What a sad passage. The only good reported here is the mercy of God, which is good and great indeed! Still, it is a good thing that our God is god and not like a man like the Greek gods: He might have truly lost his patience with Lot! Here, He sends angels to Lot to rescue him from Sodom, and he dithers. They tell him, "Get out now!" and he lingers. They have to forcibly remove him from the city! And then when they tell him to run for the hills, he hesitates again! He asks for a dispensation to escape to a nearby town, Zoar. And they almost have to propel him to go.
I think many of us wonder why Lot even remained in Sodom so long. It's clear that he knew what kind of people live there. When he saw the angels coming in the appearance of men, he is the one who hastened to them and insisted they come to his house. He went outside to meet the rabble and try to steer them from their intentions. He very likely knew that they would come and make such a request. Why did he stay until their destruction? Why not head out and find a better place?
Are we that different?
How much of our culture in America today would be pleasing to the Lord? How much of it do we mimic? It's a question we often ask ourselves: how much does the Church look like the rest of the world? (How much of the Church prides itself on looking just like the world?) But you don't see any of us packing up and moving out of the country, going to look for someplace different, better. So why do we ask Lot to?
Perhaps Lot thought he could make a difference. His seat by the city gate suggests he had become an elder, or at the very least a person of influence, there. We don't know that he gained that position with that motive, but I know that many Christians do seek out political seats with the intention of "making a difference", being a light, etc. What we have to be careful about is not to fall in to the pitfall that Lot did: beginning to be changed by the surrounding culture. What was his alternative to the men of Sodom rather than handing over his guests? Allowing those men to ravage his own daughters. His wife couldn't keep from looking back at the place where she had lived. His daughters, later, when it became apparent their father would not find them their own husbands found their own way to bear children. Lot did not resemble his relative Abraham so much as he did the town he had been living in. Can we say the opposite for ourselves? Can I say the opposite for myself? Do I look more like Christ my Savior or do I look more like the rest of America who does not are about Jesus?
One other thing I thought about while I was reading this: why is it in the Bible? I cannot pretend I know what God was thinking when He had this recorded, but there are some interesting points to extrapolate when it is fitted with the rest of Scripture. Jump to the Book of Ruth. Ruth is a Moabitess, a descendant of Lot and his eldest daughter. Ruth marries Boaz and they have a son: Obed. Obed has a son: Jesse. Jesse has a son: David. Lot and his daughter are the distant ancestors of one of Israel's greatest kings. Skip further ahead to the book of Matthew. Who is listed in the genealogy of Christ? Ruth. The Moabitess. Yes, Jesus is descended from Abraham and Sarah. But also Lot and his unnamed daughter. Is this an endorsement on the girl's behavior? Definitely not (just read Leviticus and you'll get the idea!) However, it is a very good example of Romans 8:28: how God works everything to the good for those who love Him. God used what seems like a very sordid situation, and what may have well been a horror and a shame to Lot when he realized what happened several months later, to bring about something good: the Savior of the World. Further proof He can do the same for us as well. Something bad happens, we trust in the Lord; He'll work it out for good, even if it isn't easy.
Tomorrow's Reading: Genesis 20:1-21:21
No comments:
Post a Comment