Sodom and Gomorrah Revisited

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is worth a fresh look. What did the story mean in it's own context, and to Jesus? Here would be a good place to begin:


“Go . . . to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff: for the worker is worth his keep. Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.”

Jesus, Matthew 10:6-15

Jesus interpreted the story in the context of an ethic and duty of providing hospitality to strangers, especially those bearing a message from God. In Genesis 18-19, we see a clear contrast between Abraham's and Lot's behavior, and that of the people of the condemned cities. Abraham rushed out to meet and welcome the stranger guests, pleading with them, in good form, to take rest, comfort, and food within his tent. In that welcoming place he and his wife, Sarai, received good news from God that they would, after all, become parents, and God's promise would be fulfilled. Lot likewise welcomed the guests, though in a setting where his protection of them was paramount. Both Abraham and Lot fulfilled their duty as hosts, and pleased God. Jesus, likewise, is prepared to be pleased with people who receive his messengers, and displeased in the extreme toward those who, because of their hard hearts, reject them and God's good news.

Jesus also held up this expectation of providing hospitality in Matthew 25 -- "I was a stranger, and you welcomed me." Such who do so are ushered into the joy of their master; those who refused such hospitality are condemned.

It is clear that ideas of sex are very different in Genesis 19. The men of the city wanted to rape the guests of Lot, not because they were homosexual, but to demonstrate their contempt. In is fact a brutal reality that men in some cultures would employ their sexual capabilities as a weapon of humiliation, forcing, in effect, a man to take the part of a mere woman.

Yes, a mere woman. I think we miss this disconnect from Biblical culture: women were property. This is clear in the ten commandments, where men are ordered not to covet anything belonging to their neighbor -- such things as beasts of burden, and wives. This explains why Lot felt it better to offer his girls to the men than to release his guests from his protection. Girls and women simply did not have the same human value as men, and could be seen as dispensable. In our time Lot's behavior would be considered abusive; certainly when he fathers his own grandchildren at the end of Genesis 19 he would be found guilty, or should be, in our time and culture.

So here is another example, I think, of a severe mistake we can make if we automatically, without reflection, view an ancient story through the lense of our own culture. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah, made to be the perfect proof text against homosexuality, isn't about homosexuality. It is about God's expectation that we, too, will welcome strangers in our midst, treat them with respect, and be open to what God may say to us.


Perhaps Hebrews 13:2 provides a better application for us: “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.”

The Tower of Babel

Here are class notes from Sunday, October 21:

We studied the new rules (Noah's law) following the flood:

1) "Golden Age", when man and beast lived in harmony, was over.
2) Meat was now available for food BUT blood was NOT.
3) A divine prohibition against taking human life

SUMMARY: It is OK for animals to be killed for food (no blood) BUT human life is sacred.

We also examined the covenant God made with his world: "No more elimination of all life by flood" which was unconditional: no requirement is laid on mankind. The sing of the covenant was the rain BOW (weapon) put in the clouds.

The last days of Noah as a farmer and vinegrower was symbolic since his name means "one who settles down". In his drunken stupor he was belittled by his youngest son. Ham was cursed for his sin with his children being made slaves.

We also examined Noah's descendants and noted that the various nations (tribes) were the later inhabitants of the Fertile Crescent area, with Nimrod (Ham's descendant) being the probable founder of Babel. Each had their own language.

The Babel Tower story is a retelling of the dispersion (probably from a priestly viewpoint) that affirms God's role in the scattering.

-- Harrell

Noah and the Flood

The following notes are from Harrell's presentation and class discussion on Sunday, October 14.

The time from Seth's birth to that of Noah was noted with the explanation that much of the Old Testament is a documentation of the Jewish heritage.

A brief discussion of the "sons of gods" marrying the "daughters of men" noting possible interpretations: Angels (sons of gods), the Greek view (gods themselves) as recorded in the Homeric Epics. It was suggested that this reference had no relation to the Noah story other than the resulting sins faced retribution, unlike the Greek version whre the gods simply returned to their Olympus.

The Gilgamesh Epic (Sumerian version -- much older than the Biblical version) tells a similar story to Noah and the ark. The flood was probably not world-wide (not enough available water) but was confined to Tigris/Euphrates Valley (which was THE!! world to that civilization.) The question of how many species of animals were loaded on the ark is limited in terms of space, for the animals and for the food and water and the time it would have taken to load very large numbers. The actual species were probably those in their culture (plus "clean" animals: three pairs for breeding and one for sacrifice).

Some thoughts for consideration: 1. What are our "giants" which create fear in our hearts? 2. If the ark is a symbol of God's grace (salvation for the remnant), how big does our "ark" need to be (reaching out to those in need)?

Part II: In the Garden -- The Problem of Sin

Last week we studied Genesis chapters 3 and 4.

We studied an early painting depicting salvation history from the time of Adam and Eve to the beginning of the organized church. That painting appears below, in the last entry “In the Garden”.

The painting represents the essential experience of human beings and explains why we live in a state of separation from God and happiness. The serpent is depicted as a strange half-man/half-snake with horns, lurking in the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He definitely looks crafty, creepy, and evil even to my modern eye.

It is interesting to be aware that the serpent has been represented in different visual ways by various people. Interpreting the word rendered “crafty” in the beginning of Genesis chapter 3 as “beautiful” prompted some artists to visualize this entity as an angelic being. Others might picture the serpent more like a dragon. It is not clear, in context, that the serpent is the devil, or Satan, though this has been inferred by many.

