Timothy our brother (Acts 16)

Acts chapter 16 opens with a vingette that seems to contradict the previous chapter, and the SAB takes it that way. Is circumcision required? This was really answered in chapter 15, which oddly enough isn't linked to on this page, but I suppose there's no specific verse to link to there. The answer is no for Christians, yes for Jews. (If the question is required for salvation, it's a straight across the board "no".) The Old Testament passages are all for Jews (as well as the Luke passage, because Jesus was Jewish), and most of the New Testament passages are addressed to Gentile Christians. Timothy, whose mother was a Jew and father was a Greek, is a believer, and wants to go with Paul, but for some reason, Paul decides Timothy needs to be circumcised. It's not made particularly clear why Paul decides this, especially so soon after the Jerusalem council; it may be because what with Timothy's mother being Jewish Paul felt a need for Timothy to have some Jewish cred, so to speak. (Paul notes in Galatians that he didn't compel Titus to be circumcised because he was Greek.)

I already responded to whether the Gospel should be preached to everyone in Acts chapter one, where I pointed out, as I will again, that Phrygia and Galatia are in Asia, so it's not even very clear what verse six is trying to say! Paul has a dream about a man in Macedonia asking for help, so Paul goes there. The SAB, always with an attention to detail, notes that the narrative switches to first-person, and wonders why. The standard Christian explanation is that Luke (the author of Acts) must have joined Paul around this time. Anyway, shortly after they get to Macedonia, they meet Lydia, and convert her. The SAB's suggestion that Lydia might be a lesbian because she sold purple (I assume purple clothes rather than the actual dye) seems a bit of a stretch, as purple is more likely associated with nobility; it is interesting that she does appear to be an independent woman, which may have been more common in Europe. (Note I'm not saying Lydia definitely wasn't a lesbian, I just don't think the evidence is compelling enough.)

Paul's encounter with the demon possessed woman is actually pretty absurd, I have to agree. She's demon possessed, but follows Paul around hyping him up. Apparently there's something annoying or otherwise distracting about it, and she is demon possessed, so Paul casts the demon out of her. Her owners are pissed off, because they were making money off of her, so they bring Paul and Silas to the rulers of the town where they are beaten and thrown into prison. That night, while they're sitting in prison in chains, they are singing praise songs, and a miraculous earthquake happens, that opens the doors of the prison and loosens everyone's chains. The warden wakes up, and seeing the doors open, makes to commit suicide, as apparently he's going to be in trouble. Paul calls out to him, letting him know they are still there, and not to kill himself. He comes in to Paul and Silas and asks how he can be saved. Paul gives him a curious answer, saying if he believes in Jesus, he and his whole family will be saved! There are actually Christians who believe that if the husband is saved, that covers the whole household. I actually used to know a witch online who said she had a husband who was a pastor, and as far as he was concerned, she was saved because he was. So the SAB has to ask, Is salvation by faith alone? I'm sure I've answered this question elsewhere at least in part, but as the page doesn't have a link, I'll address it here in full. The answer is yes, but it's complicated. There are a few things that need to be said that may address the "no" verses. First of all, despite the fact that a person is "saved" doesn't mean they won't be judged; there seems to be both a judgment concerning salvation and a judgment concerning rewards and punishment that is separate. Also, many of the Old Testament passages are talking about judgment here on earth, the idea that God rewards good people and punishes bad people. Also, there is another important teaching that is especially accentuated in the book of James: that faith, if it is genuine, should result in good works, and if the good works are not present in a person's life, you should question their faith. Oh, and said works also include one's words that one speaks. So, for those passages not covered by these issues... The Matthew five verse I explained in Matthew five, basically saying that Jesus is using hyperbole to say that you can't get in to Heaven on righteousness. Matthew 19 in the broader context is illustrating that most rich people are violating the first Commandment by having money as their god. The Romans two passage is, I think, being taken wrong, as the broader context of the entire book is salvation by faith; perhaps Paul is saying, as Jesus sometimes did, that nobody is capable of keeping the whole of the law, because in the end, we are all sinners. The Philippians two verse is not at all clear in and of itself, and certainly could be saying to keep the faith. Revelation 22 is a tricky one, but I think it can certainly be said that Jesus had Commandments (the SAB has them all tracked, in fact), which were mainly about faith. If a husband believes, is his wife saved also? I think it's arguable that the point of all of these verses is that the faith of one spouse has a great influence on the other, although as I said above, some people believe the answer is a simple "yes".

