The Muslims, when reading the Bible, are horrified by many things that are said about people whom they consider prophets. For example, Lot. They look at the story of Lot and his daughters and they're horrified, dismayed, disgusted, etc. After all, at the least Lot is supposed to be a good, righteous man and there he is, getting sloshed and having sex with his own daughters.
On the one hand, I can kind of understand the reaction. On the other, I think that they must not be reading the same text that I'm reading.
Here's part of the Genesis passages on Lot:
30 And
Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two
daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a
cave, he and his two daughters.
31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
37 And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.
Got it? Now of course the whole story goes back a deal further, it's actually all of Genesis 19. But the story is fairly well known, I believe. Lot lives in Sodom, which is a city that is drowning in its own wickedness and vice. There is some dispute over what, exactly, the Sodomites do that finally breaks the camels back as it were, but whatever it was, God decides that enough is enough and he's wiping them off the planet. Kind of like a bug bomb.
He hustles Lot and family out of town, since Lot is the only righteous man there. His wife and daughters' relative righteousness aren't really discussed, but one can guess that since Lot's wife made the mistake of looking back and got turned into a pillar of salt that she was either a) attached to the lifestyle there or b) worried about all the people that she liked there and how everyone she ever knew was getting cooked. One of those two.
So you have this family, running out of town as it all burns down around them, in the middle of nowhere. Mom turns into a pillar of salt, leaving two traumatised children (the girls are unmarried but of childbearing age, so let's call it 13/14 at the most back in the day) and their father.
Here's the key to my understanding of the girls' behavior. They thought that they were the last people on the planet. The last. Not just in town, or in the general vicinity, but on earth. They had no idea that it was only Sodom and Gomorrah that were being destroyed. Clearly Daddy Lot did not explain it to them for whatever reason. Add to that that incest of certain degrees was acceptable at the time, and it carried less of a taboo for them than it does for us. They were looking at the world, seeing one man and two women and wondering how the human race was supposed to continue being fruitful and multiplying.
I'm not saying that what they decided to do was *right*, just that they were working from a different mindset and faulty information.
What they decide to do is essentially roofie their father and then rape him.
Because that's what it's called when you get someone stinking drunk and have sex with them without their consent.
Did Lot get drunk? Yes. But it's not clear how willing a participant he was in that.With Lot being all super righteous, he may not have ever taken alcohol before. He may have not realized that they were plying him with stronger than what he was used to. And even if he did willingly drink himself into a stupor, having just witnessed a genocide and the death of his wife by salting, it's kind of understandable that he might want to just black out and wake up tomorrow.
Not very wise, but understandable.
It doesn't make him at fault for what happened next.
31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
37 And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.
Got it? Now of course the whole story goes back a deal further, it's actually all of Genesis 19. But the story is fairly well known, I believe. Lot lives in Sodom, which is a city that is drowning in its own wickedness and vice. There is some dispute over what, exactly, the Sodomites do that finally breaks the camels back as it were, but whatever it was, God decides that enough is enough and he's wiping them off the planet. Kind of like a bug bomb.
He hustles Lot and family out of town, since Lot is the only righteous man there. His wife and daughters' relative righteousness aren't really discussed, but one can guess that since Lot's wife made the mistake of looking back and got turned into a pillar of salt that she was either a) attached to the lifestyle there or b) worried about all the people that she liked there and how everyone she ever knew was getting cooked. One of those two.
So you have this family, running out of town as it all burns down around them, in the middle of nowhere. Mom turns into a pillar of salt, leaving two traumatised children (the girls are unmarried but of childbearing age, so let's call it 13/14 at the most back in the day) and their father.
Here's the key to my understanding of the girls' behavior. They thought that they were the last people on the planet. The last. Not just in town, or in the general vicinity, but on earth. They had no idea that it was only Sodom and Gomorrah that were being destroyed. Clearly Daddy Lot did not explain it to them for whatever reason. Add to that that incest of certain degrees was acceptable at the time, and it carried less of a taboo for them than it does for us. They were looking at the world, seeing one man and two women and wondering how the human race was supposed to continue being fruitful and multiplying.
