New American Commentary - Genesis 18 & 19
9. Divine Judgment and Mercy (18:1-19:38) The Lord appears again to Abraham (12:7; 15:1; 17:1) repeating the promise of a son, but here the annunciation concerns Sarah’s response, whom the Lord seeks out by name (18:9). Abraham and Sarah had each undertaken a plan for obtaining an alternative heir (15:2-3; 16:2), and by Sarah’s laughter they now share the same response at the thought of a child born in their old age (17:17; 18:12). The annunciation of Isaac (18:1-15), however, forms the backdrop for an announcement of a different kind, the destruction of the cities Sodom/Gomorrah (18:16-19:29). This center narrative consists of two parts (see below) concerning the fundamental question of divine justice. (1) Abraham dialogues with the Lord regarding the just treatment of the innocent, entreating the Lord to spare the cities for the sake of the righteous (18:16-33). (2) The cataclysm that befalls the cities and the preservation of Lot match the former section by describing the divine decision (19:1-29). After the destruction, the story concludes with the births of Lot’s sons by incest, Moab and Ben-Ammi (19:30-38). The whole, therefore, is enclosed by narratives devoted to the birth of future heirs, providing a sharp contrast between the moral heritage of each one’s beginnings. A 18:1-15 Visitors’ announcement of Isaac’s birth B 18:16-19:29 Destruction of Sodom and deliverance of Lot A´ 19:30-38 Births of Lot’s sons Moab and Ben-Ammi Composition. Although scholars differ over whether chaps. 18-19 consist of redactional layers drawing on unrelated traditions (e.g., Wellhausen, von Rad, Westermann) or constitute the composition of one author (e.g., Van Seters, Alexander), all today recognize the remarkable unity of the chapters and the striking literary artistry they exhibit. Most attribute chaps. 18-19 to one source (Yahwist) with possibly two later additions (18:17-19,22-33); also 19:29 is assigned to the Priestly (P) writer, due to the appearance of Elohim and P’s propensity to summarize. The final product dates to the seventh-sixth centuries or postexile when the issue of God’s just dealings with the nations (cf. 18:23-33) among the prophets and exiles was of greater importance (e.g., Jer 5:1; Ezek 14:22-23; 18:5-32; 22:30; Zeph 1:12). Regardless of methodological stripe, scholars have repeatedly observed the rich complexity of parallel language, theme, and motifs between the two chapters (see “Structure” below). On this basis Van Seters argued that a single author (his exilic Yahwist) combined two themes in creating his free composition: (1) the birth announcement of Isaac (18:1a,10-14) and (2) the primary contribution of divine visitors (18:1b-9,15-19:38). Although we do not concur with his exilic date for the author, Van Seters convincingly demonstrates that the (almost) seamless integration of the various parts of the two chapters are best explained by a single hand than the unlikely chance that several oral traditions came together across centuries by redactional efforts. He further shows that 18:17-19,22-33 are in fact necessary to make sense of their contexts and evidence reasoned progression in the narrative flow. As for Van Seters’ proposal of two disparate themes for the conceptional background of the story, Alexander finds that vv. 10-14 fit well with vv. 9 and 14, rendering it unnecessary to posit a distinctive theme. Moreover, the absence of the actual birth and naming of Isaac (not until 21:1-3) warns that the author is not following the expected formula, since annunciation typically includes the name of the child (e.g., 16:11; 17:19; 1 Ki 13:2; Isa 7:14-17; 1 Chr 22:9-10; Matt 1:21; Luke 1:13-17,31-33). Van Seters recognizes this problem and offers that 21:2 originally followed 18:10-14; the author displaced the verse in order to suit his purpose of including the intervening stories. This appears to be special pleading, however, since on the one hand Van Seters appeals to a posited theme that close examination does not confirm. Alexander questions whether the proposal of an annunciation form is here and suggests that the author more likely created a unique work. Also the parallels between chaps. 18 and 19, especially 18:1-8 and 19:1-3, justify the conclusion that 18:1-15 as a unit is the original introduction to the remaining 18:16-19:29. Finally, on the assignment of 19:29 to P, Wenham observes that “God (Elohim) remembered” rather than Yahweh is not necessarily a source different from its context’s. As in chap. 19 elsewhere, 19:29 is a conscious authorial match with the flood account, “God [Elohim] remembered Noah” (8:1a). R. Letellier has presented the most compelling case for the unity of chaps. 18-19. After presenting his reasoning for demarcating the story from chaps. 17 and 20, he argues that textual clues prove that chaps. 18-19 possess external and internal unity. For indicators of external unity he includes (1) the continuity of the characters, (2) the interest in time of day for the events, (3) the notice given to the places where the events occur, and (4) the logical movement from problem to resolution. On this last point Letellier admits that 18:1-15 does not appear at first to contribute to the tension of the Sodom story, but he finds that the resemblances in setting, vocabulary, and narration between 18:1-15 and chap. 19 (esp. vv. 1-3) must lead to the conclusion that chaps. 18-19 are “a deliberate literary composition.” Relying on the observations of Licht, he demonstrates how the narrative’s four movements in the two chapters interface, one episode naturally leading to another at spacial and thematic levels. Movement 1 located at Mamre (18:1-15), Movement 2 situated midway between Mamre and Sodom (18:16-33), and Movement 3 at Sodom (19:1-29) describe the journey of the heavenly visitors. Movement 2 also provides the theological reflection on Sodom leading to Movement 3’s cataclysm, and Movement 4 gives the final outcome of Lot (19:30-38). Also, by employing methods of semiotics, Letellier believes that chaps. 18-19 contain correspondences at the “deep structural” level: the sequence of (1) visitors, (2) hospitality, and (3) reward (i.e., a promised son//rescue from Sodom) expresses the deep meaning of each chapter. A good case also can be made for accepting 19:30-38 as the original conclusion to the Sodom-Gomorrah pericope. The final paragraph of the passage (19:30-38) presupposes the Sodom-Gomorrah narrative (19:1-29) to explain why Lot became a recluse and why his daughters, once betrothed to Sodomite men, took desperate steps to ensure children. Lot’s departure from Zoar out of fear appears true to form in light of the preceding cataclysm. Also the absence of his wife is not perplexing since her fate previously was explained (19:26). In anticipation of their central role in 19:30-38, Lot’s “daughters” are repeatedly mentioned in the prior narrative (vv. 8,12,14,15,16) as is their betrothal status whose consummation remained unfulfilled (19:8,12,14). Another literary link with the former narrative is the play on the word “know” (yadaʾ). The Sodomites desire to “know” (yadaʾ, “have sex,” niv) the guests (v. 5), but Lot offers his daughters who have not “known” (yadaʾ, “slept with,” niv) a man (v. 8); and Lot does not “know” (yadaʾ, “was not aware,” niv) he has committed incest (vv. 33,35). The irony of this outcome can hardly be missed. Also the angels preserve (ḥayâ) the life of Lot (v. 19), and the daughters “preserve” (ḥayâ) his posterity (vv. 32,34). Finally, as the preceding narrative (18:16-19:29) echoes the Noah story, Lot’s drunkenness and sexual misconduct remind the reader of Noah’s family shame also after destruction (9:20-27). The moral standing of Abraham’s future covenant household (“right and just,” 18:19) versus the wickedness of Lot’s world (Sodom, 19:7,9) and, concomitantly, the moral question of God’s justice (18:25; also 20:4) cooperate with the larger narrative theme of promise to hold the pericope together (13:13; 18:23,25; 19:7). Such theological consideration hardly requires an exilic date, however, since such speculations on divine justice appear as early as the second millennium in the ancient Near East (e.g., Ludlul bel nemeqi, ca. 1500; and the Babylonian Theodicy, ca. 1000). Although we cannot date Job definitively, at least we know that the story’s setting is patriarchal, suggesting an acquaintance with such questions raised from earliest times. Also to chaps. 18-19 we can add the following episode of Abraham’s encounter with Abimelech, king of Gerar, who unwittingly echoes Abraham by raising the issue of divine justice (e.g., “innocent nation,” 20:4). R. Alter proposes that 18:16-20:18 forms a bridge, not an interruption, between the birth announcement of the covenant son (17:19-21; 18:1-15) and its fulfillment in Isaac’s birth (21:1-3). The intervening episodes of 18:16-20:18 present a morally perilous world that could derail the promises, but the Lord’s saving grace ensures that they will be achieved. Although chap. 20 is not as closely linked to chaps. 18-19 as they exhibit between themselves, its author is fully aware of the prior story (see comments on chap. 20). We conclude, therefore, that chaps. 18-19 are a literary whole whose origin can be attributed to one author. That the composition was of the second millennium corresponds well with the setting depicted in the account. Structure. Earlier we commented that chaps. 17 (see comments there) and 18-19 evidence a compositional interdependence, indicating a common author drafted them. Each unit, for example, adapts the Noah narrative: (1) chap. 17 employs the same literary form of covenant and shares many covenant terms (9:8-17; for details see vol. 1a, pp. 367-68); (2) chaps. 18-19 contain identical language and the similar plot of a survivor (see vol. 1a, pp. 363, n. 21). Also each of the three narratives—the Noah story, the covenant of circumcision, and the Sodom and Gomorrah account—possess a chiastic structure (see vol. 1a, pp. 352-53 and comments on chap. 17). G. Wenham’s analysis of the chiasmus in 18:16-19:29 is cited below. 1. Abraham’s visitors look toward Sodom (18:16) 2. Divine reflections on Abraham and Sodom (18:17-21) 3. Abraham pleads for Sodom (18:22-33) 4. Angels arrive in Sodom (19:1-3) 5. Assault on Lot and his visitors (19:4-11) 6. Destruction of Sodom announced (19:12-13) 7. Lot’s sons-in-law reject his appeal (19:14) 8. Departure from Sodom (19:15-16) 9. Lot pleads for Zoar (19:17-22) 10. Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed (19:23-26) 11. Abraham looks toward Sodom (19:27-28) Summary (19:29) Moreover, prior chapters featured parallel literary panels (15:1-6,7-21; 16:2-4,5-6; 17:1-14,16-27). This literary device of imitation between parts of a composition is accepted by all for chaps. 18-19. Although most studies have focused on parallel language in chaps. 18-19 (see examples 1-9 charted below), Letellier expands the levels of correlation to similar settings, motifs, and actions. The correspondences often involve inversion (10-13) or completion of preceding actions (14-16). On this basis he demonstrates how this literary device reinforces the narrative movement from the initial actions in chap. 18 to their denouement in chap. 19. A representative sampling of the parallels here is sufficient to make the point:
