Genesis 18:16-33

Abraham Barters With God for the Souls of Sodom
Or
How to Argue With God and Come Out Ahead


Am I proposing that Abraham really came out ahead in this discussion? Did Abraham “win” this debate with God concerning the potential deliverance of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah? Not hardly, but what I would like to proffer forth is the idea that, because God was so convinced of Abraham’s righteousness and faith, Abraham was allowed to bargain, haggle, and negotiate with God. Abraham and God held an intense discussion regarding who would live, who would die, and how Abraham wanted God to save everyone.

“Abraham does not doubt the existence of God’s justice; he only asks its extent and limitations. The important thing is that he asks altogether and that God does not reject his question out of hand. The Bible thereby makes clear that man may, with impunity, question the behavior of God. Like Abraham, man need not surrender his own sense of justice; he remains free to accept or reject the divine judgment – although he will have to submit to it in the end. Man is not reduced to a moral automaton; his spiritual freedom is preserved.” (Plaut, p133)

Now, I was raised in a church culture that very much believed that only those people who are absolutely snow-white pure in their righteousness and faithfulness will be allowed to talk directly to God. God would listen only to those people who toed the appropriate set of lines, followed all of the rules, never sinned, always believed, and lived seemingly perfect lives. And the sad thing is that similar beliefs aren’t confined to the denomination in which I grew up. Many different wings of a variety of denominations (and non-denominations) propagate such unhealthy lines of thinking, whether through “health & wealth” teaching or through isolationist and overly-exclusionist doctrines of salvation.

However, Abraham’s own lack of belief and ill-timed actions in many circumstances (see Genesis 16) should allay any truth in such claims. God visited Abraham and Sarah several times over the course of their lives, because Abraham, ultimately, had faith in God, not because he did everything right, all of the time. Am I giving license to sin? Am I letting Abraham and Sarah off the hook for what they did and did no do? Not really, but what I am attempting to do is present the grand story of the founding family of the Jews as an example of how anyone can communicate with God, if they believe that God is there and that God does listen.

Reading through verses 16-21, we see Abraham following God and the two angelic beings on their way down to Sodom, as the three visitors began to discuss amongst themselves whether or not Abraham would be told the details of the soon-coming events. God reiterates the promises that have been given to Abraham and Sarah, while stating plainly that Abraham, because of his status in the world (and in God’s eyes), has a right to know what’s about to happen. And what’s about to happen is the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their great sin against God, the status of which God’s two fellow travelers are going to ascertain.

“There is a combination of anthropomorphism (God being given humanlike qualities) and theodicy (explanation of divine action) in this story and in the Tower of Babel episode (Gen 11). In both cases, to demonstrate divine justice and fairness, God ‘comes down’ to investigate a situation before taking action.” (Walton, Matthews, and Chavalas; p50)

However, while it not explicitly mentioned in the text, it does seem that Abraham is quite aware of what’s being discussed between the three men. (Berlin and Brettler, p40) Thus, it seems that, contrary to everything you’ve heard about a highly vengeful Old Testament God, it might not be true at all. God allows Abraham to hear the conversation he had with the two men, God is sending those two men give the cities one last look-through, and God quite readily listens to Abraham’s pleadings for the souls and lives of the people of Sodom. (Plaut, p133) Thus, even with a city whose social and religious transgressions were as well documented as Sodom’s, God feels like there might be something (or someone) redeemable about it and their sister city of Gomorrah, a task that God allows Abraham to take part in (Berlin and Brettler, p40).

“Haggling is a part of all Middle Eastern business transactions. In this case, however, Abraham’s determination of the exact number of righteous persons needed to prevent the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah provides a repeated demonstration of God’s just actions. A just God will not destroy the righteous without warning or investigation. Even the unrighteous, in this early period, can be spared for the sake of the righteous. On the other hand, justice is not served by overlooking wickedness. The discussion of the number of righteous people may concern not whether they can balance the wickedness of the rest, but whether, given time, they might be able to exert a reforming influence.” (Walton, Matthews, and Chavalas; p50)

What follows is one of the most curious conversations between a human and God ever recorded in a religious text. Compare Job’s talks with God to Abraham’s – they are quite different in that Job talks to God as any confused and bewildered believer might when faced with hardship and trial. He begins by speaking reverently to God (Job 1 & 2), rails against God (Job 31), hears God chastise him (Job 38-41), and returns again to his reverence at the end of the book (Job 42). Throughout this chapter, Abraham and God, on the other hand, debate the future of the two cities as nearly equals. Now, Abraham doesn’t believe that he’s equal to God – his tone and verbiage explicates the fact that he knows that he is talking to God, and not another human being. (Berlin and Brettler, p40) However, it is quite evident that Abraham has no problem telling God exactly what he is feeling, what he is thinking, and what he thinks God should and should not do.

“Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:25, ESV)

Verse 25, in many ways, is the fulcrum of the whole conversation, for, by appealing to God’s own sense of justice and mercy, Abraham is seeking to save the whole of Sodom on behalf of the few righteous inhabitants who are still inside the city. Abraham is fully aware that the city has transgressed mightily against God, and deserves their punishment, but hopes to make God see that the righteous people inside the city don’t deserve punishment. (Plaut, p133) Furthermore, by looking at verse 27, Abraham continues with the debate, but does so by stating blatantly that God really doesn’t have to listen to Abraham, since Abraham is “but dust and blood” (ESV), though he employs such self-deprecation in an effort to not have God ignore the pleadings of a mere human. (Alter, p82) Over and over again, Abraham hopes to see the salvation of the righteous in Sodom, no matter whether or not it’s merely his nephew, Lot, and his family or whoever it might be inside that city.

From there, Abraham begins to barter with God concerning the souls and salvation of the city of Sodom and Gomorrah, working God down from the initial 50 in verse 24-26, down to 10 in verse 32. He does so slowly, with precise increments, knowing that there would be no other way to “talk down God” in terms of how many righteous people it would take for God to spare the two cities. God doesn’t respond to Abraham with counter-offers, just with a brief acknowledgement that the current offer being made by Abraham will suffice to avert the destruction of the two cities. God and man are embroiled in a classic bartering conversation, a scene straight out of any Middle Easter bazaar or flea market transaction across the American South. (Alter, p82) However, the whittling-away undertaken by Abraham concludes at 10, since “Abraham realizes he dare not go any lower than ten, the minimal administrative unit for communal organization in later Israelite life.” (Alter, p83) To further supplement the reasoning by Abraham’s cessation at 10 people, another source states, “They [the rabbis] set ten as the minimal number for communal worship.” (Plaut, p133)

In general, the whole interaction, I feel, was quite a brave and noble proposition for a human to undertake, since most of us only argue with God over our own selfish desires and personal sin natures. Now, one could argue that Abraham is just looking out for Lot and his family, even though they are never mentioned in this discussion, since Abraham has rescued Lot from a grave and deadly situation in the past (Genesis 14). However, taking Abraham’s words of reverence and respect towards God into account, it would seem he is fully aware that God knows of Lot’s status as citizen of Sodom. So, to believe that Abraham was acting selfishly would be to denigrate the character of Abraham and the lengths that Abraham would go to in order to secure the deliverance of the entire city.

However, throughout all of this, God knows that there are only 4 righteous people in all of Sodom and Gomorrah – Lot, his wife, and their two daughters. One then begins to wonder why God allowed Abraham to continually petition God’s decision to destroy the cities if God knew that Abraham could never go low enough to actually save the cities. If Abraham would never go below 10 people, and there were only 4 righteous people, what was the purpose to God listening to Abraham? Couldn’t God have said, “Listen up, Abe, old buddy. I’ve promised you many things – a child, your status as the father of a great nation, your presence and wealth throughout this region. But there’s just no point in arguing with me here – there are only 4 decent people in those 2 cities, not enough righteous to ever hope to prevent Me from punishing the rest of them. I’ll find a way to save Lot and his family, but there’s not much else you can do here. Go home and make a baby with Sarah.”

And I don’t type that to be facetious or irreverent, but who hasn’t thought this when reading/studying this passage? But when I think through this whole discussion here between Abraham and God, I can’t help but wonder what God’s point is, what God’s hoping to teach Abraham and any future readers/hearers of this story. And then it hits me – God desires to communicate with us, purely and simply. God wants humanity to talk to their Creator, not out of selfish desires, but out of love – love for God and love for their fellow human. Abraham’s haggling with God is a wonderful example of this, as Abraham is looking out for others, and doing so while respecting, reverencing, and loving the all-knowing and just God that he serves faithfully. Does this mean that God was being insensitive to the righteous people who were in Sodom? Not at all – why else would the Lord’s two fellow travelers be going into Sodom if not to save Lot and Lot’s family from the city’s impending doom?

