Genesis 18:16–19:38

Original Meaning

Wickedness (19:1–14)

THE TEXT DOES not discuss what social norms are being broken. The sin of the Sodomites is self-evident and multileveled, blatant and unambiguous. The standard is not the later Mosaic law but civilized behavior regulated by laws in every city and country.2 There is nothing subtle or secretive about their behavior. No inhibitions interfere with their threats of violence or demands to indulge their lust. The last thing anyone in the reading audience would be expected to do would be to come to the defense of Sodom or try to make excuses for their behavior.

The text also makes it clear that the wicked behavior is not isolated. All the men, young and old, are involved (v. 4). Though we have seen that “all” can be hyperbolic, the addition of the merism “both young and old” indicates widespread participation. It is unlikely, though, that every single member of the male population is present, for Lot’s sons-in-law do not seem to be there.

Lot’s response to the demand of the men in verse 8 is startling. Is Lot truly offering his daughters to be gang-raped and probably murdered? An alternative is that his suggestion implies a more subtle, “I would as soon have you violate my family members as violate those whom I have taken in and offered hospitality!” It would be like sarcastically saying to your mortgage company, “Why don’t you just take the clothes off my children’s backs and the food off their plates?” Such a comment is not suggesting that they will really do that. If this is the correct way to read verse 8, Lot’s offer of his daughters is intended to prick the conscience of the mob. Just as they would (hopefully) not consider treating a citizen’s daughters in this way, so the same inhibitions should protect his guests.3

The mob refuses to be placated or dissuaded from its intentions and indicates that it is even willing to treat Lot with the same violence that it threaten his guests with. Rather than responding to a judge with respect, the mob throws the role back in his face as an accusation. Lot is beyond any power to enforce the law or punish violators—his admonitions have no teeth. It is the divine messengers who come to his rescue as they strike the mob with blindness.

The word for “blindness” here is used elsewhere only for the Aramean army at Dothan (2 Kings 6:18). It is a term related to an Akkadian word for day-blindness (pertinent to 2 Kings 6) and, evidently from this passage, also serves in Hebrew (as in Aramaic) to refer to night-blindness. Both of these conditions are seen in Akkadian texts as requiring magical remedies. Day-blindness and night-blindness have vitamin A deficiency as their principal cause, and vitamin B deficiency may contribute to the sense of confusion evident in both passages. It is therefore of interest that liver (rich in vitamin A) figures prominently in the magical procedures to correct the condition. In the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat, Danel lays a curse on the city where his son Aqhat was murdered. The curse includes that Baal may instantly render them blind (cf. Deut. 28:28).4

Unable to impact the mob by dissuading them from their violence, Lot now seeks to influence those who have other reasons to respect him. In verse 14 he lobbies his sons-in-law. Since his daughters appear to live in his house while his sons-in-law live elsewhere, it is logically assumed that the marriage agreement is somewhere in process; thus the NIV choice to render “pledged to marry” (in Hebrew the participle can refer to them either as ones who are currently taking his daughters as wives, or those about to take them as wives). But even more determinative here is the fact that verse 8 indicates that his daughters are still virgins. This must mean that a contractual agreement has been finalized (thus justifying using the term “sons-in-law”), but the marriages have not yet been consummated.

One would expect men in such a situation to do most anything to ingratiate or patronize their father-in-law. Yet their assessment of Lot’s warning leads them not to take him seriously. The NIV translates that they “thought he was joking,” but there is perhaps a little more nuance here. The two passages that match the usage of the verb ṣḥq (“joking”) in stem, form, and syntax are Genesis 21:9 and Exodus 32:6. The former describes Ishmael’s offensive behavior with Isaac (NIV “mocking”), while the latter describes the nature of the Israelite celebration in front of the golden calf (NIV “indulge in revelry”). Though these two passages can be understood as suggesting lewd behavior, it is difficult to understand how Lot’s warning can be considered lewd. We probably have to step back one semantic level and adopt the idea that ṣḥq describes something that is done “in bad taste” (whether that be sexual, coarse, or in some other way inappropriate).

Certainly the claim that the city is about to be destroyed by God’s angels can be viewed by level-headed skeptics as ill-mannered. The difference between this and the NIV rendering is that here the sons-in-law would take offense, become indignant, and even remonstrate with Lot for being out of line instead of just being amused and laughing him off.