Motifs. Lot and his family, as in chaps. 13-14, provide a contrast to Abraham that enhances his stature as the standard bearer for blessing. In chap. 13 Abraham was the generous kinsman and in chap. 14 the impressive warrior who rescues his nephew; here Abraham is the generous host (18:1-15) and the confidant of the Lord whose intercessory pleas (18:16-33) contribute to Lot’s rescue again. Lot cannot save his guests, not even himself (19:29); the Sodomites rebuff his feeble actions (cp. Judg 19:23-25). Ironically, it is his guests who must save themselves and deliver him from the city’s citizens (cp. Judg 19:25-26). The similarities between chaps. 18 and 19 (see above) point up the dissimilarities of the two men: Abraham hosts the visitors in safety at his tent (18:1), whereas Lot welcomes the angels to his house (19:1-2), who are put at jeopardy among the Sodomites; the visitors gladly comply with Abraham’s request to dine (18:5b), but the angels reluctantly agree to Lot’s histrionic insistence (19:2b-3a; cp. Judg 13:16); Abraham’s meal “in the heat of the day” (18:1) includes the delicacies of the fattened calf and curds, but the arrival of the angels “in the evening” (19:1) catches Lot unprepared, and he offers only a meal of unleavened bread (19:3); and Abraham and Sarah scurry about to serve the guests, with Abraham attending to the seated men (18:8c); but Lot is not prepared, and his wife is not mentioned (19:3). Another striking contrast is their respective roles as progenitors of new nations. Lot generates two nations (19:30-38) but ignorantly, whereas Abraham is deliberately and honorably the “father of many nations” (17:5). Chapters 18-19 depict Lot as less competent and virtuous than Abraham, who is the sagacious leader of his clan. Lot himself is besmirched by Sodom’s evil when he offers his daughters in lieu of the guests (19:7) and foolishly ignores the angels’ efforts to rescue him (19:16). Our predominantly negative interpretation of Lot’s actions, however, must be balanced by Lot’s positive features. According to Jewish and Christian traditions, Lot was a “righteous man” (Wis 10:6; 19:17; 1 Clem 11:1) who could be compared favorably with Noah, Abraham, and others (Wis 10:4-13). The apostle Peter appealed to his audience to hold fast to their faith despite the oppression they endured as had the examples of Noah, “the preacher of righteousness,” and Lot, “the righteous man” (2 Pet 2:5-8). In what sense might we count Lot “righteous,” given the narrative’s generally negative portrayal when compared to Abraham? When Lot is compared to his Sodomite neighbors, he can be regarded a strikingly moral man. He followed rigorously the custom of hospitality toward strangers, despite the intense pressure of the threat of death. Moreover, although having committed incest, the passage makes it clear that he was a victim, which mitigates somewhat his culpability. Early Christian interpreters pointed to Lot’s generosity toward the angels and commended him for resisting the wickedness of his fellow citizens as features worthy of Christian imitation (e.g., Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 43.10-12; Ambrose, Flight from the World 9.55-56). Both Noah and Lot, whose lives ended disgracefully (drunkenness), nevertheless stood out as admirable people when set against the background of their wicked times. Commenting on Lot’s sin against his daughters, Calvin remarked, “Yet such are commonly the works of holy men: since nothing proceeds from them so excellent, as not to be in some respect defective.” The promise to “bless” or “curse” the nations, dictated by their treatment of Abraham’s family (12:3ab), is manifested in the story by the mixed results of mercy toward Lot and judgment against the Sodomites. Abraham’s plea for the “righteous” implies Lot is centrally in mind (18:22-33; 19:29), although his appeal involves the whole of the city. God’s mercy toward Abraham has secured Lot’s deliverance (19:29). Coats observes that the Lot-Sodom stories prove that Lot missed out on the blessing of God when he chose to separate from Abraham. But this interpretation must be moderated. Divine grant of land to the Moabites and Ammonites (Deut 2:9,19; as with the Ishmaelites and Edomites, Deut 2:5) shows that Lot was included in the benefits of the patriarchal promises by virtue of his positive connection to Abraham. Some Jewish interpreters described Lot’s virtues and achievements as derived in some way from his association with Abraham (Gen. Rab. 50 and Rashi). An illustration of curse against the enemies of Abraham is Sodom’s mistreatment of Lot and his guests. The extent of the Sodomites’ moral blindness is sharpened in the narrative by their hostilities toward Lot, who begged them to repent of their evil (19:7,9). His own sons-in-law, presumably Sodomites, epitomize opposition when they snub Lot’s warning as a tall story (19:14). The Genesis motif of the chosen offspring versus the forsaken child is continued by showing the disqualification of Lot and his lineage who came by drunken incest (Lev 18:6; Deut 23:2-3[3-4]). The typecasting of Noah and Lot as survivors whose drunkenness leads to family disgrace is reinforced by the many parallels the flood and Sodom narratives of destruction possess (see vol. 1a, p. 363, n. 21; cf. Luke 17:28-29; 2 Pet 2:5-8). It is typical of Genesis to conclude its accounts of the forsaken offspring by giving a genealogical record (e.g., Cain, Ishmael, Esau); here Lot’s family account ends with the episode of his children by incest, the Moabites and Ammonites. (1) Abraham’s Visitors (18:1-15) 1The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. 3He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by. 4Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. 5Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come to your servant.” “Very well,” they answered, “do as you say.” 6So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. “Quick,” he said, “get three seahs of fine flour and knead it and bake some bread.” 7Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. 8He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree. 9“Where is your wife Sarah?” they asked him. “There, in the tent,” he said. 10Then the Lord said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son.” Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was behind him. 11Abraham and Sarah were already old and well advanced in years, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing. 12So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, “After I am worn out and my master is old, will I now have this pleasure?” 13Then the Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Will I really have a child, now that I am old?’ 14Is anything too hard for the Lord? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son.” 15Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, “I did not laugh.” But he said, “Yes, you did laugh.” “The Lord appeared to Abraham” (v. 1a) functions as a heading for the whole pericope, since theophany characterizes chaps. 18-19 (except the epilogue, 19:30-38). Divine-human dialogue pervades chaps. 18-19; each episode is occasioned by the visitors, who encounter Abraham and his relative Lot (18:1; 19:1). The introductory episode of 18:1-15 elevates Abraham and Sarah as the appointed couple for future blessing; Abraham is the perfect host (18:1b- 8), and Sarah is the subject of divine announcement (18:9-15). The contrast at Sodom provided by Lot and his wife starkly shows the contrary outcome of Lot’s disgrace to that of Abraham and Sarah’s. The prologue also prepares for the private dialogue in 18:16-33 that portrays Abraham as intercessory prophet (cf. 20:7,17). 18:1a Introduction to the theophany 18:1b-8 Abraham the host 18:1b-2 Abraham hosts the three visitors 18:3-5 Abraham’s dialogue with the visitors 18:6-8 Abraham and Sarah prepare the meal 18:9-15 Annunciation of Isaac’s birth 18:9-10a The Lord reveals Sarah will give birth 18:10b-15 The Lord dialogues with Abraham and Sarah 18:1-2 This is the last place where the language “appeared” describes theophany to Abraham (12:7; 17:1; 18:1; cp. 26:2,24). In this case the theophany involves “three men” (v. 2), the only place in Scripture where such a trio of heavenly guests occurs. This alone underscores the magnitude of the two announcements that follow: Isaac’s birth and the destruction of Sodom/Gomorrah. The “men” included the Lord (v. 22) and two angels (19:1; see comments at 16:7). Reference to “Mamre” recalls earlier events in the lives of Abraham and Lot: their parting (13:18) and the elder’s rescue of Lot from eastern kings (14:13,24). “[Abraham] looked up and saw” (lit., “lifted his eyes and saw,” v. 2) often signals an important imminent event (24:63; 43:29; Josh 5:13; Judg 19:17). Again, from Mamre the patriarch will show the same paternal concern for his nephew. Abraham “in the heat of the day” (v. 2) took refuge from the sun at the door of his tent; the sudden appearance of travelers standing “before him” (“nearby,” niv) suggests immediately that these guests were extraordinary. His haste in offering the courtesies of hospitality exhibited the same generous spirit he had shown in the past (Lot, 13:8-9). 18:3-5 Abraham respectfully addresses one of the three men who evidently stood out from among the others, as indicated by the singular “my lord” (ʿadonây) and singular verb “do not pass . . . by” (v. 3). His continued entreaty shifts, however, to the plural in number (vv. 4-5), referencing all three visitors. His request is delicately expressed, beginning his remarks with the honorific title “my Lord” (ʿadônay) in the Hebrew sentence (as reflected in nasb, nrsv), and the particle naʿ, “please,” occurs twice (see nasb). His plea is predicated on the visitors’ “favor” (ḥen) toward him (6:8, vol. 1a, pp. 345-46); “if I have found favor in your eyes” prefaces an entreaty made by a subordinate person (e.g., 30:27; 33:10; 47:29; Exod 33:13; 34:9; Judg 6:17; 1 Sam 27:5). The custom of hospitality is illustrated by the visitors in chaps. 18-19 and the encounter of Abraham’s servant with Rebekah’s household (chap. 24). Stunning examples of breaches in hospitality include the wicked behavior of the Sodomites toward the visitors (chap. 19) and the Gibeahites toward the Levite and his concubine (Judg 19; cf. Luke 7:44-46). In the New Testament, hospitality was a common setting for Jesus’ instruction about the kingdom (e.g., Matt 22:1-14; Mark 2:15-22; Luke 19:1-10) and was regulated in the Christian community (e.g., Rom 15:7; 1 Tim 3:2; 1 John 2:9; 3:9; Heb 13:2). Provision and protection for guests characterized a good host, including care of their animals (24:19,32; 43:24; Judg 19:21). The host provided water for refreshment (24:14; Judg 4:19) and the washing of soiled feet (v. 4; e.g., 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; Judg 19:21; 1 Sam 25:41; John 13:5; 1 Tim 5:10); a meal followed (v. 5; e.g., 19:3; 24:33; 43:16; Exod 2:19-20), and overnight accommodations were provided for pilgrims (e.g., 19:2-3; Judg 19:6-20). 18:6-8 Abraham busily set his house in action, drawing on Sarah to bake bread and instructing a servant to prepare a lavish meal of meat, curds, and milk (e.g., Deut 32:14; Judg 5:25; 6:18-19; Ezek 34:3). The tornado of activity (“hurried,” vv. 6,7; “quick,” v. 6; “ran,” v. 7) reinforces the picture of Abraham as the extraordinary host. The passage specifies that Abraham stands alertly nearby under one of the trees observing their meal (v. 8); the depiction of theophany often includes the imagery of trees (e.g. 12:6-7; 21:33; Judg 6:11,19; Ps 29:9). Mention of the “great trees [oaks] of Mamre” in v. 1 (13:18; 14:13) refers to the same site where Abraham had formally worshiped the Lord (13:18). 18:9-10a Collectively, the trio (“they,” pl.) asked Abraham of Sarah’s whereabouts (v. 9); a theophanic messenger also queried Hagar about her travels (16:8; cf. 3:9; 4:9). His response is terse in the Hebrew, hinnê baʿohel, “behold, in the tent,” including perhaps a gesture toward it. The spokesman is the Lord, if v. 13 is our guide, who dialogues with Abraham and Sarah in vv. 10-15. “I will surely return” translates the emphatic Hebrew construction (sôb ʿasûb); the certainty of the promise is further enhanced by a specific timetable, “this time next year” (kaʾet ḥayyâ, “at the time of reviving” = spring; cp. 2 Ki 4:16-17) and by the particle hinnê, “and behold [a son]” (v. 10a). 