Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven--
The destruction of Sodom
I. DIVINE JUDGMENT IS DISCRIMINATIVE.
The Scripture will not have us fall into the belief that there is no radical difference between the good and the evil. It would have us know that they are as unlike as the wheat and the chaff. Divine judgments are a winnowing-fan to separate the two. If the sifting and winnowing process which goes on in this world is only partially accomplished, yet it is carried far enough to let us know that some time it will be completed.
II. DIVINE JUDGMENT, THOUGH LONG DELAYED, IS AT LAST PRECIPITATED BY PRESUMPTUOUS SINS. The men of Sodom, lusting after God’s messengers, launched upon themselves the fire and brimstone. They hastened and fixed the city’s doom. No doubt, God’s judgments are exactly timed. The hour and minute of visitation are determined. But the timing has been done by One who foreknows the moral history of men. He has set a bound for human iniquity. It cannot be passed. He knows at what hour it will be reached. Until that hour judgment impends; then it falls. Let Joab escape punishment for the murder of Abner, and, so far from coming to repentance, he will be found reddening his hand with the blood of Amasa. Yet his second crime hastens on the time when the horns of the altar will not be for him a sanctuary of refuge. Let Napoleon
III. succeed in his transcendent crime of founding the Second Empire in France, and thereafter he will despise the will of the people, in destroying the freedom of the press, and will hasten the hour of doom by all the surprising splendours and follies of the Imperial court at Compiegne. The Bible reiterates the lesson for all rulers, all governments, all individuals: that a limit of transgression has been fixed, beyond which judgment waits. Presumptuous sins, therefore, hasten the hour of judgment.
III. AMONG PRESUMPTUOUS SINS WE MUST NUMBER DISOBEDIENCE TO THE LORD’S DIRECT COMMAND. This was the sin of Lot’s wife. No doubt she loved Sodom.
IV. DIVINE JUDGMENT, WHICH IS PRECIPITATED BY ACTS OF PRESUMPTUOUS SIN, IS SOMETIMES AVERTED FOR THE SAKE OF THE RIGHTEOUS. What would have been realized in Sodom, had ten righteous men dwelt there, was done in Zoar when Lot and his two daughters made it a place of refuge. The little city of Zoar was saved for-their-sake. A leaven of goodness saved it.
V. THE DIVINE JUDGMENTS OF THIS WORLD ARE NOT FINAL. We might be inclined to say, in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, that their wickedness was sufficiently punished. The sweeping tempest of fire did its strange work throughly, but our Lord has left some sobering words (Matthew 10:15) to teach that this sudden, awful event was not the day of judgment for Sodom. In that day it shall be “more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for some who, despising the sin of the Sodomites, have yet sinned against greater light.” (W. G. Sperry.)
The destruction of the cities of the plain
I. IT WAS SUDDEN.
1. AS regards the object of it.
2. Not as regards the Author of it.
II. IT WAS THE DIRECT ACT OF GOD.
1. The destruction was predicted.
2. The destruction was, in its nature, extraordinary.
III. IT WAS COMPLETE. Utter ruin, and absolutely without remedy. Learn:
1. That God’s judgments, though deserved, tarry long.
2. That without timely repentance, His judgments are sure to fall. (T. H.Leale.)
The overthrow of Sodom
The “brimstone” of the Authorized Version is probably rather some form of bituminous matter which could be carried into the air by such an escape of gas, and a thick saline mud would accompany the eruption, encrusting anything it reached. Subsidence would follow the ejection of quantities of such matter; and hence the word “overthrew,” which seems inappropriate to a mere conflagration, would be explained. But, however this may be, we have to recognize a supernatural element in the starting of the train of natural causes as well as in the timing of the catastrophe, and a Divine purpose of retribution, which turns the catastrophe, however effected, into a judgment. So regarded, the event has a double meaning.
