The Fall of Sodom (19:1–38)

Abraham’s intercession for Sodom was unavailing; as v. 4 indicates expressly, there were not so many as ten righteous people in the city, and so the threatened doom must fall. The final demonstration of wickedness and the ensuing destruction of the cities of the plain are both portrayed in sombre colours, a frightening example for all time. The sequel (vv. 30–38) was equally grim, in a different way.

1–11. This paragraph draws attention, vividly, to the sin for which Sodom remains a byword. The Bible is quite unequivocal in its condemnation of sexual perversions of all kinds; there is, however, another dimension to the story which can easily be overlooked. The final, unforgivable sin was not that of the lust itself, but of a ruthless determination to harm and molest apparently defenceless people (strangers to whom every hospitality was due), in spite of the appeals made by Lot. He, it is clear, had not fallen into their ways; and yet his offer of his daughters (8) does him no credit, and made their later disrespect for his person the less surprising. The word translated blindness (11) is an unusual one, and Speiser’s suggestion, ‘blinding light’ is attractive.

12–23. The angels showed every possible attention to Lot and his family. The fate of his daughters’ husbands-to-be was not to be for lack of warning; but they, like Lot’s wife, were too much attracted by all that Sodom could offer. The lesson is self-evident (Lk. 17:32). It was their death which left the way open for the incest of vv. 31–35. Even Lot himself hesitated (16), but his righteousness is never in doubt (cf. 2 Pet. 2:7 f.). His wish to reside at Zoar — however temporarily — was sufficient to save this small town from destruction (20; the name resembles and possibly means ‘small’).

24–29. The precise location of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the other cities of the plain, remains uncertain. The note in 14:3 strongly suggests that at some time after the events now related, the waters of the Dead Sea covered the sites. If so (and archaeology has yet to solve the problem), the southern end of the Dead Sea must be meant. See J. P. Harland in IDB (s.v. ‘Sodom’) for discussion and map.

The whole Jordan valley is part of a rift valley, a major fault in the earth’s surface; and it is reasonable to explain the destruction of the cities of the plain in terms of an earthquake, coupled with the ignition of sulphurous gases. Falling debris could have encased Lot’s wife. For Genesis, however, the mechanics are beside the point; the important points are the divine principles of judgment and mercy. Lot was rescued for Abraham’s sake (29).

30–38. Lot and his two daughters moved off into the mountains, presumably those to the east which later were named after Moab (cf. v. 37). We may assume that the nearby disaster frightened many people away from the area; even so, the older girl’s remark in v. 31 is a gross exaggeration, even allowing for the ambiguity of the word rendered around here (perhaps ‘in this land’, with GNB footnote).

The girls’ actions well illustrate the corrupting of an evil environment such as Sodom. The passage shows an interest in later times (38), however, which may suggest that the Moabites and Ammonites of a later period betrayed a sexual laxity thus typified by their origins.

Here again, Genesis reveals an interest in the symbolic or inner appropriateness of names. The name Moab (37) resembles closely the Heb. mē’āb, ‘from a father’; and Ben-ammi (38) signifies ‘son of my kin(sman)’.

The Case for Faith: Jude 5–7
Hell: Obstacle to Belief

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. —Jude 7

The doctrine of hell can be a stumbling block to spiritual seekers. And though that’s understandable, Dr. J. P. Moreland responds this way: “Whenever you’re trying to start a friendship with any person, you don’t understand everything about him and you don’t necessarily agree or feel good about every view he holds. But you have to ask, on balance, do you trust this person enough to want to enter a friendship with him?

“The same is true with Jesus. Every single issue isn’t going to be resolved before we enter into a relationship with him. But the question is, on balance, can you trust him? I’d encourage any seeker to read the Gospel of John and then ask, ‘Can I trust Jesus?’ I think the answer is yes. And I believe that, over time, as we develop our relationship with him, we’ll even come to trust him in those areas where right now we lack complete understanding.”

—Adapted from interview with Dr. J. P. Moreland

49-50 Sodom's chief sin had been pride and self-exaltation, stemming from her abundant materialism (food), given to her from God (Ge 13:10), which had resulted in false security, apathy, and disdain and neglect of the poor and needy. This material ease fostered sexual perversion (Ge 13:13; 18:20; 19:4-5). As evil as Sodom was, she did not begin to do evil like Jerusalem. Since God removed Sodom in judgment, certainly Jerusalem would receive greater punishment (La 4:6; cf. Mt 11:23).