childless, or at least without a son. But it was necessary that they
should have another, in order that God's chosen people, the Jews, might
be derived from a purer stock than Cain's. Accordingly we read that
Adam, in his hundred and thirtieth year, "begat a son in his own
likeness, after his image, and called his name Seth." Why was not Cain
begotten in the same way? Had he been so, the cradle of the world might
not have been defiled with the blood of fratricide. Seth being "the
image" of Adam, and Adam "the image" of God, Seth and the Almighty were
of course very much alike. He was pious, and from him were descended the
pious patriarchs, including Noah, from whom was descended Abraham the
founder of the Jewish race. God's chosen people came of a good stock,
although they turned out such a bad lot.
From Seth to Noah there are ten Patriarchs before the Flood. This is
clearly mythological. The Hindus believed in _ten_ great saints, the
offspring of Manu, and in _ten_ different personifications of Vishnu.
The Egyptians had _ten_ mighty heroes, the Chaldeans _ten_ kings before
the Flood, the Assyrians _ten_ kings from Ham to Ninyas, and as many
from Japhet to Aram; and Plato enumerates _ten_ sons of Neptune, as the
rulers of his imaginary Island of Atlantis, submerged by the Deluge.
Cain's descendants were of course drowned by the Flood, but they did a
great deal more for the world than the descendants of pious Seth, who
seems to have done little else than trust in God. The Cainites laid the
basis of civilisation. One of them Jabal, founded _cattle-keeping_; his
brother, Jubal, invented _musical instruments_; and their half-brother
Tubal-cain first practised _smithery_. Seth's descendants had nothing
but piety. Even their morals were no better than those of the Cainites;
for at the Flood only eight of them were found worthy of preservations,
and they were a poor lot. Noah got beastly drunk after the waters
subsided, and one of his three sons brought a curse on all his
offspring. What then must we think of the rest?
Tuch excellently explains the mythological significance of the story
of Cain and Abel and Seth. "There lies," he says, "in this myth the
perfectly correct reminiscence, that in the East _ancient_ nations
lived, under whom in very early times culture and civilisation extended,
but at the same time the assertion, that these could not prejudice the
renown of the Western-Asiatics, since the prerogatives, which their
descent from the first-born would secure to them, were done away through
God's Curse, which lighted on their ancestor, Cain. Thus the East is
cut off from the following history, and the thread fastened on, which
carries us on in Genesis, right across through the nations, to the only
chosen people of Israel." The entire history of the world before the
Flood is dismissed in five chapters, and that from the Flood to Abraham
in two more. After that the mighty antique civilisations are never
noticed except so far as they affect the history of the Jews. The ages
of the Patriarchs also dwindle down from nine centuries in the beginning
to almost the normal longevity in the semi-historical period. Could
anything more conclusively prove the mythical character of the
narrative?
One of the Patriarchs descended from Seth, namely Enoch, which
singularly enough is also the name of Cain's eldest son, never died. We
read that "he was not, for God took him." It is about time that the
Lord took the whole lot out of his Word, and gave us a little ancient
_history_ instead. We want a _revised_ Bible in the fullest sense of
the word. The old book needs to be completely rewritten. How thankful
we should all be if the Lord inspired _another_ "Moses" to rectify the
errors and supplement the deficiencies of the first, and to give us
scientific truth instead of fanciful myths about the early history of
our race! But the Lord never inspires anybody to do a useful piece of
work, and our Darwins will therefore have to go on with their slow and
laborious task of making out a history of mankind from the multitudinous
and scattered traces that still survive the decay of time.
LOT'S WIFE.
BIBLE ROMANCES.--12.
By G. W. FOOTE.
