Genesis 19 - Page 7

Questions and Answers - Verse 20 – 27

20. a) Identify this city:

This is the city called Zoar, though that wasn’t the original name. The original name was Bela (see Genesis 14:2), meaning, He Swallowed.

20. b) To whom is Lot speaking?

He is speaking to the one who delivered him from Sodom.

20. c) Is Lot and the angel able to see the city in question?

All these cities were in proximity to each other, but not necessarily that close. Yet, sight distance is very good in the desert! A city can be 20 miles away, and yet be visible. I propose that they could see the buildings of Zoar.

20. d) Why didn’t the angel instruct Lot to flee to Zoar in the first place?

Zoar was targeted for destruction along with Sodom, Amorrah, Admah, and Zeboim! Their inhabitants were all the same in terms of refusing to save the lives of sojourners who were being attacked in their midst!

20. e) What is the significance of the city being little? Why would that be of consequence in the mind of Lot?

It could be that Lot knew that in a smaller city, there would be more knowledge of each other, and less folks from the edge who were violent. Even today, we think of smaller communities as having less crime than what occurs in very large cities.

20. f) Why would Lot’s being live if he fled to this small town?

He would have the ability to work and to trade and to obtain food and water. Every settled community had these resources.

20. g) Why did Lot use the past tense, “And my being lived,” when speaking about a hypothetical future situation?

In Hebrew, when a person speaks of a future event that will result in something, the future event is in the future tense; the result is in the past tense, indicating a sure thing. In English, if a person says, “Roll the ball to me,” and the person then indicates, “and I will kick it,” that is a simple declaration. In Hebrew, the same wording would be like this: “Roll the ball to me, and I kicked it!” indicating much more certainty.

20. h) The pronoun used in Hebrew is masculine (though those who provided dotting claimed it was feminine, since a city is feminine, and since the Samaritan Torah does have the feminine pronoun, היא). To what does the masculine pronoun refer?

It refers to the Hebrew word מצער, a small-[one], what we would call a small place. The word for small-[one] is masculine.

21. a) Who are he and him in, “And he said unto him”?

He is the angel; him is Lot. The angel is answering Lot’s request.

21. b) What does to carry faces mean?

It means to cause another’s faces to be elevated and carried, which is a childism for granting a request.

When a child makes a request, and the request is denied, the adult can watch the faces of the child droop down. This is an act of disappointment. If a request is granted to a child, the child looks up with delight, and the faces of the child remain up!

21. c) If the angel carried Lot’s faces also to this speech, what is the angel doing?

He is granting Lot’s request to keep that city from being flipped over so that Lot can run to that city, and live!

21. d) Is it strange that the angel has the authority to grant such a request that will involve keeping a city that was about to be destroyed by Yehovah from ruin for a personal request?

It may seem strange, but angels are moral agents just as humans are moral agents. (I did not say that they are free moral agents; there is no such thing as a free moral agent. Every moral agent in existence has limitations on moral agency! To think otherwise is to raise beings above God who Himself has limits on His moral agency! He cannot defy His own character morally!

Humans have done the same thing. David obtained the showbread for his men for food when food wasn’t otherwise available. This could have been a lethal decision on David’s part, but it was not. Indeed, it is used as an example of good in the ‘New Testament.’

In other case, Aharon took a bull sacrifice that was supposed to be used for another purpose, and he sacrificed it for himself after his sons were burned to death because of a violation! Moshe was furious with Aharon until he heard why Aharon did this; and then Moshe knew that Aharon had done right.

This angel knew Yehovah well enough that this angel knew that sparing one of the five cities of the plain for the sake of Lot was not countermanding the will of Yehovah. Indeed, such things will occur in the End Times.

21. e) What does flip over a city mean?

It means to take the city from a living city to a city of ash. Thus, it is as if the city were turned upside down and changed to become something else. For example, when the moon is flipped over to blood, it temporarily becomes a sphere of blood liquid!

22. a) Who is being commanded to hurry?

Lot is being commanded! The command is singular.

22. b) Whom is Lot to cause to escape to that city?

He is to cause his family to escape to that city!

22. c) What occurs if a person or angel does a speech?

Doing a speech indicates fulfilling what has been spoken. That which was spoken could be a command; it could be a promise; it could be a design; it doesn’t matter. If the speech is done, what was spoken was completed: was fulfilled.

In this case, the angel has been given a speech of destruction for the city. The angel cannot do that speech until Lot arrives at the city’s area to where he is fleeing.

22. d) What speech will the angel not be able to do unto the arrival of Lot and his family to the Zoar area?

Since the angel will not be the destroyer of the cities of the plain, but Yehovah will be the destroyer, the angel must have been given another assignment that the reader can figure out. I propose (and maintain) that the assignment was to make sure that every righteous person was warned and rescued, and then to report back to Yehovah regarding the completion of the assignment and the delivery of the righteous person or persons to the safe destination. Yehovah knows all things; yet, He participates in actions as if He didn’t know. Angels are assigned to deliver information to Yehovah! This is a regular process, and one for which the angels will be judged!

