The Kindness of Strangers

Genesis 19:24-25 (NIV)

²⁴ Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens. ²⁵ Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by the hand of God as punishment for their sins. Although the Bible is unclear as to their primary sin, most people assume it must have been so atrocious to have brought complete annihilation from the Almighty. At least that's what we have come to believe throughout history, and what could be more vile than sexual immorality? Perhaps, inhospitality?

[Flight of Lot by Gustave Doré]

---

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah begins in Genesis 18 when the Lord pays Abraham a visit in physical form which is the first time God comes down and walks among his creation since humanity and God parted ways in Eden. Genesis 18 and 19 parallel each other in common themes of blessing and hospitality towards strangers. Both begin with the Divine coming down in physical form and both Abraham and Lot are anxious to serve them. Abraham is sitting in the "entrance to his tent in the heat of the day" as he sees three men approaching. Likewise, Lot is sitting at the entrance of the Gate to Sodom almost as if he were a member of Sodom's welcoming committee. Before asking their names, where they came from, or what business they may have both Abraham and Lot rush out to greet them, humbly bowing offering their personal services. Already we can tell that being hospitable to strangers is incredibly important and a part of their moral code.

How many of us would try that with a stranger today in the 21st century? At my house we have multiple locks on our doors and windows, a dog, and a peephole to protect us from strangers (we're installing a moat once I get a job after college ). We never leave our doors unlocked and we never leave it open to enjoy the cool breeze of the afternoon. We don't keep a gun at home but we have many friends and neighbors who do. I find it amazing that these two men literally run to meet mere strangers who might cause them harm which is very likely while living a nomadic life. Some may assume that Abraham and Lot knew these men were the Divine in mortal disguises and that may be the case, but the theme of both chapters, in my humble opinion, seems to be hospitality to your fellow man. In fact, being a hospitable host is an important aspect of Judaism.

Abraham's three visitors blessed Abraham and Sarah and said that when they return next year they will have a son. It didn't go nearly as well for Lot and his family in Sodom. When Lot met the two visitors at the gate you can almost hear Lot's hurried anxiety to get them into his house for the night. Initially, Lot's remarks to his visitors in Genesis 19:2 comes across as a bit rude as he urgently wants his guest to leave the city as soon as they are rested, but Lot sounds more fearful than impatient. The visitors ("Mal'akh"מַלְאָ, Hebrew for messengers or angels) objected saying they wanted to stay in the square. Lot's opposition to his visitors spending the night in public sounds as if it is based on either intense shame or dreadful fear. Angels or not, he would be immensely ashamed to live with such "animals" as he desperately tries to play the good host in a city of savages. On the other hand, as angels there would be no need to for Lot to fear for their lives, yet he is bound to protect them under his moral code. There are horrific stories within Jewish tradition that describe people from the Cities of the Plain treating strangers cruelly. And if Lot witnessed anything like these tales, this alone would be enough to frighten Lot into putting his life (and the lives of his daughters) in danger when he took these two visitors under his roof.

The focus on the sin of homosexuality is based on Genesis 19:5 where all the people (commonly translated as all the men which hints at a homosexual mob) surround Lot's house demanding to know the two visitors. יָדַע Ya,da is a Hebrew verb which means " to know." Out of almost the 1000 times the word is used in the Hebrew scripture only about a dozen actually allude to sex. So the text can be read as if the mob wanted to interrogate (maybe even torture) the visitors or that the mob came to "know" the two visitors. Homosexuality is assumed because even after Lot offers his two virgin daughters, the mob refuses and attempts to break into the house. The Cities of the Plain were guilty of a laundry list of sins, and not just homosexuality. Not helping the poor and the needy, unconcerned and letting them starve in the streets sounds 1000 times worse than any sort of "sinful" homosexual activity. Whatever the sins of Sodom and her daughters were Jewish tradition links their sins with the natural disaster that took out these ancient cities.

Lot risking his life to protect total strangers is one of the most overlooked and most important theme of Genesis 19. As Abraham is blessed with news of a son, Lot is blessed with escaping with his life. Which would sound odd if God did allow Lot to live if he did indeed offer up his own daughters to a mob of rapists. Whenever Sodom and Gomorrah is mentioned throughout the Bible (and throughout Jewish and Christian tradition) it is used as a vehicle and an example for condemnation of living the sinful life instead as an example of redemption. Even though Genesis 19 ends with a dysfunctional family assuming they are the last survivors of their family line (or worse, the planet!) poor Lot redeems his life of misery, shame, and regret in this one act of bravery and kindness towards strangers. Is this not the lesson we should remember when we think of Lot, Sodom and Gomorrah? Must we continue to use this one chapter (along with a handful of other verses) to condemn people for who they are, or can we use this to increase our kindness to strangers?

