in-law to leave but delay himself? The Hebrew slaves in Egypt had to be persuaded to leave their homes to follow Moses, is this a similar situation? The essay offers one possible explanation (Lot was loyal to his wife who did not wish to leave, yet he wished to save his daughters). Can you think of other reasons?
18. In Gen 18:20-22, Lot talks God out of destroying a small town to which Lot wishes to flee in spite of God’s earlier intent to destroy all. It is understandable that Abraham could talk God out of something, but how does Lot get away with it? Certainly, God does not have the same allegiance to Lot that He has to Abraham.
19. In the cave at Zoar, Lot’s daughters use him to become pregnant. This incest (and rape since Lot was not a willing participant, he was drunk and unaware) is repugnant to us. However, to their minds, the entire world had been destroyed (Gen 19:31 “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to consort with us in the way of all the world”) and they would have no progeny and, to their minds, the human race might end with them. Viewing the situation through their eyes, do you still think this incest is wrong? Perhaps it was even noble of them to see it as their responsibility to save humanity. What else could they have done?
20. While Lot may not have been aware during the intercourse, he certainly had to become aware of the girls’ pregnancies. What do you think his reaction was to those pregnancies? Do you think the daughters told him how they became pregnant?
21. Can you think of any other story in the Bible that demonstrates the consequences of maltreatment of strangers and women? How about Judges 19?

---

[1] For Jeremiah, deeds, while important especially as they reflect thought, were not as important as the thoughts of the people and their ability to distinguish between true knowledge and opinions of others. If one thinks about it, this has not changed even for today.

[2] For example, the word masa means prophecy, but common misusage transformed its meaning to burden.

[3] Jeremiah 8:8 “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and we possess the instruction of the Lord?’” And Jeremiah 23:16 “Thus said the Lord of Hosts: Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you. They are deluding you, the prophecies they speak are from their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord.”

^[4] Certainly, Cain could not completely repent as he could not make Abel whole again since he killed Abel and repentance requires an effort by the transgressor to make the victim of his transgression whole.

[5] It is related that in the beginning, God created numerous worlds and destroyed them all because they failed to satisfy Him (see Gen. Rab. 23, 68, 262-63). Finally, God recognized that no world would satisfy Him unless it offered man a means of repentance. Hence, before making a new start, God created seven things: the Law; Gehenna; the Garden of Eden; the Divine Throne; the Celestial Pavilion, the Messiah’s Name and Repentance. See Mid. Tehillim, 391; PRE, ch. 3.

[6] While Sodom and Gomorrah are generally grouped together in the story, no legend of Gomorrah survives.

[7] The hospitality offered by Abraham to wayfarers – who at this point is totally unbeknownst to Abraham (it is not until Gen 18:13 that Yahweh reveals himself – include Yahweh Himself presumably disguised as a man, is in sharp contrast to the reception of those same wayfarers in Sodom and Gamorroah. Perhaps this episode is presented partly to emphasize that contrast.

[8] Gen 18:9 is a very surprising passage. Nowhere in the text does it appear that Abraham had ever indicated, much less told, these men that (1) he was married and (2) his wife’s name. How did they know? Why wasn’t Abraham surprised that they knew these facts? Why wasn’t Sarah surprised? Furthermore, it is little wonder why Sarah would scoff at such a prediction since at the time she “laughs” at the prediction she does not know who is making it. Most likely, she thinks it is mere mortal who is making it, so she has every right to be skeptical. Of course, after 18:13, she does not scoff. Furthermore, giving birth as such an advanced age clearly demonstrates the power Yahweh. This is similar to the Christian Bible’s description of the immaculate birth of Jesus. The text clearly states this in Gen 18:14 :”Is anything too wonderous for the Lord?”

[9] It is noteworthy that, in his argument, Abraham states: “I am but dust and ashes” (Gen 18:27) which seems to refer back to Gen 2:7 where it is stated that “the Lord God formed man from the dust of the earth.”

[10] It might be observed that there are ten men required for a minyan. Is this number based on God’s statement to Abraham here?

[11] God has also rejected this argument when He destroyed the entire human race, including animals, in the flood despite the existence of a good and righteous man who was blameless: Noah. See Gen 6:9, also Noah’s family must have been good and righteous as they also were spared (Gen 8:18 “So Noah came out, together with his sons, his wife, and his sons’ wives.”). Thus, in spite of the existence of a righteous minority, God destroyed all.