18:10b-15 The miraculous nature of the announcement is underscored by the Lord’s amazing discernment of Sarah’s private thoughts (vv. 12-15). Sarah’s position in the tent, “behind him” (v. 10b), and her internal monologue, “to herself” (v. 12a), indicate that by unusual means the visitor knew her heart, not having seen a facial expression or heard a chuckle. Such exceptional perception gave credibility to the visitor’s unlikely prediction of a child. The domestic intrigue of Abraham’s household involving rival siblings is intimated in Sarah’s actions in this passage by the lexical hints “listening” (samaʾ; v. 10b) and “laughed” (ṣaḥaq; vv. 12-13), wordplays on Ishmael’s name (16:11) and on Isaac’s (21:6). Sarah will later defend her son by urging Ishmael’s expulsion, at which time the Lord directs Abraham, “Listen [semaʾ] to your wife” (21:12; cp. 3:17). Isaac’s wife Rebekah, after “listening” (27:5), takes action to ensure that Jacob receives the firstborn rights in her household. A normal biological conception was humanly ruled out due to Sarah’s postmenopausal age. The passage captures the impossibility of her pregnancy by three successive descriptions: the couple is “old” (zeqenîm); “advanced in years,” lit., “coming with days” (baʿîm bayyamîm); and she is “past the age of childbearing,” lit., “as the way of women had ceased for Sarah” (ḥadal lihyôt leśarâ ʿoraḥ kannasîm). “Old” and “advanced in years” later describe the aged patriarch in his last days (24:1; also Joshua, 13:1; 23:1-2) and David (1 Ki 1:1; so Jesse, 1 Sam 7:12). The Hebrew euphemism for menopause occurs again in the description of Rachel’s ruse (31:35). Sarah’s bitter amusement over the announcement (v. 12; cf. 17:17) reflects from her viewpoint the audacity of the man’s claims; her inner thoughts poignantly confirmed that the couple had not engaged in sexual relations for years. “Pleasure” (ʾednâ) is used here for sexual delight (“enjoyment,” njps) and elsewhere of luxuries, delicacies (ms. pl., 2 Sam 1:24; Jer 51:34; Ps 36:9). Undeterred by Sarah’s secret doubts, the divine spokesman continues his speech with Abraham, reiterating the promise (vv. 13-14). His two questions of Abraham are rhetorical, requiring no response from the patriarch. Since the Lord can accomplish such a feat, Sarah’s skepticism is unfounded. The Hebrew for “hard” or “difficult” (palaʿ, v. 14) means “wonderful” (nab) in the sense of extraordinary (e.g., Jer 32:17,27). The works of the Lord are exceptional by human standards, evoking amazement by his people (e.g., Ps 118:2-3). God’s knowledge of future events as well as the human heart was “too wonderful” (pelîʿâ, qere reading) to comprehend (Ps 139:6). Sarah’s interjection, “I did not laugh” (v. 15), shows that she, not Abraham, was the intended recipient of the man’s statement. His unusual knowledge startled her, and she was “afraid” (yaʿarê) of the man’s response (v. 15). It was out of fear too that Abraham lied to Pharaoh and Abimelech concerning his wife (12:13,19; 20:11 with Isaac’s explanation, 26:7). The divine rejoinder is emphatic (asseverative use of kî): “Oh, yes [kî] you did laugh” (nrsv); the definitive tone of his answer ended the matter. (2) Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (18:16-19:29) 16When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. 17Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. 19For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.” 20Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” 22The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. 23Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?” 26The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” 27Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?” “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.” 29Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?” He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.” 30Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?” He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.” 31Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?” He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.” 32Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.” 33When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home. 1The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2“My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.” “No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.” 3But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” 6Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” 9“Get out of our way,” they replied. And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. 10But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. 12The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.” 14So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because the Lord is about to destroy the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking. 15With the coming of dawn, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or you will be swept away when the city is punished.” 16When he hesitated, the men grasped his hand and the hands of his wife and of his two daughters and led them safely out of the city, for the Lord was merciful to them. 17As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, “Flee for your lives! Don’t look back, and don’t stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!” 18But Lot said to them, “No, my lords, please! 19Your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have shown great kindness to me in sparing my life. But I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I’ll die. 20Look, here is a town near enough to run to, and it is small. Let me flee to it—it is very small, isn’t it? Then my life will be spared.” 21He said to him, “Very well, I will grant this request too; I will not overthrow the town you speak of. 22But flee there quickly, because I cannot do anything until you reach it.” (That is why the town was called Zoar.) 23By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens. 25Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26But Lot’s wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt. 27Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the Lord. 28He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace. 29So when God destroyed the cities of the plain, he remembered Abraham, and he brought Lot out of the catastrophe that overthrew the cities where Lot had lived. The message regarding the future son of Sarah and Abraham turns to a new but related subject, the survival of Lot. This section consists of two parts: the dialogue between Abraham and the Lord (18:16-33) and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (19:1-29). The visitors who “looked down” (saqap) toward Sodom (18:16) and Abraham who from the same spot “looked down” (saqap) toward Sodom (19:28) frame the episodes, leaving 19:29 to summarize the outcome. The two units are held together by the query of covenant virtue and divine justice, with Sodom and the fate of Lot’s family providing the contrast for Abraham and his legacy. Abraham Pleads for Sodom and Gomorrah (18:16-33). The boundaries of this subsection are the actions of Abraham, who “walked along” (halak) with the departing visitors (v. 16) and then “returned” (sûb) to his tent (v. 33). Both the beginning and ending describe the departure of the theophanic visitors: the trio “got up to leave” (qûm) Abraham’s campsite (v. 16), with the Lord pausing to speak with Abraham, and then the Lord too “left” (halak) Abraham (v. 33). The departure of the “Lord” in v. 33 forms an inclusio with v. 1 when the “Lord” first appeared. Between the movements of Abraham (vv. 17-32) are the divine reflection on covenant uprightness and the resulting dialogue of the Lord and Abraham, who, after learning of Sodom’s probable demise, contends for the preservation of the city. 18:16 Abraham accompanies (haμlak) the visitors 18:17-32 Abraham and the Lord reflect on divine justice 18:33 Abraham returns (s˚ub)Δ to his place The main unit divides into two parts, encompassing the Lord’s viewpoint (vv. 17-21) and Abraham’s viewpoint (vv. 22-32): 18:17-21 The Lord reflects on righteousness 18:17-19 Abraham’s covenant morality 18:20-21 Sodom’s injustice 18:22-32 Abraham’s intercession for the righteous of Sodom 18:22 Abraham remains with the Lord 18:23-32 Abraham and the Lord negotiate 18:16 By detailing Abraham’s accompaniment of the departing guests, the narrative completes its portrait of the perfect host. “Looked down” translates saqap, which also describes the stance of Abraham toward Sodom (18:28); the term occurs elsewhere in morally dubious settings (e.g., 26:8) and describes the lofty perch of the Lord, who executes his judgment (e.g., Exod 14:24; Deut 26:15; Pss 14:2=53:2[3]; 102:19[20]; Lam 3:50). 18:17-18 The rationale for the divine disclosure to follow (vv. 20-21) is presented first. The contemplative character of vv. 17-19 indicates the divine deliberativeness of involving Abraham (e.g., 1:26; 2:18; 6:7; 11:6-7); his inclusion is reminiscent of the divine council (e.g., Job 1:6; Ps 89:7[8]) and prophetic circle of the Lord (e.g., 1 Ki 22:14-28; Isa 40:1-2). Revelation is God’s prerogative, which often occurred by dreams and visions (e.g., 15:l; 20:3; 28:12; 31:10-11,24; 46:2; Num 12:6; 1 Sam 3:1; and the prophets). The “face to face” encounter Moses experienced was distinctive (Num 12:8; Deut 34:10), “as a man speaks with his friend” (Exod 33:11); with Moses there was no angelic intermediary (e.g., 16:7; 21:17; 22:15; 32:30; Judg 6:22). There is also no parallel for Abraham’s experience in which he repeatedly negotiates with the Lord, although human request and divine compliance was not unheard of (e.g., Exod 32:11-14; Amos 7:3,6). Abraham encountered the Lord like a “friend” (2 Chr 20:7), and thus he was a fitting prototype for the prophet, Moses. The first reason for Abraham’s status as confidant is tied directly to the divine call and promise of 12:2-3 (22:18; 26:4; 27:29,33; 28:14); the man will father “a great and powerful nation” (v. 18), language reminiscent of the progenitors Ishmael (17:20), Isaac (21:18; 26:16), and Jacob (46:3; cp. also Moses, Exod 32:10; Israel, Num 14:12; Deut 26:5). Assurance of the promise is affirmed both by the divine encounter itself and by the syntactical highlighting of the divine word, “Abraham will surely become [hayô yihyeh] a great and powerful nation” (v. 18). 