LOT (PERSON) . Lot, the nephew of the patriarch Abraham, plays a role in the story of the ancient origins of Israel (Genesis 11:26-50:26). The son of Abraham’s deceased brother Haran (Genesis 11:27-31), he accompanies his uncle on the epic journey to Canaan (Genesis 12:4-5). Once there, the two finally part ways (Genesis 13:1-18). Despite the separation, Abraham later rescues his nephew, who had been captured by foreign kings (Genesis 14:1-16). Lot has a more independent part in the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-29). But there is still a connection to Abraham in that Lot’s exemption from judgment was due to his relationship with his uncle (Genesis 19:29). After her escape from Sodom and the death of his wife (Genesis 19:17, 26), his two daughters managed to secure his and her posterity through incestuous relationships (Genesis 19:30-38 ).
Three times Lot is mentioned in non-narrative texts. Twice in Deuteronomy (2:9, 19) Israel is commanded not to engage in battle with Moab or Ammon, since the Lord promised them territory as sons of Lot. The other reference (Ps 83:8) lists Lot’s sons (ie Moabites and Ammonites) among Israel’s adversaries. In the New Testament, Lot is seen as a righteous inhabitant of Sodom and Gomorrah who was greatly upset by the wickedness of the two cities (2 Peter 2:6-8). Deuteronomy 23:3-6 prohibits Ammonites and Moabites from entering the assembly of the Lord. But Ruth, who was a Moabite, was instrumental in the life of Israel (Ruth 4:13-22).
Source critics (HPT 263-64; von Rad Genesis OTL, 162-69, 210-20; Speiser Genesis AB, 77-81, 95-98, 135-46) have assigned most of Lot’s material to the Yahwist or J source (Genesis 11:28-30; 12:4a; 13:1-5, 7-11a, 13-18; 18:1-33; 19:1-28, 30-38) and some verses for the priest (P) fountain (Genesis 11:27, 31-32; 12:4b–5; 13:6; 13:11b–12; 19:29). Genesis 14 continues to elude classification. Some scholars hold that it is an ancient source (von Rad Genesis OTL, 170; Speiser Genesis AB, 106; YGC, 51), while others argue that it presupposes and is therefore more recent than the other narrative traditions (Kilian 1970). : 24-25). In terms of the history of traditions, Lot relies on the Abraham-Sarah story everywhere except in Genesis 19 (Westermann 1985:127).
The essential historicity of Lot’s pericopes, along with the ancestral narratives to which they belong, was accepted until recently (BHI, 103; Speiser Genesis AB, 108; Millard and Wiseman 1980). This assessment is based on claims that the names, customs, and sociocultural backgrounds of the stories were parallel to and thus authenticated by actual 2d millennium documents from the ANE (BHI, 74-96; ygc, 64-109; Dever and Clark IJH, 92-102; Selman 1980: 93-99). But the consensus has changed (Thompson 1974: 315-16; Van Seters 1975; Dever and Clark IJH, 102-48; Gottwald 1985: 161-78; Selman 1980: 99-103), in part due to the supposed lack of rigor methodological practiced by proponents, partly due to the emergence of new data and new interpretations of old data, and partly due to the growing awareness of particular literary literature. nature of biblical traditions. It has also been common to see patriarchal traditions as tribal stories told as individual stories (McKane 1979: 67-104). However, at best, the question of the historicity of the traditions in which Lot appears is currently at an impasse.
During recent years, scholars have emphasized the interpretation of biblical narratives such as those in which Lot appears in more literary and canonical lines. Without denying that there has been a long history of the various strands of the Lot traditions or that the story is made up of many separate sources and discrete units (Coats Genesis FOTL, 97-148), the final form is also a datum to be taken . seriously (Alter 1981; Sternberg 1985; Clines 1978: 7-15; Miscall 1983: 1-10; IOTS 1979). Whatever original purposes such traditions may have had-historical, etiological, legitimizing social, political, or religious practices or ideas-they have now been put into a form of “poetics” (Sternberg 1985: 2) in which they primarily function. like a play. of literature with the corresponding aesthetic, theological and religious characteristics.
From this perspective, Lot’s importance in the story of Abraham and Sarah transcends the fact that he happens to be a relative of the patriarch. In the narrative as it stands, his role is strategic from the start. Just a couple of verses after learning that Haran was Lot’s father, we are informed that Sarah, Abraham’s wife, was barren (Gen 11:27-30; Brueggemann Genesis IBC, 95-96). The couple’s childlessness is highlighted by Lot’s very presence. In a story that will soon revolve around God’s promise of a son and countless descendants (Genesis 12:2, 7; 13:14-16; 15:1-6, 13, 18; 17:5-8, 16 , 19-20; 18:10, 13-14; 21: 1-7; 22: 15-18), the fact that Sarah is barren while Abraham’s brother already has a son (without any divine promise! ) Enriches the texture of the narration. First, the narrator subtly contrasts Abraham’s childlessness with the fact of his brother’s descent. Later, Lot will be a persistent reminder that God’s promise of progeny has yet to be fulfilled.
