Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit. (Ez 16,49-50) ... And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave... (Gen 18,20)

A man is truly a strange being. Considering that it was difficult for Lot to date Abram, his own uncle, the man who introduced him to the new land, gave him patronage, was his counselor, introduced him to his God, and was ready to show generosity and give him priority in choosing the territory— after all, one does not live badly with such! And yet Lot chose Sodom, where orgies and dangerous violence took place ...

It is likely that Lot kept his distance from the worst of what was happening in the city. He was of a different species, his origins, and perhaps his religion left a mark on him. But Lot did not walk near God like Abram, and God did not use to visit Lot in the same way. If he experienced anything of communion with God, it was only because he stayed close to his uncle. He was able to write it all off when he broke up with him. At the same time, it must have been clear to him that he would not find another place in the whole of Canaan that God visits besides Abram - but he did not look for the place anyway ... And yet we are struck when we observe someone he is willing not to see, not to hear. Not to see the various signals that must have indicated him long ago: beware, that's not a good way, you're heading for doom here. And not to hear the cries of the oppressed that came from Sodom.

Contrary to the often accepted view that the destruction of Sodom was a punishment for homosexual practices, a careful look at the text reveals that the cause was in fact violence as a result of sexual orgies (presumably of all kinds, as the term "sodomy" indicates).

Today, the theories of the boom and bust cycles of civilizations are revived. The stage of modesty, sacrifice for the community, work, development and growth is replaced by a stage of enjoyment of wealth and all its benefits, followed by moral decline and decay. Thus ended the once richest Rome, and many see parallels to our contemporary western civilization. Sodom was a sure example of this, for it is clear that if it had something to offer its inhabitants, it was a high level of prosperity ("pride, fullness of bread, and confident peace..."). It was, in short, the prestigious address of the world at that time. Whoever had a house here meant something. But there are pitfalls to affluence, one of which is over-saturation, which leads to the search for more and more pleasures. When Lot came to Sodom, it was certainly not a good place for a good man even then, but he probably would not have willingly entered into such horrible conditions as Genesis 19 portrays for us. Rather, it is more likely that it was only here that he witnessed the gradual decline of the city toward public orgies and pervasive violence.

 

There is one more thing that most people would think of when comparing Lot and Abraham, and that is that they actually understand Lot much better. In fact, his choices were quite logical, unlike Abraham's. Lot's desires matched what people of all eras desire. After all, living permanently in a tent is not comfortable, so Lot wanted a house that would provide him with comfort and, moreover, demonstrate his position. He did not like loneliness and therefore did not want to stay far from the people of his time, so he sought their company and acceptance. He did not want to be a stranger permanently, but he wanted to become one of them.

Lot behaved naturally, as anybody normally does when he tries to maximize utility, things pleasant, and minimize discomfort, pain, or loss in his actions. There was no arbiter over his desires other than himself, so he did what was profitable for him within his reasoning. It was not chance, but the desires of his heart that led him to where he now was: in the midst of Sodom, a wealthy city with a vibrant life, full of gaiety and fun, a city surrounded by fertile fields where the same amount of labor expended yielded far greater returns than it had before on the highlands.

We may justly suppose that in the early years after their separation he grew richer more than Abram, thanks to the easier harvest. But war intervened in his life, and when he was taken away by the conquerors, it must have dawned on him, at least at that moment, how literally everything could be lost in a moment. It was then when Abraham saved him and all of Sodom, but even this memento did not cause Lot to change his mind. On the contrary, people tend to be grudgingly grateful to those who rescue them from difficulties if they cannot admit that their situation was their own fault. It does not appear that Lot's intercourse with Abram was then considerable frequent. Once, for his sake, Abraham set out at once with his men to battle. But now that he had learned of the impending destruction of Sodom, Lot was still a precious kinsman to him, but perhaps more one who wanted to determine his own destiny and had no desire for anyone to interfere and set up a mirror for him. He does not go to Lot as he once did to warn him of his doom, and he does not mention him by name in his prayer, though he was certainly thinking of him first and foremost. Inwardly he left him in God's hand - he was for him one who must already stand with his own righteousness.

