Yahwe was one of the three is certainly the view of the later editors (see on 191); but if that had been the original conception, it must have been clearly expressed at this point. (b) In 20f. we have seen that the fate of Sodom still hangs in the balance, while in 23ff. its destruction is assumed as already decreed. (c) The whole tenor of the passage stamps it as the product of a more reflective age than that in which the ancient legends originated. It is inconceivable that the early Yahwist should have entirely overlooked the case of Lot, and substituted a discussion of abstract principles of the divine government. Gunkel points out that the most obvious solution of the actual problem raised by the presence of Lot in Sodom would have been a promise of deliverance for the few godly people in the city; that consequently the line of thought pursued does not arise naturally from the story itself, but must have been suggested by the theological tendencies of the age in which the section was composed. The precise point of view here represented appears most clearly in such passages as Jer. 151, Ezk. 1414ff.; and in general it was not till near the Exile that the allied problems of individual responsibility and vicarious righteousness began to press heavily on the religious conscience in Israel.
23. Wilt thou even sweep away, etc.] The question strikes
the keynote of the section,—a protest against the thought
of an indiscriminate judgement (cf. Jb. 922).—24. Suppose there should be fifty, etc.] A small number in a city, but
yet sufficient to produce misgiving if they should perish
unjustly.—and not forgive the place] In OT, righteousness
and clemency are closely allied: there is more injustice in
the death of a few innocent persons than in the sparing of
a guilty multitude. The problem is, to what limits is the
application of this principle subject?—25. Shall not the Judge, etc.] Unrighteousness in the Supreme Ruler of the
world would make piety impossible: cf. Ro. 36.—27. I have ventured] cf. Jer. 121. (
Hebrew characters) expresses the overcoming of a
certain inward reluctance (Jos. 77).—dust and ashes] an
alliterative combination (Jb. 3019 426, Sir. 403). As a descrip-
out of a feeling of reverence (Ginsburg, Introd. 352 f.). The worth of
the tradition is disputed, the present text being supported by all Vns.
as well as by 1927; and the sense certainly does not demand the suggested
restoration (Tu. Di. against KS. Ba. Gu. al.).—23, 24. (Hebrew characters)]
TO (Hebrew characters), mistaking for (Hebrew characters) = 'anger': so STJ.—23 end] G + (Greek characters)
(25a).—24. (Hebrew characters)] sc. (Hebrew characters) = 'forgive': Nu. 1419, Is. 29,
Hos. 16 etc.—25. (Hebrew characters)] lit. 'profanum (sit),' construed with (Hebrew characters), as 447. 17,
oft. The full formula is (Hebrew characters) (1 Sa. 247 2611 etc.).—(Hebrew characters)] V
(nequaquam facies judicium hoc) and S (which takes (Hebrew characters) as vocative)
