1. The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed himself with his face to the earth.
THIS chapter contains a description of that punishment for sins which has been mentioned in the previous chapter, namely, that the outcry against Sodom came up to heaven. Now I do not discuss this awful account with pleasure, any more than I did the account of the Flood. For it is something awful to feel and experience the wrath of God raging almost beyond measure against the wretched human race.
Therefore I am profoundly affected whenever I either read about or discuss these events. Even though I am a human being who is prone to anger, I am nevertheless deeply moved by such an extraordinary disaster; and I am aware of the trial which Abraham underwent when, through his intercession, he tried with all his power to turn away such great wrath from the impenitent sinners.
The antinomians, those modern prophets, maintain that people must be dealt with gently and must not be frightened by examples of God's wrath.1 But Paul states the opposite in 2 Tim. 3:16–17. He says there that Scripture is also "profitable for reproof and correction, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." Well known is also the command about rightly dividing the Word of God.
And in 1 Cor. 10:6, 2 after diverse evidences of God's wrath against sinners, he states plainly that those things were written for our sakes, lest we sin through lust in conformity with their example.
Therefore the examples of the wrath of God, such as the one before us, must be dealt with in such a manner that they serve for our instruction and learning. Thus the Lord commands Abraham, who was far saintlier than we are, to relate these events to his children. For you will always find two kinds of human beings. One of these is haughty and obstinate, despises the Word and godly admonitions, and is smug beyond measure. If you treat these people gently and proclaim the mercy of God to them, you will make them worse. This, of course, is the fruit which the error of the antinomians produces. But I warn you to be on your guard against them. For they are not satisfied that they themselves perish; but they want to drag us, too, to destruction with them and to burden us with their sins, since they, like the people of Sodom, do not want them checked.
But God has put the ministry of the Word into this world, not that the ministers should be silent, but that they should reprove, teach, comfort, terrify, and in this manner save whomever they can. The antinomians do away with this ministry entirely when they refuse to tolerate reproofs and order us to acquiesce in their sins, contrary to the statement of Paul, who in Rom. 2:1 condemns not only those who commit sins but also those who acquiesce in them. But those who do not reprove sins acquiesce in them.
That is what I would be doing if I were to conceal the sins, blasphemies, and tyranny of the cardinals, the pope, and the bishops. But the Lord says in the book of the prophet (Ezek. 3:19): "You will deliver your soul if you reprove the sins of your people." Even the most wicked human beings must be borne3 with compassion; but when they want to snatch us with them to destruction, compassion must cease. Neither the authority of parents nor the love for our children must mean so much to us that we are willing to perish with them. Then all compassion must be forgotten, in accordance with the example of Lot, who abandons his wife when, contrary to the Lord's command, she looks back while she is on the way. Because such people have become hardened and accept no admonition, they must be abandoned.
But toward those who are not so obstinate but can be guided God wants us to show compassion, as the parable about the lost sheep teaches (Luke 15:4 ff.). For they are not impenitent Sodomites, for whom
God's rock-crushing hammer is appropriate. From these the judgment of the Lord should not be concealed; otherwise it will happen that we pollute ourselves with their sins by acquiescing in them. All
Christians have been placed into the world for the purpose of serving their neighbors, not only so far as the Second Table is concerned but rather so far as the First Table is concerned, in order that they all may learn to fear God and to trust in His mercy.
The other kind have already been humbled and are terrified. Christ (Luke 12:32) calls them a little flock and tells them not to fear. Even though they are weak and sin in various ways, they are not inflexible or callous. Toward such the minister should be prudent and faithful. He should divide the Word of God rightly (2 Tim. 2:15) and not mix anything foreign with the sound doctrine. Nor should he further frighten those who are frightened by the wrath and judgment of God; he should encourage them. This is great wisdom and is very necessary in the ministry. The two kinds of hearers should be properly distinguished, and everyone should hear the words that are intended for him—the obstinate, the awful examples of God's
- 118 wrath; but the fearful, the sweet words of comfort. For Christ is set for the rising of some and for the fall of others (cf. Luke 2:34). Those who have been humbled must, therefore, be buoyed up. On the other hand, those who have exalted themselves in their smugness must be crushed, as St. Mary teaches in her song (Luke 1:52). This is the right division, for the fearful are unavoidably mingled with the smug.
Therefore this moderation is needed in order that those who are obdurate may know that these awful examples are aimed at them. But those who have been frightened should apply the words of comfort and promise to themselves.
After this it is the work of the Holy Spirit to direct the hearts of men by means of the Word and confession, with the result that the fearful apprehend the comforts but the obstinate are either converted after they have been frightened by the words of the Law or perish utterly. Not all people should be condemned without distinction. Just as the Flood and the destruction of the Sodomires are like thunderbolts by which the hearts are frightened, so there is added to these examples of wrath the comforting knowledge that Noah and Lot were preserved. In this way the fearful will be kept from despairing.
This is why I read awful accounts of this kind. Yet I read them reluctantly, because I am frightened by the greatness of God's wrath. Still I see that this doctrine is useful not only to frighten the proud but also to keep the godly in the fear of God, lest they sin and perish in accordance with the example of the ungodly. Furthermore, in these examples the wrath of God is presented in such a way that at the same time the goodness of God, who mercifully preserves the faithful, still shines forth.
Thus Christ says in Is. 61:1 ff.: "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord has anointed Me to bring good tidings to the afflicted; He has sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn." Behold, the poor, the brokenhearted, the prisoners, the confined, and the mourning are promised pardon, freedom, and a "year," or a time, when God has been placated. Therefore those who are not poor and brokenhearted—to them the day of vengeance, that is, the wrath of God, is proclaimed.
Therefore if Christ teaches in such a way that He connects the doctrine of wrath with mercy, why should we not follow Him? Accordingly, it is the highest wisdom properly to combine the mercy revealed in the preservation of Lot and the wrath revealed in the destruction of the people of Sodom. Frightened and fearful hearts undoubtedly please God; for He promises (Is. 42:3) that "a braised reed He will not break, and a dimly burning wick He will not quench."
Even though these examples of wrath bring about contrition, one must nevertheless cease mentioning them when hearts have been broken; the grief must be lessened, and the wound must be healed. In Ps.
51:19 Scripture calls fear a sacrifice to God and worship. But since these accounts were written through the Holy Spirit for the purpose of impelling hearts to fear God, to shun sins, and to do justice and righteousness, it is proper to present them in the church, which, just as it has two kinds of people, also presents a twofold Word: the accounts of wrath and the threats against the obdurate, the smug, and the impenitent; and the promises for the benefit of the contrite and the humbled. But it is the highest wisdom to dispense these rightly.
The pope has the thunderbolt of excommunication, but against whom does he employ it? Does he not use it against us, who are not smug but are contrite and humble? But men of his own kind—Epicureans, smug canons, cardinals, bishops, and tyrants—he declares Messed and elevates to heaven. In this way he lives up to his title by comforting the poor of the church and condemning the recalcitrant.4
But this is nothing new, for consider Ezek. 13:19: "You have profaned Me among My people for handfuls of barley"; that is, for the sake of acquiring temporal possessions you have corrupted the doctrine and have condemned the pious. But you have emboldened the wicked. This is the meaning of what follows: "For pieces of bread you have killed souls that should not have died, and you have kept alive souls which should not have lived, when you lied to My people, who listen to lies." And in another passage (Ezek. 13:22): "You have made sad the heart of the righteous whom I have not made sad." Thus the entire papacy lacks that wisdom of rightly dividing the Word. Therefore it cannot build. On the contrary, it destroys and overthrows everything by its doctrine.
But the Holy Spirit presents these accounts of God's wrath and judgment also in such a manner that at the same time He points out the solid condor that God will deliver from certain destruction those who fear
- 119 Him, as He delivered Lot. Hence not only do the people of Sodom perish, but Lot gives thanks to God after he has been saved. You who are fearful and have been humbled, think of Lot, who was saved, and hope that God will do the same thing for you. On the other hand, you who live smugly in whoredom, that is, heap up riches, sumptuously take care of your own skin, and are a sow from the herd of Epicurus, turn your eyes toward the people of Sodom! See what severe punishment followed their disgraceful crimes!
Consider that suddenly five cities were consumed by fire from heaven, that the earth sank down, and that an awful lake of bitumen took its place, as in one single moment the sinners were destroyed and perished eternally!
A careful consideration of these events will induce you to think of your own peril, to cease sinning, and to implore pardon for your sins. This our foolish and blind antinomians, Agricola and Schenk, do not know.5 Consequently, they do away with the preaching of God's wrath in the church, to its great and certain detriment. Therefore I warn you to beware of such men, for they are fanatical spirits and are ignorant of spiritual matters. Yet they are puffed up with a vain notion of their erudition and wisdom. But I return to the account.
In the preceding chapter Moses designates as men those whom in this passage he clearly calls angels.
In both instances, however, the designation must be understood in such a way as to lead you to the conclusion that the Lord appeared in them. But why Moses altered the designation in this way I do not know, unless perhaps the Holy Spirit wanted to indicate that they were not natural human beings.
The evening Moses mentions was, I think, the next evening after the noon at which they dined with Abraham. But the journey from Mamre to Sodom is too long to be completed in so few hours by a human being; and for this reason the Psalm6 states in this passage that they were angels, lest anyone suspect that fiction is being related.
Furthermore, to this account should be applied what we have said above concerning hospitality.7 For just as you heard about Abraham, so you hear also about Lot that he longed for guests, received them with open arms, and all but compelled them to enjoy his hospitality. I have also stated that there is no greater praise of hospitality than that in Matt. 25:35: "I was hungry, and you gave Me bread."
Lot's sitting in the gate of Sodom is something different from sitting in the gate of the city, for the gate of the city denotes the place of the court. It was the custom of Oriental peoples to place the court in the gates, for there they had a citadel or ramparts and came together whenever they were about to deliberate on matters of state. Lot, however, is sitting in the entrance to the city.
This, however, is praise of his hospitality, for the circumstances reveal why he did not remain at home.
He is looking for guests and is aware of the raging of the citizens and of their deeds of violence. Therefore if some strangers should come, he wants them to stay with him, where they can spend the night free from abuse and violence. And perhaps there was at that time a great persecution in Ur of the Chaldeans. For this reason large numbers of the godly preferred to follow the exiled Abraham, to live with him in exile rather than with the ungodly in their native land. Accordingly, since Abraham and Lot have been cautioned against the perils of the brethren, they sit either at the house door or in the gate, so that any who come will find guest rooms ready.
Therefore when Lot sees the angels, he worships them with his face down to the earth. This was not recorded about Abraham, who merely bowed or genuflected. Lot falls down on his face on the earth; so great was his respect at that time toward guests.
From this it is apparent what discipline there was in the households of the godly and how they accustomed their descendants to receive strangers as reverently as if God Himself were coming; for in them they revered and honored God.
In our age, in these dregs of the world, there is such great wickedness, and there are such manifold instances of fraud and deceit that you do not know what to do for anyone. Yet we must at least treat with respect those whom we know and aid them by means of our service. But hear how Lot talks with his unknown guests.
2. And he said: My lords, turn aside, I pray you, to your servants house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise up early and go on your way. They said: No; we will spend the night in the street.
3. But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.
- 120 The word "lords" is not the usual יםנֹד ִאֲ or ֹד ֵניאֲ but ינֹד ַאֲ, which is appropriate for God alone. How it is to be understood has been adequately stated above at great length;8 and the account shows that Lot, too, had been properly instructed about the doctrine of the Trinity, either by Abraham himself or by another of the patriarchs. Therefore since two guests are present, he does not endeavor to show honor to lords but to the Lord in them. The books of the heathen contain no such examples of hospitality. Therefore we should give them careful consideration.
Lot offers them hospitality in a very generous manner, makes himself their servant but calls them lords, and also bids them act as such, in order that they may do everything as though they were the masters of the house. He offers them water for their feet, which was a customary service to strangers, not only for washing off the dirt gathered on the journey but also to revive their tired feet and to restore their vigor.
Christ, too, instituted a washing of the feet (John 18:1 ff.), but one far different from the one which is practiced today by the monks and bishops, the pope, kings, and princes, who have kept only the show.9
Christ wants us to humble ourselves at the feet of others; He wants us to serve the needs of others. But these facts all of them disregard. Meanwhile they suppose that by means of this empty show they are imitating Christ. But it is very well known what kind of example He has given us and how much the hypocrites differ from Him.
Here the angels do something they did not do at Abraham's house. When Lot invites them to his house, they refuse and want to spend the night in the street. But when Abraham offers them hospitality, they immediately assent and say: "Do as you have said." So Lot does something which Abraham did not do. He insists when they decline, for he feared for them because of the citizens.
The Hebrews say that the reason why the angels pretended to be unwilling to enter Lot's house was to make more apparent the zeal and ready willingness of Lot, who could not be satisfied but even forced them to enter into his house.10 But it is futile and useless for us to investigate these matters more closely.
In the world, of course, it is exceedingly common to be generous with words. Thus the invitations extended to people whom we nevertheless would not want to come are termed polite words. One encounters these deceptions at court, but the words of the pious fathers were not in disagreement with their hearts. Therefore I do not believe that this refusal was made in order to test Lot.
Solomon earnestly warns in Prov. 23:6–7: "Do not eat bread with an envious person; for he tells you:
'at and drink,' but his heart is not with you." Many strive for applause and want to appear hospitable even though they are very stingy and are angry for three whole clays because of a single penny. This failing is especially prevalent among the mighty. In people who bestow a favor there should be a sincere heart, but in those who receive a favor there should be reasonableness and modesty.
And this, it seems to me, is the reason why the angels declined the favor; for, as modest people are wont to do, they decline as though they did not intend to burden Lot—not deceitfully, of course, but truthfully. But when they modestly refuse, Lot generously and sincerely offers them hospitality. He is not one of those who, when they are about to give something, first ask a question and subject modesty to a test. For it is true what a familiar little verse states: "He who wants to give to others should not say: 'Do you want it?' "11 It is impolite to subject modesty to a test and to force one, as it were, to beg.
Even under the stress of need modest people nevertheless almost want to be forced to accept a favor.
On the other hand, you may find others, who are impudent and do not wait until you bid them but obtrude themselves of their own accord, take a seat at the table, and want this and that given to them. Such people deserve to be disliked.
Thus this passage deals principally with the fact that those who bestow a favor should bestow it with sincerity. Those who accept it should accept it with modesty. I think that this maxim is rightly taught on the basis of this passage. But one must not stop here, for the Holy Spirit also reveals something else.
We observe that Holy Scripture is in excellent agreement with itself and is uniformly consistent everywhere. Above, when Abraham interceded for the people of Sodom, he hears the awful and unexpected verdict that not ten righteous men are found in the five cities. The circumstances before us serve to lend support to this statement. The angels themselves, like exiles who are unfamiliar with the ways of the people (for so they pretend to be), consider it just as safe to sleep in the streets as it is in other well-behaved cities. But Lot, who is familiar with everything, entreats them all the more earnestly to stay with him, because he knows for sure that harm will be done to them if they spend the night in the street.
- 121 He knew that the people of Sodom not only were inhospitable but also persecuted strangers and treated them outrageously.
This is what Moses wanted to point out, just as Ezekiel also says: "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before Me" (16:49–50). These are very harsh words. He calls them proud despisers of the Word, that is, of God and of men; for they were practicing no reverence toward God and no love toward human beings. They had forgotten the kindness with which they had been treated by Abraham, and they assumed that they were the only ones whom God loved and who could not offend God, inasmuch as He was blessing them in this manner.
Today, too, the world allows itself to be deceived by this foolish conclusion. Because it sees that it is being made rich through prosperity, wealth, and health, it concludes that it has a gracious God and proclaims: "Behold, God is dwelling among us."12
Similarly, the Jews say (Zech. 11:5): "Blessed be the Lord, we have become rich." In the schools they called this conclusion "from the staff to the corner."13 God does not grant wealth in order to cause you to conclude from it that He is gracious; He has bestowed another greater benefit, and from it you may properly reach this conclusion. He wants to put you to the test, to see whether you are willing to abide in His fear, to humble yourself before Him, and also to render the obedience that is due Him. For very few do this; they become haughty because of their good fortune. Hence there is the proverb: "Gold makes bold."14 "Good fortune commonly induces hearts to be unrestrained."15 Also: "It takes strong legs to carry good days." Unless hearts are enlightened and ruled by the Holy Spirit—as in the case of David,
Abraham, and others—it is impossible for them not to be corrupted by favorable circumstances, as has been elegantly stated: "Those whom fortune favors it makes foolish."16 Therefore the psalm (62:10) warns: "If riches increase, set not your heart on them."