Therefore, the fact that Abraham allowed Lot to travel with him to Canaan cannot be dismissed as an incidental detail (Alter 1981:79-80) or simply as preparation for the chapters. 13 and 19 (von Rad Genesis OTL, 157; Speiser Genesis AB, 97; Westermann 1985: 152). God commanded Abraham to leave his country (˒ereṣ), relatives (môledet), and his father’s house (bēt ˒āb) (Genesis 12:1). So was Abraham wrong to bring Lot? Interpreters have generally seen this as an example of Abraham’s sense of responsibility toward his brother’s family (Speiser Genesis AB, 98). But perhaps it is easier to see it as the first example of disobedience or weak faith on the part of Abraham. Abraham and Sarah certainly move constantly between faith and doubt, obedience and disobedience (see Genesis 12:10-20; 16:1-16; 17:15-18; 18:9-15). Additionally, each episode in which Lot has a role is at best ambiguous and at worst negative regarding the future God has in mind for Israel’s ancestors.
Once in Canaan, the first meeting between Abraham and Lot is problematic (Genesis 13). His success in acquiring possessions (Genesis 12:5, 16; 13:1-2, 5-6) leads their respective herdsmen to quarrel, forcing uncle and nephew to part (Genesis 13:5- 7). When Abraham offered to allow his relative first choice of land, taking what was left to him, Lot opted for a territory that the narrator distinguishes from Canaan (Genesis 13:11-12; Helyer 1983:79-80). . What makes this significant is the possible, if not probable, suggestion that Abraham brought Lot with him in the first place, not out of any sense of family responsibility (Westermann 1985: 176), but because he initially saw Lot as a security deposit for God’s promise. of nation (Genesis 12:2) and, secondly, as a potential heir to the promised land (Genesis 12:7).his descendants from him, visibly excluding the nephew (Genesis 13:14-17). It must be remembered that Abraham thought of the slave Eliezer (Genesis 15:2) and later his son Hagar (Genesis 17:18) as possible heirs, although this went against God’s explicit statements. So Abraham gave Lot the first choice not so much on the basis of godly generosity which has the effect of emphasizing Lot’s covetousness (von Rad Genesis OTL, 166-67) or because of his strong belief in the promise of salvation. earth (Brueggemann Genesis IBC, 130). Rather, he was thinking in terms of Lot’s proleptic inheritance of the earth.
However, even after the separation, Lot’s presence in the vicinity puts Abraham in danger. When his nephew is captured by the alliance that attacked the cities of the plain (Genesis 14:8-12), Abraham felt that he had to intervene (Westermann 1985:199). While his rescue attempt was successful, he involved a military enterprise that could have had disastrous results and in any case forced him away from the promised land (Genesis 14:14-16). In the end, Abraham (and God’s plan) suffered no ill effects, but the episode would have been completely unnecessary if the patriarch had left Lot at home in the first place.
Even in the story that focuses almost exclusively on Lot and his family, the ancient saga remains in focus. There are two explicit connections. One is the similarity of the typographical scenes of hospitality (Alter 1981:47-62) at the beginning of Genesis 18 and 19. Another is the notation that Lot was saved because of his relationship with Abraham (Genesis 19:29). . In this regard, Abraham’s famous debate with God over the ethics of destroying the righteous with the guilty is revealing (Genesis 18:22-33). Why does Abraham argue this way? Is he simply making an abstract argument that God should in principle judge justly (von Rad Genesis OTL, 207; Speiser Genesis AB, 135; Westermann 1985: 286)? Is he indirectly “instructing” God that there is another way to respond to quequid pro quo sin (Brueggemann IBC Genesis, 168-69)? After all, the omniscient narrator (Sternberg 1985:84-128; Alter 1981:155-77) has long since informed us that Sodom and Gomorrah would indeed be destroyed (Gen 13:10), something that is also already in the works. the mind of God (Genesis 18:17). Therefore, God broaches the subject with Abraham not only for the future greatness of the patriarch (Genesis 18:17-19), but also to see how he responds, which explains why God poses the question to Abraham as if the decision was not taken yet. done (Genesis 18:20-21). No doubt God’s action here is based on Abraham’s future role as a teacher of righteousness and justice in Israel. But the location of the episode between another instance of infidelity (Genesis 18:9-15) and a trial potentially involving Abraham’s nephew links the issue of righteousness and justice to Abraham’s concrete circumstances. In a sense, God is forcing Abraham to ponder justice and righteousness for intensely personal reasons, since there was apparently no possibility of the destruction being averted (Genesis 13:10; 18:17; Westermann 1985:292). How else could he become a teacher of righteousness and justice for his children?
Abraham responded positively and negatively to this “test.” Positively, he deplores the possibility of destroying the innocent with the guilty; he knows something about justice and righteousness. Negatively, and certainly more to the point,…