Destroying The Righteous With The Wicked

[robbyyoung]

Hello All,

I'm sure we're all familiar with God's judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah, but I was intrigued that God judged the city's children and infants as wicked and Lot as righteous when he offered his daughters to be raped and violated by the mob? Abraham seemed to have understood God's character correctly, for God did not rebuke or reprove his concerns, as stated in Genesis 18:23-25. Thus, how can Lot's immoral actions be revered more than children and infants?

The question regarding what happens to children when they die is debatable, but Genesis 18:23-25 and the overall outcome was distressing--but by faith we believe that God's mercy and judgments are in fact correct, just, and loving. So how would you all reconcile this quandary of who is righteous and wicked within this story?

God bless and HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY!!!

[crgfstr1]

I actually see the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as a loving act. The people there were suffering miserably. It is much like a person who takes their dog to the vet. The dog is suffering and there is no hope at this point for treatment. People who love their animals have them put to sleep in the least painful way possible. Brimstone and fire while that sounds really scary is actually probably a very quick and merciful way to go.

Any children living in that city would have no examples to help them grow up correctly and they would have suffered and eventually become sinners themselves. Everyone was prevented from committing any more sin. This ended the consequences of everyone's sin either their own sin or those they were surrounded by.

[robbyyoung]

I actually see the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as a loving act. The people there were suffering miserably. It is much like a person who takes their dog to the vet. The dog is suffering and there is no hope at this point for treatment. People who love their animals have them put to sleep in the least painful way possible. Brimstone and fire while that sounds really scary is actually probably a very quick and merciful way to go.

Any children living in that city would have no examples to help them grow up correctly and they would have suffered and eventually become sinners themselves. Everyone was prevented from committing any more sin. This ended the consequences of everyone's sin either their own sin or those they were surrounded by.

Hello my friend,

Yes, I understand your reply, however you did not address how Lot was more righteous than children or infants. Moreover, God said all children and infants were in-fact more wicked than Lot. Was there not one baby or infant that Lot and his family could have adopted into their own to escape judgment. For goodness sake, the angels practically had to drag Lot and his family out of the city, due to their meandering and apparent care for it. Thus, respectfully, what is your answer to the rest of the ethical story concerning the righteous judge of all the earth? Abraham's inquiry is our own, but God surmised, children and infants were not righteous, so how would you explain this moral and ethical conclusion against Lot's behavior?

Moreover, arguments concerning foreknowledge of sin is contradictory to Lot and his daughters sinful behaviors, yet they were declared righteous? Didn't God know Lot's wife would disobey His command and perish? Or, Lot would offer his daughters up to be viciously ravished? Yet, they were more righteous than an infant? This seems to be a non-sequitur. There seems to be a missing piece to this puzzle, both ethically and morally.

Blessings.

[TK]

Maybe the answer is that children, particularly very young ones, can neither be righteous or unrighteous. They have no idea what they are doing and have no sense of right and wrong to the point of being righteous or unrighteous. If that is the case then God was not "counting" them when He said He would not destroy it for the sake of the 10.

In that culture Lot's offering of his daughters was apparently not a sinful act although to us it seems abhorrent. I know it happened elsewhere in scripture-- just can't remember where. Judges maybe.

[crgfstr1]

I agree young children can't be righteous or unrighteous. Righteousness has to do with a true loving relationship with God. Many of the prophets did terrible things but were forgiven (made righteous) by their faith. Lot's wife was set for an example for us. We are not to look back on our sin being now dead to our sin. We should not be sin conscious nor focused. So yes, God knew what would happen and used bad for good.

All of this is a good example that works alone are dead. It is relationship and oneness with God that is important. Love covers a multitude of sins. God is love and becoming like God we love. Giving up his daughters he did out of his protection/love of his guests. Not a good solution but there were no good solutions available. If they had a right relationship with God they would say forgive them for they know not what they do. He didn't know if his guests would do the same. If they didn't have a right relationship with God then they would already be lost and dead.