So, the warden puts his faith in Jesus, and is baptized, along with his family. Just because it doesn't say what the rest of his family thought about all of this doesn't automatically imply that they were baptized against their will; it's entirely possible that the whole family made confessions of faith as well. Lack of information doesn't imply that something didn't happen, but it's certainly true that it leaves us wondering. In the morning, the order is given to let Paul and Silas go. Paul is apparently offended that they arrested them publicly, but want to release him privately. The people in charge hear about this, and the fact that Paul and Silas are Roman citizens, which is serious business, since there are special rules about how you treat citizens, and they haven't been treated properly. The rulers release them and ask them to leave the city. After visiting with Lydia one more time, they depart.

I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh (Acts 10)

Acts chapter ten is also a turning point. We go back to Peter for a bit, and his discovery that the gospel is for Gentiles, which shouldn't have been so surprising since Jesus told him and the other disciples that the gospel was to go "to the ends of the earth." Perhaps Peter, like other believers we hear about later in Acts, believed that you had to convert to Judaism to be a Christian?

Anyway, the chapter starts with the focus on Cornelius, a Roman centurion who is not a Jew, but is a devoted follower of the God of Israel. It even says in verse 22 that he is "of good report among all the nation of the Jews." Cornelius has a vision of an angel who tells him to send men to Joppa to fetch Peter. So he sends two servants and a soldier with directions on where to find Peter according to his vision.

As the men are approaching, Peter is on the roof of the house praying, and he has a vision. In his vision, a sheet comes down from the sky filled with all sorts of animals, many (maybe all) of them not kosher, and a voice tells him to get up, kill something and eat it. Peter says, "Not so, Lord," (which I've heard in sermons pointed out to be a ridiculous thing to say in itself) because, as he explains, he keeps kosher. The voice (of God) tells him if God calls something clean, don't call it unclean. This whole thing repeats three times. I answered "What kind of animals may we eat?" way back in Genesis chapter nine, and it's actually a rather thorough response for my early work, some of which I'm not happy with now. As for What the Bible says about vegetarians, I think there's a need for cultural context with all of these verses. I think I already explained Peter's vision, but in case it's not fully clear, Jesus was trying to break down the wall between Jews and Gentiles for Peter so the gospel could spread. As for the two passages from Paul's letters, there were apparently some people who came to Christianity from faith traditions that had meat eating rituals and/or rules, and because of it, they chose to not eat meat at all as Christians. This was perhaps a sign of weak faith but Paul doesn't want people judged for that personal choice. On the other hand, if someone was against meat eating and wanted to force others to abstain, well, that's just false doctrine. I'm a vegetarian, but I don't judge people who eat meat.

So, the men arrive, and God tells Peter to go with them. It's an interesting thing here about God's character in that really, one would suppose anywhere in the process, God could have just simplified things by delivering the message himself. He could have just told Cornelius about Jesus directly; he could have told Peter to go find Cornelius instead of having Cornelius send men to fetch him; he could have told Peter what this trip was all about instead of "go with them, doubting nothing"; but God doesn't do any of those things. For whatever reason, God likes to set up people to meet and spread his message for him; he wants people to spread his love. Peter goes with the men and brings along a few fellow believers. When they arrive at Cornelius's home, Cornelius falls down and worships Peter, which Peter tells him not to do. Peter tells the people gathered there that normally a Jew wouldn't go among Gentiles, but God has revealed to him that he shouldn't be prejudiced. Cornelius shares his vision, and asks Peter to share his message, and Peter shares the gospel. I answered whether God respects people in Genesis chapter four. I answered whether Jesus was peaceful in John chapter 14. I answered whether there is an unforgivable sin in Matthew chapter 12.