1. In the first place, it is a revelation of an element in the Divine character and of a feature in the Divine Government. To the men of that time, it might be a warning. To Abraham, and through him to his descendants, and through them to us, it preaches a truth very unwelcome to many in this day--that there is in God that which constrains Him to hate, fight against, andpunish evil. The temper of this generation turns away from such thoughts, and, in the name of the truth that “God is love,” would fain obliterate the truth that He does and will punish. But if the punitive element be suppressed, and that in God which makes it necessary ignored or weakened, the end will be a God who has not force enough to love, but only weakly to indulge. If He does not hate and punish, He does not pardon. For the sake of the love of God, we must hold firm by the belief in the judgments of God. The God who destroyed Sodom is not merely the God of an earlier antiquated creed. “Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also.” Again this event is a prophecy. So our Lord has employed it; and much of the imagery in which the last judgment is represented is directly drawn from this narrative. So far from this story showing to us only the superstitions of a form of belief which we have long outgrown, its deepest meaning lies far ahead, and closes the history of man on the earth. We know from the lips which cannot lie, that the appalling suddenness of that destruction foreshadows the swiftness of the coming of that last “day of the Lord.” We know that in literality some of the physical features shall be reproduced; for the fire which shall burn up the world and all its works is no figure, nor is it proclaimed only by such non-authoritative voices as those of Jesus and His apostles, but also by the modern possessors of infallible certitude--the men of science. We know that that day shall be a day of retribution. We know, too, that the crime of Sodom, foul and unnatural as it was, is not the darkest, but that its inhabitants (who have to face that judgment too) will find their doom more tolerable, and their sins lighter than some who have had high places in the church, than the Pharisees and wise men who have not taken Christ for their Saviour. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
Lessons from the destruction of Sodom
I. WHAT AN EVIL IS SENSUAL AND SEXUAL POLLUTION. It is remarkable that God has severely punished the cities most chargeable with these sins. Lucknow is said to be the Sodom of India, and it has of late been terribly punished, although through the instrumentality of hands many of them unclean themselves. Some of the cities in the West Indies and South America, which have been destroyed by earthquake, were peculiarly stained by such pollutions; and if accounts be true, Cuba, on this principle, may well stand in awe of the judgments of God. Of all the cities on the continent, the two which have suffered most in war have been its two most licentious cities, namely, Vienna and Paris.
II. How MUCH STILL DEPENDS UPON A FEW IN A LARGE CITY, AS WELL AS IN A COUNTRY. “Ye are the salt of the earth.” Even Omnipotence pauses, in its path of just vengeance, till the righteous are out of its way (Genesis 19:22). Let the thought that there are still so few righteous in the earth exert a humbling influence on our minds. We know not what is God’s required proportion now, it was in Sodom’s day tens to tens of thousands; perhaps it is so still, and how serious the question. Is it because the required proportion of righteous is found, or is it out of mere forbearance that God does not arise terribly to punish the world, and how long, if it be mere forbearance, may this forbearance last?
III. LET US FLEE TO THE ZOAR OF CHRIST. (G. Gilfillan.)
Destruction a moral necessity
To find out whether the judgment is right we must find out the moral conditions which called it forth. And first, it is important to observe that this judgment was preceded by an inquiry of the most unquestionable completeness and authority. Hear this Genesis 18:20-21). You see, therefore, that we are only following the Lord’s own example, in asking for information as to moral conditions. It is, then, deeply satisfactory to know that the judgment was preceded by inquiry. In the next place, the revelation made respecting the moral condition of Sodom is appalling and revolting, beyond the power of words to describe. Let us put the case before ourselves in this way: Given a city that is full of corruption, which may not be so much as named; every home a den of unclean beasts; every imagination debauched and drunk with iniquity; every tongue an empoisoned instrument; purity, love, honour, peace, forgotten or detested words; judgment deposed, righteousness banished, the sanctuary abandoned, the altar destroyed; every child taught the tricks and speech of imps; prizes offered for the discovery of some deeper depth of iniquity or new way of serving the devil;--given such a city, to know what is best to be done with it? Remonstrate with it? Absurd! Threaten it? Feeble! What then? Rain fire and brimstone upon it? Yes! Conscience says Yes; Justice says Yes; concern for other cities says Yes; nothing but fire will disinfect so foul an air, nothing but burning brimstone should succeed the cup of devils. Just as we grasp the moral condition with which God had to deal do we see that fire alone could meet wickedness so wicked or insanity so mad. This view is important not only historically as regards Sodom, but prospectively as regards a still greater judgment. This is no local tragedy. The fire and brimstone are still in the power of God; not a spark has been lost; it is true to-day and for ever that “our God is a consuming fire”! (J. Parker, D. D.)