Bridging Contexts

THE IMPACT OF THE RIGHTEOUS. In this well-known episode (18:22–32), it is not uncommon for Abraham to be stereotyped as a “wheeler-dealer” who has the determination, some would say audacity, to bargain with the Most High. In this view Abraham’s motivation is typically understood as the desire (some would say crass, others magnanimous) to spare Lot and his family. While we need not doubt that Abraham is concerned for Lot’s welfare, I think we misunderstand the intended meaning if that is made the central focus of the discussion. It is imperative that we examine what Abraham is “bargaining” for and why. In point of fact, “philosophical discussion” is closer to the mark than “negotiation session.”

Verses 24–25 are foundational to the investigation. Abraham objects to the idea of sweeping away the righteous along with the wicked, based on the premise that it would be unjust to treat the righteous and the wicked alike. The important implication of this premise is that Abraham cannot be asking God in his mercy to acquit the city, for this would also treat the righteous and the wicked alike. If righteous and wicked were both wiped out, the injustice would be that the righteous had been treated as if they were wicked, suffering for the sins of others. But if the entire city were spared because of a few righteous, the injustice would be that the wicked had been treated as if they were righteous, despite their wickedness. The latter is not more just than the former and therefore is not likely the argument Abraham is trying to make.

An important clue to the focus of the discussion is found in the soliloquy of God in verses 17–19. Nowhere else in the pages of Scripture is there internal dialogue where God considers the logic of a decision as he “thinks aloud.” As the text indicates, God’s purpose for having this discussion is tied up in the covenant role of Abraham and his family—specifically, that through the nation that will derive from Abraham, all the world will be blessed. In previous chapters I suggested that the blessing of Abraham’s family on the world came as they functioned as a channel of God’s grace. That grace brought revelation and eventually salvation.

In this chapter we discover another way in which Abraham’s family will serve as a channel of grace: Their presence as a righteous minority in a wicked world will still God’s hand of destruction. But the issue is not necessarily simply a question of “acquit or destroy”—more subtly, it may involve the question of “now or later.” When does God decide that no more time will be given for reform?

If there were fifty righteous, would God spare the city for a time to see if that righteous minority could have an impact in the city and turn it around? What opportunity will be given for the minority to bring about change? How small can the minority be and still be allowed to have an impact? This is an important issue for Abraham to explore because his family is to be that righteous minority among the nations, with Sodom standing as a representative microcosm.

This concept is well represented in chapter 19 as Lot seeks to make an impact on the population. The comments of the men of Sodom in 19:9 make it clear that he is attempting (and failing) to have an impact. He not only implores the general population to reform their behavior; he also seeks to use his influence with his sons-in-law to add them to the ranks of the faithful, but all to no avail. Chapter 19 thereby indicates the entrenched nature of Sodom’s sin: beyond reformation. In the end, even his own wife is unwilling to be influenced by him.

It can be said, then, that these chapters consider the potential impact of a ger (resident alien).8 Abraham is a ger in the land of Canaan (23:4), and his descendants will have that same status (15:13). What will his/their impact be? This is to be compared to Lot, who is a ger in Sodom (19:9). What is his impact? In general Abraham’s descendants are going to be like gerim in the world, as are we.

Purpose of the Sodom and Gomorrah story. The ger motif identified above and its associated motif of hospitality have been favored by several interpreters as the key to the passage. In chapter 18 Abraham is hospitable to the three travelers; in chapter 19 Lot is comparably hospitable, in contrast to the inhabitants of Sodom who are clearly “hospitality challenged.” Their manners are frankly abysmal. Weston Fields has summarized the importance of hospitality in the ancient Near East:

The social obligation of hospitality, so important to travelers in a society where public sleeping and eating accommodations were not readily available, is well known and has been frequently discussed. Not only were public accommodations generally lacking, but the geographical and climatic conditions of many areas made it practically impossible for visitors to try to subsist for any length of time without some form of protection and help—at the very least provision of water and food—from the local population. Wild animals and marauders combined with an often hostile physical environment to make survival outside the confines of normal society difficult, to say the least. This real-life societal responsibility to provide lodging and sustenance for travelers, in fact to turn strangers into guests, was so important that whenever “visitors” appear in a story, the narrator will often give an account, sometimes in detail, sometimes briefly, of their treatment at the hands of their hosts. Guests are scarcely mentioned in the Bible without a concomitant rehearsal and delineation of the nature and quality of hospitality they receive.9

The hospitality motif is unquestionably present, but how important is it? Granting that hospitality was both an issue in the ancient world and a recognizable motif in the text does not automatically give it status as the driving force of the narrative or the reason the author is telling the story. Though hospitality can be accepted as a socially significant issue, its importance with regard to the theological purpose of the book of Genesis is more difficult to establish.

