JEF Sunday School Lesson #8

Lesson 8: Genesis 13-14, 18-19

Chapter 13

Verses 1-2: Are there elements in Abram’s journey to Canaan that typify Israel’s later exodus from Egypt?

Verse 1: Notice the difference in the way the families are described in Genesis 12:5 and here. Does anything in these verses suggest a change in the family situation? If yes, of what sort? Notice that journeys from Egypt to Canaan are said to be “up” and journey’s from Canaan to Egypt are said to be “down.” We might use the same metaphors because of the way we have constructed the map of the world, with Canaan higher on the map than Egypt. But why would ancient people have used that metaphor?

Verse 2: What is the point of this detail? Does the comment about their wealth in verse 6 explain it, or is it here for some other reason? The word used for “rich” in Hebrew means “heavy.” It is used to describe Abram’s wealth and also the famine (Genesis 12:1). Any wealth that a nomad had beyond his flocks would have to be carried by camel and it would be a heavy for them, so the word makes sense. Was Abram’s wealth a burden to him in any other sense?

Verse 3: Why does Abram go back to the place where he had built an altar? (See Genesis 12:7).

Verses 5-7: What is happening to Abram’s family here? He has already been blessed that he will be a great nation (Genesis 12:2). What would Abram think about that blessing at this point? Might there be anything deeper to this strife than an argument over pasturage? Does Genesis 18:19 suggest something about the difference between Lot and Abram? Why is the story of Abraham’s blessings interrupted by this story of strife? Not every detail of Abraham’s life is included, so when a detail is included, we must assume that there is a reason for including it. We must also give the writer some credit for placing details where he does. So, why does Moses mention Abraham’s wealth, and why here?

Verse 6: What reason does this verse give for the land being unable to bear them? What does that mean? (What was the main way in which wealth was held?)

Verse 7: Why is it important that we know that the Canaanites and the Perizzites (a tribe usually grouped with the Canaanites) dwelt there? Why does the writer think it is important to include that editorial note?

Verses 8-13: Abram says, “Let there be no strife [i.e., quarreling], I pray thee, between me and thee.” The immediate reference is to what has just happened between their herdsmen: “Let’s not continue that.” Does this warning also point forward to anything? The King James translation hides something interesting in the text. In Hebrew, at the end of verse 8 Abram says “for we be men and brothers.” The KJV elides that into merely “brothers,” which is a legitimate translation. However, what might the original text mean by “men and brothers.” What point is Abram making? If Abram has been given all of the land, why is he willing to be so generous in giving it up (verse 9)? Should his generosity be a model for the behavior of his descendants? Verses 11-12 show Lot choosing to live in the edge of Canaan, if not even beyond it. (Compare Genesis 10:19.) What is the significance of his choice? Is he turning his back on the Abramic blessing? Does separation from Abram mean, for Lot, separation from Abram’s blessing? If not, how does Lot continue to be part of that blessing? In verse 13 we see a rhetorical form that the Bible uses often. It is called “hendiadys,” which means “two for one.” The people of Sodom are describe as “wicked and sinners.” That is a way of saying “wicked sinners.” Did Lot know what kind of men lived in the land he had chosen? Why did he choose that land? What was the sin of Sodom? (See Ezekiel 16:48-50.) What did we see in chapter 14 that suggested the same thing?

Verses 14-18: Why did the Lord repeat his blessing to Abram (verses 14-16)? Compare the wording of verse 15 with the wording of the same blessing in Genesis 12:7. Why is this wording much fuller? What do we learn from this wording that we didn’t learn earlier? Verse 19 ends the chapter as it began, with Abram settling down. Why do you think the story of this chapter is framed in this way?

Chapter 14

Verses 1-12: Why have Amphral, Arioch, Chedorloamer, and Tidal invaded the Jordan valley? The kings of Sodom and Gommorah have striking names, for they are made of words that, in Hebrew, mean “evil” and “wicked.” How would you explain that?

Verses 11-12: Why is verse 11 important to what we will later learn about Sodom and Gomorrah? Why did the kings take Lot captive?