I'm not saying that what they decided to do was *right*, just that they were working from a different mindset and faulty information.
What they decide to do is essentially roofie their father and then rape him.
Because that's what it's called when you get someone stinking drunk and have sex with them without their consent.
Did Lot get drunk? Yes. But it's not clear how willing a participant he was in that.
Not very wise, but understandable.
It doesn't make him at fault for what happened next.
So...yeah. In a round about way, that's what bothers me about the Muslim issue with the story of Lot in the Bible. They view it as such a slur on Lot's behavior, that such a man could never be a prophet, but just...I don't see where (aside from the alcohol thing, which I get but there's some room there to say that he might not have known what exactly was going down) Lot did anything wrong.
I might get in trouble for saying it was his daughters at fault, but that's the way I see it. They forced sex on him, not the other way around.
I see your point with this, but really, my issue with calling Lot a 'good and righteous man', lies in the earlier part of the story (and this is in both the Bible and the Qur'an).
ReplyDeleteSo the angels visit Lot, and the angry mob outside want to anally rape them (remember, Sodom and Gomorrah is not a story of homosexuality, but of lack of hospitality, and generally atrocious behaviour, y'know, such as wanting to rape someone anally - which has nothing to do with consensual homosexual relationships). Lot gets a great idea, I'll offer up my virgin daughters for rape instead. Because, y'know, this is what a good and righteous man does.
A good point, and I did think about that when I was writing the post but that's not the part of the story that I have ever heard any Muslims complaining about, so it was sort of tangential to the post. Like you say, it's in the Qur'an as well, so they can't really sit there and say, 'Well look at what a disgusting story the Bible has about Lot!' because it's theirs too.
DeleteAnd I would never argue that Lot turning around and going, 'No, no, you can't rape my guests, but here. How about some nice virgin daughter instead?' is not terrible and cringe inducing on an epic scale, but considering the time...
I would question whether or not it would have even been 'counted' as rape in that setting. Would it have been rape as we understand it now? Yes. Absolutely. And Lot, were he a person alive today, should be in jail, rooming with a large, *very* lonely man. But at the time, women were property. It would have been rape if the men had taken Lot's daughters without his permission, but since Lot was offering, wouldn't it have become...*waves hands as she searches for a word*...according to the mindset of the time, 'okay'?
Because going on the understanding that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about hospitality and the duties of a host towards his guest, etc., then Lot was doing the 'correct' thing in protecting his guests and offering an 'acceptable' alternative.
Thereby feeding into the idea that Lot is so good and righteous. Because he was a good host, aware of his responsibilities and doing his best to carry them out.
Amber!! So glad you're back! OK, I know you've been posting some, but I was missing these kinds of posts being in the mix. You always offer such interesting perspectives. I hated when that Muslim lady stopped reading the OT and posting her notes because I SO ENJOYED reading your thoughts on what she wrote. :)
ReplyDeleteI think what I like about you is that you try to understand the culture and the context of things so they aren't cut-and-dry horrible as we make them out to be when we view them from OUR cultural context. Thank you for doing this. You are a good teacher!
I'll try and be more thinky and less OMG *FLAIL* AVENGERS! all the time. :D It's difficult though, I swear. I have so many feelings about the movie that I cannot adequately express.
DeleteI do try to understand the culture, but it's hard sometimes. You look at a story like this and there's really no good viewpoint on it.
Yes according to the laws of the time Lot offering his daughters would have been acceptable. There is no universal morality and often it is subject to culture. This is one of those situations. We think it is wrong because it is wrong in our time and culture.
ReplyDeleteDevelopments in morality are always so fascinating. How they change in place and time.
That's what I thought. It's one of those things, rather like Mohammed's marriage to Aisha, where we look at it with modern eyes and morality and cringe. It's very easy to point fingers and start yelling about how terrible such and such a person was because they did all these things that we view as immoral. It's hard to step back and try to understand what the morality of the time was and how it would inform what was acceptable behavior and what wasn't.
DeleteWhile I completely understand your points about seeing things within the cultural framework, my problem is that these books are supposed to be'eternal' and 'holy' - and I do not see eternal guidance within these things.