But the world does not believe this. Together with the people of Sodom it holds fast to this firm conclusion: "Behold, we have a very fertile land, a very powerful city; we have been weighed down with gifts and with good fortune of many kinds. How, then, could God hate us; or how could any misfortune befall us?"
In addition to this, there was an abundance of food. They indulged in drunkenness and gluttony, just as we Germans, too, are in the habit of doing. But it is also well known what usually results from drunkenness. On the evening when they wanted to perpetrate this crime against the angels who were guests there may have been a public feast at which they Swilled wine.
Furthermore, Ezekiel mentions ease or the good fortune of a quiet life. Everything was serene, and they experienced no famine, no plague, and no diseases; but, as Moses says of his own people (Deut.
32:15), they became as fat and thick as pigs. Therefore there also followed what pertains to the situation before us; they did not stretch out their hand to the poor, and they were inhospitable. Similarly, today in Germany many pastors of churches almost starve. Poor Christ is hungry. Everywhere He all but perishes from His affictions. Indeed, there is no compassion among human beings.
Since this was the state of affairs in Sodom and in the neighboring cities, the report about them spread to other cities and places close by. For a city gets its reputation from its morals. Similarly, in Germany today some cities are notorious for usury,17 which is also a sin of Sodom and is not only not concealed but is even publicized. They are also notorious for excessive eating and drinking. When these sins are committed publicly and are customarily excused by men so that they are not only not infamous but even give rise to laughter—just as we see our nobles and burghers boast of their association with prostitutes— then they are indeed sins like those of Sodom.
Thus Isaiah (3:9) declares concerning his people: "They proclaim their sin like Sodom; they do not hide it." Where shame and modesty are found, and you blush at your sin and are afraid that it may be made public, there sin is still not serious; but when it is publicized, and criminals, as Solomon says (Prov.
2:14), rejoice in the most evil deeds and delight in wickedness, there nothing is left but hell-fire.
Scripture itself gives evidence that the Sodomites were most corrupt and that in such a great multitude there are not ten men who are good. Accordingly, this is the main purpose served when it states that Lot compels the angels to enter his house when they want to spend the night in the street and decline his hospitality. Therefore Lot intends to protect them from harm and almost forces them into his house. But - 122 what happens? What he eagerly seeks to avoid takes place. Because he protects his guests and takes them into his house, the Sodomites are stirred up to attempt a horrible crime.
Thus the circumstances make the villainy greater. The angels, as strangers, walk along barefoot and with uncovered heads, as though they were weary from the journey. But at that place, among so many rich citizens, there is none who offers them a drop of water; indeed, they even seek to kill them and subject them to the utmost contumely. But godly Lot not only gives them lodging but also prepares a feast.
Scripture does not mention whether he invited some of his sons-in-law. His other actions prove that he certainly attempted to do so in order to put his guests in a cheerful mood. After the rich meal he also serves them unleavened cakes, lest anything be lacking either to meet the needs of his guests or to show his generosity.
Inasmuch as the text mentions unleavened bread, the question arises here whether anything of the Mosaic laws was in existence at that time. Furthermore, the Jews maintain that Sodom was destroyed on the day of the Passover, which is the most joyful festival of an during the year, and that for this reason the people of Sodom had given themselves up to drinking. Lyra vehemently opposes this idea, but to no great advantage.18 For what good or evil results from it? At an events, however, it is profitable for students to learn to distinguish the Law of Moses from an other laws; but whether the Feast of Passover or Pentecost was then in existence I neither deny nor assert.
Nevertheless, I think that it can be stated with assurance that Moses kept in his laws many things which had previously been observed by the fathers. He commands sacrifices, but Abel sacrificed a lamb and Cain sacrificed the fruits of the field long before the time of Moses. Thus Noah distinguished between clean and unclean animals. Who would deny that at God's command Moses retained in his laws other similar things that had previously been observed by the godly? He had to establish a new people and to found a new kingdom. This could not be done without laws, and these laws had to be written with care.
Moreover, because the church was in this kingdom, there had to be worship and ceremonies. Since the age of the patriarchs had preserved some of these, Moses, by divine command, retained them, just as he retained circumcision. Judicial procedures were also laid down concerning the punishment of criminals.
But who would doubt that most of the judicial procedures were also taken over from the practice of earlier times and from the tradition of the fathers? But Moses, as the lawgiver with a pious regard for his own times, added others, as the Lord commanded.
But whether Moses transferred to his own people some things either from the tradition and practice of the fathers or from the custom of neighboring nations, the whole is nevertheless called theLaw of Moses.
And the passage before us gives evidence that the use of unleavened bread was in existence before the Law and that it was made use of either at a definite time, as later on in the Law, or at feasts.
The Jews do wrong when they praise their laws so highly at the present time and maintain that these laws are indispensable. Like the tribes of Levi and of Judah, these laws were meant for a definite place and for a definite time, that is, up to the time of Christ; the place was the land of Canaan, in which the twelve tribes dwelt. This was the boundary and limit, so to speak, of the Mosaic kingdom. Since today the Jews have lost their land or place, they are certainly bound to disregard the Law too; for the time has expired, and the locale has been shifted. The persons, too—that is, the royal and the priestly tribe—have become mixed.
Before the Law the practice of eating unleavened bread was in existence among the Orientals, but in such a way that it was served at all banquets, at weddings, and at festivities. But at the Lords command
Moses placed a restriction on this custom and wanted his people to eat unleavened bread at the Passover.
Hence the Law of Moses must be distinguished from other laws. In the Law the use of unleavened bread took place at a definite time; before the Law its use was unrestricted at all times. Similarly, Moses commanded to sacrifice a lamb at the Passover; but before Moses it was permitted to sacrifice a lamb whenever one wished. Therefore the use of unleavened bread is of no concern to Moses, although later on he wanted it to be part of a specific occasion. Because of Lyra's discussion I wanted to call attention to these facts in passing. Now let us explain the remaining matters in the account.
4. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house;
5. and they called to Lot: Where are the men who came go you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.
- 123 Moses proceeds with a description of a terrible sin. I for my part do not enjoy dealing with this passage, because so far the ears of the Germans are innocent of and uncontaminated by this monstrous depravity; for even though this disgrace, like other sins, has crept in through an ungodly soldier and a lewd merchant, still the rest of the people are unaware of what is being done in secret. The Carthusian monks deserve to be hated because they were the first to bring this terrible pollution into Germany from the monasteries of Italy. Of course, they were trained and educated in such a praiseworthy manner at But this passage contains a necessary and profitable doctrine. We see that when sins become the fashion and human beings smugly indulge in them, the punishment of God follows immediately.
Therefore let us learn to fear God and to arm ourselves against the flesh and the devil, in order that we may not fall into similar disgraceful sins which God cannot allow to go unpunished. Moses describes the wretchedness and misfortune of the human race in strong enough terms. After the angels had eaten, he says, they undoubtedly talked about various things at table—about the fear of God, about righteousness, and about the corruption of morals and the collapse of discipline; for perhaps saintly Lot complained about these matters. Peter does not state without cause (2 Peter 2:8) that the soul of righteous Lot was tortured day 20 and night because he was compelled both to see and to hear shameful things. Therefore
Lot's mouth spoke out of the abundance of his heart (Matt. 12:35), and he could not control his grief when such saintly guests had arrived at such an opportune time.
After they had finished the meal and the time called for sleep, what happens? The men of the city, the men of Sodom (this repetition serves to aggravate the sin), are in such a frenzy that they not only showed no courtesy toward the guests but did not allow the tired men to rest even for an hour in someone else's house. They vent their rage upon the weary men before these men go to bed, and they begrudge them their sleep. Is not this extraordinary rudeness and cruelty? But it is more serious and altogether unheard of for them to demand the men for their sensual desire. It is the men of the city who do this, not the unimportant people of the populace—hirelings, slaves, and sojourners—but the foremost citizens, whose obligation it was to protect others and to punish similar crimes in the case of others.
Accordingly, this, too, serves to make you realize that there were not ten righteous men in the city.
These were the foremost citizens. They had wives. They had children and domestics, and they should have ruled these and accustomed them to discipline and modesty. But what are they themselves perpetrating?
What are they attempting to do? And that in public and against innocent guests!
Moreover, Moses repeats and says that this was done by the men of Sodom, which is the chief city of the entire region and for this reason should have been an example for the neighboring cities. It usually happens that smaller states conform to the example of larger ones. But what shall be our opinion about those four lesser states, when so much vice is in evidence in the chief one, which was the leader, so to speak, of the others? But listen further to Moses.
They surround the house; they do not send servants or attendants to Lot's house to learn the identity of the guests who have arrived. Nor do they themselves come to find out. No, they surround the house and threaten some hostile act. The Hebrew verb in this passage is "passive,"21 but its meaning is well known from Jer. 31:22: "At that time a woman will compass a man." It means to encircle, just as a hoop surrounds a container on all sides. In this manner they encircled Lot's house; they run toward it from all comers and streets.
This situation causes me to think that at that time there was a feast day and that banquets were held throughout the city, for the entire city was in a frenzy. Even though they did not all want to perpetrate the crime, they were nevertheless all involved in the endeavor and took pleasure in this raging of the citizens against the strangers. But he who commits a deed and he who gives his consent are in the same position.
Furthermore, among the four parts the most distressing is "young and old." רעַנַ is a term for an age, and the Hebrews commonly use it when they speak of servants and maids. It denotes those who have reached the twentieth, twenty-fourth, or twenty-sixth year, are now qualified by age to perform services, and now feel the passion of the flesh. All these join the citizens, the king, the counselors, the senators, and the aristocrats; even old men are there, among whom sexual desire is dead or who at least would have been able to check the frenzy of the rest because of their gray hair and their influence. And in order that you may understand the situation more clearly, the entire populace comes running at the same time from - 124 every corner of the city. To be sure, they could not all perpetrate this crime; but they were both delighted by the deed and gave their consent.
But what shall we suppose was in the mind of godly Lot, toward whose house everybody was going during this uproar in the whole city? He alone feared God, and in his house he maintained discipline and chastity to the utmost of his ability, while the others indulged freely and without shame in adultery, fornication, effeminacy, and even incest to such an extent that these were not regarded as sins but as some pastime, just as today among the nobility and the lower classes of Germany fornication is regarded as a pastime, not as a sin, and for this reason is also entirely unpunished.
First in Italy and then by some canons in Germany it was argued that simple fornication of an unattached man with an unattached woman is not a sin but is a cleansing of nature, which seeks an outlet.22 Let this be said with due respect for innocent ears, for I do not relish dealing with these matters.
Yet we must be on our guard lest such shocking utterances carry away and ruin the age that is rash and in general is inclined toward sin. For where people live and teach in such a way and vices become customary, there, says Seneca sternly, there is no room for a cure.23
As for you, set before yourselves the statements of Paul, and on the basis of them reach the decision that "God will judge the immoral and adulterous" (Heb. 13:4); "Be not deceived; neither the immoral nor adulterers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9); and Rom. 8:8: "Without chastity no one will please God."
In Rome I myself saw some cardinals who were esteemed highly as saints because they were content to associate with women.24 Hence unspeakable infamies are committed there, not in secret or in privacy but openly, because of the example and the influence of the leading men and of the entire city. What room can there be here for a cure? Or who will rebuke such people? They regard sins as praiseworthy morals and suppose that they can be practiced with commendation. If you compare these people with those who, although they sin, nevertheless keep their sin secret and blush with shame, you will say that they are sinners who can be tolerated, just as the German proverb says about Nobody: "Even though Nobody sins, yet he sins tolerably." For he has fear and at least a crude and slavish sense of shame, because he would not want his sin to become public. The people of Sodom were not of this kind. Therefore among them everything was beyond hope, and no room remained for a cure; the Lord had to come down from heaven and punish them.
Even though it is awful to experience and to observe how great Satan's power is after a person has once turned away from the fear of God—for Satan does not cease to drive on from sin to sin—it is still profitable to ponder these facts; for they encourage us to pray. Yes, they even commend to us the concern which our heavenly Father has for us when He warns us and calls us back, so to speak, to the right way by means of His fatherly rod, which thus becomes sweet when you reflect what a human being is wont to do when he is left to himself and indulges freely in sin.
The heinous conduct of the people of Sodom is extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which was implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who, after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.
Moses emphasizes this sin very much when he adds those awful words which are unbearable in the ears of all sane human beings: "Bring out those men, that we may know them." It is not one or the other who is crying this. No, it is the entire city, young and old, even the officers of the state. Learn, therefore, what the prophet Isaiah (3:9) means when he says about his people: "They proclaim their sin like Sodom."
It is not in the house that they utter such unspeakable words; but they are standing outside in the open, and by authority of the officers of the state they publicly demand that the two angels be brought out. Therefore this was not a sin of such a kind that they desired it to be secret and to remain hidden; it is clear that it was an open practice of which no one was ashamed.
What makes their disgraceful action worse is that they have the audacity to do these things to strangers. Moreover, what did the other four lesser cities and, as it were, pupils do when Sodom, their leading city, was doing this? Therefore if the Lord had not brought on the punishment which they deserved, the government would gradually have collapsed and could not have continued to exist. For if you do away with the marriage bond and permit promiscuous passions, the laws and all decency go to ruin
- 125 together with discipline. But when these are destroyed, no government remains; only beastliness and savagery are left. Therefore as an example for others the Lord was compelled to inflict punishment and to check the madness that was raging beyond measure.
6. Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 7. and said: I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
8. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.
All this is intended to describe incorrigible madness and an utterly incurable sin. To be sure, pious Lot tries to resist the madness of his fellow citizens with sound instruction and a godly and friendly admonition; but he does so in vain, for they are inflamed all the more. He calls them brothers and not, as they had deserved, tyrants or rascals; and he begs them in a most friendly manner to desist from their design and to do no harm to his guests. But they are irritated all the more. What, then, would they have done if he had roundly condemned them and had called them slaves of Satan, as they actually were, and enemies of God?
"A soft answer," says Solomon (Prov. 15:1), "turns away wrath"; but the madness of these people is so great that they are inflamed all the more. Nor is it enough for Lot to have tried to gain his end by means of soft words, but he makes a final effort and offers them his two daughters merely to have regard for the decency of his guests and to save them from harm. Nor does he take into consideration the most certain danger to which he was exposing his daughters, who were already betrothed.25
Accordingly, you see the magnitude of the sin of the people of Sodom, which could not be cured by any method. They utterly despised the Word. Moreover, the two remedies—and very important ones at that—which Lot applies in such great danger, namely, very friendly words and his offer to surrender his daughters to the lust of the raving people of Sodom to misuse them as they please, are not only futile but even increase their frenzy. They make no reply to his proposal concerning his daughters. Instead, as frenzied men are wont to do, they spurn women, as though they wanted to say that the ravishing of girls is an everyday sport. Therefore they turn to Lot and reply to his speech.
9. But they said: "Draw near to that place!"
Jerome has translated this with "Stand back!" as though they were ordering him to depart from the city;26 but it is more likely that they ordered him to return to the house and to bring out his guests.
And they said: This fellow came to sojourn, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them. Then they pressed hard against the man Lot.
In short, they do not want to be corrected, and they do not want to be rebuked. They rely on their power and on their large number, and they look down upon Lot as a sojourner. They do not want to be either judged or admonished by him. Today the pope is accustomed to deal with his people in the same way. Because he is sitting on that summit of authority, he thinks that he may do what he pleases, is impatient of all reproof, and calls those seditious whom he sees offering resistance to his whims. He is altogether like the people of Sodom. But where no room is left for remedies, there ruin and destruction must ensue. So far Moses has described the sin of Sodom; now he proceeds to describe the punishment.
But first we shall occupy ourselves with the usual questions.
In the first place, it is customarily asked whether all the people in the five cities were so perverse and wicked, what our opinion of the women and the virgins should be, likewise what we should think about the little children, who do not yet have the use of reason. But we shall put off these questions until the end, and we shall now concern ourselves with that familiar one with which Lyra, and before him Augustine, have dealt.27
Did Lot do right when, for the sake of saving his guests, he offered his daughters—and betrothed daughters at that—for defilement? For it is a great disgrace for a parent to expose his daughters—and betrothed daughters at that—to prostitution, and not to simple prostitution but to adultery, yes, even to death. Yet we see that Lot, who does this, is the kind of man who is worthy to show hospitality to angels, something which is a distinct proof of his sanctity and godliness.
But just as the loyalty toward his guests deserves praise, so his extreme disloyalty toward his daughters, whose respectability the parent should defend at the risk of his own life, is execrable.