18:19 Verse 19 (kî, “for”) presents the second rationale for the revelation to Abraham; the divine election of the man (“chosen,” yadaʾ, lit. “known”) will result (“so that,” lemaʾan) in a people characterized by righteousness (ṣedaqâ) and justice (mispaṭ), which in turn results (“so that,” lemaʾan) in the Lord fulfilling his promise of worldwide blessing (v. 18). The ideas of election, promissory blessing, and righteousness come together in v. 19. The Lord chose Abraham for the purpose of blessing all nations (cp. Jer 4:2); this appointment also included the intermediary step of creating a righteous people whose conduct would be a beacon for the nations. “Election means election to an ethical agenda in the midst of a corrupt world of Sodoms.” Ultimately, however, the agenda is wholly God’s to accomplish, for Israel did not live up to its calling, and the realization of the promises were achieved by divine grace (Deut 7:7; 9:4-6; 30:1-6). The verse possesses covenant terminology, including “commanded” (ṣiwwâ, “directed,” niv), “keep” (samar), “righteousness” (ṣedaqâ), “justice” (mispaṭ), and “spoken” (dibber, “promised,” niv). Exceptional to the Deuteronomic language of covenant is the term for “chosen,” which translates yadaʾ (“to know”), rather than the common Deuteronomic word baḥar (“to choose”). Yadaʾ conveys the idea of election with the nuance of familiarity, intimacy (e.g., Jer 1:5; Amos 3:2; Hos 13:5). This sense of election fits the passage’s setting of personal confidence; it also has a literary function with v. 21, where “know” reappears in the context of divine discovery (e.g., 20:6-7; 22:12). It is Abraham’s expectation of what God will decide about Sodom that leads him to argue preemptively for clemency. The consequence of Abraham’s election includes his instructions to his household to observe the “way of the Lord” (derek yhwh). “Way” in its metaphorical sense conveys the idea of a lifestyle or pilgrimage. The “way of the Lord” indicates a life whose conduct conforms to the prescriptions of the Lord. The “way” in Deuteronomic language is observance of the stipulations of the covenant, showing loyalty to the Lord (e.g., Deut 8:6; 9:12; Judg 2:22; 2 Ki 21:22) by achieving “the requirements (mispaṭ) of their God” (Jer 5:4,5; also Ezek 18:25,29; 33:17,20). In the case of Abraham the prescriptions are expressed in ethical terms alone, meaning right behavior toward others: “by doing what is right and just” (v. 19b). Wisdom observed that the individual who chooses the way of the Lord enjoys the blessing of salvation (e.g., Ps 1:6; Prov 10:29). Conversely, the morally wicked travels the road resulting in destruction (e.g., Isa 35:8; Ps 37:34; Prov 11:5), but the prophets hold out hope for those who repent and reverse their “way” (e.g., Isa 55:7; Jer 36:3). The Sodom incident exemplifies the two different ways traveled by Abraham’s family and by the Sodomites. “Right and just” (ṣedaqâ ûmispaṭ) are popular forensic terms, but here their meaning is the carrying out of ethical demands (e.g., Ps 33:5); it is a matter of “doing” what is right (e.g., Prov 1:3; 21:3; Jer 23:5; Ezek 18:21,27), especially social justice (e.g., Deut 16:19; Isa 1:17; Jer 22:3; Ezek 45:9; Amos 5:24). It is incumbent upon Israel’s rulers to ensure social equity (e.g., Ps 72:1-2; 1 Ki 10:9; 2 Chr 9:8), for the Lord rules his people with moral integrity and fidelity (ḥesed; e.g., Pss 33:5; 89:14; Jer 9:24). “Justice” (mispaṭ) is achieved by upright (ṣedaqâ) conduct (e.g., Ps 106:3), truth (ʿemet; e.g., Zech 7:9), and equity (mêssrîm; e.g., Ps 48:1[2]). Particularly helpful for our understanding is Isa 5:7, where the prophet condemns the social injustice of his day; the Lord looks for “righteousness” (ṣedaqâ) but hears only the “cries” (ṣeʾaqâ) of the oppressed. The same Hebrew wordplay in 18:19,21 contrasts Abraham’s “right” (ṣedaqâ) conduct and the “outcry” (ṣeʾaqâ) of Sodom. 18:20-21 The Lord answers his own question of v. 17 by “tipping off” Abraham as to what is about to happen. Verse 20 presents the reason (i.e., complaint against Sodom-Gomorrah) why the Lord chooses the action of v. 21 (investigation); his probing is so that he might “know” (v. 22b) if the severity of Sodom-Gomorrah’s sin is as grave as the “outcry” expresses. By examining the situation, the Lord acts justly, not capriciously, in the determination he makes. Although the Lord does not state explicitly the foregone conclusion that the sin of Sodom deserves judgment, Abraham takes the Lord’s investigation of Sodom as in effect a “search-and-destroy” mission. If the outcry has reached heaven, surely it had been heard by Abraham at nearby Mamre! The magnitude of their iniquity was probably known to the whole region since Sodom held the prominent place among allied cities (13:12; 14:2,8; also 10:19; Deut 29:23; Hos 11:8). The Hebrew words translated “outcry,” zaʾaqâ (v. 20) and ṣeʾaqâ (v. 21; 19:13), may describe the woeful cry of victims who suffer injustice (e.g., Ps 9:12[13]; Job 34:28; Isa 5:7) or express grief over distressful circumstances (e.g., Esau’s loss, 27:34). Cries of lament may also be petitions for deliverance from oppressors (e.g., Deut 26:7; Judg 10:12) or for help (e.g., 41:55; Neh 9:9; Hab 1:2). The prophets likened the social injustices committed in Israel/Judah to the infamous cities Sodom-Gomorrah (Isa 1:9,10; Ezek 16:49; cp. Amos 4:11; 2 Pet 2:8), indicating that the outcries were related to social offenses. From Sodom-Gomorrah the outcry is overheard by the Lord (“has reached me,” v. 21), if not directed to him (cp. 19:13). Commonly, the terms translating “outcry” appear in those settings where the Lord is invoked, especially the suffering cries and appeals of his people under oppression (e.g., Exod 3:7,9; Num 20:16; 1 Sam 9:16). Verses 20-21 recall the innocent blood of Abel that “cries out” (ṣoʾaqîm, 4:10) for vengeance (more below). It appears that the sin at Sodom-Gomorrah was social injustice, and the cries were either the result of the victims’ pain or their pleas for vengeance. The Hebrew wordplay of zaʾaqat with the term ṣeʾaqâ (“right”) brings the contrast between Abraham and Sodom into sharp relief. Ironically, the same term “outcry” in the Old Testament describes the cries of culprits themselves who suffer devastation at the hands of God or nations (e.g., Exod 12:30; Isa 14:31; Jer 18:22; 48:3-4; Zeph 1:10). It is the Lord who as “Judge of all the earth” (18:25) adjudicates the complaint and ultimately vindicates the oppressed. In the case of Sodom-Gomorrah, the exceptionally deplorable makeup of their sins subjects them to the prospects of total annihilation, prompting Abraham to query about the righteous whom he feared would be indiscriminately consumed with the guilty. The fury of Sodom’s sin is described as “great” (rabbâ) and “grievous” (lit., “very heavy,” kabedâ meʿod); the former recalls the gravity of the sin in Noah’s day (6:5, lit., “great [rabbâ] was the evil of humanity”), and the latter description looks back to the setting of the Abram-Lot episode when Abram left Egypt (13:1, “very wealthy,” kabedâ meʿod). Verse 20 then brings together the destruction motif of the flood and the occasion for Lot’s errant choice of the deceptively attrac- tive cities of the plain (13:10,12,13). “I will go down and see” (v. 21) expresses anthropomorphically the divine inquiry.” Verse 21’s language is reminiscent of the Tower of Babel narrative: “the Lord came down to see” (11:5) and “let us go down” (11:7). In each case the nefarious actions of the Babelites and Sodomites prompted the divine investigation. Sodom-Gomorrah were a microcosm of wickedness, which had once flourished in the days of Noah and which characterized the notorious Babel (see vol. 1a, pp. 468-76). The purpose of the present inquiry is to learn if the outcry against the cities is an accurate picture (“as bad as the outcry” ) of what “they have done,” language that echoes the first murder (4:10; cp. its links elsewhere, 3:13-14; 12:18; 20:9; 21:26; 26:10). By the Lord’s descent, he will discover (“know”) the extent of the violence among the cities’ inhabitants. “Know” in Exod 3:9 conveys the sympathetic hearing of God for the exploited Hebrews in Egypt. It is because the Lord is the upright “Judge of all the earth” (v. 25) that retribution is the appropriate response to human wickedness. 18:22 This verse provides the clearest identity of the three visitors: the two men (i.e., “angels,” 19:1) are the entourage for the divine member, the Lord, who has been the spokesman all along. His dialogue with Abraham exhibits the exceptional condescension of God who appears as a man, hears out a man (Abraham), and then ultimately saves a man (Lot). The depiction of Abraham “standing [ʾomed] before the Lord” as at a bar of justice is appropriate for the juridical appeal of the patriarch to follow (v. 25; cp. Deut 19:17; 1 Ki 3:16). The same language, “standing before them” (v. 8; “stood near them,” niv), captures Abraham’s humility before the trio of visitors, where the sense of the term is his service as host (cp. 1 Sam 16:22). In our verse, the patriarch stands in waiting at the presence of a superior (before God, e.g., Lev 9:5; Deut 4:10; before royal figures, e.g., Exod 9:10). Genesis 18:23-32 consists of a unique dialogue in Scripture between the Lord and a petitioner. Moses and Amos petitioned the Lord in behalf of Israel (Exod 32:11-14; Amos 7:1-6), but here the intercession is in behalf of the wicked foreigners. Abraham’s role as an intermediary of blessing for others (12:3) is illustrated here and by his prayer for Abimelech’s house (20:7,17). Jonah, on the other hand, could not abide the sufferance of God toward Nineveh. Abraham shows remarkable compassion, for in Jonah’s case the Ninevites repented, but there is no repentance demanded of the cities of the plain. Although Abraham launches into a lengthy disputation (vv. 22-25) and sustains his intercession for five more speeches, there is no feverish haggling here; the deference Abraham shows and the Lord’s amicable agreement hardly make for a torrid debate. The passage ends with the Lord literally having the last word (v. 32), and the diminishing length of Abraham’s speeches suggests that he is wearing down. One might think of the same trend observed among Job’s friends who finally run out of words. Abraham is vigilant, perhaps reminding Christian readers of Jesus’ parable of the friend in need (Luke 11:5-8). But the parable depends on the friend’s genuine perseverance in the face of refusal; in Abraham’s experience, however, the Lord’s response is always compliance. He rested his argument upon the twin pillars of divine justice and divine mercy. Abraham was at a moral impasse: if the cities are destroyed, the innocent suffer, in which case the justice of God becomes suspect; or if the cities are spared, the guilty escape their just deserts, again impugning the integrity of God. His prayer, therefore, was that the mercy of God would deliver the city, to which God agrees “for the sake” of the righteous (v. 26). But was there no end to the mercy of God? Was there a point at which unlimited mercy became a shallow sentimentalism, obviating the justice of God against the wicked? The most striking feature of the moral enigma the story presents is the unexpected outcome in chap. 19; neither one of the two reasoned scenarios described above comes to pass. The innocent is spared, and the guilty appear consumed. Yet Lot’s request for the exemption of Zoar from destruction (19:21) is answered, showing that God does preserve the guilty on the account of the innocent Lot (18:26). The outcome shows that the Lord’s actions cannot be reduced to a simple juridical formula or precedent or that the Lord simply agreed to the patriarch’s intercessions. Both patriarchal figures, Abraham and Job, reflected openly on the justice of the Lord (as well as the psalmist) but ceased after hearing from the Lord (in each one’s own way), recognizing that they had no legitimate vantage point from which to govern the moral universe (e.g., Job 40:8; 42:1-7; Ps 73). Chapters 18-19 show that the Lord is truly free in his judgment and that his judgment is inscrutable. If Abraham is to father a heritage that adheres to the “way of the Lord by doing what is right and just” (v. 19), the question of the righteousness of God’s conduct is fundamental. The dialogue says more about the nature of God’s justice than the intercessory character of Abraham (see comments on 19:29). 