The probable physical causes of the destruction of the cities of the plain
With reference to the causes of the destruction of the cities, these are soclearly stated in a perfectly unconscious and incidental manner in Genesis 19:1-38., that I think no geologist, on comparing the narrative with the structure of the district, can hesitate as to the nature of the phenomena which were presented to the observation of the narrator, Nor is there any reason to suppose that the history is compounded of two narratives giving different views as to the cause of the catastrophe. On the contrary, the story has all the internal evidence of being a record of the observations of intelligent eye-witnesses, who reported the appearances observed without concerning themselves as to their proximate causes or natural probability. We learn from the narrative that the destruction was sudden and unexpected, that it was caused by “ brimstone and fire,” that these were rained down from the sky, that a dense column of smoke ascended to a great height like the smoke of a furnace or lime-kiln, and that along with, or immediately after the fire, there was an emission of brine or saline mud, capable of encrusting bodies (as that of Lot’s wife), so that they appeared as mounds (not pillars) of salt. The only point in the statements in regard to which there can be doubt, is the substance intended by the Hebrew word translated “brimstone.” It may mean sulphur, of which there is abundance in some of the Dead Sea depths; but there is reason to suspect that, as used here, it may rather denote pitch, since it is derived from the same root with Gopher, the Hebrew name, apparently, of the cypress and other resinous woods. It is scarcely necessary to say that the circumstances above referred to are not those of a volcanic eruption, and there is no mention of any earthquake, which, if it occurred, must in the judgment of the narrator have been altogether a subordinate feature. Nor is an earthquake necessarily implied in the expression “overthrown,” used in Deuteronomy 29:1-29. Still, as we shall see, more or less tremor of the ground very probably occurred, and might have impressed itself on traditions of the event, especially as the district is subject to earthquakes, though it is not mentioned in theological narrative. The description is that of a bitumen or petroleum eruption, similar to those which, on a small scale, have been so destructive in the regions of Canada and the United States of America. They arise from the existence of reservoirs of compressed inflammable gas, along with petroleum and water, existing at considerable depths below the surface. When these are penetrated, as by a well or borehole, the gas escapes with explosive force, carrying petroleum with it, and when both have been ignited the petroleum rains down in burning showers and floats in flames over the ejected water, while a dense smoke towers high into the air, and the in-rushing draft may produce a vortex, carrying it upward to a still greater height, and distributing still more widely the burning material, which is almost inextinguishable and most destructive to life and to buildings. We have thus only to suppose that, at the time in question, reservoirs of condensed gas and petroleum existed under the plain of Siddim, and that these were suddenly discharged, either by their own accumulated pressure, or by an earthquake shock fracturing the overlying beds, when the phenomena described by the writer in Genesis would occur, and after the eruption the site would be covered with saline and sulphurous deposit, while many of the sources of petroleum previously existing might be permanently dried up. In connection with this there might be subsidence of the ground over the now exhausted reservoirs, and this might give rise to the idea of the submergence of the cities. It is to be observed, however, that the parenthetic statement in Genesis 14:1-24, “which is the Salt Sea,” does not certainly mean under the sea, and that it relates not to the cities themselves but to the plain where the battle recorded in the chapter was fought at a time previous to to the eruption. It is also to be noted that this particular locality is precisely the one which, as previously stated, may on other grounds be supposed to have subsided, and that this subsidence having occurred subsequently may have rendered less intelligible the march of the invading army to later readers, and this may have required to be mentioned. It seems difficult to imagine that anything except the real occurrence of such an event could have given origin to the narrative. No one unacquainted with the structure of the district and the probability of the bitumen eruptions in connection with this structure, would be likely to imagine the raining of burning pitch from the sky, with the attendant phenomena stated so simply and without any appearance of exaggeration, and with the evident intention to dwell on the spiritual and moral significance of the event, while giving just as much of the physical features as was essential to this purpose. It may be added here that in Isaiah 34:9-10, there is a graphic description of a bitumen eruption, which may possibly be based on the history now under consideration, though used figuratively to illustrate the doom of Idumea. In thus directing attention to the physical phenomena attendant on the destruction of the cities of the plain, I do not desire to detract from the providential character of the catastrophe, or from the lessons which it teaches, and which have pervaded the religion and literature of the world ever since it occurred. I merely wish to show that there is nothing in the narrative comparable with the wild myths and fanciful conjectures sometimes associated with it, and that its author has described it in an intelligent manner, appearances which he must have seen or which were described to him by competent witnesses. I wish also to indicate that the statements made are m accordance with the structure and possibilities of the district as now understood after its scientific exploration. From a scientific point of view it is an almost vague description of a natural phenomena of much interest and very rare occurrence. Nor do I desire to he understood as asserting that Sodom and its companion cities were unique in the facilities of destruction afforded by their situation. They were no doubt so placed as to be specially subject to one particular kind of overthrow. But it may be safely said that there is no city in the world which is not equally, though perhaps by other agencies, within the reach of Divine power exercised through the energies of nature, should it be found to be destitute of “ten righteous men.” So that the conclusion still holds--“except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish.” (Sir J. William Dawson.)