Verses 13-16: This is the first occurrence of the word “Hebrew” in the Bible. One reasonable assumption of the meaning of “Hebrew” is that it means “someone from the other side.” (See the discussion of Genesis 12:1 in the materials for lesson 7.) Another is that it refers to the Habiru, a general term for outsiders (foreign slaves, mercenaries, and especially marauders). What might these meanings for that word tell us about how Abraham was perceived in Canaan? “They were confederate with Abram” might better be translated “They had made a covenant with Abram.” What kind of covenant would Abram and the Amorites have entered into (verse 13)? What does verse 14 mean when it refers to trained servants? What was the point of this story for those hearing it in ancient Israel? What might its point be for us?

Verses 17-21: Is there any irony in Abram being greeted by the king of Sodom, on the one hand, and the king of Salem, Melchizedek, on the other (verses 17-18) ? How might we find a spiritual meaning in that irony? These verses seem to be rhetorically structured as a chiasm:

A: The king of Sodom meets Abram
B: The king of Salem meets Abram
B’: The king of Salem offers Abram a blessing
A’: The king of Sodom offers Abram a deal

Is that structure anything more than a good story telling technique? Notice that the structure is followed by Abram’s reply: he refuses to take his share of the booty. What do you make of the fact that the story presents this as one episode: the king of Sodom and the king of Salem come to meet Abraham at the same time.?

The name “Melchizedek” is composed of two words, melek and tsaddiq. The second of these means “righteous.” (See the notes for lesson 6 for more about tsaddiq.) The first of these words is a general term for a ruler, from the king on down. So the name “Melchizedek” probably means “my king is righteous.” (The names “Adonizedek” in Joshua 10:1 and “Zadok,” David’s high priest (e.g., 2 Samuel 15:24-29) are related names). Genesis is filled with genealogies showing the connections of the prophets. Why is there nothing in those genealogies about Melchizedek? (In the Bible, he appears only here, in Psalms 110:4, and in Hebrews.) Compare the additional material given in the Inspired Translation of Genesis 14:17-40, Hebrews 7:1-3, as well as what we find in Alma 13:14-19, and D&C 84:14 and 107:1-4.) Assuming that Joseph’s inspired translation here gives us information that was originally in the Bible, why might it have been removed? Melchizedek offers Abram bread and wine. Is this symbolic, or is it merely an offering of a meal to a hungry returning army? What had the King of Sodom offered? So what? Note: In verse 19, many translators translate Abram’s blessing as “maker of heaven and earth” rather than “possessor of heaven and earth,” as the King James version has it. What might that alternate translation suggest? How could Abraham be a maker of the heaven and the earth?

Verses 21-24: According to ancient custom, the victor had full rights to the spoils of war. Why would Abram have pledged to take nothing, in other words, none of the spoils of war, from Abram? After all, Abram was the commander-in-chief of the winning army. What does verse 21 show us about the king of Sodom? How does Abram’s behavior toward the king of Sodom contrast with his behavior toward Melchizedek? What is the difference and why does he behave differently? How does Abram’s attitude contrast with that of the king of Sodom? What does that difference portend? In verse 22, the phrase “I have lift up mine hand” means “I have solemnly sworn.” The Hebrew word translated “made rich” in verse 23 has a root that is almost identical to that of the word translated “tithed” in verse 20. What does that connection do in this story?

Chapter 18

Verses 1-2: Some have pointed out that this story begins without explicitly naming Abraham: “he sat in his tent” rather than “Abraham sat in his tent.” They suggest that this shows this to be part of a series of stories that are to be understood together. So what? Why does the writer tell us where Abraham was sitting and what time of day it was? Why would Abraham have gone to his tent during the heat of the day? Why does Abraham jump up and run to greet these visitors? Does he know what kind of visitors they are? It isn’t uncommon for people to run to greet others or to bow down to those in power. (See Genesis 29:13 and Genesis 42:6.) However, these visitors are not yet known to Abraham to be either, so why does he bow down in this way?

Verses 3-5: As does Abraham’s initial greeting, what he says to the visitors can be understood on two levels, that of a greeting to three human visitors and that of a greeting to the Lord. Why does he use the singular when he addresses his visitors, rather than the plural? Notice that Abraham underplays the thirst of his visitors—”I won’t fetch a lot of water, just a little, just enough to slake your thirst,” as it were—and it underplays the feast he is going to prepare: “a morsel of bread [probably like a piece of pita bread].” Why does he do that?