Lot and his family were a queer lot. Their history is one of the
strangest in the whole Bible. They dwelt amongst a people whose
debauchery has become a by-word, and in a city which has given a name to
the vilest of unnatural crimes. Lot, his wife, and their two unmarried
daughters, were the only persons preserved from the terrible fate which
Jehovah, in one of his periodic fits of anger, inflicted upon the famous
Cities of the Plain. They witnessed a signal instance of his ancient
method of dealing with his disobedient children. In the New Testament,
God promises the wicked and the unbelievers everlasting fire after they
are dead; in the Old Testament, he drowns them or burns them up in this
world. Lot and his family saw the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by
"brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven"; and they, four persons
in all, just half the number that survived the Flood a few centuries
before, were the only ones that escaped. God specially spared them. Yet
Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt for looking back as she fled
from the doomed city, and the old man himself soon after got drunk and
committed incest with his daughters. From this crime sprang Moab and
Ammon, the founders of two nations who became for many centuries the
most implacable enemies of God's chosen people.
Why did the Lord spare these four persons? Why did he not profit by the
lesson of the Flood? The eight persons rescued from drowning in that
great catastrophe were infected with original sin, and the consequence
was that the world peopled from their stock was a great deal worse than
the ante-diluvian world. It would clearly have been better to destroy
all and start absolutely afresh. The eight rescued persons were
apparently just as bad as those who were drowned. So with the four
persons spared at the destruction of Sodom. The people of that city
could hardly have been much worse than Lot and his children. The Lord
appears to have been as stupid in his mercy as he was brutal in his
wrath.
Lot was Abraham's nephew, and evidently came of a bad stock. The uncle's
evil career will be sketched in our series of "Bible Heroes." For
the present we content ourselves with the remark that no good could
reasonably be expected from such a family. Lot's father was Haran, a son
of Terah, and brother to Abraham.
He "died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of
the Chaldees." A city was called by his name in the land of Canaan, and
Terah and the family dwelt there after they left Ur, until the patriarch
died and Abraham was called out from his kindred to found a new house.
The "father of the faithful" took his orphaned nephew with him. Lot
accompanied his uncle on the journey to Egypt, where Abraham passed his
wife off as his sister, and showed his natural bent by lying right and
left.
Soon afterwards we learn that Abraham and Lot had grown very rich, the
former "in cattle, in silver, and in gold," and the latter in "flocks,
and herds, and tents." Indeed "their substance was so great that they
could not dwell together, and there was strife between the herdmen of
Abram's cattle and the herd-men of Lot's cattle." Whereupon Abraham said
"Don't let us quarrel within the family, but let us part. You can go
where you like. If you go to the right I'll go to the left, and if you
go to the left I'll go to the right" It was necessary to separate Lot
from the fortunes of Abraham, in order that God's dealings with the
latter might be uninterrupted and his family kept distinct; and so the
Hebrew chronicler very naturally separates them here, in a manner which
reflects great credit on Abraham, and exhibits him in a most amiable
light.
Cunning Lot took full advantage of the offer. He "lifted up his eyes,
and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere,
even as the garden of the Lord." So they parted, and Lot "pitched his
tent towards Sodom," whose inhabitants, says our naive story, "were
wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly." Commentators explain
that Lot's approach to such a detestable sink of iniquity indicated the
native corruption of his heart, or at least a sad lack of horror at the
sins which made the place stink in the nostrils of God.
In the next chapter we find Lot living in Sodom, although we are not
told when he moved there. Amraphel king of Shinar, Arioch king of
Ellasar, Chedorlaorner king of Elam, and Tidal "king of nations," made
war with Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of
Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and the "king of Bera, which is Zoar."
A great battle was fought in the vale of Siddim, which is alleged to
be now covered by the Dead Sea. The four kings were victorious over
the five. The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and the victors spoiled
their cities, taking with them many captives, among whom was "Lot,
Abram's brother's son." How Abraham went out with a handful of men,
defeated the triumphant forces of the allied kings, and rescued his
nephew, is a pretty little story which we reserve for our life of that
patriarch. All the other captives were rescued also, and Lot, returning
with his friends, continued to dwell in Sodom as before.
We hear no more of him for a considerable time. During the interval
Abraham has a child by Hagar. Ishmael, with the rest of the patriarch's
household, is circumcised. And finally the Lord visits Abraham again to
tell him that, notwithstanding their advanced ages, he and Sarah shall
yet have a son. What happened during the interview properly belongs to
the life of Abraham, but we shall here consider so much of it as relates
to the fortunes of Lot.