After sharing the gospel, all the Gentiles believe, receive the Holy Ghost (another instance of the Holy Ghost being given!), and speak in tongues like on Pentecost. The Jewish believers are astonished, and decide to baptize them. The SAB has some interesting stuff here that I've never heard of about how if the disciples were surprised about Gentiles, but accepted them, wouldn't they also accept homosexuals? I'm not sure if the logic is sound, nonetheless it's my belief that anyone can be a Christian, so yes, regardless of what one believes about the morality of same-sex relationships, homosexuals can be Christian; whether they should abstain from same-sex intimacy is obviously a sticking point among Christians, however. I answered whose name people should be baptized in in Acts chapter two.

How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings (John 13)

John chapter 13 opens with Jesus washing the Apostles' feet. This is a very touching scene, because this task would usually be done by a servant, so Jesus, now apparently on the day before his death, shows himself to be a servant of his disciples, which is generally a radical reversal of tradition. The SAB marks this as absurd, along with a few other things in the chapter, but I'm not sure why this one. If it's supposedly absurd for Jesus to do such a menial task, then it's right on target and gets the point. If it's absurd that Jesus strips down before doing it, I don't see why; he probably wanted to keep his clothes clean. Anyway, when he gets to Peter, they have an exchange of words in which Peter refuses to have his feet washed, Jesus tells him that it's necessary, Peter says Jesus should wash his hands and face, and Jesus says after bathing only feet need to be washed. I have heard a lot of Christians look for deeper meaning in this exchange, but I think Jesus is just plain talking about dirt; if you take a bath in the river and then walk back to the house, really only your feet are going to be dirty. (Okay, there is a touch of deeper meaning that John explains in verse 11, the implication that Judas is not clean because he was planning to betray Jesus.) Jesus puts his clothes back on and talks to the Apostles about what he did, explaining that as he acted like a servant to them, so they should act as servants to the other believers in the future. There are actually churches who take this literally and practice feet washing. I believe the Pope actually washes the feet of twelve people just before Easter every year; recently there was a story about Pope Francis choosing to wash the feet of twelve Muslim refugees as a gesture of interfaith goodwill and a heart for refugees. I'm not a Catholic, but I really like Pope Francis.

So then apparently John skips forward a bit towards the end of the Passover meal (it's easier to tell from context in the other gospels when this happens) and Jesus is talking about his betrayal. He speaks of Psalm 41:9 as prophecy, and the SAB brings up a couple points about the context of that Psalm. Jesus of course hasn't sinned against God the Father, so if the whole psalm is supposed to be prophetic, perhaps verse four speaks about Peter? As for having an "evil disease" people were just saying of Jesus that he was demon possessed, so that could certainly fit.

The SAB makes some allusion to John and Jesus being so close as a possibility once again for Jesus being gay. John is lying against Jesus's chest for a while here, and as I said back in 1Samuel where I was talking about David and Jonathan, it's not uncommon in other cultures for two heterosexual men who are good friends to be affectionate towards each other. I find it funny that America, where we're tolerant enough of homosexuality that we legalized same-sex marriage (as we should--it's not the government's job to say who we can marry or what consenting adults do in their own homes), is so homophobic that we see two men hugging and assume they are gay. Virtually everywhere else, men are affectionate.

When did Satan enter Judas? the SAB asks as Jesus reveals to John who the betrayer is. This is not a contradiction if you can accept that Satan enters into Judas more than once. Satan enters into Judas in Luke 22 when Judas decides to see what he can get for betrayal of Jesus, and enters into Judas again when he actually goes to commit the act. I really wanted to follow up with the discussion from a few posts ago about Jesus supposedly committing suicide. One should note that while the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus, they didn't want to do it at Passover. Matthew 26:3-5

Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him. But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.

So Jesus knows they don't want to get him during Passover, but in this passage, we see him force the matter: right after talking about being betrayed, he hands food to Judas, saying, "That thou doest, do quickly." Jesus is telling Judas, I know you're going to betray me; do it now. Jesus wants to be betrayed and killed during Passover (which lasts for seven days) for a few reasons. First, he wants to fulfill prophecy and become the ultimate Passover lamb, or as John the Baptist put it in John 1:29, "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Secondly, and related, Jesus wants to be killed by the Romans, so he will be crucified, as this fulfills scripture again (and his own prophecies about his death), and as the Passover lamb, his bones are not broken (if the Jews killed him, they would have stoned him to death, which certainly would have broken bones)(see also John 19:33). Why does dying during Passover mean that the Romans kill him? John 18:31-32

Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

Some have incorrectly assumed this meant that the Jews weren't allowed to put someone to death under Roman law, but note that they already tried to kill Jesus several times, and did kill Stephen in the Book of Acts. No, what's not lawful is touching a dead body during Passover (see Numbers 6:9). In the end, Jesus is carefully controlling the manner and timing of his death.