^[12] The episode also discloses incest between Lot and his daughters. This incest was initiated by the daughters. Some (see Bill T. Arnold in “Genesis” Oxford University Press, 2009, pg 186) have speculated that the daughters may have initiated this in order to ensure that Lot’s name, lineage, would continue since Lot’s wife had been destroyed after they fled from Sodom and Gomorrah.

[13] One wonders why Lot would bow low to the ground in greeting unknown wayfarers. Even Abraham did not bow. Perhaps, Abraham had somehow gotten word to Lot that Yahweh Himself was on His way to Sodom.

[14] For example, Sarna describes the sin of Sodom as “heinous moral and social corruption, an arrogant disregard of elementary human rights, a cynical insensitivity to the sufferings of others.” This description could fit a great number of “sins”.

[15] Cities divinely destroyed in punishment of ungenerous behavior towards stanrages are commonplace in myth. For example, Birket Ram, near Banias in Northern Galilee, an extinct volcano crater, is said by local Arabs to cover with its waters a city whose inhabitants had this failing; Pherecydes records that Gortyna in Crete was destroyed by Apollo for its lawlessness; and Ovid in Metamorphoses tells how an old Phrygian couple, Philemon and Baucis, hospitably entertained Zeus who spared them the catastrophe he visited on their surely neighbors.

[16] Could this also explain what Homer did with the Iliad? Someone discovered ruins, and the poet crafted an entire epic based on how the city of Troy was destroyed.

^[17] With further regard to ruins, the salt pillar near the Dead Sea is said to be Lot’s wife who turned into a pillar of salt because she looked back at the city of Sodom. This seems, at first blush, to be odd. However, God had instructed the couple to not look back, and Lot’s wife disobeyed this simple order. She was punished for disobedience.

^[18]  Nahum Sarna in Understanding Genesis published by Schocken Books of New York in 1996, See, also, From Eden to Exile by Eric H. Cline, published by National Geographic of Washington, DC in 2007, pages 45, 60, “Genesis” by Bill t. Arnold, Oxford University Press, 2009, pg 184. However, failure to find archeological evidence is not proof that such evidence does not exist. Since the Bible stories often took place in the desert, desert sands can easily bury such evidence in hundreds, if not thousands, of feet of sand and bury it in such a way as to make it nearly impossible to find. Therefore, it should surprise noone that archeological evidence is scant at best and absent most of the time. Local tradition favorsw a site at the southern end of the Dead Sea, either on the west side or the east side. Sodom’s connection with Zoar, supports a site in the south for Zoar is in the Jordan Valley.

[19] Some scholars, such as Sarna,(in Understanding Genesis) suggest that the cities could have been destroyed by a massive earthquake since the Jordan Valley is part of a system of rift valleys which, of course, are subject to earthquakes. Earthquakes are often accompanied by lightning, as well as fires which could account for the people envisioning fire and brimstone. It would be logical to these people that God would use such a natural disaster to achieve His goals. Furthermore, other portions of the Bible refer to earthquakes. See, for example, Amos 1:1 (Uzziah’s earthquake), Isaiah 2:10-19 and Zech. 14:3-5. Others, such as R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, view the destruction of these cites as being caused by a volcanic eruption. Furthermore, Strabo records a legend that near Massada a massive fortress on the southwestern shore of the Dead Sea, thirteen flourishing cities were once destroyed by an earthquake, eruptions of bitumen and Sulphur; and a sudden advance of the sea which swept away the fleeing inhabitants. After earthquake activity, masses of bitumen have been found floating on the Dead Sea. Diodorus Siculus, writing in 45 B.C.E., mentions this phenomenon which occurred again in 1834.

^[20]  Tosefta Sotah 3:11ff which is reported by JPS as suggesting that the acts of the people of Sodom are driven by selfishness and are deliberate maltreatment of strangers in order to discourage visitors to the city so the citizens of Sodom need not share their wealth. Furthermore, in Judaism, charity is a prescribed obligation and any city that does not take care of its poor is defined in the Talmud as “a godforsaken city”. If the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah were greedy, it is pretty likely that they did not take care of the poor or give to charity; hence, these cities would be “godforsaken”. However, as above, this is an acquired trait that can be corrected and cured by repentance.

^[21] D. Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1955; reprint, Hamden, CT: Shoestring Press, 1975).

^[22] D. Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1955; reprint, Hamden, CT: Shoestring Press, 1975).

^[23] See:The Beginning of Wisdom by Leon R. Kass, published by the University of Chicago Press in 2003.

^[24] See the essay titled “Partners.” for a more complete discussion of this.

^[25] See the essays titled “Who Were the Nephilim?” and “The Real First Sin. ”In Isa. 1:9-10 and 3:9, Isaiah cites the citizens of Sodom for a lack of justice.