Verses 6-8: Is it significant that Abraham runs to fetch the calf rather than having a servant do it? “Three seahs of meal” seems to be about 8 liters. Why so much bread for three guests? According to Word Biblical Commentary (2:47), the phrase translated “fine meal” appears elsewhere in the Books of Moses only in reference to temple offerings of various kinds. Do you think that this is a conscious choice on Moses’ part? If so, what is the point he is making by that choice?

Verses 9-15 : Who makes this promise? How do you know? Compare and contrast this version of the promise to that in Genesis 17:15-21. What do you learn from that comparison? Why does the visitor ask “Where is Sarah thy wife?” Any visitor would have known who was in charge of preparing the meal and what that implied about where she was. And certainly the Lord would know where she was. So why ask? (Compare the Lord’s questions in Genesis 3:9 and 4:9—Moses 4:15 and 5:34.) Why is it important for us to know that the tent door was behind the speaker? How many different explanations can you give for Sarah’s laughter? Which do you think most reasonable? Why? In verses 14-15, is the Lord speaking to Abraham or to Sarah? In verse 15, what is Sarah afraid of?

Verses 16-22: Now we learn to where the three visitors were traveling when Abraham stopped them. We will continue to see him trying to stop them in this part of the story, as to of them continue on their journey but Abraham stands “yet before the Lord” (Genesis 18:22). To whom is the question of verses 17-18 addressed? Can you put those verses in your own words? What point is the Lord making? What does the Lord mean when he says that he knows Abraham? The word translated “know” here is the same word translated “know” in Genesis 4:1. (It is also the same word used in verses like Amos 3:2, Exodus 33:17, Deuteronomy 34:10, and 2 Samuel 7:20.) Does that tell us anything about what the Lord is saying? Does it suggest anything about how we should understand God’s knowledge? How does the description of Abraham’s blessing in verse 18 differ from previous descriptions? So what? How does verse 19 explain why the Lord is going to explain to Abraham what he will do? In other words, how is the fact that he will teach his children to be righteous relevant to the Lord’s decision not to hide from Abraham what is going to happen to Sodom and Gomorrah? Some Christians today teach that the Lord’s promise of blessing is unconditional (and Paul makes a good argument for that in Romans), but it seems to me that we see exactly the opposite throughout the Old Testament. In verse 19, for example, we see that the Abraham will teach his children to obey so that the Lord will give Abraham that which he has promised. Is this a difference between the Old and New Testament understandings of our relation to God? Or is there a better explanation? (See the note in square brackets immediately below.) What does it mean to “keep the way of the Lord”? Some have identified this with knowing the Lord. What does it mean to know the Lord? What does Mosiah 4 teach about what it means to know the Lord. Does what we see in verse 19 perhaps explain what the Lord says about revealing his will to the prophets in Amos 3:7? What does it mean to say that the children of Abraham “will do justice and judgment”? Why does the Lord describe that as “keeping the way of the Lord”? How do we do justice and judgment? Compare “I will go down” in verse 21 with Genesis 11:7. What does that verbal connection suggest? Does verse 21 suggest anything about the Lord’s desires for Sodom and Gomorrah?

[Note: This question, a question about grace, is not one in which those on the usual Christian side say “We don’t have to keep the commandments” and we say, “Yes, you do.” All who receive the promise must keep the commandments, and few Christians believe otherwise. The question is about the connection between the promise and obedience: do we receive the blessing because we obey or do we obey because we have received the blessing (and we refuse the blessing if we disobey)? Paul’s argument is the second of these.]

Verses 23-33: What does verse 23 tell us when it begins with “Abraham drew near”? Compare the prayers and responses in these verses:

Compare 23-25 to 26
Compare 27-28a to 28b
Compare 29a to 29b
Compare 30a to 30b
Compare 31a to 31b
Compare 32a to 32b

What is the point here? Why is Abraham bargaining with the Lord? Why talk him down from one number to another and then to still another? Why does the Lord permit him to do this? What does this say about the Lord? About our relation to him? About prayer? Does doing justice and judgment have anything to do with what we see here? Compare Abraham’s initial question, “Wilt thou destroy the righteous with the wicked?” (Verse 23) with his final question, “”Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure then shall be found there” (verse 32). How do you account for what seems like a difference in Abraham’s confidence? In the first part of Abraham’s prayer (verse 23) he asked that God not destroy the righteous along with the wicked. In the second part (verse 24), he asks that the Lord spare everyone, not just the righteous. Then he goes back to asking that the righteous be spared when the wicked are killed (verse 25). How would you explain these differences?