The SAB marks verse 35 as absurd, and you have to admit that historically, "love" hasn't been the hallmark of self-professed "Christians." Perhaps it's a sign that they weren't? There certainly are a lot of present-day "Christians" I question.

Did any of the apostles ask Jesus where he was going? Yes, but apparently by chapter 16, they had stopped asking. Did Jesus say before the cock crow or before the cock crows twice? I guess this is a genuine contradiction, but what difference does it really make? I mean the cock has to crow if it's going to crow twice.

Send us into the swine (Matthew 8)

The first issue raised in Matthew 8 is the question of whether the centurion who asked Jesus to heal his servant came directly to Jesus, or sent messengers. While of course it could be possible that these are two different centurions, I think it's more likely that Matthew left some details out of the story. Note that in both stories, the centurion tells Jesus not to come to his house, so not coming in person makes some sense. The SAB points out that this would have been a good opportunity for Jesus to make a statement condemning slavery, but Jesus says nothing about this guy owning a slave. While I touched on this subject before, that was essentially discussing Israelite slavery, and this guy is a gentile, so I have little reason to assume that this is the same sort of arrangement. If I were to address the issue of slavery in the New Testament, I'd have to do some research, I think, but no, Jesus never comes out expressly against slavery as far as I'm aware.

The SAB makes a side-note on this story suggesting that perhaps the centurion and his servant were a gay couple. I find this difficult to fathom. Yes, I think in that day homosexuality may have been considered acceptable in Roman society, but what sort of couple would they have been if one was the owner of another? No, I think homosexuality is another issue that Jesus never directly addresses, even by silent assent.

In verse 10, we are told that Jesus was "astonished" and the SAB takes the opportunity to ask "Did Jesus know everything?" First of all, I think that Jesus expressing an emotion that is often linked with being surprised does not immediately mean that Jesus didn't know something, but I'll set that aside, because it's my view that Jesus, in the time that he walked the earth in human form, was not omniscient. The two quoted verses from the book of John aren't Jesus claiming to know everything, but his followers making that claim. The real nail in the coffin of Jesus having omniscience is Mark 13:32, in which Jesus admits there is at least one thing that he does not know. Now how much Jesus does know is worth questioning, and indeed, he does seem to know quite a bit, but he does not know everything.

Verse 12 is another odd one, and for more than just the reason the SAB notes. Yes, I'll agree with the interpretation that "the children of the kingdom" most likely refers to Jews, but that doesn't mean that all Jews will fail to be saved, I think that the point here is that despite the fact that the nation of Israel is the "chosen people", there will be many non-Jews in heaven and many Jews in hell. (I'm not really convinced that Jesus is even saying the the centurion is saved, only that he has an impressive level of faith.) The thing that I find interesting that's not noted is yet another use of the phrase "the children of..." that clouds the picture of what standing various people have before God, as discussed in a few of the recent chapters.

In verses 14-15, there is mention of Peter's mother-in-law being healed. The SAB asks, no doubt semi-sarcastically, whether this implies that the first Pope was married. Yes, Peter did appear to be married, and I don't know the full details, but it's my understanding that requiring clergy of the Catholic church to be celibate is a development more recent than the first century. I don't know if this goes for the Pope also, or whether the Catholic church thus has some explanation of this passage because of that issue; you'd probably have to ask a Catholic, not an ex-Jewish baptist like me. (The SAB marks this healing and the following casting out of devils as absurd; I'm not generally going to address miracles marked as absurdity, I think, but let them stand as miracles.)

Verses 21-22 have a man who wants to follow Jesus, but says "suffer me first to go and bury my father." I think the SAB is misunderstanding what the guy is asking here; it's always been my understanding that this was his way of saying, "I don't think my father would approve of me following you, so can I wait until he's passed away?" Jesus' response is not to literally suggest that dead people should bury each other, but that if his father can't handle Jesus, then he should be left behind. (This could still perhaps take all the tags the SAB gives it, but the meaning is not quite what it's being taken as.)

