Comments on: Sermon Prep (part 2): Lot

By: michael lee

michael lee — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:16:45 +0000

good stuff, cliff.

By: Cliff

Cliff — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:37:48 +0000

On why Lot lives in the city…..

It is interesting that Lot has, as you say, a prominant place in the city - riches, respect, even honor. Lot has a history of being a climber. When offered a choice between the good grazing land and the wilderness, he picked the good land and left Abraham with the desert. Despite this, God chooses Abraham and Lot is left holding the money bag.

I wonder if he had a bit of an inferiority complex over this arrangement and simply decided that instead of being God’s #2 he would be the city’s #1 — or was he trying on his own power to convert the city and thus earn God’s favor? Maybe Abraham was aware of Lot’s desires and was supporting him in his desparate bargaining act - knowing that the destruction of the city would be devastating to a man who had made its conversion his way of earning God’s love.

Perhaps the whole point of the story is that God wanted us to see that God saw Lot as “righteous” before he saw himself that way.

By: aly hawkins

aly hawkins — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 01:09:13 +0000

Okay, not to be a harpy, but the text says “Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground” (19:1). It doesn’t say “the two angels, who were totally in disguise so Lot didn’t recognize them for what they were came to Sodom, blah, blah.” I don’t think you can assume that he didn’t know they were angels…in fact, his bowing completely to the ground and his attempts to protect them make some sense when interpreted that way. (But I don’t have a degree in theology and know jack poop about the ANE…I humbly acknowledge that.)

By: michael lee

michael lee — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:55:45 +0000

Yeah, there is definitely some stuff in 2 Peter to chew on. That’s coming later though …

By: Doug

Doug — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:34:16 +0000

Sovereign grace seems to be the only reason one could call Lot “righteous”. Semi-Pelagians want to find the redeeming and righteous qualities in Lot to give reasons for his being “elect”.) While he is not as bad as he could be, there clearly is a mixture in his heart and lifestyle. He wants it all- the blessing of God and the good life of the city. He is in so many ways like so many of us. The writer of 2 Peter claims, “and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless (for that righteous man, living among them day after day, was tormented in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard)” If he was so distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless why did he stay in the city? Was he trying to be a witness and influence or was he enjoying city life.
It is interesting that in the OT the image of city is often a place of human striving that resists God’s reign. i.e Babel and Babylon. The garden, on the other hand, is a place of paradise where the presence of God is not attained by effort but conferred by His grace. He walked with them in the garden in the cool of the day. Interestingly, the image of paradise in the NT morphs into a garden-like city in the image of the new Jerusalem.
Lot has chosen the city (read- human self effort (Pelagius?)) Yet in spite of his choice God chooses Lot (covenental grace)

By: michael lee

michael lee — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 21:33:43 +0000

“Could there be any parallel (this is a stretch, I know) between Lot/his daughters and Abraham/Isaac on Mt. Moriah? Just a thought.”

An interesting idea, but I don’t know how strong the connection is. This wasn’t a faith-test, daughters and sons are rarely interchangeable figures in biblical metaphor, and there’s not really much of the christological typology associated with Isaac. If the author intended an association, I think it would probably be more intentional.

Yeah, the queston of Lot’s recognition of the visitors is significant to the story. He’s not (as far as we know) privy to Abraham’s interaction with them, and there doesn’t seem to be anything in their appearance that would mark them as supernatural visitors. When they first appear at the start of chapter 18, it says that Abraham saw three men, and welcomed them as such. Lot appears to welcome them in the same way.

I don’t see anything yet at this point in the story to imply that Lot knows more about the situation than what it appears to be on the face of it; two visitors have come to town and, in seeming ignorance of the sort of place they have come to, have demured his offer of hospitality.

The phrase that gets used to describe his urging is also significant. It speaks of urgency, immediacy, pleading, insistence, stubborness, and there are overtones of condescension. It’s the kind of phrase that might get used to describe a parent giving an insistent warning to a child. The root of pastar is “to beat”, and in this case, it’s a kind of “beating an idea into a closed mind”, an insistent stuborness on the part of Lot.

By: aly hawkins

aly hawkins — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:33:05 +0000

19:3 - I don’t think the text necessarily implies the city’s “welcome” as Lot’s reason for insisting the visitors come to his house. Could it be that he hoped to receive a blessing from God? Perhaps this is where his righteousness comes in - urgently desiring to be visited by God.

19:7-8 - Again, perhaps Lot’s ugly, ugly, ugly (I agree wholeheartedly) offer of his daughters instead of the visitors has more to do with his knowledge of the visitors’ identities, and his hope that he might please or impress God by the lengths he’s willing to go to save His messengers. Could there be any parallel (this is a stretch, I know) between Lot/his daughters and Abraham/Isaac on Mt. Moriah? Just a thought.

I’m not sure about the implication of these ideas on the rest of the story…if Lot truly desires to please God, why does he hesitate?