The Lord complained that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "very
grievous," and said that the great cry of it had reached him in heaven.
Being much concerned about their "goings on," he had resolved to drop
down and see for himself if they were realty as bad as he suspected.
"If not," said he, "I will know." In the Old Testament, God, who knows
everything, is always seeking information.
Abraham surmised that the Lord meant to play the devil with the
Sodomites, and he was anxious about Lot who dwelt with them. So he
began a parley. "Now, my Lord," said Abraham, "you surely don't mean to
destroy indiscriminately; you, the judge of all the earth, must act on
the square. Suppose there are fifty righteous men in Sodom, won't you,
just for their sake, spare the place?" Knowing that there were nothing
like fifty righteous men in Sodom, the Lord promptly acceded to
Abraham's-request; so promptly indeed that Abraham smelt a rat, and
determined to drive a closer bargain. So he asked the Lord to knock off
five. "Very well," was the reply, "if I find forty-five righteous men
I'll spare the city." Abraham was still suspicious. He knew that Jehovah
loved a bit of destruction, and was not easily moved when he had once
made up his mind to indulge himself. So he returned to the charge. "I
beg pardon," said he, "for troubling you so, but do you mind knocking
off another ten, and making thirty of it?" "Not at all," answered the
Lord, "we'll say thirty." Abraham felt there-was something wrong. This
amiable readiness to oblige thoroughly perplexed him. If the Lord had
haggled over the thirty, he would have known that there was about that
number of righteous men in the place; but in the actual condition of
affairs, he felt that he had considerably overshot the mark. The-game
was very dangerous, but he decided to renew it. "My Lord," he began,
"I'm a dreadful bore, but I'm not quite satisfied with our contract and
should like to re-open it. I don't wish to be importunate, but will you
knock off another ten?" "With all my heart," replied the Lord, "we'll
say twenty." Still dissatisfied, Abraham resolved on a final effort. "My
good Lord," said he, "this is really the last time of asking. I promise
to bother you no more. Will you knock off another ten?" "All right," was
the reply, "anything to oblige. Well say ten altogether. If there are so
many righteous men in Sodom I'll spare it. Good afternoon, Abraham,
good afternoon." And the Lord was off. Abraham ruefully watched the
retreating figure, perfectly assured that the Lord had got the best of
the bargain, and that he himself had been duped, worsted, and befooled.
God did not go to Sodom himself, but sent two angels to inspect it. They
reached its gate in the evening, and found Lot sitting there. In eastern
towns the places before the gate are the appointed localities for
meetings; and in ancient times they were used for still more extensive
purposes. There the judge pronounced his decisions, and even kings held
there occasionally their courts of justice; there buying and selling
went on; the people assembled there to see each other and hear the news;
and almost all public affairs were transacted there, from religious
worship to the smallest details of civil life. It is not surprising,
therefore, that Lot should be sitting in the gate when the two strangers
arrived at the city. Some commentators have even conjectured that he
went out to meet them; but others object that this is contradictory to
the narrative, which does not exhibit Lot as recognising the angels, and
that it implies "too ideal a notion of its virtue." Some have supposed
that Lot had attained to the dignity of a judge, and that he was sitting
to act in that capacity on this occasion; but later circumstances refute
this supposition; for, in the quarrel which ensued, the people of Sodom
reproached him as "a stranger" who set himself up as a judge of their
conduct.
Lot advanced to the strangers, greeted them with a profound bow,
addressed them as "my lords," and asked them to stay over night at his
house, where he would wash their feet, give them something to eat, and
find them a bed. They declined his frank hospitality, and said they
meant to pass the night in the streets. Kalisch observes, as though he
knew all about their motives, that "it was their intention to try
his character, and to give him an opportunity of showing whether his
generosity was merely a momentary emotion, or had become a settled
feature in his character." He also dismisses the idea that they wished
to remain in the streets in order to study "the moral state of the
Sodomites," as they required no such knowledge, for "they were not only
the angels of God, but God himself acted in them." But Kalisch should
bear in mind that God told Abraham he was going on purpose to "see
whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it"; and that,
as the angels could not know more than God, it was after all necessary
that they should make inquiries. Lot, however, "pressed upon them
greatly," and at last they entered his house. He then "made them a
_feast_" which seems to have consisted of nothing but unleavened bread.