The story in verses 23-27 is another miracle, and I think the real point of the miracle, if anything, is what it says in the last verse: that even the weather obeys Jesus' commands.

The last story in this chapter is an odd one about Jesus casting out some demons (or perhaps one very strange, powerful one). For reasons unknown, when Mark and Luke tell this story, they say there's only one demon-possessed man, while Matthew puts it at two. I have no idea why the difference in number, and it seems to be a big difference; I mean, who has a hard time counting to two? (Matthew does use different names in his telling of the story, so it could possibly be a different event, but there's enough detail in common to make this improbable.) Anyway, this is an interesting story for numerous reasons. The demons immediately know who Jesus is, and they refer to some time in the future that Jesus is going to torment them. Weird stuff. Note that in other versions of the story, Jesus finds out that the devil(s) is named "Legion", and in all the stories, they are sent into a herd of pigs. Some have suggested that this story is symbolic of the Roman occupation, which is possible, but I'm not real keen on that interpretation. It is odd to note that someone in a Jewish city would be keeping a herd of pigs, seeing as they're unclean animals. I find it odd that people who dislike this story object to the drowning of the pigs; I guess while I'm thinking it's good that the demons were driven out at all, these people are wondering if it could have been done more cleanly. Certainly the people of the nearby town seem to think so, as they ask Jesus to leave.

The nakedness of thy mother (1Sam 20)

Chapter 20 is sort of weird because it largely involves David trying to convince Jonathan that Saul hates his guts. The fact that Jonathan is unaware of this is more than a little strange, seeing the events of the chapters leading up to this. Jonathan doesn't think he could possibly be unaware of anything going on with his father, and tells David that he'll prove it.

So David and Jonathan come up with a plan in which David will go away, and Jonathan will see how Saul reacts to David's absence. Jonathan and David both promise that whatever the outcome of this test, they will always be kind to each other, and to each others' families.

Saul ends up shouting at Jonathan: "Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?" I think this is a very suggestive verse, but not in the way that the SAB is suggesting. Take the Bible as a whole and ask yourself: What does the phrase "thy mother's nakedness" really mean? If you look to some other verses, you'll find that the Bible forbade, for instance, a man to have sexual relations with his father's wife:

Lev 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

Now, I may be reading too much into it, but it seems that if "thy father's nakedness" is your father's wife, one could easily make the claim that "thy mother's nakedness" is your mother's husband. Saul seems to me to be saying that Jonathan has, in his allegiance to David, forgotten that his true allegiance should be to Saul, who after all is his father. I'm having a hard time putting this into words properly (and delicately), but I think Saul is being very poetically vulgar here and insulting Jonathan on many levels suggesting:

1) "I'm your father, and your allegiance should be to me."
2) "I'm the king, and if you hope to be king someday, you'd better not be supporting David."
3) "If you're going to be unable to get these facts straight, you might as well just have David #$%@ your mother, you little ingrate!"

In any case, this is a harsh rebuke indeed, and Jonathan finally realizes how incredibly hostile Saul's feelings towards David truly are. So he goes to David and tells him that he ought to leave, and they say farewell with a kiss, which once again, is totally acceptable between two straight men in many cultures.

It hath been already of old time, which was before us. (1Sam 19)

There's not much new in chapter 19. We're really seeing the SAB pick up on issues that we've seen before in this book.

Was Jonathan "totally gay" for David? Lacking better evidence for the claim, I say no.

Is David violent and intolerant for killing the Philistines? Well, they were an invading army; what was he supposed to do?

What's the deal with Saul and his "evil spirit"? I don't know, but I've given some thoughts.

Why do people say "Is Saul also among the prophets?" Perhaps various reasons.

Have a nice weekend, everyone.

Thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women (1Sam 18)

In 1Samuel 18, we are finally introduced to the close relationship between David and Jonathan. The SAB takes the approach that so many do, assuming the implication that Jonathan and David were lovers. Now, whereas it's certainly possible, of course the conservative assumption among both Christians and Jews is that this is not the case. The fact is, there really needs to be a stronger case made if a reader of the Bible is to accept this claim. I think a lot of what is used by people to make this case is more of an implication from our own modern American biases, which frankly tend to be a bit homophobic.