Chapter 19

Verses 1-3: Compare the beginning of the chapter with the beginning of the last. What does that comparison show? If hospitality demanded that one offer a stranger a place to sleep, it also demanded that the stranger accept the offer extended. What do you make of the angels’ initial refusal to stay with Lot? Was it just a polite refusal (“No thanks, no more chocolate cake for me. I’m full.”) that could then be followed by acceptance, or was there something deeper to their refusal?

Verses 4-11: Why is it important that we know that “the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round about, both old and young, all the people from every quarter” (verse 4)? What does Lot’s offer in verse 8 tell us about the ethics of the time? In spite of that, how do verses 6-9 portray Lot? Those who try to break into Lot’s home refer to him as one who “came in to sojourn,” in other words, as a stranger (verse 9). What is the point of that remark from the point of view of the Sodomites? What does it say about them from Moses’ point of view? (Notice the note of slap stick comedy at the end of verse 11: everyone is stumbling around trying to find the door.)

Verses 12-14: In particular, what evil have the Sodomites revealed in the previous verses that now calls for the retribution of these verses? In other words, did the sin of verses 4-11 exemplify the cry that the Lord referred to in Genesis 18:21? Why do the sons-in-law think that Lot is joking (verse 14)?

Verses 15-23: Why is the Lord willing to save Lot and his family? Is it because of Lot’s righteousness? If not, what has this story to do with the bargain that Abraham struck with the Lord in the previous chapter? What do we learn about Lot in verses 17-22? How does that compare to his bravery in verses 6-9? What kind of a person does Lot emerge as in this story? Compare Lot’s pleading for Zoar with Abraham’s pleading for Sodom and Gomorrah. What’s the difference? Compare and contrast this story with the Noah story. How are their messages the same? How different? In fact, compare and contrast several stories of rescue: Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark, Abraham leaving Ur, Abraham and Isaac, and this one. What do you learn from those comparisons?

Verses 24-26: There are many possible naturalistic explanations of this story, including for example an explanation of human-like rock formations near the Dead Sea), but what does the writer intend by this story? What does he want us to know above and beyond whatever happened to Lot’s wife?

Verses 27-29: Compare verses 27-28 to Genesis 18:16. The beginning and the end are marked by the use of similar scenes. The story ended in verses 27-28. Now we have, in verse 29, an “and thus we see” passage. What is it that we are most supposed to remember about this story? How does that contrast with our usual discussions of the story? What might that tell us about our relation to scripture?

Verses 30-38: Obviously we find the story in these verses distasteful, though it is hard not to compare this story to that of Moses and Ham. How are the stories the same? How different? Why is this story included in scripture? What are we to learn from it? Given the names that the daughters gave their sons, were they ashamed of what they had done? Why not? Is it legitimate to compare this story to that of Tamar, who was forced to conceive a child by her father-in-law Judah because he would not fulfill the Levirate law and provide her a husband from among his sons?

17 comments for “JEF Sunday School Lesson #8

  1. Jonathan Green
    February 13, 2006 at 12:27 am

    I admit that this is the one lesson in the whole OT cycle that drove me up the wall when I was teaching Gospel Doctrine, and that still drives me crazy every four years. The lesson manual wants to understand Lot as a symbol of greed who was enticed by sin. But elsewhere in the Bible, including in the NT, he’s called an example of faith. When was it decided that Lot is a bad guy? Is this an old interpretation, or something relatively recent? If Lot had chosen otherwise in the lands to possess, it would have frustrated the Lord’s plan for Abraham and his posterity; and for this we’re supposed to read a warning against avarice into his story? ‘Pitched his tent toward Sodom’ is a geographic rather than a moral statement, I think, and one that probably applies to most of us today who are living in spiritually perilous parts of the world (that is, everywhere).

  2. Edward A. Erdtsieck
    February 15, 2006 at 9:47 am

    Jim F

    It took some time, but I sat down to read and form opinions about your many questions. Now what? I just don’t have the time to sit down and answer them all here. Why? Because as I formed my opinions; new points of interests arise, demanding answers.