18:23-25 The rhetorical questions of vv. 23-25 assume the affirmation made by Abraham himself: “far be it from you!” (vv. 25,27). The beginning point of his plea is the assumption that the Lord indeed is righteous and can be counted on accordingly (v. 19). If the Lord’s righteousness were truly uncertain in Abraham’s mind, then the discussion that follows has no ground. It is because the Lord acts justly that Abraham is perplexed at the threat of the innocent’s annihilation with the guilty; justice in the patriarch’s view required discrimination between the righteous and the wicked (cf. Mal 3:18). Functioning as antonyms in this context, “sweep away” (sapâ, vv. 23-24) and “spare” (naśaʿ, vv. 24,26) reappear in the passage so as to reinforce the two polar options in which Abraham couches the question of God’s justice. “Sweep” (sapâ) is the same term that describes Sodom’s imminent demise (19:15,17) and elsewhere describes divine judgment against Israel (Num 16:26, 1 Sam 12:25; Isa 7:20). “Spare” (lit., “lift up, bear,” naśaʿ) can have the meaning of bearing or taking away guilt, that is, “forgive” (nrsv, njps), but here it is a figure (metonymy) where the cause (bearing sin) is put for the effect, that is, “spare” (nasb, njb, nab, gnb, nlt). As here, the term “righteous” (ṣaddîq) is often contrasted with the “wicked” (rasaʾ) in Psalms and Proverbs. The precise meaning of the term ṣaddîq is uncertain, as shown by the diversity of rendering among the versions in vv. 23-32. “Righteous,” which is the traditional translation (e.g., av, asv), conveys the idea of conformity to God’s moral law, whereas “innocent” suggests juridical acquittal, a clearing of wrong behavior and hence the recognition of a person acting right. The juridical slanguage in this passage (“Judge,” v. 25) is useful since God alone makes the determination. Yet the issue is not one of guilt or innocence before God but ethical behavior toward others, living in accord with the “way of the Lord” (v. 19). Since the Lord himself is “righteous” (ṣaddîq), both in his person (e.g., Ps 11:7) and in his ways (e.g., Ps 145:17; Dan 9:14), it is he who can evaluate human behavior as to whether the Sodomites acted properly, that is, “rightness.” Abraham proposes that upon examination if “fifty righteous” are found in Sodom, this should merit exempting the whole of the city from destruction (v. 24). This is the first of repeated proposals made by the patriarch in descending order from fifty to ten “righteous” (v. 32a), which are proffered on the same basis. The numbers of righteous reduce by five’s, from fifty to forty (vv. 24,28a,29a) and then ten’s from forty to ten (vv. 30a,31a,32a). Interspersed are the Lord’s speeches, like a refrain, repeating the equivalent number in each case. This give-and-take arrangement, which in this case means Abraham “takes” and the Lord “gives,” exhibits the Lord’s grace and also Abraham’s compassion for the recalcitrant city. In the later case of Nineveh, the prophet Jonah recoils at the city’s deliverance, whereas the Lord seizes the occasion of the populace’s repentance to preserve them (Jonah 4:11). The Lord does not require any “arm twisting” by Abraham to act benevolently; the tactic by Abraham only further exposes the compassionate heart God has for the “whole place” (v. 26), including the wicked. But God’s grace has its end too; this is shown by the outcome of the matter, for the requisite number from Abraham’s perspective, even the minimum of ten, could not be discovered—such were the deplorable conditions among the cities of the plain (cf. 15:16). Abraham answers his own question in v. 25: no, it was incredulous that the Lord of justice would act unfairly toward the “righteous” (ṣaddîq; cp. Deut 32:4) by treating them as he does the “wicked” (rasaʾ). Abraham does not offer an apology for the wicked or refute their just deserts of destruction; rather, he contends that the Lord, if he is to be true to what is fair, must discriminate between the righteous and the wicked. Abraham’s passion is indicated by the repeated interjection “far be it [ḥalilâ] from you” and by the rhetorical exclamation “Judge of all the earth.” “Far be it” conveys repulsion at the thought of breaching an oath or a code of conduct (e.g., 44:7,17; 1 Sam 14:45). By such an exclamation, the person calls upon the Lord implicitly or explicitly (“the Lord forbid,” e.g., 1 Sam 24:6; 1 Ki 21:3) to censure him if he fails. In this verse the patriarch appeals to the Lord to censure himself, if he “kill[s] the righteous”! In the same vein, Elihu defends the integrity of God by the exclamation “Far be it [ḥalilâ] from God [El] to do evil [meresaʾ], from the Almighty [Shaddai] to do wrong [meʾawel]” (Job 34:10). The appellative for the Lord, “Judge of all the earth,” occurs only here in Scripture (cp. 16:5; Ps 7:8[9]); the variant but similar expressions “the Lord/- God of all the earth” (Josh 3:11,13; Ps 97:5; Mic 4:13; Zech 4:14; Isa 54:5 [God]) and “O Judge of the earth” (Ps 94:2) appear sparingly. The idea, however, of the sovereign Lord as ultimate adjudicator of all things is common and is typically the basis of the pious’s plea for vindication (e.g., Ps 97:1-2,8-9; also 1 Sam 24:15[16]; Pss 7:11[12]; 9:8[9]; Isa 2:4; Joel 3:12). 18:26-32 The Lord’s response is affirmative each time to Abraham’s successive proposals, except his silence at the last. The potential efficacy of the “righteous” (“their sake”) extends to the “whole place,” which may include the whole region, but its immediate importance is the inclusion of the “wicked” (v. 26). Still fearing that the number is too many for the infamous cities, Abraham ventures forth cautiously and humbly with even more charitable scenarios (vv. 27-28a). The patriarch admits he stands precariously out of line by speaking in this way, “though [he is] nothing but dust and ashes” (v. 27). Here the man knows his place, as he did as host awaiting the need of his visitors (v. 8). His contrition is reminiscent of another righteous man, Job, who regretted his outspokenness (42:6). Abraham pushes forward yet with a bolder request but carefully (v. 30). Finally, he concludes with an added caution, “just once more,” he begs to speak (v. 32). We can only speculate about why the patriarch stops his plea at ten. Some suggest that ten is the smallest natural limit or social entity (cf. Ruth 4:2). It may be that Abraham has learned that the number is unimportant, for God is merciful and will discriminate between the wicked and the righteous. 18:33 Since Abraham’s initial plea (vv. 23-25), the Lord had responded six times (vv. 26,28b,29b,30b,31b,32b), but then he ceased (cp. 17:22). By the abrupt end, the narrative tension is retained, but more importantly the matter remains solely in the mysterious will of the “Judge of all the earth” (v. 25). Angels Rescue Lot (19:1-29). Four stages occur in this story, each introduced by a temporal reference (vv. 1-14; 15-22; 23-26; 27-29). The concluding verse (v. 29) presents the most significant information of the account for the Abraham narrative as a whole: the Lord honored his promise to Abraham, a picture of the hope that “all peoples” will be blessed (12:3c). vv. 1-14 Visitors arrive in Sodom and announce its destruction “in the evening” (v. 1) vv. 15-22 Visitors spare Lot “with the coming of dawn” (v. 15) vv. 23-26 The Lord destroys the cities “the sun had risen” (v. 23) vv. 27-29 Abraham witnesses the aftermath “early the next morning” (v. 27) Each of the four stages is recounted in fewer words, with less dialogue, and hence increasing the pace of the story. The beginning stage (vv. 1-14) is cinematically detailed, recalling at a snail’s pace the arrival and assault against the angels; this convincing portrayal ends in an understandable announcement of destruction. The next stage (vv. 15-22) has its protracted dialogue too, picturing a befuddled Lot, who is saved only because of the insistence of the angels. The final two paragraphs have no dialogue and pointedly describe the destruction (vv. 23-26) and the aftermath (vv. 27-29). Much of the pericope’s language and motifs recall chap. 18, especially the petition of Abraham (vv. 16-33; see the chiasmus and parallel panels of chaps. 18 and 19 and comments there). We have noted already two prominent motifs shared by these two chapters: (1) the issue of divine justice and (2) the destruction by divine deluge (i.e., the flood imagery). The commentary below will note points of contact between the related episodes. The custom of hospitality gives the two narratives their common plot line. Chapter 19 especially is occupied with Lot and his two guests as strangers (ger, “alien,” niv) to Sodom. W. Fields has explored the biblical motif of “the stranger in your gates” (Exod 20:10; Deut 5:14; 16:4; 24:14; 31:12), identifying chap. 19 as the literary archetype for the pattern; he has found the same motif and its submotifs in two other exemplary narratives, the Ephraimite at Gibeah (Judg 19) and Rahab at Jericho (Josh 2). Before we continue with chap. 19, we must remember the special place of the alien (ger) in biblical law. The alien, widow, and orphan constituted the disadvantaged in society; Israelite law provided special protections for these members by promoting generous treatment (e.g., Lev 19:10; Num 9:14; Deut 1:16). The rationale for benevolent treatment was historical and theological; at one time Israel was a stranger in Egypt (e.g., Exod 22:21[20]; Lev 19:34), and God takes special inventory of the state of the disadvantaged (e.g., Exod 22:23[22]; Deut 10:18; 24:15). Thus right treatment of the disadvantaged was a badge of righteousness (e.g., Deut 26:13; Job 31:32). Mistreatment of the alien, on the other hand, was shameful and merited the sternest rebuke by society. By showing the mistreatment of the angelic guests and also the alien Lot, the author paints a convincing portrait of the depravity of the Sodomites. In effect “the author holds them up to the mirror of the Torah, and they are found wanting.” That Lot did not conspire with the men of the city against his guests indicates that he was not part of the depraved community. Lot functions as a foil for both Abraham and the men of Sodom. Abraham’s conduct is superior to Lot’s, but when viewed against the wicked Sodomites, Lot is “a righteous man” (e.g., 2 Pet 2:7-8; see “Motifs” in the introduction to 18:1-19:38). The thought of Lot as “a righteous man” confounds the contemporary reader, for his action against his daughters says otherwise. But the author of Genesis would have us evaluate Lot in terms of his conduct toward the traveling strangers. Lot commits a grievous sin by subjecting his two daughters to sexual predators, but we miss the author’s chief point if we read Lot’s checkered character solely in terms of his mistreatment of his daughters (see comments on 19:8). As Fields notes, chap. 19 involves many reversals and incongruities that present a confused picture at Sodom; the world of Sodom is turned upside down. Typically, a city was safer for travelers at night than the open country, and also a sojourner preferred a person’s house over the city square (cf. 24:23,31). At Sodom this is turned around; at night the city is a place of danger, and the angels prefer the open square over residing with Lot. As travelers the angels’ conduct differs from the expected; in the story of the Levite and concubine they arrive at the city square of Gibeah, waiting for someone to take them in (Judg 19:15-20). Among other surprises of the story is the figure of Lot himself. He is at the “gateway” when the story begins (v. 1), which implies that he is an integrated citizen of Sodom, if not a leader. But Lot in fact is disdained as an outsider and physically attacked by the men of the city (v. 9). Lot’s rejection by his future sons-in-law, who were most likely themselves Sodomites, accentuates the little regard the community had for him (v. 14). The surprising resistance of his sons-in-law leads us to reflect on the twists in the outcome of those who were saved. Although Zoar was among the doomed cities of the region, it is abruptly spared at the behest of Lot. Moreover, Lot and the members of his household resist the deliverance