These facts cause Augustine to waver. Consequently, he does not come to a definite conclusion. It seems to be true that between two evils the lesser evil should be chosen. This he calls balancing one
- 126 shameful deed with another. Since the respectability either of his guests or of his daughters had to be put in peril, the sin against his daughters seemed less grave; for the other sin was against nature. But the apostle overthrows this opinion when he says (Rom. 3:8) that evils should not be done in order that good may result. And Augustine himself leans toward a less harsh opinion and concludes that Lot resorted to this plan because of unusual perturbation of spirit, but that the perturbation of spirit was wicked and for this reason should not be expressed. In this manner Augustine extricates himself and leaves the hearer in doubt.
Lyra's discussion is somewhat more outspoken. Although he does not approve of Augustine's idea about balancing one shameful deed with another—just as it should not be approved—he nevertheless adduces two examples which seem to support Augustine's view.
In the first place, divorce was permitted to the Jews in order to avoid greater sin. In the second place, in the more populous and crowded cities houses of ill fame are tolerated in order that because of this opportunity fewer acts of debauchery and adultery may be committed. Thus in this instance, too, Lot was at liberty to avoid a greater sin by permitting a lesser one. But Lyra is correct when he submits that this may be done in material situations; for it is right if you lose ten guldens in order to save a hundred, and it is also right for you to cut off a finger or a hand in order to preserve the entire body. In material situations the general rule holds good that in order to avoid a greater evil you should choose the lesser evil; but in spiritual affairs the situation is different, and evils should not be done in order that good may result. It is a sin to kill one's wife; but if by adultery you could save her from being killed, this should by no means be done. Similarly, Augustine does not even want a lie to be told in order to forestall a murder.
So far as the Jewish divorce is concerned, Lyra is right when he cites those who maintain that Moses, as a lawgiver, allowed this by divine authority, not on his own authority; for God, he says, is able to join people in marriage and to dissolve marriages. Similarly, the Jews carried off the property of the Egyptians by divine authority. Yet they were not sinning (Ex. 12:36).
The example concerning the houses of ill fame which are tolerated in large cities does not deserve to be discussed; for it is clearly in conflict with the Law of God, and those who publicly tolerate this disgrace should be regarded as heathen. It is silly for them to suppose that outcroppings of debauchery and adultery are reduced by this means. Once a young man who associates with prostitutes has surrendered his modesty, he will, when the opportunity arises, keep away neither from married women nor from virgins.
Therefore lust is increased rather than cured by this means, and it becomes a warrant to sin for those who otherwise would be continent if this opportunity had been denied them. Other and better remedies have been pointed out and commanded by God, namely, marriage. Therefore a government which tolerates houses of ill fame should be regarded as heathenish. For a godly government should not tolerate fornication, especially manifest licentiousness. Even against the will of the officers of the state and in spite of their prohibition this evil nevertheless prevails and cannot be completely abolished.
But I return to the main question: whether Lot can be excused. Lyra reaches the conclusion that he indeed committed a mortal sin; yet, inasmuch as this sin resulted from perturbation of spirit, he should be exonerated to that extent, but not entirely. This is how they spoke in the schools when they wanted to indicate a somewhat lighter sin. We shall act more correctly if we discuss such cases soberly. What reason have we for exerting ourselves so diligently to excuse the sins of the saints? They were human. Therefore when they were perturbed by dangers, they could be deceived at times and err. Yet so far as the account before us is concerned, I excuse Lot and think that he adopted this plan without sinning. He did not plan to expose his daughters to danger, for he knew that they were not desired by the frenzied men; but he hoped that this would be a way to soften their wrath. Therefore this speech should be regarded as a hyperbole.
Otherwise, whatever the case may be, one must adhere to the rule that the deeds of the saints should not be imitated or taken as examples It is not logical to say that because Abraham, Augustine, and Peter did this, I, too, must do it. But this is a valid argument: God says and commands this; therefore it must be done. For the Word is a reliable rule which cannot deceive. Thus the jurists, too, say that an action is not a law, just as a law is not an action. But to pass judgment on the actions of others is all the more difficult because we see only what is seemingly being done; we do not see the heart.
It is certain that Lot was dear to God and that he was a saintly man; otherwise he would have had to perish with the people of Sodom. But he offers his daughters in the hope of saving his guests. Yet one does not see in what spirit he offered them. What if he, a man full of faith in God, was firmly convinced
- 127 that God would dispel all danger of harm to his daughters and that at the same time there was hope of rescuing his guests? Surely you will not readily condemn a heart that looks to the goodness and the omnipotence of God when danger is very close at hand. Moreover, who will doubt that Lot added prayers and sighs for the protection of his family? Yet the danger at hand drove him to take this course.
Even though I am not defending Lot—for he was a human being and could be subject to something that was human; and merely the bare deed, not the heart itself, is open to our view—the circumstances compel me to conclude that his action is blameless. Nevertheless, it does not follow from this that he should be imitated or should be taken as an example, as though it were permitted to commit a lesser sin to avoid a sin that is greater. For what happens outside the law should not be taken as law but should be regarded as miracles, on the basis of which surely nobody should make a rule or a law. And especially in the church should the teachers try to teach what is certain. Therefore they should not present examples; they should present the rule. You are not Lot; you are not Abraham. Therefore you should not imitate what Lot and Abraham did.
The rebellious Münzer used to present to his peasants the example given by David when he fought against the Syrians; he ordered the peasants to fight in the same way against the nobility.28 This is turning an example into a law and making a rule out of an action. The result of this is never without certain danger, for to depart from the rule and to rely on the bare deed is to tempt God. Therefore those who are not called by a specific command outside the rule, to be "wonder men"29 (if I may use this expression), should keep within the rule. Then they will not transgress or err. But Lot, Abraham, and their like are
"wonder men"; their spirit is carried away beyond the law, beyond example and consequence. For they have an extraordinary call and impulse. You do not.
Therefore when such accounts are presented, you must remember not to lay stress on the examples or deeds but to emphasize the law and the rule. What Lot did does not concern you at all. "For who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another?" (Rom. 14:4) But the Law does concern you, in order that you may instruct your wife and children in godliness and may beware of becoming a cause of sin to them. If danger threatens and you are able to protect their honor, do not expose them to dishonor or excuse yourself by citing the example of Lot; for you are not Lot, and because you depart from the rule, you are tempting God. It has not been given you to depart from the rule and to imitate the examples and the wonderful deeds of others.
Abraham kills four kings in Egypt, twice he exposes his wife to danger in regard to her honor, and Lot offers his daughters for defilement. Why they do this is none of your concern. For in this way God wanted to reveal His wisdom and power.
Therefore I can marvel at these deeds, but I cannot imitate them. In like manner, we marvel at Peter when he walks on the sea, and at Christ and Moses when they fast for forty days; but we do not imitate them. In the case of the saints the things that are in conflict with the law and the rule are extraordinary and cannot be done by us; but their deeds that cannot be excused—for instance, Lot's intercourse with his daughters—are sins and must not be done by us. Yet it is not rare that the saints stumble and fall. "A righteous man falls six times in the course of a day," says Scripture (cf. Prov. 24:16).30 Because they have sinful flesh just as we do, it is not at all surprising if they sometimes fall. But where they can be excused, let us glorify God. Thus I believe that Lot is a divine miracle and that in him God wanted to reveal His wisdom and power.
Accordingly when Scripture presents deeds and rights, examples and rules, miracles and commands or a law, the right, the rule, and the law must be taught and considered. If a grammarian lays down the rule that every noun ending in "a" is of the feminine gender, the word poema is a miracle, so to speak, when it is considered according to this rule; for it is a neuter noun. Thus in the case of a right, moderation31 should be aimed at. This is a miracle of the jurists, because it deviates from the rule. For it is true that the height of right is the height of wrong.32 In like manner, physicians have their canons. But how often unexpected happenings compel them to deviate from these canons and apply the opposite method of healing!
Accordingly, inexperienced jurists and physicians who simply insist on the rule without considering unforeseen happenings are like the legalists in the field of theology, who rigidly rule the entire world but do enormous damage to property, bodies, and salvation.
To be sure, rules should be taught and observed. But in order to reveal His power and wisdom, God does many things contrary to the rule; He does so through heroes, whom He Himself calls in a special
- 128 way, although these heroes are rare and few. The others must adhere to the norm and rule, because, if they want to imitate those heroes, who deviate from the rule, they will stumble disgracefully. Such deeds are praised because they are done by heroes and "wonder men," but nobody can successfully imitate them.
The situation is similar when a strong and agile person leaps across a moat or a brook, but one who has neither strength nor agility employs skill and supports himself with a staff. Thus skill enables him to achieve what he cannot do by nature. But let us return to Moses.
And they drew near to break the door.
10. But the men put forth their hands and brought Lot into the house to them, and shut the door.
11. And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves groping for the door.
The raving people of Sodom were already trying to break open the door. Consequently, it was time for the guests to protect themselves and do a kind deed for so generous and faithful a host who was trying everything that seemed useful for their safety. Lot did not know that they were angels; he thought that they were saintly men who were visiting the churches and were teaching the Word far and wide. Therefore he worshiped God in them and honored them solemnly as guests who had been sent by God. And he and his entire house receive a very rich reward for this godly conduct. In the first place, he is defended against the raving people. For—as Lyra, too, remarks—the angels do not33 smite them with such blindness that they see nothing at all; but they smite them with confusion, so that even if they did see, they still could not make out what they were seeing,34 just as a drunken person has his eyes open and sees but does so without being able to make out what he sees; for he does not recognize what he is seeing.
This the Hebrews properly call יםרְנֵוֵו ִסַ. The people of Sodom saw the door, but they erred in their judgment and thought that it was the wall. On the other hand, they thought that the walls were the door.
This is not a natural blindness; it is a miraculous blindness. It involves the mind and is called ἀχρισία and also ἀορισία, the loss of a function, not of a faculty.35 Thus the Syrians did not see Elisha and his servant
(2 Kings 6:18), and the Jews did not see Christ in the temple (John 10:39). God often employs a miracle like this to rescue His own whom He wants to protect even while enemies are looking on. This is called being deprived of the function, not of the faculty, of sight. The actual seeing is taken away, as is stated in the Gospel (Luke 24:16): "Their eyes were kept from recognizing Him." Thus Magdalene thought that Christ was the gardener (John 20:15); and the Syrians did not see that they were being led aside into Samaria, even though they saw everything else. In like manner, the people of Sodom, who were about to break down the door, were stricken with blindness by the angels, so that the door and the windows disappeared from their sight. Thus at all times many have been delivered in a miraculous manner, so that they escaped while sport, so to speak, was being made of the eyes of their enemies.
But here one must note a difference. The Syrians who had been stricken with blindness by the prophet improve when they feel the hand of the Lord. But when the people of Sodom feel the hand of the Lord, they do not improve; for they are blind throughout the entire night and do not stop looking for the door until they are utterly fatigued and worn out. In what frame of mind do you suppose Lot was here, while sitting all night and expecting the citizens to burst in at any moment? But the angels undoubtedly cheered him with the assurance that this effort of the Sodomites would be in vain. So Lot, and particularly his wife and daughters, spent the whole sleepless night worrying and weeping.
But when the people of Sodom realize that they have been smitten with blindness, they do not at all accept this as a punishment inflicted by the Lord; they suspect that it is some magic and believe that they have been bewitched by Satan. This is the way it always happens; the ungodly are most obdurate and conclude that they are being caressed in God's bosom, while the godly, on the other hand, are terrified and fear God's wrath. They conclude that the scourge is being sent by an angry God, not by Satan. For this reason they are greatly terrified at the sound of a falling leaf (Lev. 26:36) and are afraid of everything that presents no danger. They cannot have the thoughts that the ungodly have: that the devil is the author of these misfortunes, as he actually is, For God does not afflict the godly; He permits the devil to do this, as we see in the case of Job, whose children are killed by fire and his cattle by storms, not because God was angry with him, but because Satan was.
Therefore when a plague and other misfortunes assail us, we, too, should say that these are the works of Satan, that Satan is raging and is angry, but that God is merciful and is kindly disposed toward us because we believe in His Son.
- 129 And in this manner the saintly martyrs overcame death and all dangers; for they were sure that God was kind to them. But they concluded that their tortures and afflictions were due to magic and the devil, and were permitted by God for the purpose of testing their faith. Therefore they even rejoiced in their adversities and scoffed at Satan. We should do the same thing; but we are very frequently overcome by weakness, as the examples even of great saints prove. For Paul, too, is filled with fears and regains his courage when he sees the brethren (Acts 28:15). Such fear is not felt by the ungodly, for they are sure of God's favor. Accordingly, even though some adversity befalls them, they smugly attribute this to Satan.
In like manner, when the people of Sodom have been smitten with blindness, they realize what has happened to them; but they do not accept this as a punishment inflicted by God. They imagine that a magic formula has been used against them and that they have been bewitched by Lot. If we were able to do this and to imitate the ungodly in this respect, we would be happy; yet countless most dependable promises invite us to this state of happiness.
Moreover, these truths should be carefully impressed and taught, lest we yield to the flesh when we are tried or to our reason when we disregard the Word. For it is not God who torments you if you believe in Christ; it is the devil. He hates you and looks for opportunities to trouble you. But you will say: "I realize that I am a sinner. Therefore I am not a Christian. Therefore if any evil befalls me, it is sent by an angry
God." But this conclusion is false, for those who believe in the forgiveness of sins are Christians.
Therefore if you believe in Christ, if you gladly hear His Word and receive it in faith, you are a true Christian, and your sins do not stand in the way. Hence if any misfortune befalls you, conclude boldly that it is from the devil and does not mean that God is unfriendly toward you, except insofar as He lets this happen as a trial, in order to put your faith to the test for your own good.
Learn from your own enemies and from the enemies of God that although the threats properly apply to them, they do not recognize this fact but appropriate, and comfort themselves with, the promises. You, too, must do this. For it is a disgrace for you to be ignorant of the true doctrine which you profess. You fear God and believe in God; therefore not the Law but the Gospel applies to you. But you forsake the Gospel and appropriate the Law, which concerns not you but the obdurate and the smug.
This is a spiritual weakness of which all the saints complain. Yet it is useful for repressing pride, in order that we may not put our trust in ourselves but may humble ourselves and learn to trust solely in the grace which God offers us in His Son. It is most certainly true that God is not angry with us; otherwise He would not give us the most excellent knowledge of His Son. Nor would He give us the Holy Spirit, whose first fruits we have received.36 Therefore we also confess the Son of God and do not blaspheme Him, as the papists do; and we resist sin to a degree. Therefore it would be desirable that we be like the people of Sodom in this respect, that we, following their example, laugh at, and consider as a jest, the ravings of Satan but steadfastly conclude that we who believe in Christ are loved and protected by God, as is truly the case.
Where our translation has "so that they were unable to find the door," the Hebrew is: "They wearied themselves groping for the door." ִי ְל אּו is a familiar verb. From it is derived ֵל ָאה, a languid, feeble, deficient girl who, as it seemed, could not live for weakness.37 Thus this expression serves to describe the incorrigible stubbornness. They did not stop when they were stricken with blindness; but they kept up the laborious search they had begun—kept it up until weariness compelled them to cease and, as usually happens in the case of tired people, they were overcome by sleep.
12. Then the men said to Lot: Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city, bring them out of the place;
13. for we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it.
For linguistic reasons it is debated at this point whether Lot had more children, both sons and daughters, since the angels say that if he had any others in the city, he should take them out with him.
Later on only two daughters are mentioned. I agree with Lyra's opinion that the angels are speaking in human fashion or as human beings are accustomed to speak, as though they did not know whether Lot had any others who belonged to his household or family;38 for above it was stated about Lot that he had so many cattle and herdsmen that he was unable to dwell with Abraham.
But here another question arises. Where had the cattle and the herdsmen remained? For the account that follows reveals nothing concerning them. I myself surely cannot reach a conclusion about this odd
- 130 account, unless perhaps, as is likely, the herdsmen and the cattle were outside the city in the field and in some safe place. For the supposition of some that Lot, compelled by want, had sold his cattle and had dismissed his domestics is not only unlikely but also involves a reproach. If, however, they were in the city, it is exceedingly shocking that even the servants in Lot's house were against their master and were involved in the same smugness in which the whole ungodly city lived. But let us leave this undecided, since Scripture makes no mention of it and states clearly that only four souls were saved, although eventually Lot's wife also perished on the way, and only the father and his two daughters were saved.