    I am sure you had the experience being lost in a forest. After a while, we get the feeling that we have been here before and after a time, we reach the conclusion that, we have been going around in circles. For many this is a time for panicking, but for some it is time to look for the less obvious indicators, such as where is the sun located as we continue to find our way out. To day, if the situation is quite serious, we would reach for the cell phone and call the rescue service to come to get us out or to give us directions in reaching certain landmarks.

    Jonathan Green posts an excellent example; when he writes that the lesson manual seems to guide us to the idea of Lot as a symbol of greed, who was enticed by sin, but that some scriptures seem to hold him up as an example of faith. He then posts profound questions, such as this: “When was it decided that Lot is a bad guy?” For me this question should be not “WHEN,” but WHO it was that decided that Lot is a bad guy? Of course, it is the reader. To his credit, Jonathan wasn’t certain and needed more evidence to sway him one or the other way. One thing I found about the scriptures, biogaphical information is too sparse to really make that bad guy–good guy comparison.

    I also have felt driven up the wall, like Jonathan during the Gospel Doctrine Classes. It seems that gospel doctrine teachers like heroes and heroics and miss the doctrinal highlights as it weaves through the people of the faith. So much time was spent on what the rulers did and very little on the suffering of the faithful and how the doctrine is modified by the outcomes of the rulers actions.

    I am getting off my topic. Here is my conclusion. The approaches to scripture study, you presented in your posting seems to be founded on a form of the scientific method. You keep asking questions and record your observations until you formulate a theory. This method may be effective in working with physical matter, but can not be used on spiritual matters. Using it on spiritual matters will only lead you in circles like getting lost in the forest.

    In spiritual matters I am not free to choose what the truth is. The truth shall make us free from our mortal errors and Jesus Christ is that truth. Even though I have free agency, it only pertains to the mortal or physical world. In spiritual matters I can only get the truth confirmed by the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost has been a companion, since the foundation of earth. Everyone of the righteous fathers in the Bible or BoM had the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

    Jesus Christ promised another comforter, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world can not receive, because it seeth Him not.

    Keep on going, Jim F.

  3. February 15, 2006 at 11:30 pm

    Edward A. Erdtsieck: You misunderstand what the point of the questions is. It is to get us to think about the scriptures and what they say. It is not a form of the scientific method; it isn’t intended to lead to a theory of any kind. I don’t usually have any particular answer in mind when I ask the questions I ask. I’m not asking these questions expecting you to figure out what I think the answers are.

    I agree completely that the truth must be confirmed by the Holy Ghost. I don’t see how you have come to the conclusion that I believe otherwise. However, I also think that I can be expected to do considerable work before the Holy Ghost will confirm or disconfirm anything. Asking questions of the scriptures–so that they can ask questions of me–is work. My experience is that by thinking about these kinds of questions I have learned a great deal, mostly about what the scriptures teach, seeing things I otherwise would have missed.

  4. Edward A. Erdtsieck
    February 16, 2006 at 10:15 am

    Jim F.
    Your point is well taken and one that I support. However, it does not get us to the the point of understanding, why Jesus message is the most misunderstood? Since Adam was created and the openings of each dispensation was followed by strife and the murder of His faithful. Everyone quotes Him, yet, we have contention among His self-proclaimed followers. As Mormons we have all the needed doctrines in the restored gospel. Yet, even you and I differ in coming up with ideas that make sense.

    Of all His doctrines, free agency always leads to contention and apostasy. Why does God just not do away with it? Free agency plays an overriding role in our development into saints, because it preserve purity or the truth of His message. No unclean things can re-enter into His Kingdom, unless they receive Jesus Christ as their Lord.

    Rather than thinking about the scriptures and what they say, which is a very good start. What is the next step? The next step is becoming, what He is to day. Knowing something does not proof anything, because it can be memorized and repeated.

    I have spent 50 years of my life reading the scriptures and being involved in the Church. If I give the impression, that what I write is the gospel truth. It was not my intent and I am very sorry. There are others better acquainted with the scriptures than I and none of them are among my circle of friends.

    I am more like the moon, reflecting a borrowed light, in a dark place. I have my perspective of the gospel and the Lord has His. In my scripture study, I always try to suppress what I want to believe and concentrate on His point of view, because I do not know what He knows. Some day I’ll get it right, but not to day.