Perhaps the angels, who had dined heavily with Abraham on veal, butter,
and milk, were afraid of bad dreams, and only wanted a light supper
before going to roost.
They were not, however, destined to enjoy a good night's sleep. Before
they "lay down," the men of Sodom "compassed the house round, both old
and young, all the people from every quarter." And they called unto
Lot, and said unto him, "Where are the men which came in unto thee this
night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them."
We are reluctant to criticise this dirty story, but duty compels us.
God's Word is full of disgusting narratives, and if we scrupled to
examine them we should have to leave the book alone. We have no love
of filth, and if the Bible were not held up as a divine work we should
never condescend to notice its beastly tales of fornication, adultery,
sodomy, and incest.
Why did _all_ the men of Sodom, both old and young, flock to Lot's
house? Is it likely that _every_ male in the city, past the age of
puberty, should burn with unnatural lust at one and the same time? Did
they suppose that _all_ of them could abuse the two strangers? The story
is as silly as it is nasty.
For a parallel to Lot's answer to the demand of his neighbors we must
go to the nineteenth chapter of _Judges_, where the men of Gibeah clamor
for the Levite as the men of Sodom clamor for the two angels, and where
his host offers them instead his own daughter as well as the Levite's
concubine. A woman's honor was a very trivial thing to God's chosen
people. In itself it counted as next to nothing. The man's right of
possession gave it all its importance and worth.
Lot went out and shut the door after him. Then he rebuked his neighbors
for desiring to do "so wickedly," and immediately made them an offer
which he seems to have thought perfectly fair and square. "Behold, now,"
he said, "I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray
you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes:
only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow
of my roof." The laws of hospitality are sacred, and Lot did well to
maintain them; but he had no right to sacrifice to them a still more
sacred law. Instead of strenuously opposing the committal of one crime,
he proposes another as heinous.
The Sodomites scorned his offer. They had a _penchant_ for a different
pleasure. Ravishing virgins was not in their line. So they reviled Lot
for setting himself up as a judge amongst them, called him "fellow,"
threatened to deal worse with him than with the strangers, and actually
pressed so sore upon him that they "came near to break the door."
Then the strangers manifested their power. They "put forth their hand,
and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut too the door. And they
smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both
small and great; so that they wearied themselves to find the door."
However blind they were surely they might have found the door by feeling
for it. Kalisch makes this episode more reasonable by substituting
"blind confusion" for "blindness."
The angels continued to act promptly. They informed Lot that they
intended to destroy the place because of its sin, and told him to
gather all his family together and leave at once. Lot spoke to his
"sons-in-law, which married his daughters," but they appear to have
thought him daft. Early in the morning "the angels hastened Lot" who
still lingered. They laid hold of his hand, his wife's, and his two
unmarried daughters', led them outside the city, and said, "Escape now
for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain;
escape to the mountains lest thou be consumed." Lot did not relish this
prospect of a hard climb. He therefore asked the angels to let him flee
unto the city of Zoar, because it was near and "a little one." That
is what the servant girl said to her mistress when she produced an
illegitimate child, "please 'm its only a very little one." She thought
that a small illegitimate baby wasn't as bad as a big illegitimate baby,
and Lot thought that a little wicked city wasn't as bad as a big wicked
city.
Lot's request was granted, and he was told to look sharp. He made good
speed, and reached Zoar when "the sun was risen."
"Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire
from the Lord out of heaven; and he overthrew those cities, and all the
plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon
the ground." It is a mistake to suppose that brimstone and fire are
characteristic of hell, for the Lord evidently keeps a large stock of
those commodities in heaven. Nor must it be supposed that Lot was spared
because he was righteous. He was spared because the Lord "was merciful
unto him." His virtues, Kalisch remarks, were not sufficient for his
salvation, which he owed to "the piety of Abraham." Abraham may have
had "piety" enough to save a Lot, but he had scarcely "virtue" enough to
save a mouse.