ReplyDeleteIf God is eternal and speaks to people at all times and at all ages, then this behaviour should've been condemned - otherwise the standards are not eternal and not for all people.
And also, I will not accept something as morally okay when it is something which hurt another person, whether or not it was accepted at the time. I will not accept that slavery is okay, just because it was accepted at the time, and I will not accept that pedophilia or rape is okay, just because it was accepted at the time.
my problem is that these books are supposed to be 'eternal' and 'holy' - and I do not see eternal guidance within these things. If God is eternal and speaks to people at all times and at all ages, then this behaviour should've been condemned - otherwise the standards are not eternal and not for all people.
DeleteI'm not really arguing that. I agree that all religious text are flawed. They were written by men in a specific time and place and they heavily reflect the morals and attitudes of the time. By viewing them as 'eternal' and 'holy' and 'perfect' I think we're missing out on what they really are, which is a window into the mindsets of the people that came before us. We're missing out on being able to see just how far we have come. We can also see how far we have to go.
I do wonder what the generations that come after us will think about what we leave behind. I imagine that they'll be just as horrified by what we found acceptable as we do what was acceptable in ancient times.
Being able to understand the behavior and why it was considered culturally and morally acceptable in the time frame that it happened is not necessarily the same as approving of it or holding it up as an example of what should be done. I understand why many ancient cultures used to practice human sacrifice. By no stretch of the imagination does that mean that I think it would be okay now. But the truth is that, if we were born in that time and in that culture, we would more than likely find it not only perfectly acceptable, but absolutely necessary.
And also, I will not accept something as morally okay when it is something which hurt another person, whether or not it was accepted at the time. I will not accept that slavery is okay, just because it was accepted at the time, and I will not accept that pedophilia or rape is okay, just because it was accepted at the time.
I'm not saying that you should, and if that's what you got out of what I said, then I'm sorry but you misunderstood me. I just find it...how can I sit here and say that every person who ever did something that our changing morality now condemns were terrible people and scum of the earth? There is no moral constant. There is no base that people start from where they understand that x, y and z are morally reprehensible. How can I get up in a moral froth over people who just plain did not know better and had no way of knowing better?
Those who continue such attitudes and behavior in current times are different. And maybe it's a false divide that I've created in my own mind. That's absolutely a possibility. But the people who, for instance, enslave others in modernity? They do it in the full knowledge that it is morally wrong. (Most of them. I'm sure there's someone out there, somewhere, who believe that they really are superior enough to another human being that enslaving them is hunky dory. They'd be a crazy asshole and I cannot account for every bit of insanity everywhere.) They just don't care. They're more interested in the money, etc. etc. that they can make.
I could go on but I'm guessing that this is just becoming too long.
So, TL,DR: comprehension of historic morality and culture and allowing it to inform you views and opinions on people acting in those historic times and places <> accepting those same actions as moral or appropriate in our current time and culture.
I'm not really arguing that. I agree that all religious text are flawed. They were written by men in a specific time and place and they heavily reflect the morals and attitudes of the time. By viewing them as 'eternal' and 'holy' and 'perfect' I think we're missing out on what they really are, which is a window into the mindsets of the people that came before us. We're missing out on being able to see just how far we have come. We can also see how far we have to go
DeleteI didn't mean to say that you meant that the religious text were perfect or holy, the point I meant to make is that many people do believe this - and this is why it's important to show the flaws, because this text for example is used to justify homophobia.
I do wonder what the generations that come after us will think about what we leave behind. I imagine that they'll be just as horrified by what we found acceptable as we do what was acceptable in ancient times.
Excellent question!
I'm not saying that you should, and if that's what you got out of what I said, then I'm sorry but you misunderstood me. I just find it...how can I sit here and say that every person who ever did something that our changing morality now condemns were terrible people and scum of the earth? There is no moral constant. There is no base that people start from where they understand that x, y and z are morally reprehensible. How can I get up in a moral froth over people who just plain did not know better and had no way of knowing better?