But it is a notable example of extraordinary wickedness that the godly head of the household was unable to keep either a single herdsman or a single maidservant in their calling. The very great offense that the master alone had the entire city against him, deceived them all. Therefore they thought as follows:
"Our master is a sincere and pious man; he indiscriminately receives whoever comes here as guests. Yet, as is the habit of the world, he is often poorly thanked for this. Thus he has now brought harm upon himself by putting up these guests in his home against their will." It is usual for the world to think that the saints are foolish and do many foolish things. Accordingly, when Lot preached about the coming punishment and wanted to save his household, they spurned him as a doting and ridiculously credulous old man. This idea pleases me more; and the examples show that domestics are usually wont to conduct themselves in this manner, especially in dangers, which reveal who are true friends and who are false.
In this passage you should note the verb אצָָיָ, which the translator renders: "Bring out." It is the same verb that Moses employed above (Gen. 14:18) concerning Melehizedek in the story of Abraham, namely, that he brought out bread and wine. The papists distort this passage and explain it as referring to an offering or the Mass, although this word denotes nothing else than that Melchizedek brought out bread and wine to be shared in common when he was about to welcome his victorious guest with this gift.39
Accordingly, the stubborn advocates of the ungodly Mass are refuted not only by the theologian who treats these events but also by the philologian; for it is absurd if in the account of Melchizedek you explain the verb אצָָיָ to mean "to sacrifice" and in this passage maintain that Lot was ordered by the angels to sacrifice all his possessions.
14. So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters: Up, get out of this place; for the Lord is about to destroy the city. But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.
After the people of Sodom were exhausted by their searching and were overcome by sleep, Lot, having been commanded by the angels to do so, goes out to warn his sons-in-law, to whom he was about to give his daughters, that they should be on their guard and escape from the impending destruction. But they, too, seem to be suffering from the effects of their intoxication on the previous day, since they even laugh at the pious old man. They thought: "What? Would the Lord so suddenly destroy this place? How foolishly credulous you are to believe those guests, or rather impostors! If anything like this were impending, there would surely be some evidences of the disaster which is about to happen. Now, however, everything is gay and serene, and you dream of destruction!"
It always happens this way. The nearer the world is to destruction, the smugger it is. It not only laughs at threats but believes that it is altogether impossible that it should perish so suddenly. Noah warns of the Flood that is to come and calls his fellow citizens to repentance, but he is laughed at and is believed to be out of his wits because of senility. We, too, preach about the Son of God, who will come to pronounce judgment and will consign the ungodly to eternal fire; but when the pope and his cardinals either read or hear this, they laugh at it as at an impossible event and say: "What if heaven should fall down?"
Thus the story is told about Pope Leo40 that he once invited two philosophers to dinner. One of them discussed the immortality of the soul; the other discussed its mortality. When, after a long, hot debate, the pope had to decide which of the two had spoken more correctly, he said to him who had defended the immortality of souls: "To be sure, you seem to be stating facts; but your opponent's discourse creates a cheerful countenance." Epicureans are in the habit of doing this; over against the clear truth they draw conclusions that suit the flesh and reason.
But let us not disregard the threats or disdain them. For Lyra is correct when he states that Lot's sonsin-law represent those who, when they hear the threat of God's judgment, laugh and declare that it is a delusion.41
"But," you will say, "If Lot's sons-in-law were such men, why did the godly old man let them have his daughters? It should be a parent's first concern to seek a relationship by marriage with the godly and not - 131 to join his children with the ungodly." My answer is: Lot had a little church in which he taught and propagated the true knowledge of God. Undoubtedly his sons-in-law were also in this church. For this reason Lot thought that they were pious and saintly, for he could not look into their hearts. But they were hypocrites; they feigned godliness for a time, but now they revealed their true character when they laughed at the Word. Because they laugh, they perish, for they do not believe that the aged Lot is speaking in earnest; they make sport of and laugh at him as if he were insane.
This is surely a notable account. No matter how righteous we may be, it should be proclaimed in the church frequently, lest we fall into the madness of the antinomians, who remove the Law from the church, as if everybody in the church were actually a saint and there were no need for such examples of God's wrath. The world, of course, is fond of such teachers, as in the Book of Jeremiah the people say: "Speak the things that please us."42 But St. Paul (Rom. 16:18) does not want the church to be led astray by pleasing speeches; for sins should be denounced, and God's wrath should be exhibited for the sake of the unbelievers who are in the church, yes, also for the sake of the believers, lest they yield to sin, which still adheres to them, and to their natural weakness. Thus even though Christ Himself most pleasantly invites sinners to come to Him, He nevertheless repeatedly cries out the awful "Woe!" over the impenitent
But I had almost forgotten that at this point something should also be said about the angels who boast, as it were, that they have been sent to destroy the cities. They say: "We are about to destroy this place," and likewise: "The Lord has sent us to destroy it." This is just as if they were boasting of being executioners and God's destroyers and ravagers.
This, however, serves to describe the duty and the power of the angels. Elijah, Elisha, and others—as is stated in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews—also performed great miracles, but not by their own strength.
Prayer and faith must be added; and from these, as from a causa sine qua non, as the philosophers call it, miracles result. Thus Peter (Acts 3:6) prays, and in faith in Christ he bids the lame man rise; but the angels are powerful. Consequently they perform miracles by reason of the strength given to them when they were created.
It is certainly true that God governs this visible world not only through men but also through angels.
Of course, He could kill thieves without the services of an executioner and without the verdict of an officer of the state, as He sometimes does, especially in the case of murderers. He could also create human beings without the union of a male and a female, just as He created Adam and Eve. But it has pleased the Divine Majesty to make use of the help and services of human beings, evidently in order to reveal His marvelous divine power in His creatures, whom He did not want to be idle. Therefore Paul (1 Cor. 3:9) calls us all God's fellow workers; for He makes use of our help for various purposes, just as He makes use of the help of the angels, whom He endowed with such great might that by their own or innate power they are able to destroy lands and peoples if God is with them.
Moreover, it is a great glory to be endowed with such great might; for it is well known that at the time of King Hezekiah the angel of the Lord killed 185,000 Assyrians in a single night and by a single assault
(2 Kings 10:35). And Christ praises the might of the angels when He tells Peter (Matt. 26:53) about the twelve legions, although a single angel would have been enough to turn back and destroy the enemies of Christ. Indeed, the story of Job proves that even the wicked angels are endowed with great power.
It is profitable to know these facts; they serve to comfort the godly but to frighten the ungodly. For we who believe must be certain that the princes of heaven are with us, not one or two, but a great multitude of them, as is recorded in Luke that the heavenly hosts were with the shepherds (Luke 2:13). But if we were without this protection, and the Lord did not restrain the fury of Satan in this manner, we would not remain alive for a single moment. From the account of Job one can gather sure enough proof of what
Satan is able to do and of what he desires most. He stirs up storms, hurls thunderbolts, or, in the language of Scripture, lets fire fall from heaven. He sends enemies; he even infects the body and covers it with boils. Therefore the good angels are busy in order that the fierce enemy may not inflict harm. Neither medicine nor other means would be effective by themselves if the angels were not present. And the fact that new remedies become known when new diseases make their appearance—this is not a matter of the diligence of human beings; it is a service of the angels, who direct and urge on the hearts of the physicians, just as Satan directs and urges on his own, as Paul bears witness (Eph. 2:2).
- 132 Accordingly, what Moses states in this passage about the good angels who lay waste and destroy the earth serves, in the first place, to teach us to fear God, since we have such a powerful opponent in Satan.
In the second place, it teaches us to trust in the goodness of God, who has appointed such excellent princes and leaders through whom He so mightily defends His people. Everybody is aware of what Satan achieves through the Turk, the Boman pope, and the fanatical spirits, not only by attacking bodies but also by seizing souls and holding them captive (2 Tim. 2:26). But this protection of the angels, which God wanted to be more powerful than Satan, gives us comfort.
This government of God through His creatures is wonderful, because the angels, who support the godly, defend the entire human race, even though it is exposed to lions, wolves, dragons, and all the horrible leaders of Satan who have been trained to inflict harm not only with the sword, plagues, and countless diseases but also with heresies of every kind. Thus it evidently pleased God to reveal His glory through His creatures, but in a different way. Elijah commanded fire to fall from heaven, and the fire obeyed his word and faith. Similarly, he commanded heaven to rain, but not by the power of the angels, who do such things by their own power or by means of a gift given them at their creation. If the saints do anything like this, they bring it about through faith and prayer.
Above we dealt with the question whether Lot did not sin when he worshiped the angels.43 What the angels state in this passage—that they were sent by the Lord—pertains to this question. Accordingly, he is not speaking as with angels, but as with the Lord, just as the works done at God's behest and command are also correctly called God's works. Therefore Christ, too, says (Luke 10:16): "He who hears you hears
Me." Likewise (Matt. 25:40): "Whatever you have done to the least of Mine you have done to Me." It is a general rule that whether something good is done through human beings or through angels, you must conclude that it has been done by the Lord and give Him the credit for it.
This rule is necessary, lest we make Moses a heretic and Lot an idolater who speaks of a creature as of the Creator. "The Lord," he says to his sons-in-law, "will destroy this place," although the angels had said that they would destroy this place. Therefore Lot does not consider the person of the angels; he considers
God, who gives them the command.
Christs statement in the Gospel (Matt. 19:4–5) is similar: "Have you not read that He who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said: 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother'?" How shall we in this instance bring Moses into agreement with Christ? For Moses testifies in very clear words that this is Adam's statement, yet Christ asserts that God spoke in this manner.
My answer is: What Adam says, he says by divine authority. Therefore these words are not his own; they are God's. This, then, is the great glory with which the Divine Majesty honors us: It works through us in such a manner that It says that our words are Its words and that our actions are Its actions, so that one can truthfully say that the mouth of a godly teacher is God's mouth and that the hand which you extend to alleviate the want of a brother is God's hand. Thus when Adam says to Cain (Gen. 4:6): "Why has your countenance fallen?" it is correct to say that these words are God's words, even though they were spoken by the mouth of Adam.44
In this respect the heretics err greatly and associate things that have no connection when they argue about the spoken Word and the Sacrament and divest God altogether of the ministry; for he who does away with the Word and does not accept it as spoken by God does away with everything. Separate the Word from Baptism, from absolution, and from the Lords Supper, and they will be nothing.
Therefore it is not only a foolish but also an ungodly argument of the Sacramentarians to maintain that externals are of no profit for salvation and then heap up examples and statements of Scripture such as (John 6:63): "The flesh is of no avail," etc. A distinction must be made among externals, and not all externals should thus be cast aside in general. Externals are rightly condemned as profiting nothing for salvation when they have been instituted by the will of man or, more correctly, rashly, without the Word of God. In other respects God wants to work through the service of His creatures. For this reason one must consider above all whether these externals are performed in accordance with the institution and will of God or not. If there is no Word or institution of God, then you are correct in saying that the externals profit nothing for salvation but even do harm. Thus Christ says (Matt. 15:9): "In vain do they worship Me with the precepts of men."
But if you see that the externals rest on the Word and were instituted by God's command, then worship those externals silently on bended knee, and say: "Not my pastor, not Peter, not Paul, commands
- 133 this to be done; it is my Father in heaven who gives the command. Therefore I shall obey in humility, and I shall believe that this obedience will be profitable for salvation."
This distinction is very necessary; for the heretics—either because they have no knowledge of it or disregard it—fall into ugly errors. The conclusion at which Schwenkfeld arrives in the following manner is not universally and unqualifiedly true: Nothing external is profitable for salvation. Baptism, the preaching of the Gospel, and the Lord's Supper are externals; hence they are of no avail for salvation.45
The major premise is clearly false, for one must make a distinction among externals. Some are wholly human and have been invented by human beings. Of these the major premise is true. But concerning those that have been instituted and commanded by God the major premise is not true; for they have been instituted for our salvation, as Christ says about Baptism (Mark 16:16): "He who believes and is baptized will be saved," and Paul (Rom. 10:10): "With the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
Thus the spoken Word is indeed the word of a human being, but it has been instituted by divine authority for salvation. For God wants to govern the world through angels and through human beings, His creatures, as through His servants, just as He gives light through the sun, the moon, and even through fire and candles. Here, too, you could say: "No external thing profits. The sun is an external thing. Hence it profits nothing; that is, it does not give light, it does not warm, etc." Who would put up with one who argues in such a silly way?
Therefore the rule of which I have also spoken above stands. It states that God no longer wants to act in accordance with His extraordinary or, as the scholastics express it, absolute46 power but wants to act through His creatures, whom He does not want to be idle. Thus He gives food, not as He did to the Jews in the desert, when He gave manna from heaven, but through labor, when we diligently perform the work of our calling. Furthermore, He no longer wants to form human beings from a clod, as He formed Adam, but He makes use of the union of a male and a female, on whom He bestows His blessing. This they call
God's "ordered" power, namely, when He makes use of the service either of angels or of human beings.
Thus in the prophet Amos (3:7) there is the noteworthy statement that God does nothing that He does not first reveal to His prophets.
But if at times some things happen without the service either of angels or of human beings, you would be right in saying: "What is beyond us does not concern us." We must keep the ordered power in mind and form our opinion on the basis of it. God is able to save without Baptism, just as we believe that infants who, as sometimes happens through the neglect of their parents or through some other mishap, do not receive Baptism are not damned on this account. But in the church we must judge and teach, in accordance with God's ordered power, that without that outward Baptism no one is saved. Thus it is due to God's ordered power that water makes wet, that fire bums, etc. But in Babylon Daniel's companions continued to live unharmed in the midst of the fire (Dan. 3:25). This took place through God's absolute power, in accordance with which He acted at that time; but He does not command us to act in accordance with this absolute power, for He wants us to act in accordance with the ordered power.
In the schools they recite the statement of Dionysius that God works through His essence but that we work through a quality that has flowed down.47 But who will understand this? He, however, who properly adheres to the canon we have set up can judge the pope and the world in all their wisdom, namely, that God regularly does everything through the ministry of human beings. Therefore nobody will obtain salvation through so-called spiritual speculations, without external things. Attention must be paid to the Word, and Baptism must be sought. The Eucharist must be received, and absolution must be required. All these are indeed externals, but they are included in the Word. Hence the Holy Spirit works nothing without them.
Formerly—before God revealed the light of the Gospel—much was written and said about the contemplative and the active life;48 and in the monasteries and convents monks and nuns who, on the whole, were very pious eagerly strove to have visions and revelations presented to them. Consequently, some even noted down all their dreams. Evidently they all waited for extraordinary illuminations without external means. What else is this than a desire to ascend into heaven without ladders? Consequently, these monks and nuns were very frequently deceived by delusions of the devil.
Hence a certain father in the desert was correct in his judgment; for when he saw that his monks were given to such speculations, he warned them to refrain. He said: "If you think you are ascending into heaven and already setting one foot on the threshold of heaven, draw it back immediately, and do not - 134 follow with the other foot."49 This man condemned speculations, or the contemplative life, which the unlearned and ignorant later on exalted with such great praises. Let him who wants to contemplate in the right way reflect on his Baptism; let him read his Bible, hear sermons, honor father and mother, and come to the aid of a brother in distress. But let him not shut himself up in a nook, as the sordid mob of monks and nuns is in the habit of doing, and there entertain himself with his devotions and thus suppose that he is sitting in God's bosom and has fellowship with God without Christ, without the Word, without the sacraments, etc.
People of this kind speak most contemptuously of the active life, and I certainly had to pay a high price before I was freed from this error, for it pleases reason and seems to be a worship of angels, as Paul calls it (Col. 2:18). The hypocrite and blasphemous apostate Witze] once reproached me by saying that we teach externals too much and should place emphasis on spiritual things.50 For reason wants to move about among wonderful things that are beyond it. But beware of these snares of Satan, and set up a definition of the contemplative life different from the one they taught in the monasteries, namely, that it is the true contemplative life to hear and believe the spoken Word and to want to know nothing "except Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2). He alone, with His Word, is the profitable and salutary object of contemplation. Beware of forsaking Him; for those who have given up or disregarded the human nature or the flesh of Christ and speculate about God as the monks used to do and now Schwenkfeld and others are in the habit of doing are either driven to despair when they are overwhelmed by the clarity of the Majesty, or they foolishly exult and dream that they have been placed into heaven. But they have been deceived by Satan, who makes sport of hearts by means of such deceptions. Those who despair can indeed be helped; but the same thing does not hold true of those who, like people drunk with joy, think that they are sitting in God's bosom.
Gerson, too, has written about the contemplative life. He gives it high praise.51 When the unlearned read such statements, they accept them as oracles of God; but actually, as the proverb says, they accept coals as treasure.52 Hence if these good-for-nothing contemplators should call you either an externalist or a worldling, do not let this bother you. Give thanks to God for the Word and these externals, and leave these high-sounding speculations to others.
