The Catholic Thing
The Key That Fits the Lock, Part 7 Print E-mail
By Anthony Esolen   
Wednesday, 10 October 2012

Let’s take a look at the story of Noah, alongside the account of the incident at Sodom.

The stories are closely related, and are meant to be read together. In each, we have one man singled out for his righteousness, Noah and Abraham. They dwell in a sense apart from their fellows.

Abraham does not take up residence in Sodom; that privilege belongs to his nephew Lot, a man of middling virtue. Both accounts begin with wickedness. “And the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.” (Gen. 6:2) 

I take it for granted that we are not talking about ordinary marriage here, but a sort of generalized debauchery: the Hebrew word for “wife” is the same as is used for “woman.” The evil of the debauchery is, however, more profound than mere sensuality. It bespeaks a deranged soul: “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (6:5).

By the time we arrive at Sodom, the imagination of man has now hit upon the unnatural: “Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” (19:5) It is remarkable that Lot offers the men, not a male servant, whereof no doubt he had plenty, but his “two daughters which have not known man.” (19:8) He is thus appealing, feebly enough, to their shame rather than to their shameful predilections.

             The Curse of Ham by Ivan Stepanovitch Ksenofontov, c. 1850

In both stories destruction comes from above. In the story of Noah, it comes as rain – the rain that in Scripture usually denotes blessing. Our Father in heaven, says Jesus, sends rain upon the just and the unjust. The rain here may suggest a reversion to chaos, an obliteration of boundaries: the firmament that separates the waters above from the waters below.

But the story also expresses God’s tender regard for the animals, provided for in the ark; most suggestive, of the life-giving power of water and of divine blessing, is the image of the dove returning to the ark, with the olive branch in her beak.

When we move to Sodom, the animals are nowhere to be seen, and what comes from heaven is not rain, but fire. Dante understood the fire as symbolizing the majesty of God, offended directly by the blasphemy of unnatural sexual vice. Sodom is an inverse holocaust: the fire makes uninhabitable the land where no true sacrifice to God was made.

In both stories, God makes a promise. In the story of Noah, the promise is absolute; in the story of Sodom, it is conditional; yet the mercy of God is seen more profoundly in the latter. When the rains cease, God sets his rainbow in the heavens, as a pledge that never again will he send a flood to destroy all flesh.

But there is no rainbow over Sodom. Instead we have Abraham acting as an intercessor. It is the first act of intercession in Scripture, and evidently it meets with God’s approval; indeed it is the effect of God’s grace. Abraham here pleads not for the sinner – that mercy has not yet been definitively revealed, though it has been suggested by God’s having clothed Adam and Eve. He pleads for the righteous men.

Perhaps there are fifty?  God agrees not to destroy Sodom for the sake of the fifty. Whereupon Abraham, patron of poker players, proceeds to talk God down to ten. Well, there are not ten righteous men in Sodom, but the Lord does save Abraham’s sort-of-righteous nephew and his dubious family.

Both stories end with a suggestion of moral decline. Noah grows a grapevine and gets a bit totty from the drink. He seems innocent enough about it. He lies down in his tent, and is “uncovered” (10:21), which may well happen to a sprawling fellow wearing only a tunic. His youngest son Ham sees his father’s nakedness and tells his brothers about it, evidently with a note of ridicule and impiety.

            Lot and His Daughters by Artemisia Gentileschi, c. 1635

They respond by laying a garment upon their shoulders and walking backwards into the tent, that they might not see Noah so compromised, and they gently cover their father’s dignity. Noah blesses them for it, and curses Ham.

But the story of Abraham, as before, is more complex. We encounter the same separation of Abraham from Lot. Once Sodom is destroyed, Lot does not return to Abraham, his unknown intercessor. Perhaps Lot has a little bit of the Mrs. Lot in him; he retires to a nearby cave with his two daughters.

Their souls too have been scorched by living in Sodom. They get their father drunk so as to commit incest with him, to preserve his seed. From those unions are derived the hated Ammonites and Moabites. That is not how Abraham is going to be the father of a great nation.

The stories teach us that the way of God is not the way of man, for there is a way that seems good to the heart of man, but it leads to destruction. He who would save his life must lose it, says Jesus, and that applies to Noah, obeying the word of God and entrusting himself to a mere wooden vessel – like the wicker basket that held the baby Moses, floating upon the shallows of the Nile; the Hebrew word is the same.

It applies to Abraham, entrusting his entire life, day by day, to God; not sailing like Noah upon the waters for certain months, but becoming the essential pilgrim, praising God, and seeking all good things from Him alone.

We verge here upon the inner harmony of love and the abundant life. That brings us to the three angels who come to visit Abraham. More about them soon.

Anthony Esolen is a lecturer, translator, and writer. His latest book is Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child. He teaches at Providence College.
The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (8)Add Comment
written by M, October 10, 2012
Just a great read. I hope we get as many Parts as possible.
written by jsmitty, October 10, 2012
Strange isn't it that Abraham bends over backwards to intercede for Sodom, but utters not a peep in protest to convince God that sacrificing his own son Isaac is not a good idea?

Regrading that intercession you write:

Abraham here pleads not for the sinner – that mercy has not yet been definitively revealed, though it has been suggested by God’s having clothed Adam and Eve. He pleads for the righteous men.

me: sort of...but actually he intercedes for the whole city for the sake of the righteous. Philo saw in this part of the mystery of redemption...that God may in theory spare the many wicked for the righteous few. I think Origen saw this too.

one other minor quibble. You write: In both stories destruction comes from above.... The rain here may suggest a reversion to chaos, an obliteration of boundaries: the firmament that separates the waters above from the waters below.

me: actually the water in the Noah story comes from below too (Gen 7:11; 8:2). And this fits with the larger theme of primordial chaos you mentioned. The story harkens back to creation in which the chaos waters were subdued and confined..being pressed down into the earth (to make room for dry land) and being confined in the firmament--the two conditions that make life possible for human beings. Creation is being undone simply by God allowing the forces of chaos once again to have their day.

Interesting piece overall. Not too many English professors bother to look closely at Genesis 1-11 at all, let alone the Hebrew version of the story.
written by Achilles, October 10, 2012
obedience jsmitty, obedience. Not very American. In looking down you miss what is above.
written by jsmitty, October 10, 2012
Typical Achilles-- in lieu of the actual data of life (in this case textual details about the Sacred Page) he substitutes his own "theological" platitudes.
written by Brad Miner, October 10, 2012
@jmitty & Achilles: Gentlemen, please keep to the point; don't make it personal.
written by Randall, October 10, 2012
Look at the Ksenofontov painting, The Curse of Ham. Is that Jesus in the shadow back in the tent? Interesting symbolism if that is Who it is.
written by Facile1, October 24, 2012
I never understood the story of Ham, until now.

I never understood the story of Lot, until now.

Maybe I still fail to understand.

It seems sometimes suffering is wasted on the poor.
written by TomG2, October 25, 2012
@Facile1's last point, well taken - as it always appears trailer parks are tornado magnets. Though perhaps poorness is really the result of suffering in all its manifestations, given how many men of means and ease have ended up down paths of self-destruction by their ingratitude/discontent and ultimate loss of the steady habits instilled by faith/love. The world is a valley of tears for most really, witha good portion of it caused by human selfishness and greed at the expense of others and finally oneselves (an image of Citizen Cane comes to mind, and the true meaning of Rosebud).
A special thanks to Prof. Esolen for these most remarkable articles - so very appreciated (and to my Augustinian Uncle who forwarded them to me).

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


Other Articles By This Author