People can love one another deeply and have it be a non-sexual love, even two heterosexual men. Taking off one's clothing in the presence of another is likewise not an instant implication of something sexual going on. (It's not clear whether Jonathan is stripping entirely nude here anyway, but rather he may be giving over his armor.*) I truly believe in this case, the fact that Jonathan took off his armaments and gave them to David implies that Jonathan is trying to symbolically affirm the fact that David is his superior (being now the true king of Israel), and someone that he trusts with his life. In many cultures of the world, it is common for men hold hands, embrace one another, and even kiss without it being considered at all sexual, and I think we'd be overstepping any clear understanding of ancient culture to assume more than what is explicitly stated here.

Now, there soon comes to be some sort of thing going on where the women of Israel are heard to say "Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands." The SAB claims that this is the result of some sort of contest, but there are two things to say about this. First of all, no such "contest" is mentioned (although given the political situation, it might not be wrong to say that there was a prestige contest between these two men). Secondly, while they may indeed have slaughtered quite a few of their enemies, the saying is almost certainly hyperbolic in nature, still being early enough in David's military career that it's unlikely he has killed more than a few hundred at most, I would think. Essentially, David's reputation after killing Goliath has caused people to claim that David is ten times the warrior that Saul ever was.

The claim that Saul was taken by an "evil spirit from God" that made him prophesy is a strange one, and not actually a completely unique idea in the Bible. I'd stand on my previous comments concerning Saul's torment by spirits and prophesying.

Oddly to me, the SAB makes no note of violence for Saul trying repeatedly to kill David. I guess in the midst of all the warfare and slaughter, we're supposed to hardly notice a single murder? I don't know. (Discussion on this matter is in the comments below.)

Anyway, Saul wants to get rid of David, so he comes up with a plan that he figures will cause David to be killed my the Philistines. Saul says David can marry his daughter, but instead of a dowry, he will accept a hundred Philistine foreskins. David goes above and beyond, and brings two hundred. What can I say about this crazy story? The SAB labels this passage with the icons for Absurdity, Violence, Sex, Women, Family Values, and Injustice. Let's take them in that order: Absurd? Agreed heartily. Violent? Yes, but once again, this was in the middle of a war between Israel and the Philistines. Sex? Not particularly sexual other than the fact that it involved genitals, so if that's enough for you, so be it. Women? I assume we're once again talking about the idea of a person buying a wife, and yes, it's strange to our modern value system, but common in those days, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say. Ditto on Family Values. Injustice? Well, unjust to whom? To the Philistines? I'd assume these were soldiers, who had to accept the possibility they were to die in war. To David? He didn't seem to mind. To Michal? That goes back to the previous issues. I'm simply not sure what the deal is here; this seems as just as anything else in time of war.

The fact that David is successful is apparently taken as a sign to Saul that God is with David, and as He clearly is not with Saul any longer, he suffers from a great deal of envy, becoming David's enemy from that time forward.

* Overall, the Bible has a number of interesting allusions to the symbolism of clothing. Note how in 1Sam.15:27-28, Samuel uses the tearing of his garment as an illustration of the tearing of the kingdom from Saul. In chapter 17, David is offered Saul's battle garb and rejects it, but here, he accepts Jonathan's. In the next chapter, Saul ends the story stripped naked. This is part of a longer literary thread in the Bible that goes from the creation of garments for Adam and Eve, to the life of Joseph which is punctuated with repeated awarding and losing of clothing, to the creation of special priestly garments for the Levites, to the passing of Elijah's cloak to Elisha, to Christ's robe being taken from him before He is placed on the cross, and so forth, to name a few. There are many more.

Surely Moab shall be as Sodom, and the children of Ammon as Gomorrah (Gen 19)

Pardon me for missing a post yesterday. I've started working a second job this week, so I've been really busy. I guess we'll just skip chapter 19, after all, there's nothing interesting there, right? Uh, yeah...