I once read books of that sort with great zeal, and I urge you, too, to read them, but with discretion. I have good reason to stress these things in this manner. You should direct your attention to the ordered power of God and the ministrations of God; for we do not want to deal with the uncovered God, whose ways are inscrutable and whose judgments are unsearchable (Rom. 11:33).
We must reflect on God's ordered power, that is, on the incarnate Son, in whom are hidden all the treasures of the Godhead (Col. 2:3). Let us go to the child lying in the lap of His mother Mary and to the sacrificial victim suspended on the cross; there we shall really behold God, and there we shall look into His very heart. We shall see that He is compassionate and does not desire the death of the sinner, but that the sinner should "turn from his way and live" (Ezek. 33:11). From such speculation or contemplation spring true peace and true joy of heart. Therefore Paul says (1 Cor. 2:2): "I determine to know nothing except Christ." We have leisure to speculate on this with profit.
But that union of the soul and the body about which Gerson discourses in a grand manner is often fraught with great peril and pure mockery of Satan, who stirs up such devotions in the heart.
A story is told about a certain nun who took delight in her contemplations and carefully kept away from the other nuns, lest her thoughts be hampered.53 When she thought she was dressed in a golden robe and adorned with a golden crown and thus, like a bride at her marriage, sat there delighted and rejoiced, the rest of the nuns discovered the mockery; for instead of a crown on her head they saw cow dung. She dreamed that this was a golden crown. Whether this actually happened or not, it nevertheless shows that people have been shamefully deceived by their contemplations. Therefore let him who wants to be safe in this respect shun such contemplations and have a high opinion of the ministry, through which God deals with us and presents Himself to us, so to speak, to be observed. But let us finally get back to the account.
15. When morning dawned, the angel urged Lot, saying: Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.
This is a moral example by which we are given instruction concerning love, of which Lot personally presents an extraordinary example. He is unwilling to leave the city, not so much for his own sake as for the sake of the citizens; for he desired that the punishment should at least be put off if he could not avert it
- 135 altogether. For this reason he delays and lingers; he follows the example of Abraham, who also left no stone unturned in his effort to save his neighbors in the city. For his love is such that he grieves even when his enemies are in danger and suffer harm. So far as he himself is concerned, he does not doubt the words of the angels; but he already has before his eyes, so to speak, the sight of the burning city after fire has been sent down from heaven. For faith apprehends the Word and believes the Word; to it then comes love.
Consequently, he also thinks about delivering his neighbor and forgets all wrongs. But since he was unable to avert the calamity, he seeks a postponement by delaying. He is an example for us; we should be concerned for the welfare even of our adversaries and should consider not only our advantage but also the advantage of others.
At the present time we see that a great and certain catastrophe is threatening Germany, and the more we cry out and the more earnestly we exhort people to repent, the worse our opponents become. If we reprove them, as we should do, they blaspheme, and they rage against the members of our church and kill whom they can; they are utterly uncontrollable and are intent on their own destruction and that of all
Germany. In these circumstances faith does what is its duty, for we believe that it is impossible for God to put up with such great blasphemy any longer. Yet since the punishment cannot be averted, love prays that God may delay it, if perhaps some may still be converted.
Thus when Hezekiah hears the prophecy about the Babylonians, who will lay Judea waste, he prays that there may be peace at least in his days. And in the letter of Jude (22–23) we are instructed to snatch others from the conflagration, so to speak. Therefore let us, too, pray the Lord at this time not to lead us into temptation and that if we cannot restrain His wrath, we may nevertheless be able to put it off, in order that at least some may be snatched from the coming conflagration which threatens all Germany because of our sins.
About Lot's daughters the question is raised whether they were married. But this is immaterial. It is the general opinion that they were betrothed. Accordingly, one should rather consider that the saintly girls, who were not at all disturbed by the offense of the men to whom they were betrothed, followed their father rather than their fiancés, who smugly laughed at the godly warning and concern of the old man.
But here one should note the unusual expression which Moses employs. By God's decree the angels order Lot himself to leave the city and add the grave threat: "Lest you, too, be snatched away in the sin, or because of the sin, of the city." He expressly calls it the sin of the city—not the sin of some people but the sin of the entire place. But this is a harsh statement; by it he represents the sin as so general and widely known that it is designated, not as the sin of adolescence or youth, not of men or women, not of the common people or the officers of the state, but of the entire city. Therefore it must have been the kind of sin that was committed with the consent of the officers of the state and all classes of people in that city and was tolerated by public consent, something which involved all alike, not only those who committed it but also those who consented to it. Such a sin was that of the Benjamites, who not only did not punish the hideous crime of rape by bringing the perpetrators to trial but even forced the entire tribe to defend it. Sins of this kind which are defended by the very officers of the state who ought to punish them accelerate the punishment. Therefore the Benjamites were completely cut down, so that only 600 remained of the entire tribe (Judges 19–20).
God has appointed three social classes to which he has given the command not to let sins go unpunished. The first is that of the parents, who should maintain strict discipline in their house when ruling the domestics and the children. The second is the government, for the officers of the state bear the sword for the purpose of coercing the obstinate and remiss by means of their power of discipline. The third is that of the church, which governs by the Word. By this threefold authority God has protected the human race against the devil, the flesh, and the world, to the end that offenses may not increase but may be cut off. Parents are the children's tutors, as it were. Those who are grown up and are remiss the government curbs through the executioner. In the church those who are obstinate are excommunicated.
Thus the Divine Majesty, as It makes use of the service of human beings in accordance with Its manifold wisdom and unlimited insight, is everywhere discernible. If some are remiss in their calling and either connive at offenses or do not punish them in earnest, they take the sin of others upon themselves.
If a father does not censure the sin of his children, it becomes the father's own sin. To be sure, the sins of adulterers, murderers, and usurers are the sins of the citizens who commit them; but if the government does not punish them, as happens here and there at the present time, those personal sins of the individuals
- 136 become the sins of the city or public sins, and public disasters are always wont to result from them. For the laws are right in stipulating that like punishment should be inflicted on him who commits an offense and on him who consents to it. Thus if a bishop is aware of errors, heresies, and evil conduct in the church and does not resort to reproof and excommunicate the unrepentant, he makes himself guilty of all those sins. Thus Lot hears the terrible sentence that if he does not leave, he will have a share in the sin of the city and will perish with the unbelieving citizens.
Similarly in Num. 16:24, when the Lord was about to punish the rebellious Dathan, Abiram, and Korah, Moses cried aloud to the others: "Separate yourselves from the ungodly men, lest you, too, be swallowed up." And when they sacrificed to the calves (Ex. 32:28), 23,000 were slain by the Levites; otherwise, if this had not been done, the entire people would have been destroyed, and that sin would have been charged to the people. And in Joshua, after the Reubenites had built an altar, the entire people, since they feared punishment, sent ambassadors and said: "We have not yet been cleansed from the sin of Balaam, and you are bringing a new sin upon us" (22:10 ff.). For they realize and see that the statement of Ezekiel is true: "If I say to the wicked: 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand" (3:18).
Furthermore, this command about censuring sins concerns not only the teachers in the church and the officers in the state but also every citizen and every member of a household. Joseph reported his brothers' sins to his father and accused his brothers (Gen. 37:2). Thus citizens should not disregard the sins of others among themselves, and in the church a brother should reprove a brother in accordance with Christ's command, lest he have a part in the sins of others. And in the state it is not rare to find examples which show that ruin and terrible disasters of the people have followed whenever the government has either supported or defended manifest sins. Then, of course, one must flee, unless one wants to become a partaker of the sin of others and bring down upon one's own head punishment for the sin of others. Thus we are warned in Revelation (18:4) to depart from Babylon and forsake her; that is, we should completely separate ourselves from the pope's church, unless we want to perish with it.
So far as Lot is concerned, he is a saintly and guiltless man; he is beyond reproach. Yet he hears this threat: " 'Lest you be consumed'—not, of course, because of your own sins, for the angels have been sent to you to save you, but because of the sin of the city." Therefore whether we are officers of the state or private citizens, we should of one accord oppose sins, lest the wrath of God come upon us and we all be consumed together.
In the accounts of the Greeks there is a story about a certain Amyris, a citizen of Sybaris.54 He had seen that a slave, who had been dragged away from an altar by his owner, sought refuge at the tomb of the latter's father. There the owner, moved by reverence for his father's tomb, spared the slave. Since Amyris considered it disgraceful that reverence for the tomb was greater than for the altar, he sold everything he had and went away to the Peloponnesus from the then rich and flourishing city of Sybaris, because he concluded that certain punishment would result from such practices. Because of this action he seemed mad to his fellow citizens; but he himself obtained a most excellent return from this madness of his, for Sybaris was shortly thereafter destroyed. Hence one should note that when sins are continually prevalent, the wrath of God must come. Therefore let those who hold an office or are officers of the state do their duty, and let them not wink at any offense, however small. But if iniquity prevails, let them flee, lest they become partakers of the sins of others.
Therefore we justly censure the antinomians, who assert that the threats of the Law have no place in the church. But there is a definite command of God that sins should be rebuked. Therefore let no one be troubled by the fact that truth begets hatred. Let him who bears the sword punish with severity those who give rise to offenses, and let him pay no heed to whether or not the citizens are offended. In like manner, a teacher in the church should censure without restraint the things that are done with offense, and he should keep the impenitent from Communion and other sacred ceremonies. For the Gospel should not be preached to ungodly despisers; it should be preached to the afflicted, the wretched, and the ailing, as is stated in Is. 61:1: "The Holy Spirit is upon Me; He sent Me to preach to the afflicted, to heal the brokenhearted"—not to comfort the proud and stubborn despisers, of whom there is always a very large multitude, as Christ points out in the parable of the seed (Luke 8:5–15). And in this passage we hear the rule that one should not participate in the sins of others. For even though Lot was not an officer of the - 137 state but was a private citizen beyond reproach, nevertheless, if he had not fled, the sin of the city would have become his own, and he would have perished together with the rest.
16. But he lingered; so the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the Lord being merciful to him, and they brought him forth and set him outside the city.
Lot had God's command to leave the city and abandon it. This command he should have obeyed. For when God speaks, He speaks in earnest and is not jesting or making fun, as we human beings are in the habit of doing. We often say one thing and have something else in mind. But the pious old man is troubled by the trial which plagues all of us too; for just as Satan disturbed Eve in Paradise by injecting the question (Gen. 3:2) why and with what intention God forbade the eating of the fruit, so our reason hampers and deceives us too. Consequently, we are not satisfied with knowing that God has given a command; but in our foolish anxiety we also want to inquire into the reasons for the command. God hates this inquisitiveness and does not want us to make it our business to ask why and wherefore, if I may use this expression; He wants us simply to obey His command and to be satisfied with this one reason, that He
Himself has given the command.
Hence in this passage Lot suffers from a human failing, inasmuch as he acts slowly and delays too long because of his good intention, as he thought. Perhaps he thought that God would act more mildly and would at least spare those who were still in the innocent years. But God did not want such thoughts; He wanted Lot simply to obey His command and to get out of the city. Therefore in this passage Moses employs the squared or reduplicated verb ּהמְה ַמַ, which, in my opinion, means "to delay" or "to act slowly," because those who delay debate or deliberate with themselves. But God cannot put up with this
ּהמְה ַמַ or permit it, for he who deliberates and hesitates after he has received a command regards God either as a liar or as a joking God. If He were to say to you: "Go submerge yourself in the Elbe," you should do this without any hesitation, just as Abraham obeys at once when he is commanded to be circumcised with his people; and when he hears that he should sacrifice his son, he does not debate with himself why God has given this command but goes immediately to the designated place. Lot should have done the same thing, but he hesitates and, without saying anything, wishes that God's plan can be changed while he is waiting to see if perhaps his sons-in-law and the domestics will still come.
For this reason there follows the stem text that Lot and his family were seized and dragged forth outside the city from the house; for God could not bear this delay or questioning, if I may use this expression. If His mercy toward the saints were not as great as the psalm (103:8) states, Lot would have perished with the rest when he delayed in this manner.
Therefore let him who likes to jest, jest with human beings—with his wife, his children, and his money—for God does not begrudge us a gay life. But when you hear God's Word, see to it that you obey directly, without discussion. And if you either lack the capability or some other hindrances are put in your way, let at least your will be ready. God does not want any delay when He gives a command; He wants you to say with David (Ps. 108:1): "Lord, my heart is ready." That is the kind of man David was, and for that reason he also prospered and was successful. But Saul, who became engrossed with the wherefore after he had received the command to exterminate the Amalekites completely, was utterly rooted out of the kingdom together with his family; and the good intention with which he designated the best booty for sacred uses did not benefit him (1 Sam. 15). Obedience to His Word was more important and more pleasing to God. Therefore if you are unable to obey with a deed, let at least your heart be ready; otherwise God is deeply offended.
Thus in the Song of Solomon (5:2–5) the bride complains that she rose to open to her beloved, but that her hands dripped with myrrh, and her fingers were full of myrrh; that is, she had become weary and exhausted by her cross. Therefore after she had unbolted the door, her suitor had gone elsewhere; but she was troubled in her mind. For this reason St. Paul (2 Cor. 6:2) exhorts the Corinthians not to disregard the time and the opportunity, and he quotes from Isaiah (49:8): "In the day of salvation I heard you." And Christ says (John 12:36): "While you have the light, believe in the light." So we Germans say that one must buy when there is a market, lest we be ּהמְה ַמַ or hesitate—unless our capability prevents us.
Hence Lot sins here by putting off his departure and not leaving at once. In affairs of the state the heathen, too, condemn delay; and Sallust was right when he said: "After you have taken counsel, you must act swiftly."55 Wise men have realized that delay is fraught with danger, and they were right in depicting
- 138 opportunity as being bald; once it has been lost, it cannot be pulled back. Yet how much better it is not to delay when God has given a command, but to obey promptly, without any deliberation! The thought which hinders Lot is good and most honorable; for he is moved by his concern for his sons-in-law and his domestics, and he deplores losing these. But no reasons should be put ahead of the Word. Abraham had weighty reasons for putting off the sacrificing of his son, but he places God's command ahead of his own thoughts. This obedience is a worship most welcome to God and brings with it a rich blessing, as examples before our eyes show.
Before the light of the Gospel was revealed, the monkish way of life used to be considered the saintliest; but as many of us as lived in monasteries certainly led a corrupt life. Now, when the Word is shining forth, we do more good in one hour than we did during the entire time of our life in cloisters. For it is the Word of God alone that makes learned, ready, and courageous men—men who without any strenuous effort accomplish many things in an admirable manner, while the ungodly, on the other hand, deliberate a long time and yet do nothing right. Therefore young people should be accustomed to show obedience both to their parents and to their teachers; and this obedience should be quick and not slow, for God hates obedience when it is slow but is fond of it when it is prompt and ready. Similarly, among ourselves, too, those services are pleasing which we see are prompt and spontaneous, in accordance with the old saying: "He who gives quickly gives twice."56
Therefore Lot sins by resisting God's command and not obeying God's command at once; and he would have paid the penalty for this disobedience if the angels had not snatched him away by force. For the Lord was sparing him. Otherwise Lot would have deserved to perish because of the sin of others.
Therefore one should note this example of mercy.
Because Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, did not believe the angel, he became dumb (Luke 1:20). The man of God in the Book of Kings is killed by a lion because of his disobedience (1 Kings
13:24). The sons of Aaron are killed by the Lord because they kindle a strange fire (Lev. 10:2). But the Lord does not employ such severity against Lot. He spares and forgives him and saves him against his will, so to speak. Although He is offended by Lot's disobedience, He is nevertheless pleased by his artlessness; for Lot had some reason for delaying, and he was sad. He was hoping for some mitigation and would gladly have saved at least his domestics and shepherds in addition to other things.
17. And when they had brought them forth, they said: Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the valley; flee to the hills, lest you be consumed.
The angel gives Lot and his family four commands. In the first place, he tells him to save his soul. It is as though he were saying: "What is it to you if the others do not want to be saved? You do not intend to perish with them on this account, do you?" In the second place, the angel tells Lot not to look behind him.
In the third place, Lot should not stop in any part of this region. The fourth command is that he should stop in the neighboring hills. These commands of the angel indicate sufficiently how Lot thought and felt.
He leaves the city against his will. After leaving it he desires to stay in the neighborhood, evidently because he is moved by compassion for the city that is going to ruin and perishing. But the angels command: "Save your life." It is as though they were saying: "The people of Sodom are incorrigible; their hour has come. Therefore leave behind those people who so wretchedly disregard their soul or life, and save your own life, lest you become involved in the same danger. God has definitely decided to destroy this place. Therefore go farther away."