Does the account have any connection to overcoming obstacles to the covenant or the advance of the blessings of the covenant? The narrative offers no connection to the issues of land or offspring, but it explicitly draws connections to the issue of blessing on the nations. The introduction of 18:17–19 and the conclusion of 19:29 both offer this connection. First we notice that there are limits to the grace that Abraham’s family can mediate. Neither Abraham nor his surrogate, Lot, is able to save Sodom. At the same time, Abraham’s influence is able to provide deliverance for Lot. We can see that at this point in the narrative, Lot is part of Abraham’s family to a limited extent, but takes his place outside of the family by the end.

In conclusion then, the ger (resident alien) element is prominent in the narrative not to emphasize the hospitality issue but to emphasize the impact issue. It is not the treatment of the ger (hospitality) that is important but the impact a ger can have that matters. Lot as a ger has no impact. Abraham’s family, as gerim, is expected to have extensive impact on the world.

Purpose of the account of Lot and his daughters. It has already been mentioned that Lot is exonerated in this account since coercion is used and he is unaware of how he is being used by his daughters. Though the daughters are not so easily absolved, their actions can be seen as driven not by lust but by the desperation of their plight as they assess it. They are isolated in virtual exile; their world has been destroyed.

We must see, however, that the point of the passage is not to provide anecdotal material in order to address the evils of incest. Whether they are innocent or guilty, justified or culpable, the account focuses not intrinsically on the act but on the result of the act: the Moabites and Ammonites. As the offspring of Lot, they are related to Abraham; but since Lot is a nephew, these are not among the many nations of whom Abraham is the father. Lot and his offspring are not among those through whom the nations will be blessed; rather, they are among those who will receive blessing through Abraham and his offspring.

Thus, it is here, as the text indicates, that Lot is spared because the Lord remembers Abraham by acting favorably toward him (19:29). The Moabites and Ammonites only receive the chance to exist because the Lord has remembered Abraham. In this case the narrator’s main point is not that the Moabites and Ammonites owe their existence to incestuous acts but that they owe their existence to Abraham. This gives the audience of Moses insight into the status of those who live around the land they are entering.

Contemporary Significance

IMPACT OF RIGHTEOUS MINORITY. Can good people make a difference in the world? From the proverbial “You can’t fight city hall” to the personal “What can I do—I’m a nobody!” there are ample opportunities for despair. But the fact is, righteous people have always been and will always be a minority. Still, individually and as the corporate church, God expects us to have an impact for righteousness in the world.

Examples of such individuals abound. From the apostle Paul to Martin Luther to Mother Teresa, there are those who have refused to think they were too insignificant for God to use. Their impact came not because they were full of self-importance and thought themselves capable of big things, but because they humbly did what needed to be done. Understanding the task at hand, they boldly went about doing what God led them to do. In most cases, an impact is not accomplished amidst great fanfare and does not necessarily enjoy popular support. Mother Teresa worked in virtual anonymity in the squalid conditions of the diseased and the destitute for decades before gaining the popular recognition and acclaim that she received in her last years. Martin Luther and other Reformers were met with official resistance that threatened their lives, health, and welfare.

More often than not, making an impact for righteousness in a fallen world entails a good deal of “plodding.” William Carey, acknowledged as the father of modern missions, is well-known for his description of himself as a plodder. Apprenticed as a cobbler and brought to faith by his fellow apprentice John Warr, Carey urged any who would listen to his call to world missions to “expect great things and attempt great things.”10

It was his dogged determination and inspired leadership that marked the beginning of a movement that would literally transform church structures and innumerable lives and cultures. In this, Carey the obscure young preacher who came from a remote part of England representing a small and insignificant religious group, would become “God’s extraordinary plodder” who changed the course of history.11

Regardless of one’s assessment of Carey’s impact as a missionary and the toll that it took on his family, he stands as a distinguished example of how God can use a small, righteous minority to have a significant impact on a fallen world. His impact can be assessed in terms of (1) the thousands of Indians who came to Christ through his ministry, (2) the establishment of an effective missionary work in India, and (3) the mission organizations he inspired (fourteen in England alone by 1834). As a plodder, Carey realized that a person’s impact for Christ might not be realized for some time.

We must also recall that having an impact does not require having a well-known impact. Few people have heard of Mrs. H. Phillips, a woman who ran a boarding house in Chicago in the mid-nineteenth century and conducted prayer meetings at the First Baptist Church. But one of those who took room and board and was nurtured spiritually in her meetings was a young shoe salesman, a recent convert named Dwight L. Moody.