^[26] As discussed in the essays of “Who Were the Nephilim?” and “The Real First Sin,” the Nephilim were destroyed because they were an iteration, or step, in the ultimate development of humans. As such, they were not humans but were simply part of the experiment. As such, there was no need to redeem them since a step in an overall experiment is usually meant to be destroyed after it has served its purpose of advancing the overall experiment to the next step. Thus, repentance was not even applicable to the situation of the Nephilim.

[27] In Deut. 32:15-43, the citizens of Sodom are indicted for backsliding into idolatry; Ezekiel indicts the citizens for “pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness; disregard for the poor and whoring after false gods (see Ezek. 16:49-50).

^[28] See the essay on God’s ground rules in which one rule is that neither God nor man can predict the future, as well as the essays “Partners” and “Who Were the Nephilim” where it is argued that God does not know the outcome of events.

^[29] See also, J. Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980, pp 91-117) where it is argued that the Sodom and Gomorrah episode is misunderstood as being about homosexuality (or worse, homosexual rape) when it is really about lack of hospitality (although Lot’s offer of his daughters “who have not known a man” in Gen 18:8 seems to militate against the interpretation of the transgression being one only of hospitality). While hospitality is an extremely important trait in the Hebrew Bible, and, in fact, is the trait of Abraham which ultimately persuaded the angels that Abraham was ready to be the father of the nation envisioned by God, as discussed in this essay, the particular transgression committed by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah is not important. What is important is that those people had committed some transgression and had not repented after being warned. Comparing Lot’s actions to the actions of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, it can be understood why Lot was considered an innocent (although one might question this view because Lot was willing to give his daughters to the people of Sodom – reprehensible, see below for further discussion of the relationship between Lot and his daughters). See also Is 1:10, etc where the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are listed but with the exclusion of homosexuality.

^[30] See, “JPS Torah Commentary, Genesis” published by Jewish Publication Society of Philadelphia in 1989, page 135.

^[31] While Lot may be acting in a hospitable manner, he certainly is failing in his duty to protect his property (even if daughters are not considered people, they certainly are property). Thus, while Lot is innocent of one transgression, he is guilty of another. One would guess that hospitality ranks higher than protecting property, which may be why Lot was not punished with the other citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[32] The sexual sin of Sodom is spoke of in Jub. 16:5-6. Philo condemns the sexual perversity of Sodom (e.g., Quaestiones et solutions in Genesim, 4:37-38).

^[33] As reported in the Bible, God’s command concerning homosexuality is clear: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Lev 18:22). This is expanded in Leviticus 20:13. “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act.” These passages are set in the context of God’s judgment on sexual crimes and are an expansion of the seventh commandment.

^[34] In the case of Intelligent Design, it would mean that God set up the design of humans to evolve into homosexuals. In the case of Biblical Creationism, it would mean that God formed Adam and Eve with this trait. Thus, under any interpretation, it would place at least some of the blame for the “wickedness” of homosexuality on God, which would seem to prevent Him from punishing a trait that He was at least partially responsible for.

[35] Perhaps this is the reason Lot delayed leaving when urged to do so by the angels in Gen 18:16, his wife wished to stay, and he was loyal to her. Lot urged his daughters and their husbands to leave, yet he hesitated. Loyalty to his wife? Is this an example of his good traits thus justifying his rescue?

^[36] Given the way events were unfolding exactly as predicted, it is unlikely that Lot’s wife did not believe the strangers when they said that they were emissaries of God, or that she did not believe in Lot’s God.

[37] Abram/Abraham knowing that he can rely on God keeping His promises will play a pivotal and crucial role later in the Akedah.

^[38] Or, perhaps, the angels were sent to warn, test and save Lot. Could this be a situation where a human, Abraham, knew more than God?

^[39] See the essay “Who Were the Nephilim?” for a discussion which concludes that God is neither future-omniscient nor omnipotent. This conclusion will imply that God did not know what to expect from the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah. This seems to correspond to the statement in this section of Genesis “I will go down to see whether they have acted altogether according to the outcry that has reached Me; if not, I will take note.” (Gen 18:20). If God were future-omniscient He would have already known and would not have had to investigate rumors; if God were omnipotent, he could have already controlled the actions of the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah without having to send angels to investigate before taking action. If God were future-omniscient or omnipotent, He would not have needed to negotiate with Abraham regarding what God would do. If God were future-omniscient and/or omnipotent, what does this mean about God’s promises? A promise is generally based on future actions about which we do not know. If we do know what will happen in the future, our “promise” is either a lie or a nullity. If one knows what will actually happen or what is actually the case, what is the purpose of negotiation? Therefore, as concluded in that essay and seems to find support here, God is neither future-omniscient nor omnipotent.