I didn't mean to say that it's the same as something doing something with our modern understanding (i.e., knowing that it's wrong)
Those who continue such attitudes and behavior in current times are different. And maybe it's a false divide that I've created in my own mind. That's absolutely a possibility. But the people who, for instance, enslave others in modernity? They do it in the full knowledge that it is morally wrong. (Most of them. I'm sure there's someone out there, somewhere, who believe that they really are superior enough to another human being that enslaving them is hunky dory. They'd be a crazy asshole and I cannot account for every bit of insanity everywhere.) They just don't care. They're more interested in the money, etc. etc. that they can make.
This is where I think we disagree. You see, I don't think anyone ever seriously thought that slavery was completely okay - or, even more scary, that mindset still exists among much of our upperclass who very much so feels above the underclass.
Also, does this mean we shouldn't care about underage marriage in other countries? Because it's part of the culture and morally acceptable in those places? Because if you are going to judge these things going on today, I don't think it's wrong to judge what went on back then. That's not to say I don't understand that things were different, and I don't so much condemn Lot, as the whole situation. Same way as I wouldn't condemn the illiterate woman who marries of her 12-year-old daughter to a much older man. But that doesn't make it right. And I still condemn the situation and the practice.
many people do believe this - and this is why it's important to show the flaws, because this text for example is used to justify homophobia.
DeleteBut even pointing out the flaws in the texts, how many people do you think that that really impacts? It's not as though the flaws are new, They've always been there. It does get through to some, and they either leave the religion or take a less 'the text is 100% accurate, no deviations!' stance but how many more just argue that you're twisting things and not understanding because you don't have faith?
This is where I think we disagree. You see, I don't think anyone ever seriously thought that slavery was completely okay - or, even more scary, that mindset still exists among much of our upperclass who very much so feels above the underclass.
We do disagree if you think that everyone who ever owned a slave or profited from it knew that it was wrong and did it anyway. The culture(s) (because more than one culture has practiced slavery of course, though we tend to just think about the Europeans enslaving the Africans when we think about it) justified it to themselves through various means. They believed that it was acceptable and right.
Also, does this mean we shouldn't care about underage marriage in other countries? Because it's part of the culture and morally acceptable in those places? Because if you are going to judge these things going on today, I don't think it's wrong to judge what went on back then. That's not to say I don't understand that things were different, and I don't so much condemn Lot, as the whole situation. Same way as I wouldn't condemn the illiterate woman who marries of her 12-year-old daughter to a much older man. But that doesn't make it right. And I still condemn the situation and the practice.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. And you can absolutely call me a hypocrite for saying that we need to educate/help those people who are living in these places and cultures to see that there is a better way and that marrying off their children like that is harmful to the child but not being angry that it happened in the past. There are people now that are suffering and could be helped. Nothing can be done about those who suffered in the past and...*raises hands* I just can't get angry about it. I'm not even angry about it happening in modern times. Dismayed and saddened? Yes. Angry? No. They do it because they believe it's right and appropriate. I disagree and while I don't think that we have the right to demand that they change their culture, I think we have an obligation to show them that there are other options and allow them to choose.
We do disagree if you think that everyone who ever owned a slave or profited from it knew that it was wrong and did it anyway. The culture(s) (because more than one culture has practiced slavery of course, though we tend to just think about the Europeans enslaving the Africans when we think about it) justified it to themselves through various means. They believed that it was acceptable and right.
DeleteI know that there are several cultures who have practised slavery, and I think to a certain degree it's still practised today. I think you are right in that people justify it through various means, but that doesn't mean you really think it's okay.
I justify having an iPhone because I think it's the best phone for my needs, but I still know it's not really okay to in this way put my needs above the factory workers in China who are being treated like dirt.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. And you can absolutely call me a hypocrite for saying that we need to educate/help those people who are living in these places and cultures to see that there is a better way and that marrying off their children like that is harmful to the child but not being angry that it happened in the past.
Hypocrite! ;)
I understand your point, and I wouldn't as much say I'm angry about what's happened in the past - I'm angry that is being used to justify things happening now.
And I agree with you that we cant' demand people change their culture, only show them that there are other options.
