With this post, we continue our discussion of divine judgment and all the feelings that come with it.
Before we can properly decided what we believe about God's judgment, we must place judgment within the story.
What story? You may be wondering...
The story of God, of course.
This might be a foreign concept to you--it's something I plan to write about in more depth later, but the underlying aim of the Bible is to communicate the story of God. I'm certainly no expert when it comes to understanding the Bible as the grand narrative of God saving his people; there are people who have devoted their lives to studying the intricacies of this idea, but I trust these scholars and believe that narrative is the best way to approach the Bible. (1)
Reading the Bible as the grand narrative of God saving his people gives us several important footholds as we think about God's judgment. First, it grounds the Bible's description of judgment into a narrative framework. Second, it gives context to why judgment is a necessary part of life. Let's take a look at each of these footholds in turn.
What does it meant to say that reading the Bible as a narrative grounds the Bible's description of judgment into a narrative framework? It means that judgment becomes part of the world of the story, rather than a necessary part of our reality. In sayings this, we shouldn't over play this point. God's judgment is a very real part of our reality. However, when we read about God's judgment in the pages of the Bible, we need to first read it in light of it's narrative context.
Let's consider an example. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is as good place as any. We tend to know this story as God's judgment upon "sodomy", specifically of the homosexual verity. However, when we apply a narrative sensitive approach to this story we see a different story take shape.
A good narrative approach requires us to look back in the story in order to understand what is presently happening. It also requires us to remember that the biblical authors don't have to tell us anything, which means that every detail they include has a purpose. This is especially the case for Sodom and Gomorrah. We could remove this story from Genesis and it would never be missed. Why is it included, then? We need to look for hints. The first time that Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned is within Noah's family tree in Genesis 10. Each are mentioned as cities within the land of the Canaanite clan.
Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned a second time in Genesis 13. In this story, Abraham and his nephew Lot must settle a dispute between their herders (aka. the people who cared for their livestock). They decided to do this by spreading out over the land to give their animals more space to graze. Abraham, being the benevolent uncle he is, gives Lot the first choice of land. Let's take a look at how the author of Genesis describes this interaction:
Lot looked around and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan toward Zoar was well watered, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt. (This was before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordan and set out toward the east. The two men parted company: Abram lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot lived among the cities of the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom. Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord.
When I read this, several things stick out to me. First is the language that is used to describe Lot's action. Lot looked and saw the whole plain was well watered. That language is almost identical to the language used to describe the woman's interaction with the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in Genesis 3. Look:
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.
The woman saw that the fruit was good. The language is so similar you can't help but notice. This, I believe, is a hint as to how we are to interpret Lot's motives: he's acting like the woman and man in Genesis 3.
We must also notice the two hits that author gives us about where Lot's story will ultimately end. The author specifically introduced Sodom and Gomorrah into this story. Lot saw that the whole plain of the Jordan was well watered, the author tells us. And, just so we don't miss it, this is the very valley where Sodom and Gomorrah were located, before they were destroyed. This insertion of information is intentional because it indicates that Sodom and Gomorrah are going to be players in Lot's choice to live in this land. And, in case we miss these hints, the author makes sure to tell us that the people of Sodom are wicked.
In the next chapter (14), we have another interaction with Sodom and Gomorrah. This story is one of the most bewildering in all of Genesis--not to mention one of the oldest. The kings of the valley decided to go to war, and Lot and his family get tangled up in the conflict. When Abraham catches wind of Lot's situation, he sets out to rescue his nephew. In this story we learn that Lot is living in Sodom. So he's moved to the valley and lives in the very city that is said to be wicked in the previous chapter.
We can now fast forward to our current story. God decides to bring judgment upon Sodom and Gomorrah if he can't find a righteous person in the city. Well turns out he can, Lot. But the rest of the citizens of Sodom don't want God's messengers to stay the night. Their wickedness shows through, and God decides to destroy the city with divine judgment. Lot and his family escape, but his wife is turned to salt when she looks back at the city. Lot then lives in the mountains with his two daughters, with whom he fathers his own grandchildren. (Yep, that's in the Bible...)
Alright, now we need to take stock of the story being told. Who are the players involved with Sodom and Gomorrah? What actions take place within the story? Overwhelmingly, these cities are associated with Lot, and his choices in contrast to the choices of Abraham. We need to notice that Lot seems to be the focus of these stories, not Sodom and Gomorrah, and not the judgment that God brings against these cities. Judgment is just action in the story to move the plot along. The real story is Lot's lack of judgment, and his decision to choose what looks good, even though it requires him to put himself in a bad situation. Lot could have lived anywhere, but the draw of these wicked, but wealthy, cities was too great. Abraham, on the other, acts with wisdom in the story (not always, but more so than Lot). In the literary world, Lot is known as a foil. His negative character traits bring out Abraham's positive characters traits.
To bring this back to our discussion at hand, reading this story within it's broader narrative context grounds God's judgment within the story of Lot. We see that judgment isn't even the point the author is trying to make. Instead, it is action in the plot that brings the narrative to an end. Lot's choices lead him to a wicked city, and ultimately cost him his family. Abraham's wise choices, on the other hand, bring him the blessing of being the father of the promise.
Does this negate every claim about God's judgment? No. As we'll see, judgment is part of the story for a reason. However, we shouldn't over emphasize the story of Sodom and Gomorrah when we talk about God's judgment.
The second foothold mentioned above is that narrative gives context to God's judgment. Lack of context is probably the biggest reason God's judgment is misunderstood. People simply don't know the grand story of scripture, so they don't have the context to properly understand the part that judgment plays in the story.
So, what is the context we must grasp?... That will be the topic for next week's post.
New blogs release on Wednesdays. If you haven't already, subscribe below to get new posts directly in your inbox!
New sermons are released on Mondays. Follow this link to listen and subscribe!
Notes:
(1) Scot McKnight's book The Blue Parakeet is a great place to start to learn more about this.