^[40] See the essay titled “Partners” and “Who Were the Nephilim?” which discuss the theory that God does not know the outcome of any particular event and thus must test men.

^[41] But see the essays “God’s Ground Rules” and “Who Were the Nephilim?” where it is argued that God cannot be either omnipotent nor future-omniscient and still allow men to have free will.

^[42] However, even if the covenant can be nullified, it is clear that it has not been nullified and, indeed, has been and continues to be, affirmed and re-affirmed every time a Jew repeats the words to the Sh’ma. See also the essay “Exodus and the Holocaust”.

[43] It should be noted that when Lot and Abraham agreed to part ways in Gen 13:11, Lot chose to go to Sodom which was already known to be inhabited by wicked sinners (Gen 13:13). Therefore, one must question why Lot chose such a place if he was innocent. Perhaps the answer lies in a desire to teach the ways of the Lord (alá Jonah) and thus would be considered an innocent even if the others around him were sinners even if he did not succeed.

^[44] See, for example, . Josephus, who wrote around A.D. 99-100, said that the Sodomites “hated strangers and abused themselves with sodomitical practices.” ; Josephus, quoted in Wolff, Richard Wolff, “A Commentary on the Epistle of Jude” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960), p. 75.

^[45] See, Understanding Genesis by Nahum M. Sanrna, pages 110-115; however, others differ as to whether the battle actually existed and attribute the battle to ancient historical tradition, first recorded in the Akkadian or Canaanite language soon after some sort of war took place in the twentieth or seventeenth century BCE and then later translated into Hebrew. However, there may be some difference of opinion as to whether this battle actually happened. In Ancient Israel 3ed Edited by Hershel Shanks and published by the Biblical Archeological Socient (Washington, DC 2011), the essay “The Patriarchal Age: Abrahm; Isaac, and Jacob” by P. Kyle McCarter,Jr, it is stated that “There is no extrabiblical record of thse events, and neither the name Chedorlaomer nor that of his ally Ampaphel, king of Shinar, has been found in Mesopotamian records. Despite numerous attempts, no scholar has succeeded in identif;ying any of the nine kings involved in the war”.

[46] Canaan was conquered from Kadesh and El-Paran (or Elath) on the Red Sea gulf in the south, to Dan in the north, by four invaders; but immediately afterwards, Abram defeated them, recovered all the booty they had taken and, by the right of succession, also acquired all the land overrun by them. Thus, Abram’s children, when they emerged from Egypt and conquered Canaan, were taking possession of a country to the title to which was theirs by inheritance.

[47] In addition to God’s help, Abraham had the assistance of 318 members of his own household (see Gen 14:14). Thus, it appears that Abraham was a strong and wealthy man.

[48] But it might be noted that Abram was already a very wealthy man who was able to muster over three hundred of his own men (see Gen 12:16 and 14:14) so he probably did not need the spoils being offered. It is also noteworthy that Abraham gave the King Melchizedek of Salem “a tenth of everything” (Gen 14:20). This is the first mention of giving back one tenth of everything and may be the basis of church tithing. Tithing also is pledged in Gen 28:22 where Jacob pledges to set aside a “tithe” to God if God keeps the promises He made during the famous ladder dream.

.

[49] This is also consistent with the warning issued in Amos 4:11-12 which refers to Sodom and Gomorrah in the context of repentance when warning of a disaster: an Assyrian invasion.

[50] This caveat is proved again in the story of the plagues God rains upon Pharaoh in the story of Exodus: God warned Pharaoh (through Moses and/or Aaron) five times, and waited again for Pharaoh to repent and finally punishing without further warning in Ex 9:8.

[51] This same situation occurs in Exodus where God destroys the first born sons of the Egyptians.

[52] For confirmation of this theory, see Gen 26:10-11where Abimelech is spared punishment for kidnapping Rebecca because he charged all the people: “Anyone who molests ths man or his wife shall be put to death.” There was absolutely no doubt in Abimelech’s mind that if one of his men violated Rebekah, everyone in Gerar would have experienced the curses of the carefully watching God/gods. Therefore, Abimelech issued a very stern warning to any individual who will be found guilty of it, exposing everyone to real danger. And further in the story of Jonah where the king of Ninevah avoids punishment by requiring all (including animals) to wear sackcloth. These people taught proper actions and thus qualified as “innocents” who would not be punished.