Kalisch says that "about the situation of Zoar there remains little
doubt." He identifies it with "the considerable ruins found in Wady
Kerek, on the eastern side of the Dead Sea." But he has no such
assurance as to the situation of Sodom. He deprecates De Saulcy's
assumption, that Sodom is traceable in the heap of stones found near the
Salt Mountain, Udsum; and adds--"We may hope rather than expect, that
authentic ruins of the four destroyed towns will ever be discovered.
Biblical historians and prophets already speak of them as localities
utterly and tracelessly swept away; and the remark of Josephus, that
'shadows' of them still existed in his time, is vague and doubtful."
In the South of Palestine there is an extraordinary lake of mysterious
origin. It is about thirty-nine miles long, and from eight to twelve
miles broad. It is fed by the river Jordan, and drained by the
evaporation of a fierce and terrible sun. Its water is clear and
inodorous, but nauseous like a solution of alum; it causes painful
itching and even ulceration on the lips and if brought near a wound, or
any diseased part, produces a most excruciating sensation. It contains
muriatic and sulphuric acid, and one-fourth of its weight is salt. No
fishes live in it; and according to tradition, which however is not
true, birds that happen to fly over its surface die. Near it is said to
grow the Apple of Sodom, beautiful in appearance, but containing only
ashes. This lake is appropriately called the Dead Sea.
The natives say that at low water they glimpse fragments of buildings
and pillars rising out of the bottom of the lake. But this is only a
fancy. Yet beneath the waters of the Dead Sea are thought to lie the
Cities of the Plain. The northern part of the lake is very deep, the
southern part very shallow. The bottom consists of two separate plains,
one elevated, the other depressed. The latter is by some held to be the
original bottom of the lake, and the former to have been caused by the
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. But this also is only a fancy. The
bitumen, which is found in such large quantities in and near the lake,
is a symptom and remnant of the volcanic nature of the region. Several
lines of earthquake are traced from it in a north-eastern direction;
and it is conjectured that the three lakes, Merom, Tiberias, and
Asphaltites, together with the river Jordan, are the remaining traces of
the huge gulf once filled by the Dead Sea before the land was lifted by
a geological catastrophe. Volcanic action has caused all the remarkable
phenomena of the district, which were of immemorial antiquity thousands
of years ago; and the story of the Cities of the Plain is only one of
the legends which ancient peoples associated with every striking aspect
of nature.
Let us recur to Lot. His sons, his married daughters, and their
husbands, perished in the deluge of brimstone and fire. He and his two
unmarried daughters fled to Zoar as fast as their legs could carry
them. But his wife was less fortunate. She ran behind Lot, and with the
natural curiosity of her sex she looked back on the doomed city. For
this violation of the angels' orders she was turned into "a pillar of
salt." Some commentators try to blink this unpleasant fact by artful
translations; such as "she fell into a salt-brook," or "she was covered
with a salt crust," or she was "_like_ a pillar of salt." Josephus
pretended to have seen this old woman of salt, but others have been less
lucky, although many travellers and pilgrims have searched for it as for
a sacred relic. But let us not despair. Lot's wife may yet be discovered
and exhibited in the British Museum.
What became of Lot and his daughters? Fearing to dwell in Zoar, they
left it and "dwelt in a cave." The damsels, who had heard their father
offer them to the promiscuous embrace of a lustful crowd, could not
be expected to be very scrupulous in their conduct. They were alone,
without husbands to make them mothers, and to be childless was a
calamity and a reproach; so they put their heads together and devised
a nasty scheme. Two nights successively they made their father blind
drunk, and got him to commit incest with them. This is very beastly and
very absurd. Lot was _old_; he was so drunk that he knew nothing of what
happened; yet he got two virgins with child! The porter in "Macbeth"
would have laughed at such a ridiculous story.
These improper females were by no means ashamed of their action; on the
contrary, they boast of their bastards; and the historian does not utter
a word in condemnation of their crime.