“Lot looked up and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan was well watered, like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, toward Zoar. (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.” Genesis 13: 10-11
As we continue our discussion on redemptive places let us consider the five cities of the plains, which would include the area of Sodom and Gomorrah. First of all let me point out that Sodom had a redemptive purpose. It was prosperous and God sent a prophet to live close enough to it to engage in commerce and to intercede on its behalf. Geographic areas and people groups are not blessed without the endorsement of God.
Moses is the writer of the Genesis passage sited above. He makes a comparison between Egypt and Sodom and Gomorrah that are important for us to note. It was well watered, and like a garden, possibly much like the area of the Nile. I infer from this passage that this is a region that was developed and cultivated. These are redemptive attributes. Lot certainly viewed the area as one worthy of possessing. His wife longed to return to it even as it was being judged by God. (Genesis 19:26) Sodom and the cities of the plain were called to redeem that plain and cultivate it. It remains desolate until this day because of their failure. If other kingdoms follow their example they may well experience the same consequence. Peter the Apostle makes this point clearly, “if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;” 2 Peter 2:6 Group cohesiveness, military strength, fertile fields, and the proliferation of people and live stock are the blessings of God. These were experienced, and could have been retained by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The concept of asabiya, or social cohesion, applies to the Sodom. It represents a sustained coalition of people groups across an expansive geography working cooperatively. God certainly saw Sodom and Gomorrah as one community because he judged them as such. Their historic military security would have been sustained at some point. Peace comes about both through conquest and through cooperation. However, it is primarily a blessing from God. Proverbs 16:7, “When a man's ways please the LORD, he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.”
Sodom was an imperial power that did not have to decline if it cooperated with God. The symptoms that lead to its decline are presented to us in the scriptures. They are social injustice, its licentious behavior, its weakness as a military power and its despising of authority. The “despising authority” I would argue is an unwillingness to submit to the precepts that are clearly indicted in creation, conscience, and its cultural memory.
Jerusalem the Abandon Child the Desired Bride
“On the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to make you clean, nor were you rubbed with salt or wrapped in cloths. No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised. 'Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, "Live! (Ezekiel 16 -4-6)
"'Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine. 'I bathed you with water and washed the blood from you and put ointments on you. 10 I clothed you with an embroidered dress and put leather sandals on you. I dressed you in fine linen and covered you with costly garments. I adorned you with jewelry: I put bracelets on your arms and a necklace around your neck, and I put a ring on your nose, earrings on your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. So you were adorned with gold and silver; your clothes were of fine linen and costly fabric and embroidered cloth. (Ezekiel 19 8-13)
The entire chapter of Ezekiel 16 is supportive of our premise. Biblegateway.com describes the chapter as an “An allegory of unfaithful Jerusalem” It benefits the purpose of this work because the allegory presents the city as first a vulnerable child, then an unfaithful wife. It is children and the marital unions that we have been saying are the keys to successful development of redemptive cities, nations and empires. Sodom moved far away from these concepts, so it was judged. However Jerusalem also moved far away from these concepts and was spared. We must reconcile this disparity if we are going communicate God’s redemptive value for Sodom. I would argue that the primary reason is Sodom proximity in time to earlier judgments of mankind by God. The cultural memory that should have been present in the Sodomites was ignored. Noah and Seth were still alive while Sodom was growing in power. The confusion of languages at Babble would have still been talked about in traditions of men at that time. The second reason that has been sited that I am not inclined to endorse is Abraham’s under-developed ability to intercede on behalf of the city.
The Compulsions and Consumers of Sodom
“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” Ezekiel 16:49-50
I would attest based on Ezekiel 16: 49-50 that Sodom’s unfulfilled redemptive gift would have been to demonstrate humility and take care of the poor. Ray Bakke demonstrates the care that is possible in an urban environment when sites the distinction in rape laws in rural and urban Israel.
“Cities imply neighbors…. In chapter 22 (Deuteronomy) you’ll find a remarkable rape law. If a women was raped in a rural area, the people would execute the man who did it (vv 25-27) If she is raped in the city, on the other hand, they would execute both (vv 23-24) Why? There was an assumption in Israel that city victims would cry for help and neighbors would respond.”