afforded them, even his wife failing to let go fully of Sodom. Lot’s attempt to defend his guests presents him positively, but his sanctioning of the rape of his daughters sounds more “Sodomite” than “Israelite.” These and other incongruities in the story with the vile events themselves contribute to the overall sense that the city was especially deviant. Genesis 19:1-14 describes the events of one night, from the visit of the angels at Lot’s house, where they announce to Lot the end of Sodom, and he repeats the message to his betrothed sons-in-law, who brush aside his warning. The motif of hospitality informs the arrangement of the section: the perspective on the events are told from “inside” or “outside” Lot’s house. “Inside” the house where the angels are found is safety, whereas “outside” the house the Sodomites rage with lustful appetites. vv. 1-5 The angels “entered” the house, and the Sodomites “surrounded” the house vv. 6-11 Lot went “outside” the house, but the angels brought him back “inside” the house vv. 12-13 From inside the angels warn Lot to “get (his family) out of the place” v. 14 Lot “went out” and exhorted his sons-in-law to “get out of this place” Irony pervades the discourse, for attachment to Lot’s household results in both jeopardy and preservation. Those inside the house are threatened, including the daughters by their own father(!), but only those inside will finally be preserved (except Lot’s wife). The sons-in-law are a microcosm of the Sodomite men; in both cases Lot “went out(side)” the house to meet them (vv. 7,14), and in both cases they reject Lot’s admonitions (vv. 9,14). For the Sodomites, this is their final opportunity to avert disaster, but they would not have anyone “play the judge” (v. 9), an eerie echo of the erstwhile appellative, “Judge of all the earth” (18:25). The sons-in-law too neglect their chance (v. 14). 19:1-3 In the introduction to chaps. 18-19, we already commented on the contrast between Abraham and Lot, including their treatment of the visitors. Unlike the suddenness of the visitors’ appearance before Abraham, hinting at their otherworldly origin (see comments on 18:2), the angels are received simply as common travelers without any detection by Lot. Not until the angels blind the Sodomites do they show their supernatural character (vv. 10-11). Verse 1 begins the description of the angels’ visit with the term “entered” (“arrived”), which translates bôʿ, a word that also can mean sexual relations (e.g., 6:4; 16:2,4). It appears repeatedly (vv. 3,5,8,9,10) and perhaps is a double entendre, contributing to the sexual content of the story. Additional terms used for sexual relations appear: “lie down” (sakab, v. 4, “gone to bed,” niv), “to know” (yadaʾ, vv. 5,7,8, “have sex,” niv) and possibly “draw near” (nagas, v. 9[2x], “get out” and “moved forward,” niv; cf. Exod 19:15). The description of Lot “sitting in the gateway” (yoseb besaʾar; v. 1) may, like other terms in the passage, have a double meaning in view. “Sitting” translates the root term yasab, which often means “to live, reside” (e.g., 19:25,29,30); it is reminiscent of chap. 13, where the same word is integral to describing Lot’s choice to “live” (yasab) in Sodom (13:6[2x],7,12[2x],18). The imagery of the city gate adds to the picture of Lot’s urban profile versus Abraham’s tents, where he was “sitting” when the visitors appeared (see comments on 18:1; 13:12). The word “gateway” (saʾar) also may imply Lot’s social status; the city gate was the traditional location for civil decisions (e.g., Job 34:20). Perhaps his position at the gate infers that Lot had an influential role in the community. We later discover, however, that Lot is spurned as an alien (ger, v. 9), and at least in moral matters he showed no influence on his neighbors at all. Yet another significance to the “gateway” is its possible relation to the imagery of “door” as a protective boundary (see comments on v. 6); as another incongruity in the account, the gate should indicate safety within the city, but Lot cannot provide that safety, for the city is perilous to strangers. Lot showed proper deference to his guests, bowing in humility (v. 1) and addressing them respectively as “my lords” (v. 2). “Your servant’s house” (v. 2) is the first of many appearances of “house” and is integral to vv. 1-14 (for the features of hospitality, see comments on 18:3-5). Chapter 18 depicts Abraham’s hospitality as exceeding that of Lot in a number of ways (see intro. chaps. 18-19), for example, Abraham when seeing the travelers “ran” (“hurried,” niv) to greet them (18:2). When the two hospitality accounts are compared, Lot does not say, as does Abraham, “If I have found favor in your eyes” (18:3) when he invites them to lodge; this omission and the angels’ initial refusal to spend the night indicate that Lot does not meet with the angels’ approval. It is only later that Lot’s rescue can be interpreted as a show of “favor” (v. 19). The refusal to Lot’s invitation is worded strongly, lit., “no, indeed” (loʿ kî) or “no, but” (cp. 1 Sam 8:19); the Hebrew construction also emphasizes “in the [city] square,” as opposed to Lot’s “house,” which under normal circumstances would have been preferable. “But he [Lot] insisted” describes his equally strong response to the reluctant visitors (v. 3). “Insisted” translates paṣar, which anticipates the heated reaction of the Sodomites who “pressure” (paṣar) Lot (v. 9). As one of many lexical plays in the chapter, the repetition of paṣsar expresses another irony: Lot’s insistence at playing host results in jeopardizing his guests and himself. Another early signal that Lot struggles to provide properly for his guest is the nature of the evening “meal” (misteh). The supper consists of unleavened cakes (maṣṣôt), which by themselves fall short of the typical misteh, a “banquet” or “feast” of luxurious food and drink (e.g., 21:8; 26:30; 29:22; 40:20; 1 Sam 25:36). “Bread without yeast” (maṣṣâ) was bread made in haste (e.g., 1 Sam 28:24), which, as the bread of Passover, Israel memorialized in its Passover celebration and Feast of Unleavened Bread (e.g., Exod 12:8; 23:15). Unleavened bread was one of the items on Gideon’s menu for his heavenly guest (Judg 6:19), but his meal included the tender meat of a young goat. Our verse is the only passage where misteh and maṣṣâ occur together; they provide another incongruity in the passage by the offer of an inferior meal to honored guests. 19:4-5 Sleep usually follows the evening meal, but “before they had gone to bed” the Sodomite men disturbed the household (v. 4). The pack who “surrounded” the house is inclusive, involving men from every sector of the city and each age group. The merism “both young and son,” that is, everybody (also v. 11), shows that their homosexual practices had become generational. The niv’s translation “every part [lit., “end”] of the city” accents the inclusiveness of the crowd. Alternatively, the Hebrew term qaṣeh, which means “end, extremity,” can refer to the population directly, that is, “to the last man” (nrsv; cf. Num 22:41). The point is the same in either case: Sodom’s sexual immorality was pervasive. They first “surrounded” (sbb) the house before addressing those inside, showing their hostile intentions from the beginning (e.g., Judg 16:2; Ps 22:16[17] ); the wicked men of Gibeah took the same tactic (Judg 19:22; 20:5). The crowd says what must be taken as a rhetorical question, “Where are the men?” (v. 5), since they do not wait for a reply but demand, “Bring them out!” News of strangers in town has spread, and the men very well know where they can find the visitors. They make no pretense about their business; they openly make known their intentions to assault the visitors sexually. Sodom’s blatant shamelessness especially caught the attention of the prophet Ezekiel (16:49-50). 19:6-8 Verses 6-11 describe Lot’s failed attempts at dissuading the mob (vv. 6-9) and his rescue at the last moment from their angry grasp (vv. 10-11). Verse 6 details the emergence of Lot from his house. Reference to his shutting the “door” initiates an important key word in the telling of the episode (vv. 6,9,10,11 ); the angels take the same action in saving the man (v. 10). Figuratively, “door” conveys multiple meanings. The door is in effect the boundary between the saved and the condemned; it is symbolic of the line between the righteous and the wicked (cf. comments on 13:13), the civil and the vulgar. Also related to the fundamental idea of protective boundary, “door” may represent protected virginity (cf. the “young sister,” Song 8:9). The “door” guards the sexual innocence of the angels and the purity of Lot’s daughters. Verses 7-8 portray Lot’s reasoning with the intruders; he undertakes three tactics. First, he makes an urgent plea, “Don’t do this wicked thing [raʾaʾ]” (v. 7; cp. Judg 19:23). Hebrew raʾaʾ (“do wicked”) is related to the term raʾ (nom.), which recalls the description of the flood generation (6:5; 8:21) and Lot’s choice of Sodom (13:13). How we understand Lot’s address, “my friends” (ʿaḥḥay, lit., “my brothers”), is important for evaluating Lot’s character. Hebrew ʿaḥḥay may be no more than a polite form of speech (e.g., 29:4) or a reference to civic camaraderie (cp. a political treaty, 1 Ki 19:13; Amos 1:9). In this latter case, Lot believes he is one with the Sodomite population, which is the basis of his appeal; this is striking when we recall Abraham’s entreaty to Lot for peaceful relations by reason of their kinship (13:8; cp. 14:14,16, ʿaḥ, “relative,” niv). If so, another irony may be intended: Lot, whose relationship with Abraham meant blessing but whom he left behind, took up with a people who treated him as anything but a brother (v. 9). On the positive side, Lot’s opposition to the men shows that he should not be counted among the wicked. Second, Lot offers his virgin daughters in lieu of the two strangers (v. 8a); he makes the swap more lucrative by pointing out the sexual innocence of the women. Virgins were more valuable. “Do to them as you please” (v. 8b) means he places them under their power (cp. 16:16). That he does not directly invite them to rape the women is suggested by comparing the Levite’s surrender in Judg 19:24: “You can use them and do to them whatever you wish.” When we remember the outcome of the Levite’s concubine in the hands of a brutal city gang (Judg 19:25-26), we can only conclude that Lot jeopardized the lives of his daughters, even any hope for a heritage—all for the sake of the strangers. By a bizarre twist, however, it is his daughters who finally take advantage of Lot, sexually abusing their father by which he gains male heirs after all (vv. 36-38). Third, Lot contends that if they carry out such contemptible behavior it would be an appalling breach of hospitality (v. 8c). Hospitality requires “protection” (ṣel, lit., “shade,” e.g., Num 14:9), and at Lot’s invitation the strangers had received sanctuary “under [his] roof.” To violate this custom would (and did) brand the city lawless. That Lot sanctions the rape of his daughters indicates a moral compass gone awry; he places hospitality above the protection of his own children. It is difficult to conceive of such a custom that would put a guest’s well-being over fam- ily. Such treatment by a father was despicable in the eyes of Israel; forcing a daughter into prostitution is specifically forbidden in Mosaic law (Lev 19:29). Yet offense against aliens was also grievous in the Mosaic tradition (e.g., Exod 22:21[20]; Lev 19:33-34; Deut 10:19). Lot is caught in a web of the most vile of circumstances, and he opts for a way out that can never salvage any good. He surely offends his own sense of right behavior while attempting to save face with the strangers. For a moment it is Sodom