I think it's going to be hard to decide one way or the other for certain whether or not they really, truly believed that it was okay. Even if you take what people wrote, justifying slavery, there is still the argument that they were merely justifying it to themselves and to the world rather than that they honestly believed that it was wrong. It's kind of asking us to be mind readers and I don't know about you, but that is not among my skill set. :)
DeleteI tend to think that some of them did believe that it was not only perfectly acceptable, but the way that the world was meant to work. That they were (in the case of European enslavement of Africans and other native peoples) actually doing the 'poor heathens' a favor by taking them out of their 'filthy hovels' and Christianizing them through.
re: your iPhone - but if you felt strongly enough about the plight of the people who have to make your iPhone, wouldn't you give up the iPhone and make do with something that isn't as perfect for you, but allows you to use it with a clear conscience? Because iPhone's are lovely, but they aren't necessary for life. (Note: I'm not saying that you have to give up the iPhone. I feel sorry for animals that are kept inhumanely before being slaughtered for my food. I do things to support companies who don't treat their animals this way, applying pressure to make the others change. I don't stop eating meat.)
Re the phone, that was sort of my point. That sometimes we choose our battles. So even if we think something is wrong, we make do. We focus on other things. Same thing as meat, I try to buy most of my meat from organic, grass-fed sources, but it's not always available and I can't always afford it (again some would say better priorities would mean I could afford it, say, get rid of the phone).
DeleteAbout the phone, well, I'm not sure any other smartphone companies treat their workers any better (as far as I know, no one have come out to say well we would never do that), often focus is just put on "the big guy".
So again, priorities, you can't focus on it all, and you can't fix everything, and yes, that is a justification - we all have them, and we need them to live and to be able to sleep at night.
In the big book I'm reading now, the author mentions two worldwide philosophies and one was that some people were born to be free and others born to serve them. Not sure how many of their consciences were bothered thinking that way, but apparently it was the way some people in the past justified enslaving others.
Delete(FWIW, the other thought was all people are created with inherent rights just because they are part of the human race.)
I think Aristotle was mentioned as believing in the some-born-to-be-slaves thinking.
Kind of like predestination, yes? Or the caste system in India and other countries. You're born to the level that you're meant to be at and you can never ever change it. It's just gods will/karma/natural.
DeleteI was reminded, reading an article about marriage equality and the ridiculousness of the claims that marriage has 'always been between one man and one woman', that until fairly recently in history mixed race marriages were considered unnatural. Because people of different races (non-caucasian) were considered to be more like animals.
Yes exactly! Good examples.
DeleteAlternate thoughts on Lot's wife: There's really no indication that she was told not to look back. Lot was, and so people tend to assume they were all there together and everyone should know. But Lot is the only named character, it's his experience that matters, and it's entirely possible the women in his family were off doing woman-y things like cooking and cleaning, not being part of the conversation. This could easily be Lot's failing, in the same way that one interpretation of Eden is that Adam sinned first by misquoting God to Eve (since she seems to think that even touching the tree will lead to her death, something that was never told to Adam in the text). So if Lot's wife has no idea what's going on, why they're running, or what they're supposed to do (and not supposed to do), it's completely understandable that she'd look back for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with her character. She might have just wanted to see what all the commotion was behind her, or even might not have noticed anything bad happening and just wondered why they were leaving their house. As you say, Lot did a terrible job communicating the situation to his daughters. There's really no reason to think he did any better for his wife.
ReplyDeleteNit-picky thing: "With Lot being all super righteous, he may not have ever taken alcohol before."
Yeah, except drinking alcohol wasn't un-righteous at the time. That's a very modern view, back then it was just part of life. It's unlikely Lot would have thought of alcohol as something to avoid for any sort of moral reasons. At the time of Israel in the desert, there were definitely some people who avoided alcohol, but it had to do with specific vows and was in the same category as not cutting their hair, for example. It's not that they're more righteous for not drinking alcohol, it's just a thing that separates them from everybody else and is sort of a sacrifice. Even priests can drink alcohol, to put that into perspective, so it's not a purity issue. Even when it comes to outright getting drunk, there wouldn't necessarily have been anything wrong with that in the eyes of people at the time. Proverbs 31:6-7 actually suggest getting someone with a heavy heart so drunk they forget their own name!