The destruction of Sodom by God through natural agencies
A man goes now to the scene of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and tries to establish the fact that it was nothing but a natural volcanic eruption; and by getting rid of the supernatural agency he thinks he has got rid of God Himself. Another goes to the same place, and in his zeal for the supernatural wishes to make out that the veracity of the Bible depends on this kind of occurrence never having happened before. Do we mean, then, that only the marvellous incidents of nature--the fall of a Sodom and Gomorrah taking place at an appointed time--only the positive miracles, are God’s doing, and not the common-place events of every-day life? Nay, God holds all the powers of nature in His hand; small events may be so directed by Him that we shall think them accident; but for all this it is no less certain that the most trifling act of every-day life is directed by Him. What we have to say is this: we agree with the supernaturalist in saying that God did it; we agree with the rationalist in saying that it was done by natural means. The natural is the work of God. (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)
Site of the cities of the plain
The question of the site of the cities of the plain is one that cannot be decided with certainty. The prevalent view is, that they were at the southern end of the sea. The correspondence of the names Usdum, Amra, and Zoghal to Sodom, Gomorrah, and Zoar, adds weight to this view. Then there is the existence of the salt mountain above alluded to. On the other hand the passage in Genesis 13:10-12, tends to the conclusion that the plain was to the north of the Dead Sea. Mr. Grove, in the “Bible Dictionary,” points out that the mention of the Jordan confirms this: “for the Jordan ceases where it enters the Dead Sea, and can have no existence south of that point”; and on a review of the whole argument he says: “It thus appears that on the situation of Sodom no satisfactory conclusion can at present be come to. On the one hand the narrative of Genesis seems to state positively that it lay at the northern end of the Dead Sea. On the other hand the long continued tradition and the names of existing spots seem to pronounce with almost equal positiveness that it was at its southern end.” Canon Tristram, in his “Natural History of the Bible,” speaks of “the great Jordan valley and Dead Sea basin” as “the most remarkable geological part of the Holy Land.” He holds with M. Lartet that the Dead Sea “is the basin of an old inland sea, larger, indeed, than the present lake, but which has had no connection with the Red Sea since the continent assumed its present form.” He mentions that “bitumen is sometimes found in large masses floating on the surface of the Dead Sea, especially after earthquakes”; and that “there are many hot springs and sulphur springs both on the shores of the Dead Sea and also in its basin, some of which deposit sulphur largely on the rocks around. Most of these hot springs are strongly mineral.” With reference to the site of the cities, he thinks it evident on geological grounds that “the catastrophe which overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah can no more be ascribed to an ordinary volcanic eruption than can the fire and blackness of Mount Sinai. Those cities were not situated where the Dead Sea now is, nor were they swallowed up by it; but standing in the ciccar, i.e., the plain of Jordan, and probably somewhere between Jericho and the north end of the lake, they were destroyed by brimstone and fire rained down upon them by a special interposition of Divine power. The materials for the fire were at hand in the sulphur abounding near and the bitumen with which, dug from the pits of the plain, the houses were probably constructed, or cemented.” (W. S. Smith, B. D.)