that has taken up residence in Lot’s soul. 19:9 Like bullies, the men respond to Lot’s refusal by attacking him, first verbally and then physically. The first recorded word from their mouths is the command to move aside (nagas, “get out,” niv), for Lot himself was the sole barricade; there is a play on the Hebrew here between the dialogue and the narrative report where the same term, nagas (“moved forward,” niv), describes their aggression. Since Lot would not voluntarily move aside, they would move him aside. The Sodomites ridicule Lot as a “know-it-all,” so to speak, a self-righteous “carpet bagger” who as a foreigner thought himself a judge of their behavior. Their vitriolic rebuff includes two ideas important to the whole of the Lot-Sodom narratives. He is an “alien” in their midst (lit., “the one coming to sojourn,” haʿeḥad baʿ lagur̂) who “wants to play the judge!” We have mentioned above the importance of the motif “alien” (ger) for interpreting Sodom’s crimes. By Lot defending the traditional rights of his guests, he was also in effect defending himself as an outsider. This was not lost on the Sodomites, whose envy against Lot may have fueled their hatred in concert with their aggression against the newcomers. His admonition, however, was not skewed by virtue of his alien status, nor was he a silly comic (v. 14); rather, his warning was the same conclusion drawn by the “Judge of all the earth” (18:25). Hebrew sapaṭ, commonly translated “judge,” may also mean “rule” ; if taken in this sense, they are ridiculing Lot, who though an alien has taken charge (“already he acts the ruler!” njps). Attendant to this notion of “judge” are the categories of “wicked” and “righteous” (18:23,25); another play is in the recurrence of the word raʾaʾ, “do wicked, evil” (niv, “treat . . . worse”), in their response. Lot had deemed their plans “wicked” (raʾaʾ, v. 7), and their rejoinder was “we’ll treat you worse [raʾaʾ] than them.” 19:10-11 The men, not satisfied with mockery, charge forward, pressing Lot so fiercely that the door buckled (v. 9b). At this the two heavenly witnesses had heard and seen enough (vv. 10-11). The visitors first yanked Lot inside, shutting the door, and then struck the thugs with blindness. “Young and old” is another reference to the inclusiveness of the culprits (vv. 8,11); none repented among them, for all those who approached the house also suffered the consequences. “Door” in v. 11 is actually the “entryway” (petaḥ), indicating that blindness hindered them from finding the portal that would have given them access to the door itself. This blindness was not punitive but defensive, perhaps temporary yet long enough for Lot to escape (cf. 2 Ki 6:18,20). Their dramatic intervention prepared Lot for accepting the unbelievable message of the two envoys. 19:12-14 Verses 12-13 take place in the safety of the house, where the angels inquire about family members elsewhere, mentioning first “sons-inlaw” whom in fact Lot will search out (v. 14); Lot’s defense of the angels accrues consideration by the angels for his family (cp. Noah, 7:1; Rahab, Josh 2:12-14,18-19; 6:22-23,25). They announce the impending destruction of the “place,” referring to Sodom and its allied cities. “Outcry” (v. 13) recalls the allegations (18:20-21) that had prompted Abraham’s intervention for the righteous (18:22-32). The angels’ admission, “the Lord has sent us to destroy it” (v. 13), indicates the earlier allegations are proven true, and, consequently, the judgment is in force. The angels are the agents of God’s destruction and thus of sparing (vv. 14,24-25 show it is the Lord who destroys). The final verse of this subunit depicts Lot’s response to the benevolent concession of the messengers (v. 14). The scene shifts outside, where he forewarns his sons-in-law of the coming destruction, using almost verbatim the alarming words of the angels. We must assume that the groping crowd has disbanded and Lot promptly encounters his sons-in-law. True to the depiction of the Sodomites, the sons-in-law scorn Lot and appear as blind to the inevitable as their fellow citizens are actually blind. The sons-in-law are unmoved by the stunning events at Lot’s house and thus rate more dim-witted than the recalcitrant members of the mob. Perhaps their disregard for Lot’s warning as a joke speaks also to the narrative’s general picture of Lot as a confused, inept person who falls to his own short-sighted ambition and finally to the deceit of treacherous daughters. “Joking” translates meṣaḥeq, which recalls Abraham’s and Sarah’s laughter (ṣaḥaq) at the prospects of bearing “Isaac” (yiṣḥaq; 17:19,21; 18:12; 21:3). The prediction of destruction is too fantastic for the sons-in-law to take seriously. 19:15-17 At last the night passes and the angels “at the coming of dawn” (v. 15) prepare for the destruction of the cities by ushering Lot and his family out of danger. Safety now lies “out[side] of the city” (v. 16). The prominent idea in vv. 15-22 is the urgency of Lot’s flight to safety. The first and final verses are commands, “Hurry! Take . . .” (qûm qaḥ; v. 15) and “quickly flee . . .”(maher himmaleṭ; v. 22). A contest of wills dominates the passage; verbal forms expressing desire/will occur eight times. The tone of the passage can be captured in the words of Lot, “No, my lords, please!” (v. 18). It will take all morning to get Lot out of town to nearby Zoar. Twice the angels strongly exhort Lot to flee, but he is uncooperative. First, he hesitates, but they force him to move (v. 16); and second, he stops abruptly, bargaining to divert to Zoar, one of the cities scheduled for annihilation (vv. 20-21). Moreover, the angel admits (in frustration?) that Lot’s reluctance hinders the completion of his assignment. “Flee” (maleṭ) appears five times (vv. 17[2x],19,20,22) and “run, flee” (nûs) once (v. 20). The two often occur in parallel (e.g., 1 Sam 19:10); the former describes slipping away successfully from danger and the latter open flight from danger. Hebrew malaṭ is a sound play on the name of Lot (lôt); the humor of the play is that Lot is anything but quick to leave. “Or you will be swept away [sapâ]” occurring twice (vv. 15,17) forms the boundaries of vv. 15-17. This word recalls Abraham’s concern for the righteous (sapâ, 18:23,24). Time has run out; only those immediately in the house can be saved (v. 15). The listing of the family members twice (vv. 15,16), absent the sons-in-law, indicates that they are doomed; further, the list anticipates the demise of Lot’s wife, who until now has not been mentioned. The story leaves it to us to explain why Lot “hesitated” (mahah), that is, he delayed (v. 16; Exod 12:39; Hab 2:3). He appears to be paralyzed with fear, which corresponds with his own explanation later for diverting to Zoar (v. 19). The angels, however, don’t hesitate. On account of the Lord’s pity on Lot, they seized and “put” them (nûaḥ, hiphil; “led [them safely],” niv) outside “ground zero”! “Put” (nûaḥ), that is, cause to rest (hiphil), is the chief lexical sound play in the survivor’s story of Noah (noaḥ; see vol. 1a, pp. 316-17 and n. 64). There is a childlike feature in this depiction of the Lot family, led by hand to safety (cp. Hos 11:3). Of the two angels, one functions as the spokesman. Verse 17 alone con- tains four exhortations in chiastic arrangement: “flee . . . don’t look back . . . don’t stop . . . flee.” The outer two elements (v. 17a,17d) indicate that their “lives” depend on reaching the “mountains”; the inner two parts (v. 17b,17c) warn that death is lingering in the “plain.” To “look back” is tantamount to “stopping” in the “plain,” short of the mountain’s safety. By looking back, Lot’s wife not only disobeyed the angel but also failed to separate herself completely from Sodom’s hold on her. The “mountains” were typically sanctuaries of isolation, providing safety from human contact (e.g., Josh 2:16,22; 6:2; Judg 20:47; 1 Sam 22:1; fig., Ps 11:1). In this case the mountains were actually outside the area targeted for total annihilation. 19:18-20 Lot, however, refuses and makes a counterproposal (v. 18), the same kind of reaction Lot makes to the Sodomites (v. 6). His chief concern is “life” (vv. 18,20) and “death” (v. 19); since he cannot make it to the mountains before the disaster strikes, he proposes sanctuary in the small nearby town of Zoar (vv. 20-22). His “bargaining” with the lead angel (cf. v. 17 note) recalls the pleas of Abraham with his guest (18:22-33); lexical ties between Lot’s appeal to the angels in vv. 18-19 and Abraham’s initial encounter with the three visitors (18:3) bring both events together. The angels in both settings graciously concede to the pleas of the patriarch and his nephew. The point of the allusion to Abraham is to remind us that Abraham’s intercession has been honored, even for the reluctant Lot. In what way Lot expected the calamity to “overtake” him (v. 19) is unstated; perhaps this adds to the depiction of Lot, who is slow, at times resistant, versus Abraham, who is immediately responsive in his demeanor (18:2,6,7). Another basis for Lot’s request is the insignificance of the town Zoar. The name “Zoar” (ṣộʾar, v. 22) is derived from the size of the city, “small” (misʾar, v. 20). Lot argues his case by interjecting the rhetorical question (lit.), “Is it not small?” His contention is that the angels can spare the little town for his sake, and they can still achieve their main objective. This reasoning reminds us again of Abraham before the Lord; justice, he contends, requires sparing the wicked for the sake of a few. Ironically, this is what occurs at Zoar; although a member of the wicked cities, the angels spare it because of Lot. Such allusions promote the prophetic image of Abraham. 19:21-22 The story pictures the angels as graciously tolerant of the difficult Lot (v. 21). “Grant” (naśaʿ) is another reminder of the Lord’s pledge to “spare” (naśaʿ) the righteous (18:26). He promises not to “overthrow” (hapak) Zoar; the term often describes the destruction of the wicked (e.g., Prov 12:7). As the primary term in the passage describing the destruction of the cities (vv. 21,25,29[2x]), it became the preferred word by later authors when recalling God’s judgment against Sodom (e.g., Deut 29:23[22]; Jer 20:16; Lam 4:6; Hos 11:8; Amos 4:11). The final speech in the passage is the angel’s strongest exhortation to Lot, “But flee there quickly” (v. 22a), lit., “quickly flee there” (maher himmaleṭ sammâ); “quickly” at the head of the clause prompts the memory of Abraham and his household’s swift responses to the visitors (mahar, 18:6[2x],7). If Lot continued dawdling, the angel could not destroy the wicked. The divine timetable for destruction is temporarily suspended for the outworking of divine grace. The verse ends with an explanatory note regarding the name “Zoar.” The author employs a common etiological formula for the naming of sites. This remark is a geographical reference point for the ancient reader, giving concrete expression to the story’s report of the catastrophe. The charred remains of the plain eventually diminished from sight, either by the wild or by the sea, but Zoar remained as a testimonial both to the epic proportions of God’s retribution (Sodom) and of his forbearance (Lot). 