The Righteousness of Noah

Genesis 6:9, 22 (KJV)
⁹These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. ²²Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

I have been rereading Genesis and it surprises me that while growing up as a Christian I never heard anyone challenge the morality of the patriarchs. We know they're human and fallible but since they followed the will of God we just assumed they were morally upright people. What really surprised me is that Jews have already challenged (and continue to challenge) the righteousness of the patriarchs. Noah, blameless in his generation, followed God's command and saved his family from the wrath of God. So what's so wrong with following the orders of a God who's about to destroy everything and everyone you know?

[The Drunkenness of Noah, Sistine Chapel ceiling (fresco), 1509, Michelangelo Buonarroti]

---

I pity Noah after rereading his story found in Genesis chapters 6-9. God picks and speaks to Noah out of the blue stating that He will destroy EVERYTHING. The knowledge of doomsday alone would be enough to drive a man to despair and even worse that only he and his family will be spared. But why Noah? Again, I don't know Hebrew but I thank God for Google. Noah is the only person in the Old Testament (if you know Hebrew please correct me if I'm wrong) that is described as צדיק‎ (Tzadik), which means righteous or just, and bears this description twice in Gen. 7:1 and Gen 6:9 and once in Ezekiel 14:14. Yet when we read the text it states that Noah is perfect within his own generation. Does that mean that he was righteous relative only to his time? If Noah would have lived in another time would he have been less righteous? More importantly does this mean that God's definition of a righteous person change throughout history?

Noah follows God's instruction without questioning his instructions or intentions. In fact, the first time we see Noah speak is when he curses his innocent grandson, Canaan, because his son, Ham, saw him naked. He doesn't say a word, he just builds his ark, loads the animals and wait for the world to be washed clean of mankind. When I was a kid, I remember seeing pictures (and I believe a film) of Noah preaching away trying to convince people to join him on the ark. Repent and be saved. The medieval commentator Rashi held that the building of the ark took 120 years so that Noah could preach to the sinners. In the Islamic tradition, the Qu'ran has Noah warning people for almost 1000 years. The image of Noah preaching, warning, and pleading with the people to repent and join him on the boat is almost heart-wrenching. This Noah is seen desperately trying to save other people even though he did not express this desire to God. This is the caring Noah who believes that his fellow man is worth saving. The Noah in Genesis does not question nor bargin with God like Abraham who boldly challenged Him when he was told of the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Noah is a yes-man, and he follows God's instructions to the letter. Noah doesn't even complain when it seems that God forgets Noah aimlessly drifting out in the open sea. What could be running through Noah's head as he looks out across the waters? Everything and everyone he ever loved is now gone.

God then, maybe out of pity for Noah, promises that he will never again destroy the world with a flood. But the damage to the human spirit has been done, because the first thing Noah does after his talk with God is plant a vineyard and begin to drink. Ham walks in to his father's tent and sees him sprawled out naked after a night of heavy drinking. Noah, maybe suffering from survivors guilt, does not curse Ham, but Ham's son, Canaan. Noah avoids taking responsibility for his actions and instead takes it out on an innocent bystander. Throughout history the curse of Ham has been used to justify racism and slavery and as Armstrong states, "some of the worst atrocities have occurred as a result of this type of scapegoating, when we blame others for our own crimes and inadequacies". (In the Beginning: A New Interpretation of Genesis)

So what can we learn from Noah? If we see injustice, do we sit idly by or do we speak out against it? Must we be limited to the morals of the Bible or do we try to transcend them? Some Christians speak about God's disgust for homosexuality yet proclaim that they love the sinner, they are still bound to God's prejudices. Must we hate what God hates, and only love what God loves? Are we bound to following orders and never question God's will? Should we not question the divine even if we feel injustice in the command? A God who resorts to mass destruction and genocide is like a child who tosses a toy away when he's bored with it. How can this be the same Compassionate and Loving God who loved the WHOLE world that he sent his son to redeem it? Being yes-men and secluding ourselves in a spiritual ark may save our own skins, but we might begin to lose our compassion for humanity by separating ourselves as an elect group among a sea of sinners. Even after wiping out every living thing God admits that even the survivors have the same evil inclination as those he destroyed. Humanity's morality should always progress forward even if it means that we must challenge and become stronger than the God who did not even have the strength to deal with a sinful creature.