All of this is because we wanted to know good from evil. So there is a lot of evil here.

[TK]

My wife and I were discussing the OP and she said that when Abraham was negotiating with God it was understood that they were talking about adults. Seems to be a simple solution.

[robbyyoung]

Maybe the answer is that children, particularly very young ones, can neither be righteous or unrighteous. They have no idea what they are doing and have no sense of right and wrong to the point of being righteous or unrighteous. If that is the case then God was not "counting" them when He said He would not destroy it for the sake of the 10.

In that culture Lot's offering of his daughters was apparently not a sinful act although to us it seems abhorrent. I know it happened elsewhere in scripture-- just can't remember where. Judges maybe.

Hi TK,

Abraham correctly appealed to God's character, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" Thus, there were two, not three, groups of people--the righteous and wicked. So, did The Judge of all the earth do right? Children are not a dormant creation, they are infested with sin like everyone else. The real question is what happens to them in the afterlife. However, your argument regarding children's ignorance towards the things of God is valid, but they were still appointed to perish with the wicked. By faith, I must contend that God was just in His actions, and I am ignorant of how He sovereignly rules over the affairs of men. Thanks for adding value to the post.

Blessings.

[steve]

Hi Robbie,

I was going to answer along the same lines as TK. I don't think Abraham's question implies the existence of only two groups. There are "righteous" people, "wicked" people, and "innocent" people. The latter category, to the exclusion of the other two, would include Adam and Eve, prior to their sinning, as well as (in my opinion) children too young to "know to refuse the evil and to choose the good" (Isa.7:16).

Children are definitely prone to sin, which excludes them from the category of "the righteous." They are not willfully rebellious against God, since they do not know about Him, which means they are not among "the wicked." Adults who are mentally deficient all their lives, along with animals, would also, no doubt, comprise the third category, along with small children (i.e., neither righteous, nor wicked—just innocent).

In Abraham's question, "Will you destroy the righteous with the wicked," there is no implicit claim that only these categories exist. He was merely bringing up a scenario in which an objectionable injustice would be done. I don't think that Abraham or God were including the children under the term "the wicked."

[robbyyoung]

Hi Robbie,

I was going to answer along the same lines as TK. I don't think Abraham's question implies the existence of only two groups. There are "righteous" people, "wicked" people, and "innocent" people. The latter category, to the exclusion of the other two, would include Adam and Eve, prior to their sinning, as well as (in my opinion) children too young to "know to refuse the evil and to choose the good" (Isa.7:16).

Children are definitely prone to sin, which excludes them from the category of "the righteous." They are not willfully rebellious against God, since they do not know about Him, which means they are not among "the wicked." Adults who are mentally deficient all their lives, along with animals, would also, no doubt, comprise the third category, along with small children (i.e., neither righteous, nor wicked—just innocent).

In Abraham's question, "Will you destroy the righteous with the wicked," there is no implicit claim that only these categories exist. He was merely bringing up a scenario in which an objectionable injustice would be done. I don't think that Abraham or God were including the children under the term "the wicked."

Hi Steve,

Thanks for strengthening TK's and crgfstr1's argument, for I do believe in its validity. But, the child of God may often mistakenly conflate the innocent with wicked during God's judgment, and this may be a hard pill to swallow. For example, what if Abraham would have said or included "the innocent"? Would Abraham's follow-up question provoke a different answer from God?

Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?

Ultimately God saw fit in this instance, and others, to destroy the innocent along with the wicked. But I wonder if Abraham would have asked about "the innocent", would God's answer and actions been different? Better yet, was this specific question and answer provided for us somewhere in scripture? Nevertheless, this is why I contend too simply lean on faith in God and His knowledge concerning such things, although it is a hard fact and truth that stings. Steve, have you ever lectured on the conundrum of destroying the innocent along with the wicked during your ministry? If so, is it posted for viewing? Thanks and God bless my friend.

[TK]

I still cant understand why David hamstrung the horses.