Thus, this passage loses its status as one that gives license to only the purest and most faithful to communicate with God and gives rise to a belief that anyone who has a righteous request can come to God with their appeal. It is not the petitioner who has to be righteous, but the petition. We are made righteous through faith, just as Abraham was made, and not because we have done certain acts and abstained from others. God desired to listen to Abraham because Abraham’s request was worthy of being heard, as it showed forth Abraham’s character – a character full of mercy, justice, and love for those same attributes in his God. Thus, we, as heirs and adherents to the faith of Abraham, can offer up similar supplications to God, behaving not as if we are some type of political lobbyist petitioning the Congress, but admitting our incompetence and “dustiness” to our Saviour, knowing that God wants to hear us talk and loves it when we think about someone besides our own selves.

Genesis 18: 1-15

Abraham & Sarah’s Three Visitors
Or
Proof-Positive That God Really is a Mind Reader


“Once again, this story shows what a scandal and difficulty faith is. Faith is not a reasonable act which fits into the normal scheme of life and perception. The promise of the gospel is not a conventional piece of wisdom that is easily accommodated to everything else. Embrace of this radical gospel requires shattering and discontinuity.” (Brueggemann; p158-159)

And this is how I wish to begin with this lesson – restating and revisiting the story of Abraham and Sarah that we’ve been studying and telling over the past few months. In each of the 6 previous chapters, God found various ways to communicate with Abraham and Sarah directly regarding their status as progenitors of a great race, despite their advanced age. However, in most of those 6 chapters, they were continually confronted because of their disbelief in God’s promises. As I like to say – “Welcome to Human Nature 101” – Abraham and Sarah are just like all of us. While most, if not all of us, are ever called to sire a whole race of people, we all consistently resist God’s pull on our lives because it conflicts with our plans and how we see the world. Let us continue our journey with this couple.

The chapter begins with Abraham seeing three visitors approach, all of whom seem to be angelic, and one of whom is eventually revealed to be God. Abraham’s response is one of extreme hospitality, of extreme cultural deference to the presence of the visitors in his home. From the promised meager meal, to the foot-washing, to the extravagant meal that he eventually produces for the three men, Abraham offers up his attendance, his tents, his food, and his servitude to honor his guests for honoring him with their visit to his abode. (Walton, Matthews, Chavalas; p50)

Some commentaries remark at length about the discrepancies between the singular and plural mentions of the visitor/visitors addressed by Abraham throughout the 15 verses. Most come down on the side of asserting that the One who does all the talking is God (making this “man’s” appearance a theophany) and the other two men are the two angelic beings who travel to Sodom to confront Lot and the people of Sodom. (Alter; p77-78) However, to quote Brueggemann here, “There is no need … to seek a Christian statement of the Trinity here.” (Brueggemann, p158) The focus points of these visitors’ appearance are: a) that the primary spokesperson is most likely God; and b) that God has much to say to Sarah, whether she likes it or not.

“Abraham and Sarah have by this time become accustomed to their barrenness. They are resigned to their closed future. They have accepted that hopelessness as ‘normal.’ The gospel promise does not meet them [Abraham and Sarah] in receptive hopefulness but in resistant hopelessness.” (Brueggemann, p159)

However, with the feast of Abraham in full swing by verse 9, the visitors ask Abraham where his wife is, calling for Sarah by name. This has to throw Abraham for a loop, because these are three men he’s never met before asking for his wife by name, something that only deity/divinity would be able to accomplish. (Alter; p78) Abraham then replies that she is inside the tent. God (referred to as “the Lord”) then proclaims to Abraham “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son.” (Genesis 18:10, ESV) Who else would be able to make this prediction except for God, as it was God who made the original promise of the birth of a son to the aged Abraham and Sarah?