Am I My Brother's Keeper?

Genesis 4:2-9 (NIV)

²...Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. ³ In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. ⁴ But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, ⁵ but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.⁶ Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? ⁷ If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."⁸ Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

⁹ Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?"
"I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"

While reading In the Beginning: A New Interpretation of Genesis by Karen Armstrong, I came across an interesting view on the story of Cain and Abel. Those unfamiliar with the story can click here. After Cain murders his brother, God questions Cain about the whereabouts of his brother, Abel. Instead of answering, Cain evasively dodges the question with another question and a pinch of sarcasm, "What, am I responsible for my brother now?"

[The Death of Abel by Gustave Doré]

---

1000 times YES!

At first it sounds as if Cain is trying to ditch his responsibility for his brother. But after rereading the text I believe the writers of Genesis were trying to tell us something about the relationship between the Divine and mankind. God did not give any reason for showing favoritism towards Abel's offering while disregarding Cain's. And when Cain became angry God asked him to cool it as if he were teaching him a lesson.

God: "Sometimes I'm gonna pick on you (mankind) and you're gonna have to learn how to master your emotions. I may send storms to destroy your homes and famine to kill everything and everyone you love, but you must seek control over yourself."

God takes the role of the teacher even though he shares in the responsibility of causing Cain to become angry. Yet Cain cries out against this injustice in an interesting Jewish Midrash (click on the link and scroll down to the section on Multiple Interpretations). In it, Cain blames God for not protecting Abel and for creating mankind with this evil inclination. God also blames himself for creating man with this evil inclination before the events of the flood (Genesis 6:5-6) and regrets for being too hard on humanity for His mistake, regrettably, only after the mass genocide and destruction of the flood (Genesis 8:20-21). To Traditional Christians, this evil inclination originated with the Original Sin of Adam and Eve and not from God. Armstrong interprets the text as stating that mankind was created with an instinct for life and creativity. The 6th day when God proclaimed that his work was very good was the same day that he created this evil inclination in humanity.

And behold it was very good. This is the evil impulse. Is the evil impulse good? Yet were it not for the evil impulse no man would build a home, nor marry a wife, nor beget children, nor engage in trade. Solomon said, "All labor and all excelling in work is a man's rivalry with his neighbor." (Genesis Rabbah Ecclesiastes 4:4)

So when Cain responded with his seemingly sarcastic response he was defending himself, and humanity, for only being human. Yet, this does not let Cain off the hook. I don't know Hebrew, but I have Google. Cain's response in Hebrew:

Lo yadati , I do not know.

Ha-shomer achi anochi? Am I my brother’s keeper?

Shomer in Hebrew translates as guard, keeper, or watchman.

Even though Cain blames God for causing him to become angry and for creating him, and the rest of humanity, with this evil inclination Cain is also to blame for not guarding his brother from himself, a fallible man. Cain represents humanity as it struggles to guard itself from itself AND from God. God may have created us with an evil ticker, making God an accomplice to evil, but in the end the choice to commit or not to commit evil falls squarely on us. We are to watch and guard each other from every evil regardless of the origin, espescially when it originates from within ourselves. We can blame God and Satan all we want but if we allow our inner demons (hatred, prejudice, greed, etc.) to cause harm to our fellow man then we deserve mass genocide by the hands of God. But we can be better than that for we are born with the ability to love and hate. Which will you choose? Hatred has no boundaries so why should we limit our love? We should love the rich and the poor, the clothed and the unclothed, the friend and the stranger, the hetero and homosexual, the saint and the sinner. If we pick and choose whom to guard, whom to love, then we have failed, and deserve to be wiped off the face of the planet. I am no saint either. I pick and choose just like everyone else, but I strive and struggle to move beyond my inner boundaries, introduced to me in my childhood, to a natural state of love. So when I read Cain's question "Am I my brother's keeper?" I see it as a cry of injustice to all of life's woes. How do we help one another when we're all caught in the same struggle? Well, simply by understanding that we are ALL caught in the same struggle, so let us choose to struggle together.

A Quick Reminder...