  5. Jim F.
    February 16, 2006 at 2:52 pm

    Edward A. Erdtsieck: I think from what you say that we must be about the same age. What you say at the end strikes home with me: I always try to suppress what I want to believe and concentrate on His point of view, because I do not know what He knows. That is exactly how I think we should be reading scripture. I don’t know that I always succeed in doing so, but I hope that my questions help readers see how much they don’t know so that they can learn “what He knows” from the scriptures.

  6. February 16, 2006 at 6:29 pm

    Jonathan Greene, where in the bible does it discuss Lot as an example of faith? I looked here but couldn’t find anything, at least in the New Testament. Apparently, the symbolic interpretation of Lot journeying east and pitching his tent toward Sodom comes from the Midrash. I posted some discussion and reference here and here.

  7. February 16, 2006 at 10:47 pm

    Jonathan Green, here it is–I hadn’t noticed this before, but Julie mentioned it in point (e):

    2 Peter 2:7-8: And [God] delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)

    I guess this Jewish scholars don’t have to deal with this issue, but for Christians I agree it begs the question as to Lot’s standing. Personally, I don’t have a problem with a mild version of the Midrashic “Lot had evil in his heart” reading while still believing he was righteous compared to others in Sodom….

  8. February 16, 2006 at 11:27 pm

    The concept of “just” or “righteous in the Old and New Testaments isn’t quite the same as we understand it. 2 Peter 2:7 says that Lot was “dikaios.” The word is translated both “just” and “righteous” in the NT. Other possible translations are “correct” and “innocent.” In the Septuagint (a 6th c. B.C. translation of the Old Testament into Greek), the word (and its derivatives) mostly translated the Hebrew word tsdq (and its derivatives). (I gave a brief discussion of this as it pertains to one derivative, tsaddiq, in my notes for Sunday School lesson 6–Moses 8:27.)

    As might be expected (since “righteousness” is one translation), there is a tremendous amount of material on the meaning of the root, tsdq. In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, B. Johnson says that there are two different understandings of this constellation of words among OT scholars: (1) righteousness = “concurrence with a standard or norm” and (2) righteousness as deliverance, as a relation to God (12:243) . Johnson says, “Koch [an OT scholar] emphasized more strongly that ‘the capacity to do good and thus the prerequisite for a relationship between good deed and well-being must first be granted to individuals or the people Israel” (245). Given that capacity, tsdq means living a full lilfe, living according to that capacity. Other scholars have focuses on tdsq as having more to do with order: the righteous person is the person whose life is properly ordered.

    So, though there are several ways of thinking about tdsq, in practical terms they come to something like the same thing: acting rightly (whether in conformity to a standard, as the expression of one’s relation to God, or as part of an ordered life). Regardless of how we judge what happened with the angels and the men of Sodom, it is quite possible that Lot acted rightly afterward or that, taken as a whole, Lot’s life was one of right action.

    I find it interesting how often the scriptures praise people who would, otherwise, be overlooked or even condemned: Esther, Ruth, Tamar, Job, . . . .

  9. BrianJ
    February 17, 2006 at 11:57 am

    Jim F.

    Thanks for provoking me to do some deep thinking about this lesson. I especially appreciate you asking questions without giving your answers–it allows me to run through the possibilities without bias. So here are some questions that my study of the scriptures and of your notes have generated:

    Why did Abraham offer Lot his choice, kowing that Lot could have chosen Canaan and then Abraham would lose his promised land? Did he know that Lot would lean toward Sodom? Along those lines, we see Abraham making treaties (probably not the right word) with the people in the land. This is written like it was a good thing, but when the Nephites make treaties with the Lamanites, it is seen as a bad thing. What is the difference?

    When the angels are talking to Abraham and Sarah is in the tent, they seem like they want her to overhear. This also seems like the first Sarah has heard of these promises to her, even though they were told to Abraham in the previous chapter. Did Abraham just not tell Sarah and so now the angels are coming to do it? When Abraham was told in Ch 17, he “laughs”, and Sarah does the same in Ch 18. But Ch 18: 12-15 make it sound like Sarah is chastised for laughing. What do you make of this?

