I tried looking up the location of Sodom for a visit to Israel, and found ther’s some dispute. Some traditional interpretations put Sodom on the plains south-west of the Dead Sea, but other sources suggest it was one of “five cities” in the more general, fertile area around Jericho.
…and especially when He explicitly told you not to look.
The pillar of salt thing must have been based on existing mythology about the Dead Sea region.
I come not to dispute UDS’s take on the story, but to complement it.
The Torah is (for non-believers: meant to be taken as) the communication of G-d to the Israelites in the desert, in preparation for their entry to Canaan and their impending conquest of the land. The commandments that they are expected to live their lives by start in Exodus. Genesis seems unnecessary to this purpose. The Rabbis comment that the purpose of Genesis is to establish the basis of the right of the Israelites to the land, which is a) G-d’s complete ownership of the Earth, as he is the creator of it, which gives him the right to allocate land to peoples as he sees fit, and b) G-d’s promise to Abraham to give him that particular piece of land.
Also included in such instruction is what lands NOT to conquer, as G-d has allocated these for other nations of Abrahamic heritage:
The background on Lot, and the story of how these nations descended from him, is essential background information for explaining the rules within which the new nation is expected to conduct itself toward certain specific other nations.
There is a subtle difference between the Moabites and the Ammonites in the original Hebrew that is not reflected in the NIV English translation I used above. The NIV translates both a phrase in verse 9 and one in verse 19 as “provoke them to war”, but in fact the word “war” is not present in the original Hebrew in verse 9. The traditional Jewish commentators say that this indicates that while the Israelites were not allowed to harass the Ammonites in any way, but they were allowed to harass the Moabites as long as they did not actually start a war. The reason for this difference is because Lot’s second daughter was modest enough to use euphemism in naming her child, while the first daughter was more brazen about the origins of the child, demonstrating to the Israelites that sexual modesty was a virtue that G-d valued.
Doesn’t Moab literally mean “Who’s your daddy?”
Amazing summery UDS. Thank-you. I was afraid after the first response I would not get an explanation I would understand.
SFC Schwartz
Add me to the list of people who greatly appreciated UDS’ post. (Also Sampiro’s follow up.)
I’m wondering if there could be some sort of collection of posts like these, for those of us who don’t read that much on the forums.
Step 1: Guy wandering in the desert finds strange looking pillars of salt near a place that smells really bad.
Step 2: Guy makes up a cautionary tale about some town that used to be there until it god decided to smite it.
Step 3: Guy makes up twist ending where one of the pillars of salt is actually a human being who got transmogrified for disobedience.
Step 4: After being repeated around the campfire a few times, the story ends up being written down and included in a compilation of other stories.
Wow, apart from getting our asses kicked at home The USA is starting to look more and more like Sodom. Wealthy, powerful, paranoid, xenophobic.
There was a five part series staff report on who wrote the Bible years ago. It doesn’t go into the analysis of what the stories mean as does UDS’s excellent post, but it does cover pretty well the best guess on how the thing was stitched together.
Great youtube videos here and here, give you the story of Lot, complete with quotes from the KJV. Very funny and surprisingly accurate portrayals of what the bible actually says.
I really don’t see how it could be taken any other way. Otherwise, how is sending out a couple of young chicks, who are most decidedly locals, a reasonable trade in this case? Might as well offer ham sandwiches.
When we read ancient literature, we should try to read it in context of the writer & the audience. Certain translations of the “books of Moses” (like Everett Fox’s or Alter’s) and certain study bibles or commentaries help us better to understand & “sympathize” with their world view. One of the primary parts of the story is the “nomad” Abe vs. the Lot rich land & “walled city” world. Strangers vs. neighbors. Not that Abram was lonely (he lived in the midst of his own “city” of servants & friends), but he could “talk with his God” almost anytime, but how often could one interact graciously with fellow human visitors & guests as with your God?. You can interrupt your nice visit with God, to visit just as nicely with strangers who are your neighbors, distant relatives.
Not all stories are to be taken literally. If we read non- biblical tales, like 3 little pigs, we might not ask why a cruel god allowed a wolf to blow houses down. So a pillar of salt that looked like a woman needed an explanation to kids & adults, so it could give rise to a story about a woman “who looked back” to the world that should be left behind. Genesis is good literature and can at times be very “deep”, as well. Usually there is a “moral” or message in every story, or else why tell it? Not to show God as bad, but good. We are not like those perverted savages out there who have corrupt & evil gods. Only certain details are given in each story for a reason. Lot’s daughters is not a message about the sin of incest (that evil is known & is the message in other stories). But in this case, it appears to be about why your neighbors (who are related to you as well) are not people you want to associate with.
An excellent examination, UDS. Another thing that bolsters your premise that it was a hospitality, and not a gay, issue, is that it wasn’t just the men of Sodom who wanted the visitors to be brought out. Genesis 19:4-5: “But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” (Emphasis mine.)
Unless women weren’t considered “people,” of course.
One more little thing - it wasn’t necessarily God who turned Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt.
God warned them not to look back.
Genesis 19:17 - “And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.”
Lot’s wife looked back and was summarily consumed into a pillar of salt.
Genesis 19:26 - “But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.”
It doesn’t say God turned her to salt, but only that it would be the natural result of looking back. Like a parent telling a child not to put his hand over the lit candle. When the child does it anyway, he gets burned, but it wasn’t the parent who burned him.
The next morning Lot took a good look at the destruction and wasn’t consumed.
Genesis 19:27-28 - “And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the Lord: And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.” Radiation, maybe?
Getting to know you,
Getting to know all about you.
Getting to like you,
Getting to hope you like me.
Getting to know you,
Putting it my way,
But nicely,
You are precisely,
My cup of tea.
Getting to know you,
[Getting to feel free and easy](Getting to know you, Getting to feel free and easy When I am with you,)
When I am with you
THIS.
This is a fine presentation IF:
-
You choose to focus in on Genesis 19 to the exclusion of everything else before or since;
-
You believe in a God who is a big glowing ball and has at least two children who are also somewhat smaller glowing balls;
-
You believe God’s children assume the Sodomites cannot tell the difference betwwen glowing balls and comely young men (DON’T say it!:D)…
I could go on…