But this, too, serves for our instruction; for whenever you see that some, like the people of Sodom, have the Word and despise both its threats and its promises, then keep in mind that you should save your soul, lest you perish together with such people; for such people are like those whom Solomon describes as saying (Prov. 23:35): "They struck me, but I was not hurt," and their destruction cannot be too far off.
Hardened Pharaoh perishes in the sea, and Samuel sheds tears in vain over King Saul. We must be on our guard against those who are thus given over to a wicked disposition, lest we share in their sin and perish together with them. Therefore in Revelation (18:4) the church is commanded to come out of Babylon; that is, we are commanded to leave the ungodly church of the pope. And Paul (2 Cor. 6:17) enjoins: "Go out from their midst," keeping in mind the angel's command to save your own soul, as though he were saying:
"Give thought to your own salvation, for your anxiety about the salvation of others is in vain."
The emphasis lies on the pronoun "you." Thus Paul says (Titus 3:10–11): "As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a - 139 person is perverted." And in Rom. 12:19 Paul says: "Give place to wrath," as though he were saying: "If the unbelievers want to perish, let them perish indeed." Our opponents, the papists, have been brought to the point of being compelled to admit that our doctrine is true.57 Therefore they no longer sin because of weakness or a lack of knowledge; they sin because of stubbornness and wickedness. Therefore let us separate from them and depart from their midst, for they have recognized the truth and nevertheless persecute it after recognizing it. Who, then, could have any doubt about their impending destruction?
The second command—about not looking back—depicts also the emotion of Lot when he was concerned about the salvation of the city, for departing friends are wont to act in this manner; and they look back toward their people rather frequently. Therefore the angel commands Lot to separate himself so completely from the city that he does not even look back at it and is entirely without any desire to save, and feel compassion for, it. This is a difficult and serious command. Consequently, Lot's wife was unable to keep it. For consider this: "If you should hear a storm behind you and the cries of those who are perishing, especially of those whom you had held dear, how could you restrain yourself from at least looking back toward them?" But the angel looks askance at Lot's disobedience, as though he were saying:
"So far you have sinned enough by delaying to obey; henceforth, therefore, learn to obey, and beware of looking back."
It is the purpose of the third command—"Do not stop anywhere in the valley"—to urge Lot to hasten and to proceed straightway to the place of safety and not to devise delays anywhere or look back. This, too, serves to describe the thoughts of Lot, who was looking for various subterfuges, just as Moses invents many reasons for dedining his call but is pressed to the point of not being able to refuse. For since we have
God's Word and command, we are bound to obey it.
Seneca indeed has beautify said: "Do not consider who is speaking, but consider what is being said."58
It is correct to apply this rule to human beings; and it has a place in civil affairs, but not in the church, for there one must look only at who is speaking. When Eve did not do this in Paradise, wanted to investigate what was said, and forgot Him who had spoken, she fell. In the case of human beings it can happen that they are foolish and say things that should not be said. But God is not that kind. He is good and wise.
Therefore He cannot err. Consequently, one must consider who is speaking, not what is said.
The fourth command—"Flee to the hills"—suggests the location of the place; for Sodom and the neighboring cities were situated in a valley near the hills of Abarim, toward the East. Moreover, this valley has received high praise for its extraordinary fertility, and by nature fields located in a plain are more fertile than those that are on the hills. Accordingly, Lot is commanded to get out of that place and go to one that is more barren.
18. And Lot said to them: Oh, no, my lords; 19. behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me, and I die.
20. Behold, yonder city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there—is it not a little one?—and my life will be saved!
This is an excellent example. Here one can see how great the power of prayer is, inasmuch as Lot rejects that last command—about ascending the hills—when he pleads his exigency, namely, that he cannot save himself in the hills; for he could have been tempted, and from the high place he could have looked back into the valley and thus perished. Moreover, this seemingly brief prayer has all the requirements of a good prayer. To be sure, God gives all things out of free mercy; yet He wants to be entreated, for there is a plain command by which we are directed to pray. Besides, there is joined to the command the promise that He will hear. Finally, the form for a prayer has been prescribed by the Son of Therefore let us learn that prayer is highly necessary, and let us not allow ourselves to be deceived by this evil temptation, that we think that even without our prayer God will give us what we need, and that since He knows what benefits us most, there is no need of prayer. Augustine is right when he says: "He who made you without you does not want to save you without you."59 Accordingly, we have been appointed to perform a variety of duties, in order that we may be helpers, as it were, or "workers together with God," as Paul terms it (2 Cor. 6:1). And I stated above that God is able to make a human being out of clay. But a different way pleases Him, namely, that you become a husband and take a lawful wife.60 Thus
He would be able to teach and enlighten hearts without the ministry of the Word, but He does not want to - 140 do so. For this reason He has established the external ministry and has instituted the sacraments. He is able to forgive sins without Baptism, but He does not do so; for He wants us human beings to have a share in His workings. Therefore it would be the height of ingratitude to despise these. You must have the same conviction about prayer. For this is God's ordered will: He wants to be entreated, and to those who entreat
Him He wants to give the Holy Spirit and everything they need.
Now let us look at the parts of a prayer. The first requirement of a good prayer is that it give thanks to God and recall in the heart and in words the benefits you have received from God. Thus in the Lord's
Prayer we indeed ask for daily bread; but since in its beginning we call God our Father, we confess by this very term that up to this time we have been supported and defended by God and have received every fatherly kindness from God. In the rules of rhetoric this is called gaining good will,61 which is best brought about by praise and giving thanks.
In the second place, there is either the complaint or the mention of the need. Lot says: "I am in the greatest dangers if I go up into the hills in accordance with Your wish. I have already sinned by delaying, but a similar misfortune could happen to me. Therefore I pray You because of the mercy with which You have saved me to grant me what I am asking."
In the third place, Lot states what he wants granted to him. He says: "I shall flee to the city which is close at hand, and there I shall be saved." Moreover, he enlarges on this request in an excellent manner by giving particulars. "The city is small," he says. "Furthermore, it is close by, and there I shall be able to be safe from every danger."
This is Lot's prayer, and in accordance with it God changes His plan and intention—something of which you should carefully take note—for at this point one should not debate about the secret change of God's will. On the contrary, one should learn what the psalm (145:19) also teaches: "The Lord fulfills the desire of all who fear Him." God's power had been so ordered that the sun retained its course and motion; but when Joshua prayed in his distress and commanded the sun to stand still, the sun stood still at Joshua's word. Ask the astronomers how great a miracle this is! But what is the reason? No other than that God does the will of those who fear Him and subordinates His will to ours, provided we continue to fear Him.
Moreover, here the text states clearly enough that it is God's will that Lot should not remain in any part of the region. But God changes this will because Lot fears God and prays. This is God's ordered power, not His secret power. For God does not want to rule us in accordance with His secret will; He wants to do so in accordance with His will as it has been ordered and revealed by the Word.
Thus this account serves to rouse and spur us on to prayer in all our dangers, since God wants to do what we want, provided that we humbly prostrate ourselves before Him and pray. In this way the Ninevites, to whom the prophet had announced even the day of their destruction, were saved. And in Scripture there are more evidences of this kind; they prove that God allows Himself to be prevailed upon and subordinates His will to ours. Why, then, are we so remiss in regard to prayer? Why are we without faith to such an extent and so fainthearted, as though our prayer amounted to nothing? Let the monks despair of their praying; they have no knowledge of God and are altogether without faith. Their prayer is not a sincere request; it is arduous toil and actually an empty sound.
But as for ourselves, who have the knowledge of the Word, when we come together and bend our knees in true humility, we know—because we have been taught not only by the promises but also by examples—that God wants to disregard His own will and do ours. These facts must be earnestly impressed on the people and on us, lest the disposition to pray flag in us. To be sure, God does everything; but we, too, must do what belongs to our calling. He gives bread to nourish and preserve the body; but He gives it to him who labors, sows, reaps, etc. And when you sow the land, you must not think that nothing will result from your labor. For it is God's command that you should do your duty, and He wants to work through you. Therefore you must devote yourself to your work and duty with all your strength and attention, and leave the rest to God. Thus when it is necessary to fight against the Turk, God's command urges you in the first place to defend your subjects. Therefore you should equip yourself and provide weapons as well as the other things necessary for war and say: "I have done what I could; but supply,
Lord, what is still lacking in me, in order that Thy will may be done." For this reason, Paul, too, admonishes us (Rom. 12:11) not to be slothful in our zeal or to relax our zeal; for those who are indolent and, like the servant in the Gospel, do not do their duty will hear (Luke 19:22): "I will condemn you out of your own mouth." But the diligent and godly the Lord will make rich, for "He fulfills the desire of all who - 141 fear Him." Undoubtedly because of such examples and because of his own experience David wrote many psalms.
21. He said to him: Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.
22. Make haste, escape there; for I can do nothing till you arrive there. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.
A surprising situation and an account decidedly worth noting! It was God's will that the city of Zoar should be destroyed together with the others; but because Lot intercedes for it, God changes His will and does what Lot wants. Similarly, because of Paul alone all who were sailing in the same ship were preserved in the shipwreck (Acts 27:43). But inasmuch as there follows: "I can do nothing till you arrive there," where you can be safe, someone may perhaps ask: "Then is Lot able to prevent God from doing immediately what He wants?" Moses' answer is: "Lot's prayer does this; it compels God not to carry out
His wrathful will. God permits it to be broken and does the will of those who fear Him."
These are very strong statements, and they are hard to believe. But we should note them carefully for our learning and comfort, so that we may pray cheerfully and, as Paul teaches, without hesitating and murmuring (cf. Phil. 2:14). It is murmuring, however, when we have been offended by a perplexing situation and ask God why He does this or that in such a manner. But, as I have said, we must not be inquirers into the wherefore and say to God: "Wherefore art Thou doing this in such a manner?" We must obey His will; and if anything in His actions offends us, we must pray. Paul calls hesitation doubt. This must be completely excluded from prayer, for it alone is what vitiates prayer.
Therefore Bernard admonishes his brothers not to esteem their prayers lightly but to know that their prayers are written in heaven before they themselves have finished them.62 The holy man observed the faintheartedhess in praying with which we all are commonly plagued; for since our weakness is great and we observe greater gifts in Paul, Peter, and others, we shrink back when we are about to pray, and we are terrified by our unworthiness, because we are unworthy to obtain anything from God. Because of these thoughts the faith and fervor of prayer not only become lukewarm but are altogether extinguished, and their place is taken by harmful hesitating and detestable murmuring. Why do we not rather think that Lot, too, was unworthy? For who is worthy to speak with the Lord? Therefore let it be enough for us that we have been called to faith through the Word, have been taught by the Word of God, and for this reason are part of the church, which has the definite command to pray. Consequently, you should not look at your unworthiness; you should look at God's command and not debate whether you are worthy or not. But you should hold fast the promise that the Lord wants to do the will of those who fear Him.
In this way we should gain the courage to pray, which men taught by spiritual discernment have called a labor above all other labors. Why is this? For no other reason than that a most violent conflict must be maintained against the hesitating and murmuring to which faintheartedness and a feeling of unworthiness give rise. Let us, therefore, learn to fortify ourselves against these plots of Satan, and let us direct our attention to promises and examples like those recorded here about Lot. For these things were not written for Lot's sake; they were written for our sakes, in order that we may learn how to check God's angry will and to meet God when He shows the rod that is near by, just as the Lord Himself says in Ezekiel (22:30):
"And I sought for a man among them … who should stand in the breach before Me … and I found none.
Therefore I have poured out My indignation upon them." Furthermore, He severely chides the priests who were guiding the people with their teaching (Ezek. 13:5): "You have not built up a wall for the house of Israel in the day of My wrath."
Hence God is provoked to wrath if we neglect prayer, for His own command is being disregarded. Let us, therefore, pray boldly and with confidence. If He does not give what we are asking for, He will nevertheless give something else that is better; for prayer cannot be in vain, as James, too, states (5:16):
"The prayer of a righteous man avails much if it is persistent," that is, earnest and ardent. For God cannot despise a righteous man and all his works. Even though the world persecutes him, God nevertheless respects his works and words, yes, even his sufferings. "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints" (Ps. 116:15).
The reason for Moses' additional remark concerning the change of name of the little town of Zoar, which previously was called Bela, is God's purpose to distinguish it as an example for posterity by means of a new name, in order that it, too, may learn to fear God, who executes judgment on the ungodly, to - 142 place its hope in His mercy, and to seek His help; for this account includes both. The destruction of the people of Sodom serves to frighten the ungodly, but the deliverance of Lot with so generous a hearing of prayer comforts the godly. They should pray when they are in dangers, and they themselves should also hope for deliverance.
23. The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar.
24. Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven; 25. and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.
Here Moses' style is unusual. He says that the sun had risen on the earth. But his statement points out that Lot and his people had risen at daybreak and had gone forth under compulsion; had walked along with their little bundles, bread, drink, and other necessities; and had arrived at the town Zoar, which was perhaps an Italian mile63 distant from Sodom. It is possible that by saying that the sun had risen Moses wanted to point to the deliverance of the human race through the Son of God, but we shall relegate these ideas to allegory.
Even though the statements which follow are brief, they nevertheless include events of such magnitude that human speech is unable to express them. Who would not shudder when five very rich and flourishing cities with all their inhabitants, animals, gardens, and fields are destroyed in one storm? How great the wailing at that place was! How great the outcry of the human beings and of the beasts of burden! They were all swallowed up at the same time. This is an altogether horrible example; it surpasses all the accounts of all the heathen. Troy was destroyed by war; but this is nothing in comparison with what happens here, when so many cities, in which there were many thousands of people who, because of their age, do not yet know the difference between right and wrong, are swallowed up by the earth in one moment. They all perish. Not even one person is saved. At the same time all the cattle and all the fruits of the earth perish. Not even a sprig remains.
These are terrible facts, yet they do not affect the ungodly; for when St. Peter, by the Holy Spirit, speak of the last evil of the world, he adduces this example against the papists. He says (2 Peter 2:6) that God did not spare the five cities which were situated in God's Paradise, in the best place of the earth, which seemed to be like God's place of rest. Nor did He spare the original world, which came to an end by perishing in the waters of the Flood. The cities came to an end by perishing when fire Was sent down from heaven. But why did God do this? Undoubtedly because He wanted to set a terrifying example for all the ungodly. And these events are recorded by the Holy Spirit, not for the sake of those who perished but for the sake of succeeding generations, likewise for the sake of the papists, the pests of the last times, as Peter maintains.
But it nearly always happens that those who should be frightened are most complacent and, on the other hand, that those who are in need of comfort feel anguish and despair. Thus the pope and the cardinals do not bother about this horrible example. Nor do they think that it concerns them, for they do not believe that there is a God. His wrath does not frighten them until they feel it. Therefore we must shun them, lest we become involved in the same punishments.
Christ, too, mentions this account more than once. He bids us remember Lot's wife (Luke 17:32) and declares (Matt. 10:15) that the people of Sodom will have a more tolerable judgment than the cities which heard the Gospel to no avail. But if those who disregard the Word are to be punished more severely than
Sodom, what should we conclude about those who persecute the Word? Therefore Christs words should be pondered well. If He does not want His Word to be despised, it is far less His desire that it be trampled underfoot and that men be killed on its account. Yet this is what the pope and his followers are doing, with the result that he fills the entire world with murder.
Accordingly, we, like Lot and Abraham, see evils so great that it is impossible to enlarge on them enough. These evils gravely torment the hearts of the godly, just as Peter states about Lot, too, that his eyes and ears were tormented every day. But we shall wait patiently until the Lord destroys these
Sodomites of ours, and we shall put forth every effort to avoid being found doing the wicked deeds of the church of the pope.
Even though we, too, are troubled by our faults and, not to mention anything that is more grievous, are lazy and sleepy with regard to the Word, still nothing could happen to us that would be bitterer than the suppression and the loss of the Word. The world considers departing from the Word a light sin and thinks
- 143 that being without it is a small loss. But among ourselves the awful verdict of Peter and Christ has weight; they say that the people of Sodom are saintly and righteous in comparison with the Roman Church, which not only despises but even persecutes the Gospel and kills the believers. Therefore Peter is right when he says (2 Peter 2:6) that God made this an example for those who will be ungodly in the future. And Christ says that the judgment of the people of Sodom will be more tolerable than that of such despisers.