    The title of this lesson is “Living Righteously in a Wicked World.” In this light, I see Abraham as the good example and Lot as the bad example (note that I am thinking of them as archetypes, not as actual people in this analysis). Is this part of the reason for including the story about his daughters having sex with him? In other words, this act seems outrageous to us, but were the women just desensitized to such things after growing up in Sodom? Or is this just the way everyone thought 4000 years ago?

  10. Jim F.
    February 17, 2006 at 12:01 pm

    BrianJ: Thanks. I always appreciate people adding questions.

  11. BrianJ
    February 17, 2006 at 12:14 pm

    Jim F: Great! I always appreciate thoughtful, careful answers to my questions and critical testing of my hypotheses (nudge, nudge–and no emoticon).

  12. Jim F
    February 17, 2006 at 3:11 pm

    BrianJ: Hmm. I should answer your questions, though I don’t answer my own? I see each of your questions as opportunities for a very interesting discussion (though I think the first two are more interesting than the third). However–arrogantly, I’m afraid–I’m going to beg off initiating either of those discussions myself on the grounds that I’m already taking part in too many things at T&S. I’ve got to earn my keep at BYU.

  13. BrianJ
    February 17, 2006 at 3:28 pm

    Jim F: Well, I always was a fan of double-standards–as long as they work in my favor.

  14. Jim F.
    February 17, 2006 at 4:43 pm

    Brian J: Obviously, me too.

  15. Brenda C
    February 19, 2006 at 11:33 am

    I don’t see this as a good guy/bad guy story. I think Lot is like many faithful saints today. They have faith, try to do what’s right, but sometimes get slowly pulled away by the enticings of the world. The Flaxen Thread talk by Carlos Asay lends itself well with this lesson. I think there are probably more “Lots” in the church, than “Abrahams.” But the goal should always be to be a “lot” more like Abraham!

  16. Edward A. Erdtsieck
    February 20, 2006 at 10:45 am

    When I study the scriptures, I like to visualize its context through my minds eye. It’s not just a string of words in a grammatical relationship. Brenda C’s posting makes the point well: “I think there are more “Lots” in the Church, than “Abrahams.” But the goal should always be to be a “Lot” more like Abraham.”

    Let it sink in for a moment. There are so many unknowns in this Abraham, Lot and Sodom-Gomorrah situation than we find in the scriptures. What you read in all the scriptures is half the story.

    However, when you read of the Lord’s dealing with Abraham there is a chiasm, which is often overlooked. Just visualized in your minds eye his names. What do these old and new name bring to mind?

    Abram = “exalted or righteous father” and Abraham = “father of a multitude.”

    Under Abram, he was a father, a privelege that came to him under the covenant of Adam and Eve. Like him, I am a father and a grand-father. I believe that his name “righteous father” came from the period before the flood, when Adam organized the the sons of the patriarchs, to opposed the abominations of the children of men.

    As Abraham, he covenanted with Jehovah to become the “father of a multitude.” Under this covenant the Lord gave him the earthly responsibility of being a father to the least of His children. That means all living and dead people on this earth.

    Genesis’ treatment of the Abraham, Lot and Sodom-Gomorrah story is insuficient to really say whose bad or good. Everyone was into abominations to some degree, except Abraham. Some, of course, were into it up to their necks.

    Abraham was working with abominations on two levels. One as a righteous father of Lot. And on another level with the Lord as His agent for the multitude. I thought this story was one of the Lord’s way to give Abraham experience as “a father of a multitude.” Very little is known, other what he tell us in the Book of Abraham.

    What is missing in the KJ version of the scriptures is the lackof details, of what the Lord said or did. You may think it a short-coming, but I often do not dwell on what Lot or the motivation of others in the scriptures are. I see it all around me, even today.

    Are we not like Lot? Do we not live in a gentile nation abound in abominations and wars? Are my children and grand-children, through their free agency, not tempted by the fruit in this cathedral of commerce called earth?

  17. Edward A. Erdtsieck
    February 20, 2006 at 11:24 am

    I made a gross error in reference to Abraham’s covenant with Jehovah.

    THIS IS MY ERROR: “Under this covenant the Lord gave him the earthly responsibility of being the father to the least of His children.”

    WHAT I SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN: “Under this covenant the Lord made him an agent through whom the least of His children may obtain standing before Jesus Christ.”

    I regret the hastiness of my expression of this idea.

Comments are closed.