Okay, so two of the three men/angels from the last chapter show up in Sodom, and they meet Lot sitting at the gate. Culturally, this means that Lot was a man considered to be of some authority in the city, which I've always thought a little odd given the rest of the story. The SAB wonders whether angels can have sex, and while this subject was touched upon back at the beginning of the flood story, there are a few different things that ought to be said here. While the question is an interesting one, it's a moot point here, because these angels did not actually have sex with anyone in this story, despite people claiming to wish to do so. Furthermore, even if they did, there's another issue about the terminology. In both the Hebrew and the Greek, the term translated as "angel" is a word that technically means "messenger" (the same word is used several times in Gen 32); these are not necessarily supernatural beings. It's actually possible that these two men are unnamed human prophets that God has sent in His power to deal with the city in a personal manner.

Whoever the men were, they refuse the hospitality of Lot at first, and tell him that they're planning to sleep out on the street that night. This horrifies Lot, who apparently knows this would be a very dangerous thing, and he eventually talks them into staying at his house. Now as I said in yesterday's post, hospitality was a very serious business, and Lot eventually says some things that show he considers their lives more precious than that of his own family, perhaps including himself.

The men of Sodom show up at Lot's door, and insist that Lot turn out these visitors so that they can be gang-raped. Although homosexuality is addressed in the Bible, and it may indeed have been one of the things that God was unhappy about in Sodom, let's face it, this is gang rape, which is wrong regardless of the gender of the people involved. Maybe I'm not good-looking enough, but I've spent many a time in San Francisco, even in public after dark, and nobody ever propositioned me for public group sex. When I was in college, the majority of my close friends were homosexuals, and while we spent many a Friday evening drinking and playing cards, I don't remember anyone ever suggesting we go out knocking on doors in the neighborhood looking for attractive out-of-towners to molest. I know homosexuals, and this is not your standard homosexual behavior.

Well, Lot steps outside and suggests that it would be better for the men to have at his own daughters than at his guests. This is definitely disturbing behavior for a man that the Bible calls "just" and "righteous" in 2Peter. There are a few things that can be said in his defense, but in the end, this is one of those things I have to admit I just can't quite comprehend. One thing is the matter of Middle Eastern hospitality, as I have already mentioned (see the end of verse 8). The other thing is actually from the very passage that speaks so highly of him: that he was "vexed" by the men of Sodom. It seems possible that being a man of some authority in the city (see above) and being unable to do anything about how immoral these men were for so long while living there, he was just so exhausted trying to "fight the good fight" that he was all out of ideas of how to deal with them. Apparently just leaving the door locked wouldn't be enough, as after he spoke with them, they tried to break his door down. In my opinion, that doesn't justify him, but I'd take a plea of "temporary insanity" on his part, so to speak.

The angels cause the men to go blind, and pull Lot back inside, telling him he needs to leave, because the city is going to be destroyed in the morning. The SAB claims that Lot having "sons-in-law" shows that Lot was lying about his daughters being virgins, but this is not the case. While it may be possible that these "sons-in-law" were men that were engaged to be married to his daughters, but had not yet officially married them and consummated the relationship, it's also possible that these men are married to other daughters of Lot. Sure, such daughters are not mentioned, but the two daughters that play an important role in this story are not named.

So Lot leaves with his wife and two virgin daughters, and God destroys the city and nearby region. As for his reason to do so, the SAB gives a link to this article, which I agree is a very good overview of the matter, far better than mine, I'm sure. In leaving, Lot's wife looks back and is turned into a pillar of salt. It happens that the region in which all of this is supposed to have taken place contains several "pillars of salt" which, depending on your view, may either lend extra credence to the story or convince you that it's more of a fable.

After a while, Lot and his two daughters go and live in a cave in the mountains. A friend of mine who was not a Christian always said that the story that finishes out this chapter is Lot's daughters getting revenge on their father for what he did to them by shaming him, and I suppose there may be some truth in it. They get him drunk and when he's apparently so drunk he doesn't even know what's going on, they have sex with him, and get pregnant. This is a weird story, and in no part of the story does God say that he approves of it. The two children are Moab and Bennami (two names that in the Hebrew are suggestive of the incestuous act that conceived them), and their descendants form a couple of nations that would neighbor Israel and cause them trouble from time to time.