Therefore let us comfort ourselves, for this account points out both truths: that the enemies of the church are to be punished and that the righteous are to be eternally saved, provided that we are like Lot and Abraham, that is, provided that we hold fast to the Word and to faith. The Lord knows, says Peter (2
Peter 2:9), both how to rescue the righteous and how to reserve the ungodly for destruction. Yet the ungodly do not believe this, and when they hear such examples applied to themselves, they laugh very pleasantly in a situation that is not at all funny—a situation that cannot be wept over enough and cannot be adequately lamented or expressed in words. Consider what a terrible disaster it was when in a single storm five cities, together with the men, the women, the children, the servants, the maids, the beats of burden, and the cattle, were swallowed up at the same time, so that not even a straw remained from that entire region. What clearer example can one point out to show that God is sternly angry with the ungodly? Yet Christ and Peter say that this is a small punishment if you compare it with the punishment that awaits our papists, who are not only impenitent but are also stubborn and retain and defend manifest errors.
Moses uses the word "rain" to indicate that the storm was brought on through the instrumentality of the angels. Moreover, reason knows the things that commonly accompany storms: violent rains, whirlwinds, thunderclaps, lightning flashes, thunderbolts, and earthquakes. He also mentions brimstone, because the fire produced by storms is always sulphurous, and objects shuck by lightning also have the odor of sulphur. Hence fire which fell down with a loud crash and thunder consumed the cities. But remember that this is the work of the angels and that such things do not happen accidentally, as the heathen suppose.
Furthermore, from the beginning of the world there have always been various examples of the wrath of God which have not been recorded, but those that have been recorded are very memorable; they teach us to shun sins, since God punishes sinners in such a horrible manner. During this year a goodly part of the earth in the territory of Naples near Puteoli vanished because of an earthquake and an inundation—not by some chance, as the papists think, but because of the sins of the people, of which there is no end.64
Christ very kindly and compassionately says (Matt. 12:32) that if anyone sins against the Son, it will be forgiven him, but that to sin against the Holy Spirit—as the papists habitually do, who sin incorrigibly, knowingly, and from downright malice, even though, because of their natural endowment and without grace, they could refrain from such sins—that is assuredly an unforgivable sin. Who compels them to kill our people? Who compels them to make such bitter attacks on the acknowledged truth? Are they not compelled by their own will, which Satan also urges on?
David also sins, and very seriously, when he commits adultery and is the cause of an unjust slaying.
But this was a sin of weakness, and it was forgiven when he acknowledged it and asked in faith that it be forgiven. But to persecute the Gospel and to persist in manifest idolatry contrary to so many warnings of the Holy Spirit, as though in contempt of the majesty of God (for I can properly call it contempt)—these are sins against the First Table, and certain destruction results from them.
Hence I have no doubt that in that light of the Gospel God will remove His elect from the people of Sodom and will gather the wheat into His barn. Thereafter—if the blaspheming papists continue to rage— the end will follow; that is, either the Last Day will come, or an extraordinary overthrow of the entire papacy will follow. For Peter is not lying when he calls Sodom (2 Peter 2:6) "an example to the ungodly," and the very nature of their sins is such that God cannot remain silent about them forever. Let us, therefore, thank God, who through His Son has delivered us from the coming wrath and guards us through His angels, lest we perish together with the Sodomites of our time.
But here we must not overlook Moses' expression "The Lord rained from the Lord." The Jews, above all, are offended by it and distort it in various ways. But the text states clearly that the Lord rains and that He rains from the Lord, for in this passage the name of God which is called the Tetragrammaton is used both times; and in the Hebrew there is added as a distinct syllable, and significantly, what is termed the accusative particle.65 Therefore since Moses mentions the Lord twice by name, he is directing attention to two Persons, as they are called, of the Godhead and one Lord. St. Hilary learnedly and correctly stresses
- 144 this passage as proof that God the Father, who begets; God the Son, who is begotten; and God the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, are one God.66
Since the Jews are audacious, yes, even rash, they explain the particle as a pronoun, so that the sense is: "The Lord rained from Himself, the Lord." But who ordered them to have the audacity to do this in the case of God's Book? For if one were at liberty to trifle in this way with Holy Scripture, no article of faith would remain intact. Hence it is characteristic of the unbelieving Jews and of the godless papists to be teachers of the Holy Spirit and to teach Him what or how to write. But let us be and remain pupils, and let us not change the Word of God; we ourselves should be changed through the Word.
The Jews invent this misleading interpretation with their usual presumptuousness in order that they may not be forced to admit a duality of Persons in the Godhead. But we know from the Gospel that Christ keeps this mode of speaking everywhere; for He relates everything, both His sayings and His deeds, to the Father. He says (John 7:16): "My teaching is not Mine, but the Father's"; (John 14:9): "Philip, he who sees Me sees My Father"; (John 14:10): "The Father abides in Me, and I in the Father"; and (John 5:19):
"Whatever the Father does, the Son does the same." What else is this than what Moses says: Christ teaches, Christ works, but from the Father or out of the Father. And John especially took delight in this form of speaking, to show that everything done and said by Christ is done and said as though by the true
God, namely, by God the Father, who was not begotten but who begot the Son.
Let us, therefore, by no means be influenced by the scoffing of the Jews, who have before them this basic truth, though incorrectly understood, that there is only one God. After this they corrupt Scripture, which speaks of several Persons. But give them the answer: Of course, God is one; but through the Word the Holy Spirit has revealed about God that in the one divine Essence there are three Persons. This we adhere to and teach, and we rely not only on the authority of Scripture but also on the testimony of the New Testament.67 For the Gospel speaks in a very special way and says that Christ does everything and says everything, but from the Father; likewise (Matt. 28:18): "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me"; that is, I am the true God, and between Me and the Father there is no difference except that I was begotten of the Father; but the Father is not begotten. Therefore Hilary and Augustine were correct in their statements when they made use of this passage to defend the article of our faith concerning the divinity of Christ.68
26. But Lot's wife behind him looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
Lot's wife, who goes out with her husband, was undoubtedly a believing and saintly woman; otherwise she would neither have followed her husband in so great a disaster, nor would she have been seized by the angels and led out. Therefore let us reject the Jewish legends; for they make the nonsensical statement that she was inhospitable and refused the angels salt to season their food, and that for this reason she was turned into a pillar of salt.69 The books of the Jews are full of such absurdities. Why do they not rather direct their attention to the account itself and carefully combine the circumstances, which prove clearly that this woman was not inhospitable but was godly and saintly, in whom faith was clearly discernible, since she follows her husband without hesitation and yet has this human experience that she looks back and perishes?
From the text it is clear that Lot's Wife had entered the city of Zoar with her husband. Therefore— since women are rather weak by nature—she either forgot the command of the angels, or she thought there was no longer any danger after she had come into the city from the open country. But disobedience has its punishment, and she is changed into a pillar of salt.
No reason can be given why God acted in this manner. Perhaps the Dead and Salt Sea got its name from this pillar. But this pillar did not remain standing long; it was shattered together with the city and destroyed by a thunderbolt. But it may be that Moses calls it a pillar of salt, not because it was actually salt, but because it was similar to salt; for salt is white. Augustine, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Gregory all pass over this passage in silence. Lyra alone, who follows the lead of the rabbis, often joins them in indulging in foolish rabbinical ideas.70 Perhaps this happened through the extraordinary providence of God, in order that we may keep reading the sacred books and not merely be occupied with reading the commentaries of human beings, who often sin through their excessive inquisitiveness.
Therefore, without taking into account other things which contribute little to the subject matter, let us be satisfied with the fact that Lot's wife is held up to us as an example by Christs teaching, for He refers to her when He says (Luke 9:62): "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the - 145 kingdom of God." And in His earnest address concerning the Last Day He says (Luke 17:32): "Remember
Lot's wife." From this we readily understand what it means to look back, namely, to depart from God's command and to be occupied with other matters—matters outside one's calling—like the man who has been commanded to follow Christ and wants to bury his dead first (Matt. 8:21).
Hence this is a sign or lesson and a warning not to allow ourselves to be hampered in our calling, as Peter in John 21:20 looked back at John but was rebuked by the Lord. For everyone should stick to his own calling and not concern himself with what others are doing. At the present time the papists beset us a great deal with the example of a former age during which everything lay in darkness. "Your doctrine," they say, "is new and unknown to our ancestors; therefore if it is true, all our ancestors have been condemned." They, too, are looking back and thus disregard the word they have before them. For what concern is it to us what kind of judgment God pronounced on those who departed this life in times past?
The Word of God is being preached to us today; we must hear and receive it without any argument. We must not become questioners who ask God why He has brought the sound doctrine to light at this time and not in former times.
Thus this account teaches us to remain steadfast, for he who wants to be a Christian must not change his purpose: he must not look for another way or another Gospel. In this one and only way there is salvation; if you enter upon another, you have perished and are like Lot's wife. But so far as Lot's wife is concerned, this example is instruction for us rather than a condemnation of the woman, who, I fully believe, was saintly and was saved; for one should have no other presupposition concerning God's mercy, especially since she has a splendid testimony of the life she has previously led, inasmuch as the angels themselves bring her out and she follows her husband.
But you will say: "Why does she perish in this manner?" My answer is: She was overcome by human weakness and, contrary to the angels' command, looked back toward those awful crashes. For this disobedience she suffers a temporal punishment. Nevertheless, her soul is saved, as Paul says (1 Cor. 5:5) about the incestuous man. Therefore one must hold fast to this teaching—that the saintly woman is compelled to suffer this punishment—in order that it may reach all succeeding generations. Christ says
(Luke 17:32): "Remember Lot's wife."
But one must by all means entertain the hope that Lot's wife was not condemned for this reason. For there are many such examples in Holy Writ; they show that God afflicts His saints with temporal punishments in order that they may not perish with the world. And Paul says (1 Cor. 11:32): "When we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened, so that we may not be condemned along with this world."
Accordingly, Lot's wife was chastened; but she was not condemned. In like manner, Aaron's sons, who were offering strange fire, were castigated as a sign for others and were not condemned (Lev. 10:1 ff.). I have the same conviction about the prophet who was killed by the lion (1 Kings 13:24). In that instance the body suffered because of disobedience; but nothing befell the soul, evidently in order that we may be admonished to fear God and may strictly keep the commands of God. Thus this pillar is truly a spice and the salt of wisdom; it admonishes us not to look back but to persevere, and, as Paul puts it (Phil. 3:13), to "strain forward to what lies ahead."
And we surely need the command because of the powerful enemy we have. Day and night he lies in wait for us and pursues us. It is for this reason that the evangelist John warns us so insistently to abide in the doctrine which we received in the beginning;71 and Jude (3) directs us to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. Looking for new dogmas and departing from the way which the Word points out is a most serious trial and plague for the church. Therefore Paul warns the Galatians (1:6) to beware of such teachers as put stumbling blocks in the way and lead off into byroads.
This evil has its origin in a loathing of the Word, and Satan originates this loathing with outstanding skill. Thus in our time Münzer departed from the Word and kept stirring up rebellions. When these had been put down, Carlstadt and the Sacramentarians disturbed the church. When they, too, were already giving way, the Anabaptists arose.72 Thus the church is never without a trial; for the world does not continue on the proper and steady course of its calling but looks back like Lot's wife, who was punished temporally on this account as an example for those who would be ungodly in the future—an example to show that they would bring eternal punishment upon themselves if they did not adhere to the Word.
Perhaps Lot's wife was terrified by the awful crash of the thunderbolts and the collapsing cities and looked back for that reason. To be drawn away from the Word by new and strange ideas is, therefore, no - 146 joke or slight trial. When Arius spread his poison in the world, it was received with loud applause because it presented something new, something that had previously not been heard in the world.73 Such were the beginnings of nearly all heresies; the world received them with open arms and admired them as though the earlier teachers had not been sound.
By her example Lot's wife warns us to beware of this poison of Satan in order that we may remain steadfast in the faith once delivered (Jude 3). But the world does not submit to this doctrine. Some gratify their own vanity with new doctrines; others look for glory, as Paul says (cf. 1 Tim. 6:5, 20). Thus nearly all are diverted from the true course.
From our own sentiments we shall readily gauge how hard it was for the saintly man Lot on such an occasion and because of such a sin to lose his very dear wife, with whom he lived for so many years and who had followed him so dutifully during so prolonged an exile.
Therefore when Lot did not seem safe even in Zoar—for the mishap of his very dear wife justly frightened him—he took refuge on a hill near by, and there, with his daughters, he hid in a cave, lest they, too, lose their lives in a similar disaster.
27. And Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the Lord; 28. and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of the valley, and beheld, and lo, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace.
Here the saintly patriarch Abraham, the father of the promise, is presented as an observer of the awful punishment by which the five cities perished. This is evidently done for the purpose of giving special emphasis to the sternness of God's wrath in order to frighten the ungodly; for the very saintly man had interceded with God in behalf of those places. He had asked God not to destroy them. He is compelled, however, not only to weep over and patiently put up with the sins of others but even to behold with his own eyes the destruction of so many thousands of human beings. Moses wanted to indicate the nature and the magnitude of this trial; for Abraham undoubtedly had the thought which Ps. 89:47 expresses: "For what vanity Thou hast created the sons of men!" "I am not to believe, am I, that I alone of the children of God am being kept unharmed when God at one time is consuming so great a multitude of human beings by fire from heaven?"
This reflection and debate about the incomprehensible judgments of God causes hearts to murmur against God and gives occasion for terrible trials and doubts. Reflect! If you were in a city besieged by enemies and knew from God's Word or from a sure revelation that all the citizens were to be killed but you alone would be saved, and if you saw the enemy raging without any distinction—in such danger how long would you keep that confidence of yours concerning your safety? Abraham, too, was in such a situation. But he held firmly to his faith by thrusting aside those obstacles which were trying to shake his faith.
His grief was increased by the recollection that by a divine miracle this whole region was delivered from the power of the enemy six or seven years earlier, more or less. Thus it not only grieved him that the people who had been saved through him were perishing so wretchedly, but he also thought of the entire human race as he reasoned with himself: "if these people, for whom a miracle was performed and who were delivered by my hand, degenerated in so short a time and were overthrown, what hope is one to have about the entire human race?"
Therefore when—in the next chapter—Abraham proceeds to Gerar (Gen. 20:l), he is extraordinarily fearful; for he doubts that in this place there are people who fear God, and to the king, who remonstrates with him, he replies: "I thought that perhaps there is no fear of God in this place and that they will kill me because of my wife" (Gen. 20:11). What, I ask, was the source of these thoughts? Was it not a heart which had this thought: "If there was no fear of God in that Paradise, what will there be in the country of This was Abraham's first trial. Moses describes it in detail and in words that carnal men do not understand. He says: As soon as dawn drew near, Abraham went out with the utmost concern, not only for the five cities in general but also for his nephew Lot, his wife, and his daughters, who, as he knew, were living in Sodom; but he did not know whether they had perished with the people of Sodom. For this reason he trembles and is full of fear. He is constrained to weep because of the sins of others and to dread every misfortune.
- 147 We must not suppose that Abraham was a block of wood and devoid of all human feelings. He was as godly and compassionate as anyone else. Consequently, he was concerned about the safety of the five cities and especially about the members of his family. Therefore he could not stay in bed. He gets up before daylight and has some hope that perhaps (God will act more mildly. Full of hope, worries, and fears, he accordingly turns his eyes at once toward the well-known region to see whether it is still unharmed. Familiar are the sentiments we feel toward absent friends, the way Terence's Mitio is anxious about his son, who is tarrying too long.74 In like manner, I am anxious about my dear Philip while he is at Frankfurt and now have a variety of thoughts about him.75 Hearts affected in this manner feel nothing but troubles and worries. They think: "Ah, what are my friend, my nephew, my children, my fellow citizens, and others now doing?" Such was the state of Abraham's heart at that time; he was full of sighs and groans. Even though these facts are recorded by Moses in few words, they should not be looked at with carnal eyes; you must make the mood, yes, even the effect of the events your own, put yourself, as it were, into the situation before us, and examine your heart as to what you would have thought or done had you been in such a position.
But what happens while the saintly man has these anxious thoughts? "Behold," says Moses, "he saw smoke going up like the smoke of a furnace." Then indeed his amazement and grief increased, for so far there had remained a slight hope that God would act with greater leniency. But Abraham experiences the opposite. He sees יֹטֹטרקִ. going up, that is, a transparent smoke without a flame. At night a dense smoke appears as if it were all fire; but that smoke was transparent, as smoke usually is when the fire is already almost out or is burning less intensely. When we see from a distance that a dense smoke is rising, we immediately draw the conclusion that there is a fire at that place; but there is still some hope that the fire can be extinguished. But when we see that transparent smoke, we assume that there is no longer a conflagration; then we conclude that everything has been destroyed by the conflagration. Thus when
Abraham saw that thin smoke, he realized that the entire region had been consumed by fire.
What sighs and what groans followed after this sad sight! "Where is my dear Lot now? What is his fate? Is he alive? Are his wife and daughters alive?" Accordingly, Abraham burst into tears. Terrified, he bewailed the great disaster.