At the same time, however, I can't remember seeing a Biblical reference to Lot as a righteous man. My understanding is that he was saved because of his relationship to Abraham, because God held Abraham in high enough regard to let him in on his plans and even to question his actions and make judgments about whether God's actions are just. I don't see Lot acting as a righteous man, just a man who keeps the cultural standards of hospitality he was taught (probably by Abraham). His only "good" actions here are about defending his honor by being a good host, not actually being a decent person, or he wouldn't have offered up his daughters. I have to agree that Lot as he's described in the Bible does not have the character we'd expect from a prophet, though I realize my reasons are different. I think you're right to say his daughter's actions aren't his fault and that part of the story doesn't make him less righteous.
Oooh...oh, hey, you know, that never even crossed my mind. But that makes a lot of sense.
DeleteSo basically, Lot's a terrible, terrible communicator who got his wife killed. Lovely.
Your nit-pick: True enough. I strike that argument! The consumption of alcohol was normal back then, and it's only seen as 'bad' in certain circles nowadays anyway.
I don't think that Lot was ever referred to as righteous in the Bible either, but that's the whole Muslim thing, that he was a prophet and righteous, so he couldn't have done such terrible things.
Really, if you start looking at the people in the Bible, most of them are less than 'righteous', even the ones that are supposed to be.
You know what I'm wondering, is the act ever actually condemned in the Bible? I mean Lot's daughters sleeping with him. I can't recall that it was, but I don't know it as well as some people do. As I recall, and from rereading for this post, it's just, 'and then Lot's daughters made with the sex and had babies by their dad. Here's their names.'
Was Lot actually righteous (according to the Bible)?
DeleteGreat question! I actually had to go back and check, because I thought maybe I got Islam and Christianity mixed up (it happens), cause according to Islam Lot was a prophet, and therefore righteous and good (as in Islam all prophets are believed to be righteous and good.)
So, OT doesn't say anything about whether Lot was righteous or not (side note, Lot's daughter could not have believed there were no people left because it says God gave Lot permission to flee to a small nearby city by the name of Zoar, which they later left).
So I did a quick Google, and it seems that in NT it is said that Lot was righteous (and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men) 2 Peter 2:7 NIV.
Didn't see your reply 'til now Amber!
DeleteI don't think Lot having sex with his daughters (consensual or otherwise) was ever condemned in the Bible. At least not to my knowledge.
***
So, interestingly enough Google led me to this article: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrincest.htm
Which says that the sons became the origin for the Moabites and the Ammonites - enimies of Israel.
Make of that what you want.
*frowns at the text* It says they left Zoar right there, right before the daughter says that there are no more men on the earth.
Delete30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
Clearly I'm getting my Sunday school version of this story mixed up with the text because I kept thinking that the cave thing happened as they were fleeing Sodom. As in, sky is on fire and they hide in a cave. Damn Sunday school.
Okay, so they *obviously* knew that there were other people still alive. So...I don't know. *thinks* Maybe they were unaware of the rest of their family? The extended tribe, I mean, which would have been the acceptable people for them to marry and have children of the tribe. But even then...
So basically, this story makes no sense in a literal way.
*decides that Lot's daughters were actually pregnant when they left Zoar and they just told him that it was from him they were pregnant*
So I did a quick Google, and it seems that in NT it is said that Lot was righteous (and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men) 2 Peter 2:7 NIV.
Yeah, and a few thousand years after I'm dead, I want to be known as Captain Wigglesworth the Magnificent. Because no one will call me that right now. >:(
re the Moabites & Ammonites - it does list that in the text, but it's a very roundabout way of saying NO! Bad! if that's what it was meant for.
DeleteClearly I'm getting my Sunday school version of this story mixed up with the text because I kept thinking that the cave thing happened as they were fleeing Sodom. As in, sky is on fire and they hide in a cave. Damn Sunday school.
DeleteI know! I thought so too, if it's any consolation, I only noticed as I was reading the text to check the whole righteous thing.