19:23-26 Verses 23-24 report the time and nature of the destruction, and vv. 25-26 narrate the extent of the destruction, including the end of Lot’s wife. The destruction occurs only after Lot arrives safely in Zoar, as promised by the angel (v. 21). It is about one full day since the visitors first arrived at Abraham’s tent (19:1). The culprits sinned in the cover of night, but their punishment is displayed in the light of day. The author calls on the description of Noah’s flood to describe this deluge by fire at Sodom (v. 24); “rained down” (himṭîr) and “from the heavens” repeat the language of the flood account (mamṭîr, “send rain,” 7:4; “from the sky,” 8:2; also 7:11,19). Twice v. 24 attributes the fiery destruction to the Lord’s initiative. This heaven’s rain cannot be explained solely as a natural phenomenon, such as earthquake; it was exceptional, never again repeated, providing the parade illustration of the fiery eschatological judgment against the wicked (e.g., 2 Pet 2:6-9). The twin calamities of Noah and Lot illustrate Jesus’ teaching on the suddenness of the coming of the Son of Man (Luke 17:26-30). The Sodomites carried on their usual activities, “eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building,” on the day of their destruction, unaware of the imminent end. The Son of Man’s appearance will likewise surprise the unexpecting world. “Burning sulfur” translates goprît waʿes, lit., “sulfur and fire,” as a hendiadys. “Sulfur” represented divine judgment against the wicked in later writings (Ps 11:6; Isa 30:33; 34:9; Ezek 38:22). Also the conflagration may have involved the natural pits of bitumen known in the area (14:10). This reversal of the region’s vegetation spoils what originally had attracted Lot; now all is lost, including his possessions (cp. Deut 29:23[22]). Verse 26 reports that Lot also lost his wife; by looking back she evidenced her affections for her life at Sodom. Lot’s wife may have been a Sodomite; there is no mention of her prior to chap. 19, unless we are to assume she was among the “women” (14:16) rescued by Abram. In any case, the woman is nameless, no more than a prop in the story whose tragic end became a dreaded lesson (Luke 17:32). The description “looked back” is the same language in the angel’s prohibition (v. 17). The feature of “salt” in the Dead Sea area (cf. “salt sea,” 14:3) and its sterile effects on arable land may explain the casting of her figure in the mineral. Her physical translation into an edifice of salt, probably to be understood as a coating of salt, testified to the consequence of disobedience and was an appalling reminder of the events at Sodom (Luke 17:28-29,32). 19:27-29 These verses bring the narrative account back full circle to the initial revelation made to Abraham concerning Sodom (18:16-33). The words “stood” (ʾamad, v. 27) and “looked down” (saqap, v. 28) recall the prelude to the catastrophe he now witnesses (18:16,22). After another night had passed, the clear skies of the “morning” (v. 27) enabled Abraham from Mamre (Hebron; 18:1) to see the rising smoke of the conflagration (cp. Josh 8:20; Judg 20:38, Isa 9:18[17]). “Like smoke from a furnace” (v. 28) refers to the intense concentration of the smoke; “furnace” (kibsan) is a kiln requiring extreme heat for baking pottery. Smoke often distinguishes divine theophany (e.g., 15:17; Isa 6:4); “smoke from a furnace” depicts the blaze at Sinai (Exod 19:18). Burning smoke also demonstrates divine anger and judgment (e.g., 2 Sam 22:9//Ps 18:9; cp. Rev 9:2). Verse 29 presents a summary of the chapter’s events. The verse includes an explanation for Lot’s deliverance, attributing his salvation to God’s covenant relationship with Abraham. “Remembered” (zakar), another allusion to the flood (8:1), is typical covenant terminology, indicating loyalty (e.g., Exod 2:24; 6:5; 32:13; Pss 105:42; 106:45). Wenham observes that “God remembered Lot” would be the true parallel to “God remembered Noah” (8:1) since the Lord delivers Noah and Lot. “God remembered” identifies the prior covenant obligation (12:3) as the basis for the divine intervention, not the righteousness of Lot. Although the mention of Abraham brings to mind the appeal of the patriarch (18:16-33), “God remembered” directly refers to the privileged position of Abraham. The divine motivation for the initial disclosure to Abraham is his election (“For I have chosen him,” 18:19), which then prompted his intercession for the cities. That God’s benevolence toward Lot arose from his commitment to Abraham thus begins and ends the Sodom segment (18:17-19; 19:29). In a final jibe at Lot’s failure, against the background of God’s favor toward Abraham, the author mentions again that the destroyed cities are those “where Lot had lived [yasab].” The word yasab is the key word of chap. 13, the episode of separation (esp. v. 12). (3) Births of Lot’s Sons (19:30-38) 30Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32Let’s get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father.” 33That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 34The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I lay with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 36So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. 37The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today. This account of Lot’s incest is the last word on Lot; he is not mentioned again in the Old Testament except in the phrase “descendants of Lot” (Deut 2:9,19; Ps 83:8[9]). Those scholars who attribute this story originally to an unrelated source understate its dependence on the prior Lot-Sodom narratives (see comments below). If the account had ended with Lot in Zoar (v. 23), as is the case at the close of the previous section (v. 29), the reader would be both dissatisfied and deceived. The prior story only brings a satisfying conclusion to what happened to Lot at Sodom, and it does not answer what became of Lot and his family afterward. If anything, 18:16-19:29 leaves the reader wanting to know more about Lot’s end and his heritage. When the Sodom narrative is set in the broad framework of the Abraham promises and later Israel, its outcome grows in importance since Lot and his heritage are potential rivals to the promises (for it would appear that Moab/Ammon would be assured a future, Deut 2:9,19,37). What became of his heritage is the only way the author can bring closure regarding this branch of the family. The story without this final episode also would mislead the reader. Lot did not remain in Zoar for long, and though his despicable career had been told effectively in the Sodom setting, the shameful last episode shows that the scandal at Sodom was only half of what could be told about this disgraced member of the family. Also it is difficult to imagine that this sordid story of the ancestors of the Moabites and Ammonites would have been widely popular among these peoples; it has been suggested that the story honors the unusual efforts of the daughters to guarantee the survival of Lot, the famous figure of the region, but their efforts are not honorable but decadent, and Lot is no hero but a dope. It also is wrong to relegate the story to an anti-Moabite/Ammonite piece of propaganda. The account certainly could be used for such political purposes, but the story says much more than political commentary, speaking to the weightier matter of God’s promises. The pericope consists of (1) a brief introduction, offering background information (v. 30), (2) two essentially parallel paragraphs describing the incestuous plot of the elder daughter and then the younger (vv. 31-33,34-35), and (3) a final paragraph reporting on the sons born to Lot (vv. 36-38). The two corresponding panels are charted here:
19:30 This verse reaches back to the prior episode, where we find Lot hunkered down at Zoar; but Lot was “afraid” (v. 30) and moved again “to the mountains,” which was the initial directive of the angel anyway (v. 17). Perhaps he feared that the populace of Zoar would receive another divine inquiry, and he thus left, fearing a “second Sodom.” His final abode was anything but a lush plain, only a “cave” fit for the life of a recluse. The scornful jibe in v. 29 (see above) is continued in v. 30 by the recurring use of yasab [3x]; “settled,” “stay,” lived,” niv). 19:31-35 Lot’s age and reclusive life meant the end of the family line without male heirs; the daughters were deprived of husbands and children, the customary role of women. To address the problem, the elder, lit., “firstborn,” daughter out of desperation hatches a plot with her sister to have sons by their father. The repeated references to the older daughter as “firstborn” probably explains her acute motivation for hatching a plan (vv. 31,33,34,37; cf. 29:26). The intent to “preserve our family line” (vv. 32,34) was honorable, but the means of incest was deplorable (e.g., Lev 18:6-18; cp. Tamar 38:13-26). That it was so understood by the daughters themselves explains why they had to trick their father through drink. By this humiliation of Lot, we remember the survivor Noah, whose son disgraced him when the patriarch lay drunk (9:21-24). At least Noah “knew” (“found out,” 9:24) his deception, whereas Lot is never said to have learned. By adding that Lot was “unaware” (vv. 33,35), the author wants it clearly understood that the hapless man was sexually exploited. 19:36-38 Verse 36 is not redundant; it states specifically that the two women became pregnant and bore sons “by their father” (meʿabîhen, v. 36). This prelude to the report of their birth and naming (vv. 37-38) helps explain the significance of their names, Moab and Ben-Ammi. “She named him” (vv. 37,38) is a popular formula for naming a son who is the eponymous ancestor of a group (e.g., 29:32,33; 30:8,18; 35:18; also used in naming Moses, Exod 2:10). “Moab” was apparently derived from the combination of min (“from”) plus ʿab (“father”), which becomes meʿab, “from [my] father” (v. 37); meʿab is a reflection of the previous meʿabîhen (v. 36), meaning lit., “from their father.” “Ben-Ammi,” born to the younger daughter (v. 38), is “son of my [paternal] kinsmen” or singular “kinsman.” By the embedded term “father” (ʿab) in “Moab” and “kin” (ʾam) in “Ben-Ammi,” the names of these half-brothers provide detractors a jibe at the tawdry roots of their descendants. Their clans perpetuated the double entendre by the patronymics môʿab, “Moabites,” and benê 246ʾammôn, “Ammonites.” Remembered forever as the offspring of Lot, the “descendants of Lot” (Deut 2:9,19; Ps 83:8[9]) whose land was a gift from the Lord were granted special concessions by the invading Israelites. Yet their incestuous origins could not be overlooked in regulating the holy “assembly of the Lord” (Deut 23:2-3[3-4]). The long history of Israel’s relations with these transjordan nations involved continued hostilities even down to the time of the Maccabees (e.g., 36:35; Num 22-25 with Micah 6:5; Judg 3:13,29; chaps. 10-11; 1 Sam 11:2; 2 Sam 10; 2 Ki 3; 25:25; Neh 2:10,19; 4:3,7; 1 Macc 5:6), but Israel was required initially to spare them by virtue of their ancestral relationship (Deut 2:9,19-21,37). The psalmist and Hebrew prophets decried the mistreatment of Israel by Lot’s descendants (Ps 83:5-8[6-9]; Amos 1:13-2:3; Isa 15:1-16:14; Jer 48:1-49:6; Ezek 25:2-11). Their historical association with the odious cities of Sodom and Gomorrah provided Zephaniah the subject of his satirical diatribe (Zeph 2:8-9). Yet the prophets envision an era of restoration when the Lord will favor anew the descendants of Lot (Jer 48:7; 49:6). Historically, the union of Ruth the Moabitess and Judah’s descendant Boaz reconciled the alienated families of Lot and Abraham, providing for Israel’s greatest king (Ruth 4:13,18-22; for the Ruth connection with Judah-Tamar via Perez, see comments on chap. 38). Lot’s incest discredited his heritage, which was contrary to Israel’s legitimate and miraculous patrimony (18:1-15). Abraham, like Lot, was “old” (v. 31) and Sarah beyond childbearing years (18:11), but the Lord did not find it “too hard” to give them a son (18:14). Lot’s choice of the plain (13:10-12) resulted in the loss of his possessions (13:5; 14:12,16) and a tarnished legacy (vv. 36-38). New American Commentary - New American Commentary – Volume 1b: Genesis 11:27-50:26. |