However, these facts are recorded for the sake of the ungodly in order to enlarge on God's wrath against sin, if by any means some may repent and cease sinning. The Jews make sport of these very serious matters, but the papists generally regard them with carnal eyes. They see that Abraham, Lot, and the other saints have their own wives and are occupied with the management of their homes. These things they consider worldly and unworthy of saints. They are offended by this outward appearance. But the deaths and the hell with which God has vexed His saints every day the papists neither see nor understand; yet Holy Scripture presents these things clearly enough—if they were not blinded by lusts and loveless,76 as Peter (2 Peter 3:3) prophesies concerning them. Yes, they even laugh at these ideas. But the people of Sodom laughed, too. Nevertheless, there came such a horrible disaster upon them. We shall expect the same thing from our opponents, although, when they are punished, we shall be moved by compassion and shall mourn their destruction. Nor do I doubt that those who live after us will often wish for death; for such great disasters bring about a stupor, and then there is no room for weeping, as we are accustomed to do in less serious dangers.
29. So it was that when God destroyed the cities of the valley, God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when He overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt.
What Moses has here added about Abraham is intended as a praise of prayer, for he clearly declares that God saved Lot not so much because of his own righteousness as because of the prayer of believing
Abraham. (For Lot had already begun to be in danger because of his disobedience and delay. Therefore the angels chide him and say: "Lest you perish in like manner"; but his wife sinned more dangerously and for this reason was punished more severely.) It is as though Moses were saying: "God loved Abraham so much that He saved Lot because of him, for He did not want the heart of saintly Abraham to be saddened endlessly but left him this comfort, lest he have sorrow upon sorrow. Thus in all the accounts of the saints you see trouble alternating with deliverance, suffering with comfort, and tears with joy. Therefore they are the true Atlases who bear heaven on their shoulders, that is, sustain the burden of divine wrath and in such great disasters still keep their trust in mercy, even though they see the opposite. In the end they experience how great the power of believing prayer is.
- 148 Now follows the text about Lot and his daughters. It perplexes both the Jews and our own people, and causes them to ask many questions. Our fathers generally passed it over, either because they were hindered by other endeavors or because God so directed it, lest the church be burdened with a multitude of books. For this reason I myself hate my books and often wish that they would perish, because I fear that they may detain the readers and lead them away from reading Scripture itself, which alone is the fount of all wisdom. Besides, I am frightened by the example of the former age.77 After those who had devoted themselves to sacred studies had come upon commentaries of human beings, they not only spent most of their time reading the ancient theologians, but eventually they also busied themselves with Aristotle,
Averroes, and others, who later on gave rise to the Thomases, the Scotuses, and similar monstrosities.
For this reason books should be limited in number, and among these books only those which lead the reader into a correct understanding of the Scripture should be given approval. And in the books of the fathers themselves we should value nothing that is not in agreement with Scripture; it alone should remain the judge and teacher of all books. To be sure, it is profitable to hear the confessors, whether they are dead and teach in their writings or are living and teach by word of mouth. Nevertheless, there should be a limit.
And one should always observe this rule: that we read those who expound Scripture. Since we have no opinion of the fathers on this passage, we shall expound it as best we can.
30. Now Lot went up out of Zoar and dwelt in the hills with his two daughters, for he was afraid to dwelt in Zoar; so he dwelt in a cave with his two daughters.
It was not without reason that Lot was afraid to remain in Zoar, for the four cities had already perished. They had been consumed by fire from heaven. Moreover, in the very city of safety Lot loses more than he had lost in the city of destruction. In Sodom he had lost his home, his household, his cattle, and his domestics; but here he loses half of his life, namely, his wife, a saintly woman endowed with most eminent virtues. Therefore he thought: "If my wife was not saved in the city of safety, perhaps the same danger will come upon me and my daughters tomorrow. Come, then, my daughters; let us go away to a safer place, where we can be safe from the temptation because of which my wife perished." Accordingly, he leaves Zoar, and it, too, perishes immediately by fire from heaven and is consumed like the others; for the text states clearly that the entire region is to be destroyed. Consequently, Zoar, which was the fifth among these cities, perished too.
This, then, was the end of these cities. It was indeed a terrible disaster; and to frighten those who deride and persecute the Word, it should be impressed on them often. For there are enough, and more than enough, other sins in which we are all born and live; but the majority add this devilish malice, that they deride, blaspheme, and persecute the Word. To deride the Word of God is, therefore, the antecedent whose most certain consequence is to perish by brimstone and flaming fire, so that the godly are hardly able to see and bear this awful judgment.
Thus Lot, too, frightened by the example of his own wife, takes to flight; for no misfortune could affect him more closely unless it affected his own body. But of the evils there is not yet enough. Where he concludes that there will be certain safety, he encounters a greater danger. This is in accord with the common saying: "No misfortune comes singly." He hides in a cave, with the intention of avoiding the sight not only of the region that had already perished in flames but also of the human beings, the cattle, and the earth itself, lest there be some occasion for sinning. What, then, shall we suppose was his frame of mind? Undoubtedly he was in the utmost fear and anguish. But behold, a new evil overtakes him, as now follows.
31. And the first-born said to the younger: Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come into us after the manner of all the earth.
32. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father.
33. So they made their father drink wine that night; and the first-born went in and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
This plan of the girls was certainly foolish. Therefore when carnal people, who look at Holy Scripture superficially, read things like this, they think of their own desires and suppose that these girls were crazed by lust. But they do not see the dreadful severity of God's wrath and the grief and near-desperation of these human beings. Nor are the Jews less rash; they argue that what Moses writes in this passage is impossible, that Lot could not have been unaware of his intercourse with his daughters.78
- 149 Above all, then, Moses must be defended against the suspicion of lying. Hence we declare that it is certain and beyond doubt that Lot and his daughters were in extreme fear and distress, not only because of the sad spectacle—that they saw such a great multitude of human beings suddenly perish—but also because of the misfortune in their family—that Lot had lost his very dear wife and that his daughters had lost their very lovely mother. If anybody is not crushed by this misfortune, he has a heart that is harder than adamant.79
Now it is also true that human beings who are in the height of excitement become mentally deranged and both say and do things which they later forget. For the mind, as though engulfed by the intensity of the excitement, is not conscious of itself. Thus Lot was undoubtedly aware of having had intercourse with his daughters, since coition is a shaking of the entire body and an excitation of soul and body. But why does Moses state that Lot was not aware of it?
My answer is: Moses does so in order to point out that Lot had been absorbed in the height of excitement and for this reason does not remember afterwards what he did. We observe the same thing in less serious situations, in the case of melancholy people and of lovers whose emotions are rather strong; they say and do many things which they later on no longer remember. For people in love are really out of their mind and invent dreams, as the poet says.80 Hence it is nothing new for someone in unusual stupefaction to perform an act of which he later on has no recollection. Hence the Jews are poor dialecticians; for Scripture does not state that Lot was not aware of the intercourse but states that he got up and did not know that he had had intercourse. Moses is describing the intensity of the excitement and not, as those swine suppose, the allurements of lust.
Moreover, it tends to excuse the saintly man that he not only was in the height of excitement but had also been made drunk by his daughters. Thus two troubles come together: extreme excitement and drunkenness, something which easily engrosses those who are perturbed. Why, then, is it strange that Lot did not know in the morning what he did at night? A drunken man says something and is well aware of saying it, yet after sleeping he does not remember what he said.
These are my thoughts about this passage, for I cannot bear what those dogs maintain: that Moses is recording things that are impossible. These occurrences are common even in less serious perplexities, as when melancholy, love, or some other emotion grips the minds; then people do not always remember what they did. Therefore it is not an impossible but a daily and common occurrence for a human being to fall into love, hate, sorrow, or joy to such an extent that because of anger or delight he does not know what he is saying or doing, even though he is aware of saying and doing something.
I do not say that one can completely excuse Lot for this reason. Besides, the matter belongs into a different discussion. I am merely stating that what the text says in this passage about Lot is not impossible.
He is intoxicated in a twofold way: his body with wine and his heart with cares. Therefore it is not strange that when he is sober, he does not know what he did when he was drunk. Moreover, this, too, helps us to learn to pay more careful attention to the sacred accounts and not to pounce upon Holy Scripture like swine spurred on either by hatred or by lust.
Lyra's opinion is incorrect when he implicates the saintly father Lot in such a great sin.81 He sat in his monastery and did not see Sodom in flames, a spectacle which did not give any occasion for lust but engulfed the mind in the most violent disturbance. Since Lyra is not aware of this, he thinks that the drunken Lot may have danced in the cave and that these things took place after this. But his opinion is wrong, and he does not give due consideration to the account by paying attention to all the circumstances.
If a boy inadvertently sets fire to a house, he is not for this reason regarded as an incendiary. Therefore the laws spare him. Similarly, when a brawl occurs and angry people engage in a fight, some things are excused in a civil manner because the sin has been committed inadvertently, not on purpose. Thus Lot was in such straits that he did not know what he was doing. The godly have very tender hearts and, as Scripture says of them (cf. Is. 41:14), are like the most delicate little wood worms; but the obdurate and the proud readily despise everything. One should not judge in accordance with inexperienced hearts. No, judgment should be given in accordance with hearts that are terrified and are afraid of the wrath of God, especially at the time of a disaster as great as the one Lot experienced.
Therefore Moses is not recording impossible things; he is recording things that are natural and in harmony with experience. In support of this there is also the circumstance that he records that Lot went up into the Mils and hid in a cave. For if his mind had not been perturbed, he would rather have gone to - 150 Abraham than to the hills; but because he was perturbed, he is incapable of forming any plan about doing anything.
One should have the same opinion about Lot's daughters. The weakness of the female sex is well known; but the peril in which they had been and the unexpected mishap of their mother, which they had witnessed, had seriously perturbed their minds. Thus they devise this plan, not because they are stirred up by lust but because of their extraordinary compassion for the entire human race. Consider their words more carefully. They say: "There is no longer a man on earth" and: "Let us preserve offspring from our father." These are words of despair and not of lust, even though they rest on a specious foundation. Lot's daughters thought: "God does not want to destroy the human race; He wants to preserve it. But now there is nobody left besides our father who could preserve procreation and the race. Therefore we must sleep with our father." Thus it is nothing but genuine concern for preserving the human race that troubles the saintly girls. The assumption that there is not a man left on the earth is ample reason for their disturbance.
Hence hearts in such a state of agitation urge cohabitation with their father; it is not lust that does so.
I am saying this, not to excuse them but to set forth the true reasons for this deed. When these are discerned, the offense, which necessarily follows if you do not see these reasons, is extenuated. The father is saintly, and the girls are saintly; but both sin, yet not because of malice and lust but because of their great disturbance. Therefore nobody will be able to defend his own lust by citing their example. If they had been undisturbed and in control of their mental faculties, they would have refrained from incest and— as Abraham does later on—would have comforted themselves with the omnipotence of God, who would be able to make human beings even from stones or call the dead back into life. But since they were disturbed, they conclude in accordance with their present state of mind: "If no man is left besides our father, we shall have offspring from our father. But he is an old man and will be ashamed of the deed.
Therefore it will be necessary to make him drunk, in order that he may forget the present misfortune and in order that his senile body may be inflamed by wine. He will never do this when he is sober."
It is not without reason that Moses devotes so many words to his description of the foul deed. That so large a multitude of ungodly people has perished—this is horrible in itself; but that Lot, who saw this punishment, and his daughters fall into so great a sin—this is more horrible. Moreover, these facts have been recorded to frighten all the ungodly, yes, even the saints, lest they become smug. On the contrary, they should recognize the weakness, of which there are such horrible examples, and devote themselves more diligently to prayer and be watchful. Yet it behooves us to excuse the father as well as the daughters and not to magnify their guilt; for they are not sinning, like the ungodly, because of lust, idleness, smugness, and malice; they are sinning as a result of great perplexity. But a fall resulting from perplexity should in no wise be compared to one that comes about intentionally, since Lot would not have been made drunk so easily if his heart had not first been perturbed. So he sinned, but he sinned venially; that is, God forgave this sin out of mercy. For Lot would never have committed it if he had been sober and in possession of his mental faculties.
You will ask: "But why does God permit His own to fall in this manner?" Although we are not at liberty to inquire too eagerly into God's doings, yet here the answer is easy. God wants us to be well aware of our feebleness, lest we lapse into smugness. Thus Lot and his saintly household had seen the sins of the people of Sodom and had rightfully abominated them, but what happens to them now? The people who are so saintly pollute themselves with abominable incest, something which hardly ever happened among the people of Sodom or at least did not happen commonly.
Hence the reason is clear. God wants us all to humble ourselves and to glory solely in His mercy, because, so far as we are concerned, no one is better or saintlier than the other, and no one sins so gravely.
If God should withdraw His hand, you will pollute yourself with the same sin. Therefore this awful fall teaches two lessons: (1) that you should humble yourself before God and (2) that you should continually pray to God for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The nonsense of the Jews about the wine that was dispensed and about the philter prepared by his daughters must be utterly rejected. It was natural wine, such as that region produced; and it undoubtedly also had an excellent and smooth flavor. For previously
Moses himself praised the fertility of that region highly when he called it a Paradise of God. Therefore Lot became drunk, not because he drank wine so excessively, but because his perturbed mind could not tolerate such excellent wine.
- 151 Moses does not mention how long Lot stayed in those hills; but if one considers the circumstances, it is likely that Abraham sought him and brought him to his own home and that he lived there with his daughters. For how could Abraham abandon his nephew who had been barely snatched from such a great catastrophe? How could he not have shown the kindliest affection for him who had now been deprived of all the property he had formerly had in such abundance, was now bereft of his wife, and finally was also defiled with incest, over which Abraham, as was proper, undoubtedly grieved deeply? For Abraham was a very kindhearted man.
The circumstances support these ideas, but the rabbis—or, to apply a more truthful name to them, the asses of the Jews—do not give consideration to such circumstances; they judge Scripture solely on the basis of their own filthy sentiments. Let those who are of that sort read Ovid, Martial, and their like. This passage deals with very great trials of very saintly people and with very violent conflicts of faith. Consider
Abraham himself. Just as one wave sets another wave in motion, so trial and disaster, one after the other, befall him. His grief was very great because he was unable to save the five cities by his prayer.
Furthermore, the necessary concern for his nephew Lot worried him; and after he knows that Lot is alive, he also learns about the incest. All these are matters of great importance.
But by what thoughts shall we suppose that Lot himself was tortured after he had learned that his daughters had been impregnated by him? If he had not heard numerous comforting discourses from Abraham, he would undoubtedly have died from grief and sorrow. Examples show what the result of extraordinary grief is, namely, that many suddenly die from this most violent poison. These ideas are more in accord with the truth than what Lyra propounds on the basis of the opinion of the Jews: that Lot sat in a tent under a fig tree and that both Lot and his daughters lived at ease in Abraham's home. On the contrary, it is more likely that they died.
What Lyra alleges about the name is similarly inept. He calls the older daughter the more shameless and charges that by this name she had given her son a mark to show that he was born as the result of incest.82 For מֹוָאב means out of or from the father. The younger he calls more modest, since she gave her son the common and not disreputable name ימִּען־ ַבֶּ, that is, "son of my people."
But whatever may in the end be the reason for the names, history shows that these two nations were richly blessed above the others, except that it was forbidden for them to be admitted to the government.
But how much more glorious it is that Ruth, the ancestress of Christ, was a Moabite! God had cast the rebellious Korah aside, but with what great gifts his descendants were endowed is shown by the very delightful psalms which are found among those of David. Thus this serves to comfort descendants; they should not despair of a blessing, even though their ancestors brought upon themselves God's curse and wrath because of their sins. "Why, then," you will say, "did the first-born daughter can her son Moab?"
My answer is: It was by no means her intention to disgrace her son; she did so in order to remove the offense and to indicate that the cohabitation with her father occurred not from lust or desire but because of her perplexity. Hence she is excusing her disgrace and pointing out that she would have refrained altogether from this incest if her thinking had been rational. But since she was troubled by a concern which was not evil, it was not a disgrace for her to think that the preservation of the human race could not be maintained in any other manner.
34. And on the next day the first-born said to the younger: Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father.
35. So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.
36. Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father.
37. The first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day.
38. The younger also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites to this day.
The younger gives her son this name also with a definite intention; for just as the older confesses her sin in her sons name and yet puts an end to the offense, since she has sinned because of the perplexity of her heart, not because of lust, so the younger comforts herself with this name Ben-ammi, since, even though he was born as the result of incest, God would not altogether cast him aside as part of His people.
Moreover, it seems likely to me that these names were given to the sons as a result of the comforting