Yeah, and a few thousand years after I'm dead, I want to be known as Captain Wigglesworth the Magnificent. Because no one will call me that right now. >:(
I didn't mean for that to say that he was righteous, but clearly there must've been a (Jewish?) consensus that he was, otherwise it would've make sense to put it there.
And I only noticed because I was looking up the chapter and verse numbers again so that I could look up the Zoar section. And there it was. o.O
Delete*laughs* Oh, I know. I was just kidding. I really would like to be called Captain Wigglesworth the Magnificent though. Not in real life, just posthumously.
Okay Captain Wigglesworth the Magnifiscent, can you please turn off your captcha check phrase it's driving me nuts :P
DeleteIs Mycroft acting up again? *wanders off to speak to him*
DeleteThe Zoar thing is tricky, but I'm still going to say it's entirely possible the girls still didn't know. It doesn't give any indication of the duration of time they spent there, only that they left it. And if they had just been told by their father to leave one city that then burnt to the ground and now they're leaving their new city, how would you interpret that?
ReplyDeleteThere is no moral judgment given on the daughters having sex with their father. I remember reading a commentary or two that suggested it was meant as a way of describing the origin of the tribes around Israel in an insulting way while tying it in with their own history. In that case, it might be that it's not really a moral wrong at that point (since the Torah hadn't been given yet, just like Adam and Eve's kids would have to marry each other if they are interpreted as the only people in the world), but it might have been understood as something people don't do anymore and sort of looked down on, and so Israelites might have told this story while sort of snickering about their backwards incestuous enemies.
I do think it's interesting that Lot's referred to as righteous in the NT, but it doesn't mean there was a Jewish tradition of seeing Lot as righteous. 2 Peter has a very Greek style of writing and scholars don't believe the author was actually Peter, but someone writing in his name (a common practice in ancient times - it wasn't considered a lie, they had the authority of the named and known teacher by virtue of at some point having been instructed by them). This encyclopedia article suggests Jews generally don't see Lot as a less than righteous person. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10122-lot I think the author of 2 Peter likely misinterpreted and used the story of Lot to further his point, without taking Jewish interpretation into consideration.
You know what the huge problem is with all these texts in general? They are translations of translations of translations. Then edited to fit whichever sect, denomination, etc they belong to. So who knows what the story really was to begin with!
ReplyDeleteLot's story is odd. I'm not even sure what moral we are to derive from it.
Maybe there really isn't a moral to learn from it unless you want find one of course, and it's just as Amber mentioned way up there "a window into the mindsets of the people that came before us" or even just their history told in a matter-of-fact way.
DeleteNot everything in the Bible is cut-and-dry this action is wrong; this action is right. Sometimes the story is just presented and we are left to draw our own conclusions.
For instance I've heard many people say the Bible discourages polygyny because nearly every example presented in the Old Testament is of a tense situation. There are few - if any - happy,loving polygamous marriages talked about in the Bible. Instead we have the strife between Sarah and Hagar (which some credit to the conflict between Jews and Arabs to this day!), the jealousy between Rachel and Leah. Hannah and her husband's other wife. I would never read the OT and say, "Oh man, living as a co-wife seems like such a wonderful way to live. Andrew, how about you take another wife next year." :)
I'm glad Sanil mentioned it because I've also read the theory about this story simply presenting the Israelites' enemies in an unflattering way. They were Israelite kinfolk - much like Arabs today - yet they are presented as products of incest. The Bible is about the Israelites - the chosen people. So why not present others in a less-than-flattering way especially if, by comparison, you appear more special?
If we want to say Peter did think of Lot as righteous maybe it's his seeing the good in him rather than focusing on the bad. Kind of like David is referred to as a man after God's own heart yet I tend to see an adulterer and murderer. Maybe that's God's grace and mercy vs. my opinion which is less than merciful quite often.
On top of them being translations of translations, you know what another problem is? There's a portion of the population that doesn't realize that. I personally know one person who considers herself a Christian but did not know that the Bible was originally written in something other than English. Or that it didn't get handed over as a single volume as it is now.
DeleteSusanne,
DeleteYou know what I have a problem with, upon reflection on my own remembrance of this story and then rereading the text?