22. e) Explain the meaning of unto, and how it differs from until:

Until has a stopping point! Unto has no stopping point built into its usage. The Hebrew language has no until; it only has an unto.

22. f) Again, to where must Lot arrive before the angel can do the speech he was commanded to do?

The city of Zoar must be where Lot must arrive (in the outer fields).

22. g) Who called the name of that city, “Zoar”?

It appears that Lot renamed the city. Yet, that doesn’t make sense. How can a sojourner rename a city that is already occupied, and has a name (Bela, in this case)?

I am thinking that this refers instead to Yehovah. However, be aware that I translate verbs that are supposedly passive as active. Other translators got around this by using the passive form. For example, in the King James Version, the text reads, “Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.”

23. a) What occurs when the sun exits upon the land?

This is an unusual Hebrew expression for a sunset. The normal Hebrew expression is for the sun to come to the land. Thus, I understand that this describes that part of the sunset when the light is gone; that is a full exit upon the land. If this is the case, what is about to happen is in the dark.

23. b) Did Lot arrive within the city of Zoar?

Lot could have been on the outskirts of the city, and before entering into the city’s gates. The text that follows gives an impression regarding this.

23. c) How long did this journey take from the time that they left the angel to the time of the arrival to Zoar?

It took from sunup to sunset! This was quite a walk!

23. d) Did they have supplies with them?

No text indicates that. No text denies that. However, Lot and his family had no trouble making the journey.

24. a) Yehovah is mentioned twice in this verse. Identify the first Yehovah, and identify the second Yehovah:

The first Yehovah is the One Who showed up with the two angels. This is Yehovah of hosts, the Elohim, Who later will be born as Yeshua.

The second Yehovah is Yehovah the Father!

24. b) If the above is true, who destroyed the cities of the plain?

Yehovah the Father did! I propose that this is very unusual in the Bible! Normally, the Destroyer, when referring to Deity, is Yeshua! Yeshua is still the cause, but the supplies came from Yehovah the Father! Then, in verse 29, Elohim did! Therefore, the two verses demonstrate that Yehovah the Father and Yeshua worked together on this destruction!

24. c) Were those two cities the only cities that were destroyed in this fire-and-sulfur bombing?

Also, Admah and Zeboim are destroyed; they just aren’t mentioned by name in this text.

24. d) Why use sulfur?

It totally disinfects! Thus, no disease arose from this attack. The corpses were either totally burned, or if not, they were sterilized. Also, the smell of rotten eggs will permeate the region. To this very day (2021), the smell of sulfur is strong in some of those areas!

24. e) What is a property of burning sulfur?

It is very hard to extinguish burning sulfur, once the sulfur is ignited.

24. f) What time of day did this disaster occur?

It was at night! It was at sunset!

24. g) Does Yehovah ever use sulfur from the heavens in any other event?

He does in Psalm 11:6. During the Tribulation, it will be used again! In Deuteronomy 29, Yehovah will use this very same bombing technique on the Land of Israel!

24. h) In the expression, “from with Yehovah,” why is with part of the Hebrew text? Wouldn’t “from Yehovah” be enough?

The word with makes the supply of the fire and the burning sulfur very personal. Those two didn’t just come from Yehovah; they came from with Yehovah, as if they were from right next to Him, or even from His Spirit: from Him, as with Him!

24. i) Who is narrating these texts?

The normal answer will be, Moshe. Only, Moshe himself was not present when these things occurred. Therefore, that answer doesn’t quite explain the narrator. Moshe is the writer of the narration; Moshe is not the narrator. The Spirit Yehovah is the Narrator; indeed, the testimony of Yeshua is the Spirit of prophecy. This text, all of Genesis, is a prophetic narration! Moshe won’t be born for a very long time, long after these things occurred!

Thus, this verse shows Yehovah the Father, Yehovah the Son, and the Spirit Yehovah, being the narrator.

24. j) If the above is true, why involve both Yehovah the Father and Yehovah of hosts, Who will be identified as Yeshua, in this verse?

The violence of the destruction is from Yehovah the Father, whom too many in Modern Conservative Liberal Christianity see as being mean and hard (which is wrong), and from Yehovah the Son, whom too many in MCLC see as being sweet baby Jesus, always kind, always nice, always loving, always forgiving. This verse underscores that the two Who are One indeed work totally in unison.

24. k) From where did the sulfur come? Was it from a meteor?

It came from with Yehovah! It was not a naturally occurring substance.

24. l) Where was Yehovah (on the ground) located at this time?

He was in Sodom! Therefore, He made sure to be there when the fires and the sulfur were raining down! Indeed, He will be there in the Lake of Fire and burning Sulfur for all time!

24. m) What kind of fire was this fire?

It was Yehovah’s fire! That fire differs from other fires in that it can come with no heat at all, or with the most intense heat! That fire can preserve lives; it can take lives! That fire can consume rock and water! Yehovah’s fire isn’t like ‘atomic fire,’ since atomic fire requires an energy source in nature. Yehovah’s fire is part of Yehovah!

25. a) Had the cities sinned?