But even if there is no D. L. Moody who eventually emerges from the wake of our influence, we are called to impact the world in whatever ways we can, large or small—to make a difference for God. We cannot be driven by the results, because we will never know the results in the lives of people that we touch this side of heaven. We must instead be driven by the needs of the world and constrained by the love of Christ.

The situation is not much different in the corporate realm. In our results-oriented society we are apt to try out new church strategies, fads, and trends as quickly as they appear and then to discard them just as readily when six months show no tangible results. It is easy to forget how much time is often necessary to effect significant change. An example of this can be seen in the decades that were involved from the time when local pastors became concerned about the inconsistent lifestyles of those who claimed to be Christians and the full fruition of revival known as the First Great Awakening.

The Great Awakening, which was to exert a decisive and far-reaching influence upon the development of American religious life, was but one manifestation of a general spiritual quickening during the eighteenth century. There were scattered “awakenings” of new religious life in England, Scotland, and Wales, as well as in America. These several awakenings reinforced each other and initiated the great tide of evangelical religion that swept through the English-speaking world, reaching a crest of influence in the latter half of the nineteenth century before it began to ebb away.12

The roots of the First Great Awakening can be traced in measure to Solomon Stoddard, who for fifty-five years served as the influential pastor of the church in Northampton, Massachusetts (1670–1725). During his long ministry, he was known for constantly challenging the rigid traditions of Puritanism as he focused on bringing people to the point of conversion through any means. Though he saw several small, localized revivals during his day, his contemporaries would have judged his influence to be more noticeable in the arena of theological debate. But his work was laying important foundations for the winds of change.

At the same time, other foundations were being laid by Theodore Frelinghuysen’s work in New Jersey among the Dutch Reformed and William and Gilbert Tennent’s work among the Presbyterian congregations in New York and New Jersey. They also experienced relatively small successes. But it was not until the mid-eighteenth century that Stoddard’s grandson, Jonathan Edwards, and George Whitefield became the principal channels for the awakening, building on the work of these faithful men.

Churches of all denominations were caught up in the surge of religious fervor and were profoundly affected by its impact. A new type of preaching dominated the pulpits, the structure of public worship was altered, and the “revival” became the most widely accepted means of introducing people to the Christian life. . . . Above all, this surging tide of evangelical religion supplied the dynamic that emboldened the Protestant churches of America to undertake the enormous task of Christianizing a continent, nerved those of the British Isles to assume a similar responsibility for an expanding population at home and overseas, and led both the British and American churches to join forces in a vast mission to the entire non-Christian world.13

It may take time for the church to have an impact on the world. We can only be faithful to the call of Christ and do what needs to be done. The harvest is his and will come as his will determines.

Will not the Judge of all the earth do right? One of the facts that humans have yet to master is that we cannot outperform God. In the movie Patch Adams, the main character (Robin Williams) is an unconventional medical student who believes that humor and compassion are the most important tools of the doctor’s trade. His idealism is shattered when his girlfriend, who has helped him start a free clinic based on these principles, is murdered by one of the psychotic patients. As Patch stands on a high cliff pondering suicide, he has the following monologue with God:

So answer me please—tell me what you’re doing. . . . You create man; man suffers enormous amounts of pain; man dies. Maybe you should have had just a few more brainstorming sessions prior to creation. You rested on the seventh day—maybe you should have spent that day on compassion.

As he looks down into the valley far below, again considering the possibility of jumping, he says, tragically, “You know what? You’re not worth it.”

Whenever we raise questions about God’s justice, we tacitly suggest, as Patch did, that we would be more just if given the chance. When we question God’s love, we imply that we can be more loving. His grace, his mercy, his patience—name whatever attribute you will—if we think we can do them better than God, we have a defective view of God (not to mention an unrealistic conceit and a superficial and simplistic knowledge of the problem).

Talk to any person on the street, and you will likely hear doubts about the fairness of God doing this or that. In today’s climate of tolerance, it is common to be told that only an ogre of a God would so limit the range of salvation that only those who happen to hear of Jesus can benefit. So, for instance, our own sentiments become hopelessly entangled with our theology as we try to address the difficult issue of the plight of the aborted unborn in eternity. One year as I taught doctrine to sixth graders at our church, one of the students in the heat of the debate about the fate of babies declared forcefully, “If I were God, all babies would go to heaven!”