Lot ruled over his life alone, as most people naturally wish. In contrast, Abraham placed a higher arbiter over his choices, and therefore some of his actions would be incomprehensible to many. Why did he build so many altars - wouldn't just one be enough? Why did he spend so much energy and time worshipping God? Why did he voluntarily go to a worse place several times? Why did he let some opportunities for profit pass him by when a better deal was offered?

It was as if he was being guided by something higher that remained hidden to others. Symbolically, it was the time of God's judgment that revealed that in the end it was the most important thing that remained. Whereas the temporal gain that Lot had earned was something that passed away completely in one single moment.

If we observed Abraham and Lot in their day-to-day ( if you prefer, working) lives, we would not see much difference. They both had the same profession and obviously could do it just as well, as evidenced by the story of their separation, where it is explicitly stated that the flocks of both were large. Both were wealthy, both cared for their families, both enjoyed the dignity of their surroundings (Lot used to sit in the gate of Sodom, indicating his status as an elder of the community). They were both related, they were of the same "religion," so a superficial observer would not notice much difference, except perhaps one, namely that Lot resided in the city, while Abraham camped as a nomad in tents and did not settle in the cities.

For the sake of completeness, we might add that the two were certainly alike in that they had many human faults. But when we look at what drove their lives and their decisions, it becomes obvious how distant these two people really were. From the beginning, when God called him, Abraham made decisions toward heavenly things, even if it meant losing - security or standard of living. This accompanied his departure from Ur, but especially his stepping into Canaan from Haran. He builds altars in the Promised Land from the beginning because there he worships God, looks to heaven, and perhaps in part already understands God's purposes for it and his descendants. It is as if he views these things as paramount, and his prosperity and expansion as second. All this Lot witnessed for years, but we never read that he had the same motives. Lot was no more concerned with spiritual things than he was with earthly things. He also believes in the same god, but he seeks first and foremost his success on earth. He doesn't need to think too much, he knows what is important to him, as we saw in his breakup with Abram. I cover this in more detail in the June 2021 reflections - can be found in the tabs on the right.

Inner attunement leads each person unwaveringly down a particular path. Quite symbolically, it led Abraham to the heights, while it led Lot to the lowlands of Sodom. Abraham sought the things eternal and was given the gift and blessing of the temporal. But his life was not easy. Or else, had he chosen the lowlands, it would certainly have been easier. Lot, on the other hand, sought primarily temporal things, and wanted to find an easier way to them. That's why he chose the more fertile areas when he broke up with Abram.

We see Abraham as a man in two modes - as a capable businessman, a skilled trader, and on the other hand as a man of God. As he follows God, we see his inner spiritual growth and how he prioritizes this second side, which becomes his defining characteristic. Every man of God must go through the same process. Lot, on the other hand, functioned only in the human mode, even though he also believed in God. Yes, he was a man of quality. But he didn't get any further. Unfortunately, in the time of trial, that alone was not enough to save him.

Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. (Gen 19,1)

Let us now leave Abraham for a time and turn our attention to his nephew, Lot. This is not the first time we meet him in the book of Genesis, but it is certainly the last. After chapter 19, there are only fleeting mentions of him in the Bible, but no further story.

Lot only got to the promised land because Abram took him with him after he was called. So he was a witness of the transformation that took place with Abram when he left the idols and began to worship the Lord. Lot did not object to this - on the contrary, if he had objected, he would not have gone with Abram on the journey. So he also was a worshiper of the LORD, one who rejected idolatry, even his own. He saw Abram continue to change as he followed God. Lot was on the right path with him - but only because he was close to someone who followed God. Herein lies Lot's eternal "but." He believes right, he does right - as long as he is under the right influence. But the source is not his own; it does not spring from the inside out as it did with Abram.

Lot has been a witness for many years of how Abram worships God, how he chooses his path, how he makes decisions, how he handles situations. He has seen the blessings that followed. Lot liked the practical outcomes and enjoyed them as long as he stayed with Abram. But to have the same heart for God - that seems to have been too much for him. In short, we do not see that Lot himself made a single personal decision in which he preferred God, without Abraham. We do not see that he favors eternity over temporal good. All that he had in this matter, and how far he had gone, all that was through Abraham's influence.