[53] Compare this statement to God’s statement in Deuteronomy 24:16 “Parents shall not be put to death for children, nor children be put to death for parents: a person shall be put to death only for his own crime.” The two statements seem to be diametrically opposed to each other. However, they can be reconciled by separating parental teaching out and not considering it a crime such as being addressed in this portion of Deuteronomy which is concerned with laws covering communal living. Parental teaching of the type in the Exodus statement concerns continued viability of the religion; whereas, the laws being promulgated in Deuteronomy concern how people live together and get along with each other. The Deuteronomy laws do not endanger the overall viability of the religion as does the Exodus law. Thus, the Deuteronomy law can be restricted to the actor and the Exodus law should apply to all. Parental teaching is so vital to the continued viability of the religion that it is placed in a special category of transgressions and is dealt with differently than the everyday transgressions of concern in the Deuteronomy statement. This punishment for parental teaching seems to agree with the fact that even though Cain had committed fratricide, none of his progeny, through seven generations, were punished for Cain’s act.

[54] God’s selection of four generations in this warning is interesting. It could be first observed, that God selected four generations as the limit. That is, after four generations, the people are unredeemable heathens and God will simply abandon them with no further punishment as they are beyond redemption. Next, as discussed in the essay “Thoughts on the Exodus Story, Moses was only the fourth generation removed from Jacob. Thus, based on this warning, if the Hebrew slaves would have waited any longer than Moses’s generation, God would have abandoned them as being heathens who are beyond redemption. 

[55] Abraham did lie to Abimelech to protect the continuation of the nation, but this is different from lieing to his son.

^[56] From the text, we know nothing about the innocents if there were any beside Lot. Therefore, we do not know if they were guilty of allowing the transgression to continue without their protest or not.

[57] Lot proved his innocence several times during this story: (1) by bowing down to strangers; (2) by inviting them into his home; (3) by protecting them, even to the point of endangering his own daughters; (3) by urging his daughters and their husbands to leave the city based on the warnings of the angels (thereby showing faith); (4) by hesitating to leave in order to honor his wife’s wishes (and endangering his own life). Lot also proved worthy because he accepted Abraham’s decision when they disagreed and agreed to part. All-in-all, Lot was a worthy person, even though he does not appear to be because he is overshadowed by Abraham who is a paragon and cannot be equaled.

[58] It should also be observed that in the covenant promises episode related in Gen 15:1-6, it is specifically stated that Abram put his trust in God’s promise, and hence in God, regarding Abram and Sarai having offspring, and such promise was fulfilled. Hence, God passed the test given by Abram. Along the lines of this covenant episode, Abram had further reason to believe God and His promises because in Gen 15:17-18, God (in the form of a smoking oven and flaming torch) passed between the pieces of animals formed in Gen 15:10 thereby subjecting Himself to the consequences and curse of violating the terms associated with this ritual ceremony. However, one may question whether God can subject Himself to a curse, especially one associated with a human ritual. In such a situation, the smoking oven and flaming torch may simply represent God’s affirmation or His assurance of His promise of land to Abram. It should also be noted that there is nothing representing Abram which passes between the pieces; thus, it appear that only God bound Himself to the covenant at this point, with no corresponding promise or responsibility for Abram. But it should also be noted that there is some disagreement as to who was trusting whom in Gen 15:6 and the ritual/curse interpretation of 15:7-21.  It might also be worth noting that this covenant episode is the first time there is a dialogue between God and Abram. Until this episode, God spoke and Abram listened but did not enter into a dialogue other than to say “hineni”.

^[59] But as discussed in other essays, had God not protected Sarai/Sarah, the Jewish Nation would have disappeared before it ever had a chance to begin. So, in effect, God had no choice but to intercede into human events and thwart the free will of some of the humans in order to save the entire experiment.

[60] Note that the Bible is still speaking of angels which seems to contradict the concept of monotheism because it introduces other heavenly entities. It is also interesting to observe that in Gen 16:8, the angel inquires about where Hagar has come from, but knows her name, and her position. This is inconsistent on its face. The angel knew Hagar’s name and position without asking, but did not know where she was coming from. Presumably, an angel of God would know where Hagar came from. So which is it: an angel who knew Hagar without asking, or some lesser entity that did not know where Hagar came from? Still further, Hagar had been abused in Abram’s camp, yet she willingly returns based on the angel’s instructions. This is a brave woman, and a clear show of faith in a God she had not accepted.

^[61] The Sodom and Gomorrah episode also taught Abraham (and us) that we humans often do not see all that God sees.