We all know that revelation only takes us so far and our theology does not provide ironclad answers for every question. But where our revelation is silent and the logic of our theology fails, we are not without recourse. Here is where faith begins. Will not the Judge of all the earth do right? Of course he will. We do not have to worry whether God is less fair, less just, less merciful, less loving, or less gracious than we would be. The “If I were God . . .” option will always fall far short of the option of letting him be God. This is our faith. We never have all the information, and we are never wise enough to apply what information we have infallibly to whatever issue is at hand.

Breakout Points

SODOM AND HOMOSEXUALITY. Almost a century ago, G. K. Chesterton wrote, “Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.”14 Though in many ways that remains true, in the issue of homosexuality it defines the controversy. Some today still consider homosexuality an evil, whether excusable or not. Others march for the rights of those they believe to be simply practicing an acceptable alternative lifestyle that expresses their sexual preferences.

Though Genesis 19 is not a story about the evils of homosexuality, the narrative has traditionally been a starting point for discussion of the biblical view of homosexuality. We include this discussion under Breakout Points because in it we are digressing from the purpose of the author. Nonetheless, given the prominence of the issue in contemporary society, a brief comment is in order.

The sin of Sodom. The first question to be asked is whether the text of Genesis 19 portrays homosexual behavior as the sin of Sodom. Modern interpreters inclined to come to the defense of the homosexual community have suggested that the offenses committed by the mob are best identified as threat of violence and neglect of hospitality norms. The former is an obvious element, and the latter is shown to be an issue both in the context of Lot’s hospitality and in a parallel situation (Judg. 19:23), where the host specifically protests that he cannot accede to their request because the man is a guest. Proponents of this view also point out that when the rest of the Old Testament refers back to this incident, homosexuality is not the issue but various forms of injustice.15 By the intertestamental period, however, it is undeniable that the offense is viewed in sexual terms. W. Fields summarized the evidence:

Sodomites “defile themselves and commit fornication with their bodies.” They “practice uncleanness on the earth,” giving rise to the expression “uncleanness of the Sodomites” (Jub 16.5, 6). The Sodomites commit “fornication, uncleanness,” and “mutual corruption through fornication” (Jub 20.5). Phrases such as “sexual relations like those of Sodom and Gomorrah” (T. Levi 14.6) may be taken as a description of homosexual relations; equally so, the expression “departed from the order of nature” (T. Naph 3.4).16

Nonetheless, W. Brueggemann insists that the Bible gives “considerable evidence that the sin of Sodom was not specifically sexual” and will concede little ground. He concludes, “It may be that sexual disorder is one aspect of a general disorder. But that issue is presented in a way scarcely pertinent to contemporary discussion of homosexuality.”17 The claim is made that condemning homosexual violence is not the same as condemning a homosexual lifestyle.

Homosexuality and the Bible. The Holiness Code in Leviticus makes it clear that male homosexuality is detestable (Lev. 18:22) and punishable by death (20:13). In the former context it is grouped together with adultery, child sacrifice, and bestiality. In the New Testament the treatment is no less harsh. Homosexuality is clearly not one of the practices that Christian liberty or the age of grace made more acceptable. For Paul it represents the epitome of depraved conduct (Rom. 1:24–32). His inclusion of homosexuals in the list of the unrighteous who will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9), as well as in the list of those for whom the law serves a necessary and continuing function (1 Tim. 1:10), shows us that his disapproval cannot in any way be viewed as limited to his particular time, culture, or situation.

The Bible is clear that homosexual practice is wrong and sinful. It is not just wrong insofar as it is promiscuous. Rather, as with adultery, incest, and bestiality, it is wrong because of the nature of the sexual partner. An illicit sexual partner may be married to someone else (adultery), may be a close relative (incest), may be an animal (bestiality), and may be someone of the same gender (homosexuality). Monogamous homosexual relationships are no more acceptable than only committing adultery with one person.

This does not mean that a homosexual inclination is sinful, though it may be a reflection of the fallenness of the race. Sexual desires often provide an arena of temptation to sin, whatever one’s sexual orientation may be. As believers, we are called upon to resist those temptations both in thought and in deed. In this sense, the plight of the homosexual is similar to that of the heterosexual. Sexual fantasizing only worsens the situation, makes resistance more difficult, and may lead to sin even though no sexual act is committed (Matt. 5:28). The only biblical solution to homosexual inclination is disciplined purity of thought and a celibate lifestyle. What is true for all Christians is also true for homosexuals—behavior must transcend feelings. What the Bible calls evil, the church must not deem excusable under the pressures of society.