Lot thus represents a man whose heart does not beat for God though he believes in the right one. It is good to note that he nevertheless maintained a kind of moral standard, did not fall away from God - i.e. lived externally better than the vast majority of people around him. Yet he stagnated, and to stagnate means to slowly degrade on the spiritual path, for life demands growth or it stunts. A man who does not have his own, refined, fought-out relationship with God can only walk in the way of pious imitation. As long as he is under a good influence, it works somehow. That was able to lead Lot as long as he was close to Abram. But as soon as he separated from him internally, he found himself on the road to destruction.

 

Then Abraham answered and said, “Indeed now, I who am but dust and ashes have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord. (Gen 18,27)

Today's man reflects on himself, his destiny, his state of mind and his feelings to a degree and extent unknown in any previous epoch. This is due in large part to the fact that we have been relieved of the burden of struggling every day to provide for basic physical needs (at least in the so-called developed countries). Once upon a time, providing for bare survival burdened man so much that he had little time and energy for other things.

In this we differ from Abraham and his time, and it is good to be aware of this when we read his stories. The Bible maintains that man, at the core of his personality (i.e., in his sinfulness), is basically the same everywhere on earth and in all ages. Even the people of Abraham's day were similar to us in many ways. If we brought them into our time and they had time to understand and process everything, they would behave here years later much like we do. Simply put, their "material" was the same as that from which we are woven, but because it was shaped by different conditions (different influences and forces were at work), the resulting form was different in their case. And yet, how marvelous it is when we realize that in considering Abraham we are looking at events nearly 4,000 years old, and yet they give us inspiration for our present view of life! Certain things about man are true unchangeably, forever.

I have not saved myself this introduction because, following on from the last reflection, I must emphasise that something has happened to our civilisation, which is why I don't think I know of anyone today who would dare to tell people that they are "dust and ashes". (I don't mean that it is necessary to do this as a form of self-flagellation - I simply cannot imagine how people would accept it today). It's not easy for us to look at Abraham, a venerable old man who says this about himself (and believes it), and not at the same time see him as a man without self-esteem who must bow to something higher because he cannot be himself, be internally independent. Today, people need repeated reassurance of the opposite: namely, that they are of immense, incalculable worth to God, and they wish to emphasize "love." But since most of them have not got to known the all-transcending AGAPÉ of God, they imagine it in terms of human love: the love is what makes me feel good. This is then what I expect from God and other people. But the theology which is thereby created in the human imagination makes it impossible to welcome the transformation of one's character through the cross or to love the path upward, which often inevitably leads through thorns.  

Abraham, however, did know God, not by doctrine but by inner revelation, and therefore he could have described himself as dust and ashes and not had to repeat something about his worth to balance it out. Unlike us, he didn't worry about it so much anyway, just as others didn't. But still: though he knew he was but dust before God, he was clearly aware of his value because he was close to God. By communion with God, by the time he spent with Him, he grew in spirit and was inwardly reassured of his true identity.

Then Abraham answered and said, “Indeed now, I who am but dust and ashes have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord. (Gen 18,27)

When a person approaches God through theology (note, in this sense I am referring not only to university studies but also to ordinary teaching in the church where truths about God are heard), he learns about God's attributes through information he receives through reason. He then tries by faith to hold and apply what he has learned about God. Of course, it depends substantially on what theology he actually accepts. Its truths work in him first from the outside in (when he learns them), and then from the inside out (when he acts on them).

But Abraham knew no such way to know God. He had not attended any university or Bible class. Thus, the path for him was only from the inside out - his theology was not based on knowledge, it was not rooted in reason. It flowed from how he knew God as he perceived Him during his encounters with Him, and what he learned about Him through various life experiences as he followed Him. His theological method, then, would probably be called "enlightened intuition."

Therefore, we must remember that his expressions of faith are very spontaneous compared to people living in religious communities. He had no need to imitate spiritual leaders or to conform to what was positively evaluated by those around him (for example, in his church). When Abraham refers to himself as "dust and ashes" to God, it means that he truly saw himself that way before Him. It may sound a bit like gloomy humility in order to appeal to emotions. But Abraham didn't have to resort to something like that - he didn't do it in front of people.

Especially today, when almost everyone is dealing with the question of self-worth - who would want to be seen as "dust"? But beware: and honestly believe it?