But Sarah heard this prophecy from inside the tent and chuckled to herself in disbelief, though she has heard this news before. She even questioned the viability of this promise to herself, bringing up the fact that Abraham was too old to give her pleasure. Coupled with the fact that verse 11 mentions specifically that Sarah is post-menopausal, Sarah feels well within her biological rights to believe that this prophecy is quite ridiculous and not worthy of her belief. However, God calls Sarah’s bluff and asks Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?’” (Genesis 18:13, ESV)

From here, it must be noted that many commentators remarked on how God, when sharing with Abraham what Sarah had just said, didn’t tell Abraham the whole truth. Sarah, in verse 12, laughs and makes light of the fact that Abraham is old and won’t be able to give her sexual pleasure, but, in verse 13, God tells Abraham that Sarah is in doubt because of her age. Yes, God edited the conversation for Abraham’s benefit. The renowned rabbi Rashi felt that God did this to preserve domestic peace. (Plaut, p125) Because, if Abraham had known of Sarah’s opinions of his abilities, would they ever have slept together in an attempt to conceive Isaac? (Alter, p79)

However, setting aside all of that discussion, the crux of these 15 verses lies in verse 14, where the Lord is talking to Abraham, in respect to Sarah’s (and probably Abraham’s past) doubts: “Is anything too hard for the Lord? At the appointed time I will return to you about this time next year, and Sarah shall have a son.” (Genesis 18:14, ESV) God wants to make sure that this elderly couple fully realizes that they have been chosen, no matter what their physical age might actually say about their ability to conceive a child and populate the earth. It’s as if God is saying here that, regardless of their disbelief, they will be the man and woman who will be the ones to originate the Hebrew people. (Brueggemann, p160) God has spoken and our feeble words and excuses don’t quite amount to that much; just ask Moses about that one.

As a note of conclusion to this section, even as Sarah denies her laughter in verse 15, God rebukes her, letting her know that God is fully aware of her laughter, even if it wasn’t expressed outwardly. God knows our hearts, our intentions, our plans, our fears, our doubts, and everything in between. And that typically quite scares us, but that’s OK…

“Thus the strangers departed (Genesis 18:16) with the question [that God asked in verse 14] still unanswered. The answer is only given provisionally in Genesis, always waiting to see if God can do what he says. Faith is a scandal. The promise is beyond our expectation and beyond all evidence. The ‘impossible possibility’ of God deals frighteningly with our future.” (Brueggemann, p161-162)

More than anything else, when teaching a somewhat confusing passage of Scripture like this, what needs to be communicated is that God loves us and only wants to see the best for us in our lives. Often, this ‘best’ comes in the form of promises that God (speaking with or without the help of the prophets) has made in the Bible, in the words of people in our lives, and sometimes with strikingly daunting and intimidating methodologies. There are times when we won’t believe, when the facts don’t quite fit together, and when all that we know falls rather short of what needs to be known. Believing in God is different from having faith in God – belief needs something concrete to believe in, while faith doesn’t need anything. And that’s why it’s faith and that’s why faith doesn’t make any sense at all. As Brueggemann’s quote declares, “Faith is a scandal.”

Palm Sunday

Palm Sunday:
April 9th, 2006

Psalm 118:1-2, 19-29
Mark 11:1-11
John 12:12-16

The Triumphal Entry of Jesus Into Jerusalem


Palm Sunday represents a day that is both simple and complex to celebrate in the Lenten calendar. It is easy to focus on how Jesus entered Jerusalem on the back of a donkey as people threw down their cloaks and some palm branches for their Messiah to travel upon, but it quite difficult for us to interpret and/or understand how the mood, tone, and actions of the people degenerated so quickly over the course of the upcoming week. I feel that such an intense confusion is especially true regarding those people who had been “religiously” following Jesus as his disciples, because, of all people, they should have stayed with/by Jesus during the upcoming Week of Hell (though this week’s official name is “Holy Week”). Yes, I do realize that the people’s forsaking of Jesus in His hour of need was prophesied, but it still doesn’t make sense why it had to happen. Maybe it just goes to show how fleeting human loyalties really are, and, if so, that’s a rather telling condemnation upon human nature.