No. The cities were innocent! However, if those cities will obtain rest from sinful human occupancy, they must be totally uninhabitable! From that time to the present, the cities have been resting in peace from human inhabitants. Sodom is Biblically guaranteed to later be again inhabited.

25. b) Why did Yehovah flip-over all the plain?

He flipped over all the plain to keep human habitation from occurring. This way, all the fertile fields of the area were destroyed in a manner that even over more than 35 centuries, crops cannot be grown.

25. c) Were there survivors among the humans, according to this verse?

No. No human survived.

25. d) What is the sprout of the soil?

This refers to all crops as if each plant is being considered, and all wild plants! In other words, the whole area became a moonscape.

The Hebrew language often employs a singular form when referring to a very large number of some species.

26. a) Who is him in this verse?

He is Lot.

26. b) The text states that his woman peered from after him. Why doesn’t it say that she peered from after her?

Her position was after him: behind him. Thus, she wasn’t walking next to him at this point; she was behind him.

26. c) Why did she peer? What prodded her to peer?

The events of verse 25, very seeable at night, prodded her to peer. She still had at least two daughters there, and at least two sons-in-law! She was drawn back to them!

26. d) What is so wrong with looking back? Why is this a death-penalty offense?

She did what she was told not to do.

This shows her great investment.

This question holds a wrong premise. The command wasn’t to not look back; it was to not peer back. However, the trouble with looking back is that this invites peering back.

Yeshua noted,

Luke 9:62 And Yeshua said to him, “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

The focus of this ploughman who is ‘looking back’ (perhaps better, is ‘peering back’) is on what is behind, and not on the work that is ahead. This person won’t even start the work which he began to put his hand, and he will cease from that work, instead returning to what he was doing and being before. Consider that this ploughman hasn’t even started the ploughing yet; he only put his hand to the plough.

The previous verse shows a non-starter:

Luke 9:61 And another also said, “Sir, I will follow thee; but I will first go bid them who are at home at my house farewell.”

Looking back, or better, peering back shows a determination to leave what is present, and return to what is past.

I propose that Lot’s woman is a type of persons who, being rescued during the Tribulation, return back to destruction because of a draw of love of family more than a determination to do what is right.

26. e) This verse uses a form of the verb to be. I translated this as to become. What is the justification for such a translation?

This verse is what I consider a proof-text for me that the verb to be in Hebrew equally can mean to become, showing a change. Lot’s woman wasn’t previously a salt pillar; Lot hadn’t married a salt pillar. Thus, this verb, in Genesis 1:2, will also indicate a change. Yehovah never created the land a chaotic mess.

26. f) Why did she become a salt pillar?

She became this because she reinvested herself into her daughters and the city; therefore, Yehovah judged her with the city.

26. g) Why did she become specifically salt? Explain this particular substance for her to turn into this:

When she did what she did, and when Yehovah judged her, it was vital for there being no reason for Lot or his daughters to bury her; they had to continue into the city of Zoar. Had she dropped dead in the normal fashion, they would have had to stop and to bury her, which would have endangered the other daughters, since they also might have been tempted to peer back.

Instead, the terror of her transubstantiation to salt, and in the form of a pillar which her shape being perfect, peering at the cities of the plain gave incentive to the daughters left alive to not do what their mother had done!

At the same time, the pillar being of salt would quickly wash away with both rain and dew, so that her memorial wouldn’t remain for long.

Yehovah didn’t just reign fire and burning sulfur (brimstone) from the heavens; He made sure that the entire area became very heavily salted. Thus, she was associated with the salt of the area. Deuteronomy 29:23 shows salt as being also part of the destruction of Sodom, Amorrah, Admah, and Zeboim.

27. a) Why did AvRaham early rise in this morning?

AvRaham was a prophet.

He knew that his discussion with Yehovah was about those cities; for they had been mentioned.

He had to see what had become of those cities in which Lot lived, because he knew that Yehovah would destroy those cities.

(AvRaham could have been an early-riser on all mornings to tend his cattle.)

27. b) When AvRaham early-rose, where did he go on this morning?

He went unto the very place where he had stood with the faces of Yehovah! He knew that this location would give him a view of what had occurred.

27. c) Why does the text state, “with the faces of Yehovah,” instead of stating, “with Yehovah”?

This expression is far more personal. AvRaham saw and spoke to the faces of Yehovah!

This is a childism; a child views faces in a different way than an adult does. To a very young child, if an adult’s face doesn’t see the child, the child is invisible!

This text verifies that Moshe wasn’t the only person to speak to and view Yehovah’s faces as a man speaks to a friend! AvRaham also did!

27. d) How haunting would it be for a person to speak with Yehovah about the destruction of several cities before they are destroyed, knowing that those inhabitants will all be dead by the next day?

[Answer not made]

27. e) How far away was AvRaham from the closest city of the plain?

Verse 28 states that AvRaham distantly looked upon the faces of Sodom and Amorrah. Therefore, he was close enough to be able to see that cities were there; he was far enough that the sounds were very distant. (I am thinking that the sounds would have reached his ears, but I don’t know that.) In any case, the smoke ascended to the heavens as the smoke (incense) of a furnace!