Through personal revelation, Abraham recognized God's glory and with it his own nothingness. These two things - knowing God and truly knowing oneself - always go hand in hand. But what is strange about this is that, unlike when we are judged or humiliated by other people, the true revelation of oneself that one sees before God, strangely enough, does not crush him but, on the contrary, liberates him in an unprecedented way. From that moment on, he does not have to prove anything else to himself.

And the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am doing"? (Gen 18,17)

Abraham's prayer for Sodom brings us to a special question. Who loved Sodom more - Abraham or God?

Many religious questions seem to have a quick, first-order answer (= after all, it's obvious!), so we would say, well, who else but God. But if we think deeper, it was actually Abraham who tried to move God to grace, to give Sodom a chance yet. Could it be, then, that man's love for the man here exceeded the love of God?

There is a hidden mystery here. When God decided to reveal His purpose to Abraham, He knew full well how he would react. After all, God knew him perfectly - whereas Abraham knew God only in part, yet in a way that no one else on earth did. So when God told Abraham of His intention to bring Sodom to judgment, God knew that Abraham would intercede on her behalf.

"And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave" (Gen. 18:20) In a culture where sexual perversion and promiscuity breed, violence increases rapidly. Abraham certainly knew something about this, and he did not have close contact with Sodom. His heart was stirred, however, for Lot's sake, but not only for his sake (he began his prayer for the fifty people), and he tried to obtain more grace for Sodom. Was his heart moved in him? But what caused it? Was it not because the reflection of God's love was manifested in Abraham? Would Abraham have pleaded for Sodom, would he have cared for them, if he had not known God? Wouldn't he have had a rather quick, schematic condemnation for them?

God could have acted alone and directly, but He allowed that His actions on earth would be influenced by His people on earth. Of course, a believer himself cannot change the course of history regadless God. That is why we have seen that Abraham perceived when his plea was about to end. Yet his prayer for Sodom reveals a mystery: God's dealings with the world are no longer separately sovereign, but are co-formed with His people on earth. The key to this is a prayer.

 

He has delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us again. On him we have set our hope that he will continue to deliver us, as you help us by your prayers. (2K 1,10-11)

Who actually taught Abraham to pray? At that time there was no one else who could have been a model for him, from whom he could have learned about the spiritual path. He learned everything on his own as he followed God. However, it seems to be a kind of a spiritual law: once someone has a personal encounter with God, his attitude toward prayer changes significantly. He comes to understand much about it that has hitherto been hidden from him, and his prayer begins to differ from what even unbelievers sometimes give a try when they go through difficulties. They do not perceive God, they do not know when to speak and when to stop, that secret of listening which Abraham already knew. He, too, could have come to God with a fixed purpose, a plan to save Sodom at all costs. He would have shouted, urged and pounded on the closed door, forcing himself to go on up to number one, hoping thus to save Sodom because his (righteous) nephew Lot was in it.

But then he would not have been heard. Clearly God wanted perverse Sodom to be saved if there were at least a few worthy original inhabitants besides Lot's family. If Abraham had not learned spontaneously, through the influence of time spent in communion with God, to pray "according to the will of the Spirit" (Rom. 8:27), he would not have stopped, and his experience of prayer not working (and him not knowing why) would have thrown him into a spiritual confusion. He would not have experienced the answer, and thus would not have anchored his confidence more deeply in God, would not have experienced the foreshadowing of the word "if ye abide in me, and if my words abide in you, ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you" (Jn. 15:3). On the contrary, he would have gotten the impression that, while it is possible to "pray for the children and bless Israel just before going to bed," religion is otherwise a rather shaky business and it is probably better to live a normal life and not excessively pursue the matter of spirituality.

However, praying according to God's will is indeed powerful! Paul knew this while having asked almost every Christian congregation in the New Testament for it. In Eastern doctrines, the world is not separate from God, and therefore their proponents tend to think that all what happens around is the will of God. Then one should rather accept it and not try to change it. Prayer, if practiced at all, has a purely meditative meaning. But this is not the Jewish conception we see in the Bible. That is based on the separateness of God and the world. Meditative in the sense of abiding in God, yes, but in our verse in the title Paul is clearly saying that things will turn out differently if they pray than if they don't. God will deliver me if you will help me with your prayers... but if you don't, who knows?