I've read this chapter of the Bible before. Not a whole lot, but I've read it two or three times. And I *still*, when I think about it without referring directly to the text, remember it differently. I remember it the way it was taught in Sunday school and the truth is that they're teaching it wrong.
I get that they teach it in a simpler, edited manner because of the age group, but I really think that they're doing a disservice to the kids who are going to grow up and have this (what they learn in Sunday school) be the only understanding that they have of the Bible. They should either teach it as it is or not teach it at all until the children are at an age that they can understand it.
re: it presenting the Israelite's enemies in a bad light: That's the most likely explanation for the children being named that way, but there's still no outright condemnation of the act that creates those children, not even in any later books of the Bible that reference the story of Lot. So I'm guessing that it's one of those things that started out as just a story that happened/supposedly happened and then as the political climate changed it was interpreted to say, 'Look, see, our enemies are the product of such an unnatural act! That is why God wants us to destroy them!'
Or, whoever wrote 2 Peter had taken a personal liking to Lot. People do that with historical (and mythological) characters. For example, my history crush of Augustus Caesar. I might praise him in a situation where others wouldn't, because I have a great deal of affection for him.
I get that they teach it in a simpler, edited manner because of the age group, but I really think that they're doing a disservice to the kids who are going to grow up and have this (what they learn in Sunday school) be the only understanding that they have of the Bible. They should either teach it as it is or not teach it at all until the children are at an age that they can understand it.
DeleteSo much yes! I feel the exact same way about so many passages of the Bible.
Amber, in what ways did you learn this story differently in Sunday School? The thinking that the girls might have thought they were the last people alive? Or was there more that I missed?
DeleteI like your example of Augustus Caesar and what you said about people taking a personal liking to someone (like Lot). I wonder if this is why King David was (is?) so well-liked even though, in my opinion, he's such a loser in many aspects.
Hmmm, I just thought of something else. When God told Abraham he was going to destroy Sodom, is this not when Abraham tried to bargain with God saying if God found 50 then 40 then 20 then 10 (or whatever) righteous people there He would not destroy it? So was Lot and his family considered the only righteous people and that's why they were able to leave? Or was Lot and family sent out because God liked Abraham so much and Lot benefited from his being related to Abraham? Maybe Peter considered Lot righteous because of his interpretation of these events. What do you think?
This is when Abraham was bargained with God and I always thought it was because he was righteous he was saved (although when I checked that it didn't explicitly state that).
DeleteWell, I was taught that they went straight to a cave. Zoar was never mentioned. They of course left out the incest in the lessons because really, how do you explain that appropriately to elementary age kids?
DeleteIt's not that the teachers lied, by any means, but that the way that they told the stories has stuck with me. And I assume with others. So much so that even to this day I think that that's the way it's written out unless I actively look at the text. And even then I can miss things. Maybe it's a flaw with me, but I think that this has to be the way that a lot of people remember the Bible and that that informs their religion rather than what's actually contained within the text.
For example, how many people do you think remember that not only did Moses throw a fit when he came down the mountain with the first tablets with the Law, but that he also ordered the slaughter of a good portion of his own people? Very few would be my bet.
re: Abraham bargaining with God and Lot - that's one interpretation and that may have been the one that the author of 2 Peter was working off of. The bargaining is in Genesis 18 and I don't see any mention of Lot at all. It's just Abraham trying to get God to spare the town and ultimately failing since not even 10 righteous men could be found there. There's no line where Abraham goes, 'Well, but what about my nephew Lot? *He's* a righteous man!' We can guess that God spared Lot for the sake of Abraham's love of him, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Lot was righteous. Just that God was keeping Abraham happy.
I think this type of post should be a regular feature on your blog. See how interesting it is to discuss? I read it this morning - 1 comment before mine. Now there are 25! :)
ReplyDeleteOff to read to see if I have more to say ...
;)
I think that's just proof that Becky and I have feelings about things and like to talk. :D
DeleteHaha! Yes, maybe! Oh well, I enjoyed it. :)
DeleteTrue, maybe it is just a history lesson :)
ReplyDelete