Obviously no such practice existed in Sodom. The scriptures indicate that the things the Sodom did were detestable. They were not simple involved in mutual consenting homosexuality but the gang raping of strangers that entered their city. (Genesis 19:5) It may be reflective of the kind of violence that was present prior to the flood. That does not mean the God did not care for the city or desire for it to fulfill its redemptive purpose on Earth. It infrastructure development is one of the indicators that it had discovered some of its redemptive gifts. There was a perversion of their gifts.
One of the ways we can use to determine a redemptive gift is to observe the perversion of that gift in an individual and in a people group. It is controversial but the implications of my theory are that bullies are called to be protectors, pedophiles are called to be children’s ministers, and exploiters are called to be philanthropist. Satan perverts God’s creation using the gifts and vulnerabilities that are available to him. Let me cite three Biblical examples. Abraham and Sarah were called by God to a covenantal marriage that demonstrated faith to the nations but Abraham’s fear lead to his giving his wife to pagan kings. (Genesis 12: 10-20) Mosses was called to be a deliverer but first murdered a man. (Exodus 2 11-13) David disdained the thought of a man stealing a valued sheep yet he took that same man’s wife. (2 Samuel 12 5-7) Each of these men had their God given gift perverted though its misuse. Even in the temptation of Christ, Satan used what was available to him. He tempted Jesus to use miracle working power to make bread, to exploit his relationship with angels for protection, and to prematurely adopt the glory that would belong to him in his humanity only upon completion his redemptive task. (Matthew 4 1-11)
Freud and Marx: Individual and Community Perversion of Redemptive Gifts
Freud develops the understanding of the perversion of personal gifts from an individualist psychology perspective and Karl Marx develops it from an economic perspective. Where one becomes perverted the other will naturally follow. The Sodomites individual behavior and economic policies were both selfish and flawed and ultimately un-redemptive. In regards to the individual they clearly were compulsive in regards to their sexual behavior. I don’t think it is illogical to extrapolate that those compulsions may have been present in their eating, drinking, and spending behaviors as well. The underlying concepts that we need to understand about the Sodomite is that they were focused on self gratification, oblivious to the needs of other people and devoid of empathy.
“Freud, believed that the autonomy of the person is threatened from two sides, by the tendency toward impulsive, myopic behavior that Freud referred to as the Id and the tendency toward rigid and compulsive behavior that he called the Superego. The desired balance, in which both threats are kept in abeyance, requires what is variously referred to as autonomy, ego strength, and toleration of ambiguity.”
On a macro level this would have meant that the Sodomites were only interested in consuming products and goods on themselves and would not have been concerned with sharing their wealth with others.
“Marx suggested that in capitalism the desires for consumption …tend to take on a compulsive character. Capitalism creates an incentive for producers to seduce consumers by inducing in them desires to which they become enslaved”
Abraham’s unwillingness to except gifts or payment from the Sodomites after winning a victory in war on their behalf may have been based on an understanding of their character, as compulsive and consumer driven. Their offer of a gift at least indicates that the Sodomites would have understood the concept of reciprocity, “But Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth, and have taken an oath that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a thread or the thong of a sandal, so that you will never be able to say, 'I made Abram rich.' I will accept nothing but what my men have eaten and the share that belongs to the men who went with me—to Aner, Eshcol and Mamre. Let them have their share.” Genesis 14: 22-24. In contrast, Abraham pays tithe to the Melchizedek, king of Salem, the place that would be future Jerusalem. Melchizedek enters into a covenantal meal with Abraham including bread and wine, which are present in the cultural memory of Israel and the church until this present day.
http://www.biblemysteries.com/lectures/gomorrah.htm
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/sodom.html
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016&version=NIV
Robert C. Linthicum, City of God, City of Satan a biblical theology of the Urban Church, (Zondervan Publishing House), 1991, pg 106
Ray Bakke, A Theology as Big as The City, (IntervarsityPress, 1997) pg 40-41
Jon Elster, An Introduction to Karl Marx, (Cambridge University Press, 1986) pg 50 goggle books
Jon Elster, An Introduction to Karl Marx, (Cambridge University Press, 1986) pg 51 goggle books
No comments:
Post a Comment