Why this evil thing is in the garden raises theological questions, as a class member pointed out. If God is sovereign, why is there an evil entity in paradise? One would think God must be responsible. But then, if God is responsible, why are people accountable? We’ll certainly work on this apparent incongruency in the future.

We used Steig’s poem referring to the “crunch” Adam would love as an ironic reference to the grave consequences of the first couple’s and the serpent’s disobedience to God. The “crunch” for the serpent was to be consigned to life crawling on his belly, in the dust. This accounts for the existence and, somewhat, of the perceived meaning of snakes, which are often offensive to women (and a little creepy to certain pastors, too). Do you think these reptiles deserve their bad reputation?

The “crunch” for Eve gives meaning for the pain women experience in childbirth. We know in ancient times that having children was an even riskier business than now. Yet then as now human beings have a deep, primal urge to have children, despite the risk and pain. This account of how people continue to live and behave seems on the mark. Wouldn’t it be great if having kids didn’t hurt so much? And what is it in us that allows us to forget all that and jump back in if we’ve experienced that pain? How does this relate to how we understand God’s love for us -- children who cause our Creator pain?

Adam gets sent to work. ‘Nuff said. Ouch.

Both Adam and Eve are walking, forlornly, toward a grim-reaper figure (death) who sits at the mouth of a cave leading to a very hot place. In this the painter pretty clearly illustrates a belief that sin leads to death and eternal suffering. This is definitely a later Christian interpretation of death and it’s consequences and goes beyond the Genesis story. We did not get into concepts of hell this time, but probably will get back to this at some point.

At the same time, the painting depicts Adam and Eve stumbling away from Eden, while an angel with a flaming sword prods their backsides. I noted how this angel looks an awful lot like another one painted to represent the serpent. It’s also kind of interesting, from an archetypal point of view, that, but for the wings, the angel rather resembles a Jedi knight with a light sabre. I hadn’t thought of a relationship between our conceptions of angels and the heroes of Star Wars before, but there might be something implicit there. Speaking of Obi Wan Kenobi, who died at the hands of evil Darth Vader and came back . . .

The upper left corner of the painting shows the crucifixion of Christ, with two thieves on either side. We see this scene as through a window, and it is placed up in the branches of the tree of knowledge. I think the painter wanted to illustrate God’s eternal plan and provision -- as in Adam all would die, so in Christ all would live (Romans). One of our class members mentioned the possibility that Adam and Eve, dressed in skins of animals, first experienced the grace of innocent shed blood. The painter might appreciate that additional interpretation within his “picture” of salvation.

Finally, the small additional scene in the upper right of the painting reveals the painter’s understanding of what needs to be done in light of everything else pictured. It is a scene of the baptism of a baby. No doubt this painter believed that the consequence of Adam and Eve’s disobedience is the problem of original sin, that God’s provision for salvation is the sacrifice of Christ, and so babies born in original sin must, as soon as possible, receive the grace of Christ through baptism. This is not our doctrine in the United Methodist Church, as noted previously. What would you have painted up in that corner, as representing what we must now do, in light of Christ’s sacrifice?

I think this painting presents some very interesting images, and some interesting views about what the story of Adam and Eve means. I see this artwork, also, as an example of what we all do: see the meaning of Biblical texts through our own personal, culturally conditioned “lenses”.

A study of these chapters would not be complete until we ask our personal questions:

1. What does this story tell YOU about God?
2. What does this story tell You about YOU?
3. What does this story tell you about your relationship with God?

Harrell Guard will be your teacher this week, Sunday, October 14. Read Genesis chapters 6-9, the saga of Noah and the flood.

In the Garden: the Problem of Sin

This week's lesson focused on Genesis chapter 3 and the disobedience of Adam and Eve.
We discussed various views of sin: 1) deviation from what is good 2) defiance toward God (rebelliousness) 3) the sinner's inner state (intentional badness) 4) ethical aspects (to be evil or wicked) 5) the terrible results of sin (trouble and sorrow) 6) sin as denoting guilt.

The serious of sin is separation from God. Oneness with God ws conceived as the sole source of well-being, and that apart from God people are lost sinners, unable to save themselves or find true happiness.

We reviewed the doctrine of original sin from St. Paul to St. Augustine to John Calvin. St. Paul, in Romans, gave a theological basis for sin in his observation that sin came to all people through one man, Adam, and righteousness is offered to all people through one man, Jesus Christ. St. Augustine instilled the idea of "original sin" in traditional beliefs, which teaches that even babies are born with the fatal infliction of sin and will go to hell if not baptized. Many people still believe this, though the doctrine is greatly challenged especially in Protestantism. However, John Calvin, a Swedish theologian and one of the founding personalities of what became the Presbyterian church, had strong opinions on this and insisted, upon threat of torture and death, that people agree with him.

We divided into small discussion groups and focused on three questions: 1) What is your definition of sin? 2) What do you believe about Adam's sin staining your soul at birth? 3) If there is "original sin", what does that mean for unbaptized babies?

The United Methodist Church views sin as a problem of will. Wesley described our weakness as will as a "bent toward sinning". Children are seen as born in grace and innocent of wrongdoing -- though in growing up will need to deal with this "bent" in themselves. The United Methodist Church practices baptism of infants as an affirmation of their place in God's family, the Church. When Jesus declared, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God" he was speaking of very small children (paidia) whom we would consider infants, wobblers, and toddlers.

For next week, please read Genesis, chapter 4. We will continue our discussion of sin in the context of the meaning of Genesis 3 and 4. Thanks for another great class & see you here or at St. Paul's UMC, 1730 St. Clair, at 10:00 Sunday October 7.

Harrell and Dan