For those who enjoy reading A God-Sized Puzzle I invite you to drop me a comment and let me know what you think. All comments, questions, and dialogue are welcome (criticism is also welcome but keep it civil) and can be sent directly to me by entering it in the orange Contact Me box in the column on the right hand side. Name, email, and subject will NOT be published. You can also subscribe to A God-Sized Puzzle by clicking on the subscribe button and selecting your feed reader (if you don't have a feed reader you can sign up with Google for free, that's the feed reader I use). Those with a Google account can also follow through Google Friend Connect also located on the right hand column.

Peace and blessings.

Sunday School Stories for Naughty Children

Bible stories. They are a source of both education and entertainment for children in Sunday school which teach them about God throughout the Bible from His awesome power (the parting of the Red Sea) to His eternal love (The Crucifixion). They are meant to inspire, illuminate, and illustrate how to be good little Christian boys and girls. Of course there are a few stories in the Bible that would give these children nightmares and might even traumatize a few of the younger ones. We only tell these to the adults to keep them in line . I'm sure children would find some of the untold Sunday school stories troubling at times although adults seem to accept it without question as the will of God. I, on the other hand, can not accept that God would cause innocent or guilty people to be butchered and killed throughout the Bible just to further His mysterious cause. I also can not accept the mass genocide and the deaths of innocents found in the Bible being the Will of God anymore than the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and the 9/11 attacks being a part of His plan. I may be mortal and unable to see the grand scheme, but if I, like Abraham, question God's sense of justice, does that mean that mankind has a better sense of justice than God? Or are these horrific stories just an image of God written by the authors of 2 Kings during the Axial Age? Is this image of a vengeful God still relatable in the 21st century?

[Cover of Illustrated Stories From The Bible by Paul Farrell]

How then do we reconcile the good stories with the bad? And what does this tell us about God? Would God really cause innocents to suffer just to further His Will?

---

I have not read Illustrated Stories From The Bible by Paul Farrell, an agnostic, who brings up a challenging point just by looking at the cover: we pick and choose certain tales to tell our children. Let's take a look at the tale of Elisha and the two She Bears (illustrated on the cover) found in 2 Kings 2:23-25:

²³ From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" ²⁴ He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths. ²⁵ And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.

This IS horrifying! Elisha calls down a curse in the name of God and two bears maul 42 of the youths. So I believe a question worth asking is why would God send bears to kill these kids (or youths, but kids make it sound a bit more shocking)? [Click here and here to read a couple interesting views on the text.] Notice, I'm not asking why God allowed this to happen because terrible things happen everyday without divine intervention. The interpretation by Traditional Christians would be something along the lines of "Don't mess with God and His prophets, EVER!" Talk about a loving God who doesn't use fear tactics. How would a child interpret this story? Would they believe that if they're bad that God would send something awful after them? This may be a reason why Christians sugarcoat certain parts of the Bible during Sunday school.

Although I don't know what the authors originally intended by including this story (other than "Don't mess with God") I agree with David Kerr over at Lingamish that the bear attack was purely coincidental and that we, the readers, made the connection between the bear attack and God being sore about the name-calling. 2 Kings ends with Nebuchadnezzar taking God's Chosen people into captivity and burning down the house of the Lord. You would think that God would be pretty peeved for burning down His house and send a whole army of bears after Nebuchadnezzar.

Let's go back to our main question: why would God send bears to kill these kids?
I believe that if God is a bloodthirsty, violent character who demands worship then 1) this story would fit in perfectly with his character and 2) we're all in a whole heap of trouble. A God who uses fear to encourage His creation to Love him is not an image of a loving God no matter how you try to cram the two different views of God into one Almighty. It just doesn't work. I'm sure other Christians would claim that I'm taking the portions of the Bible that makes God look bad (and there are quite a few) out of context without looking at the Big Picture. This doesn't get us anywhere because I can say the same thing about how Traditional Christians portray God by focusing on the stories that only show God's goodness while ignoring the troubling ones. If God's Character is indeed found in the Bible then we must look at ALL of the texts, both the good and the bad.

I do not think that stories like these reflect a God of Love and tell us more about mankind then they do about God. Is it not possible that these are just stories and not literal history? Is it not possible that the authors of the Old Testament penned myths and legends from oral tradition that speak about how they viewed Reality? If we read scripture literally then we are trapped making excuses for all of God's bad behavior. When read spiritually we can learn and delve into fathoms of knowledge of our inner most selves, the human experience, and the reality we call God.