Mark’s recounting of Jesus’ ride into Jerusalem begins with the strange request made by Jesus upon two of His disciples that they appropriate a colt (a donkey in John’s story) that had never before been ridden. Jesus then gives them instructions on how to respond to anyone who might ask them what they are doing with the colt, basically answering any questions they might have had concerning their task (or at least I would have asked Jesus such a tacky question). They are to tell anyone who inquires as to their intentions that “… the Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.” (Mark 11:3, TNIV) The two followers of Christ go to fetch the donkey, are compelled to use Jesus’ words to defend their actions, return to the Jesus and the crowd with the donkey, and place their cloaks on the colt’s back so that Jesus can sit upon the animal’s back. People then commenced to place their cloaks upon the ground in front of the approaching donkey, as Jesus sat astride the pack beast. Shouts of “Hosanna,” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” (Mark 11:9, TNIV), “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David,” and “Hosanna in the highest heaven” (Mark 11:10, TNIV) filled the voices of the great crowd that was following Jesus.

In John’s rendition of this story, the crowd hears of Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of the Passover. Finding palm branches to wave, they begin to shout phrases like “Hosanna,” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,” and “Blessed is the Kind of Israel!” (John 12:13, NIV) Jesus then quotes from the book of the prophet Zechariah, much to the (rather typical) confusion of his disciples.

“Rejoice greatly Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” (Zechariah 9:9, TNIV)

Well, with that typical (and easily discerned) timeline completed, what must be emphasized are all of the subtle and overt ways that the disciples and the crowd bestowed outright declarations of the royalty, divinity, and status as the Messiah upon Jesus. “The spreading of the garments represents royal homage (2 Kings 9:13). Branches were also waved in homage to rulers (cf. 1 Macc 13:51; 2 Macc 10:7) … In view of the crowd’s acclamation in [Mark] 11:10, however, the image that may have come most readily to the minds of Mark’s ancient readers is probably that of a royal entrance procession. … ‘Hosanna’ means ‘O save” and both this and the next line of verse 9 come from Psalm 118:25-26. … The coming of the kingdom when David or his descendents would again reign (e.g., Is 9; 11; Jer 23) is here associated with the hope of one coming in the Lord’s name. … By treating Jesus as the object of any of these hopes, the crowds are beginning to see in this teacher a possible messianic figure who could leave them against the Romans.” (The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament; p164-165)

Granted, some commentaries state that the crowd (as a whole) might not have made the connection between Zechariah’s prophecy and Jesus Messianic claims, because if they had, the Roman guards at the garrisons and checkpoints would have definitely arrested Jesus and His followers for treason. (The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament; p164 and The Spirit of the Refomation Study Bible: NIV; p 1727) However, even if we take that caveat into account, we still must acknowledge that the crowd in general found ways and means to best honor the idea that Israel’s long-promised Messiah had arisen. Israel was in the midst of being occupied by the Roman Empire, and, even though the people had already experienced having a revolt crushed in a rather violent fashion, they were still hoping to see their Messiah rise up and overthrow their oppressors, along with the collaborationists amongst the Israeli people.

Israel was hoping that Jesus would be that political and military Messiah, a leader who would come into their midst, galvanize public opinion against the rule of the Romans, and usher in a new era of peace and prosperity for the Children of God. Much like the disciples, nonetheless, it seems that the average crowd that followed Jesus’ steps and listened to His parables & stories had no real clue exactly what He was attempting to communicate. Thus, even as Palm Sunday is a tremendous celebration of Jesus receiving honor and glory from his disciples and the average Jew-on-the-streets, it’s rather easy to see how the common person’s opinion concerning Jesus would be dramatically different in just a few days. Jesus wasn’t here on earth to conquer the using the techniques and blueprints that people wanted him to employ; He was here to enact the will of the Father – to die, be buried, and rise again for the eternal forgiveness of humanity’s sins. Palm Sunday is a reminder to us today of reasons and ways to worship our Saviour and the sacrifice that He so willingly accepted, but also that humans are quite fickle creatures, capable of the worst possible jealous and vengeful reactions, especially when their best laid plans fall awry.


Teachers: Read through the Psalm first to set the celebratory tone for Palm Sunday; read it with gusto and feelings of praise towards God. Let the children feel your love for God as you read. Then, read through Mark and John, seeing if any children point out any similarities between the two New Testament passages and/or the Psalm. Focus your energies in this lesson on celebrating Christ as Messiah, since our lectionary readings for this week do the same. Any tension I address and contemplate in this lesson should be for the teacher’s consideration and not for the children.