Original Meaning

Escape, Destruction, and Lot’s Wife (19:15–26)

THE SPACE AND TIME logistics become important here for understanding the details of the text. First, we must make two observations. (1) Lot’s family and the angels leave the city at dawn (v. 15), and the destruction begins when the sun is high in the sky (v. 23). This means that they cannot have traveled more than ten miles. (2) The angel states that he cannot do anything until they reach Zoar (v. 22), and the destruction indeed does not begin until they get there (vv. 23–24). This means that when Lot’s wife looks back, the destruction has not yet begun.

It is almost twenty miles from Bab edh-Dhraʿ Sodom?) to Safi (Zoar?). It is therefore unlikely that Bab edh-Dhraʿ is Sodom (the identification of Safi with Zoar has substantially more support). The closest of the five sites to Safi is Feifah, five miles away. It would therefore be logical to conclude that if one of these five sites were Sodom (and that is not a certainty), Feifah would be the best candidate, though Numeira (ten miles away) would not be impossible.

Even then, however, we have a problem if Lot’s statements in verses 19–20 are accurate. One can infer from his statement that the mountains are farther from Sodom than Zoar is. Yet all four of the other sites are closer to the mountains than they are to Zoar. It is possible that the problem Lot envisions is not that the mountains are farther away but that the climb will slow him down. In the final analysis, however, we need not assume that Lot’s objections are either accurate or logical.

If the five sites that have been identified archaeologically are the five cities of this passage, Zoar is in the middle of the group. That means that one would not have to look back to see the destruction. We therefore conclude that the angel’s prohibition does not concern looking at the destruction. After all, people standing on the city walls of Zoar would have been able to watch the carnage take place. We should notice that when the angel gives the instructions not to look back (v. 17), it is placed between two other commands, “Flee for your lives” and “Don’t stop anywhere in the plain.” If the prohibition is not concerned with seeing the destruction (and therefore “looking” is not the issue), I conclude that the three commands form a sequence: (1) Get out of here; (2) don’t turn back; and (3) don’t stop before reaching your destination. This means that the verb used in verses 17 and 26 (nbṭ, NIV “looked”) must have idiomatic value that goes beyond looking. Such a conclusion can be supported in two ways.

(1) The verb in both these verses is used in collocation with the preposition ʾḥry (“back, behind, after”). Besides these two verses, this collocation is used again only in Exodus 33:8 and 1 Samuel 24:8. The idiom that fits each of these passages concerns directing or focusing one’s attention behind oneself or after someone else. In Exodus 33:8 the people direct their attention after Moses, following him with their gaze. In 1 Samuel 24:8, Saul directs his attention behind himself in response to David’s call. Neither of these contexts requires actually turning back (though Saul may have done so), but each requires more than a casual glance. In Genesis 19:17 Lot and his family are instructed not to direct their attention behind them, that is, on the place they are leaving.

(2) A slight variation occurs in Genesis 19:26, where Lot’s wife directs her attention away from (additional preposition) behind Lot. It does not say that she directs her attention behind her, but that she directs it away from following Lot. At the very least this suggests that she has abandoned the flight. But there is another passage that suggests even more—the city has so captured her attention that she actually returns to it. In Luke 17:28–32 Christ is comparing the day of Sodom’s destruction to the coming of the kingdom of God:

28It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

30It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. 32Remember Lot’s wife!

Here Jesus clearly implies that Lot’s wife returned to Sodom. In this interpretation the command of the angel is broken not by glancing over one’s shoulder and seeing what should not be seen but in directing attention back and returning to the city: “You’re a fool, Lot, and I refuse to go one step further! I’m going home. I’ll see you in a day or two or whenever you come to your senses!”

The result that Lot’s wife becomes a pillar of salt need not be seen as an arbitrary and instantaneous transformation. The destruction is described in terms of sulfur (brimstone) and fire “raining down” on the cities. The scene is one of divine retribution, and the use of brimstone appears here and elsewhere as an agent of purification and divine wrath on the wicked (Ps. 11:6; Ezek. 38:22). One can only speculate about the actual manner of this destruction, but perhaps the combustion of natural tars and sulfur deposits and the release of noxious gases during an earthquake are a part of the story (Deut. 29:23). The mineral salts of the region include sodium, potash, magnesium, calcium chlorides, and bromide. An earthquake in the area may easily have ignited these chemicals, causing them to rain down on the victims of the destruction. I suspect that many in the vicinity of the city who were not burned could be described as pillars of salt after being engulfed by the fallout of the destruction.