Today’s post is by Victoria Mildenhall. The featured image is The Capture of Lot, by James Dabney McCabe, 1842-1883.
Victoria studied for her undergraduate degree with the Open University and went on to complete two Masters degrees in Ancient Religion with Theology and Criminology. She is due to begin a PhD at Leeds University under the supervision of Johanna Stiebert (Biblical Studies) and Sam Lewis (Criminology and Criminal Justice), focussing on models of justice in the Bible that respond to instances of sexual violation.
The narrative of Genesis 14:1-24, recounting Lot’s kidnapping and rescue, is intriguing to biblical scholars for multiple reasons. Firstly, Abra(ha)m[1] is depicted here as a community leader and warrior, which is not the case in some other parts of scripture, which show him as a rather more solitary figure, or in domestic, family dynamics. Secondly, it contains one of very few biblical references to Melchizedek and this is the only instance where this mysterious priest-king appears in person.[2] Thirdly, the passage contains cultural, theological, political and topographical hints that might yield clues for the interpretation of surrounding passages.
When it comes to analysing sexual violence in the Hebrew Bible, however, this pericope is most often overlooked, probably due to its abundant ambiguities, including where the intention of Lot’s kidnappers is concerned. Yet, by examining the narrative of Genesis 14 inter-textually in the light of scriptures and themes in its close proximity, I will argue that Lot narrowly avoids becoming a victim of sexual enslavement, or wartime rape. Four points provide the rationale for my assertion: surrounding and associated scriptures that depict or suggest sexual violation; scriptural condemnation levelled at sexual practices of neighbouring peoples, particularly the Canaanites; the presentation of Lot; and the use of the Hebrew term lqh.
The first part of Genesis 14 describes a political conflict raging throughout the region. A coalition of four kings, led by King Chedorlaomer of Elam, wages war with five cities south of the Dead Sea after they rebel (14:1-9). Things are going badly for the rebels when some fall into the bitumen pits and the rest flee to the hill country (v.10). This creates an opportunity for Chedorlaomer and his cohort; they plunder Sodom and Gomorrah, taking goods, possessions, and the inhabitants, presumably as enslaved people, including Lot and his household (14:11-12, 16). One individual escapes and reports the events to Abra(ha)m, who gathers a military unit of three hundred and eighteen men and goes in pursuit (14:13-14). In a night-time battle, Abra(ha)m and his men successfully rescue Lot and his possessions (14:15-16). Rather than keeping the plunder and enslaving any captives, Abra(ha)m returns them to the King of Sodom and is blessed by Melchizedek, to whom Abra(ha)m pays a tithe (14:17-20).
Is Abra(ha)m making a strategic point here? Is he communicating that he does not want to be implicated in any way in the horrors from which he has rescued his nephew, Lot? And if so, what might these horrors be? I argue that Lot was rescued from sexual violence, such as rape, or sexual enslavement.
The first reason that this passage might be included among texts of the Hebrew Bible suggestive of sexual aggression and violence is its proximity to other such passages, including two of male-on-male violence or, at the very least, male-on-male sexualised impropriety and domination: the first is the odd story fragment of Ham and his naked father Noah (Genesis 9:20-25), and the second, the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah following a threat of male-male rape (Genesis 19:5). Other examples of sexual violence are Lot’s daughters’ violation of their father (Genesis 19:30-38) and the narrative of Abra(ha)m telling Pharaoh that Sarai (=Sarah)[3] is his sister so that Pharaoh “takes” her (Genesis 12:10-20). It is against this wider background of rape-threats and violations that we find the pericope of Lot’s kidnap.
Secondly, biblical references to Canaanite people are repeatedly accompanied by aspersions as to their sexual immorality and depravity (e.g. Leviticus 18:3; Deuteronomy 20:18; 1 Kings 14:24). Targeting Abra(ha)m’s nephew for sexual enslavement or rape would fit into this picture. There is a pronounced connection in the Hebrew Bible between foreign gods, including those of Canaan, and sexual immorality. Idolatry and worship of other gods are metaphorically associated with adultery in several of the prophetic texts (Hosea 1-2; Ezekiel 16 and 23), and Israel is explicitly warned against both foreign gods and sexual impropriety to preserve collective identity and holiness (Leviticus 18). The story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), where Lot reappears in a later narrative, also associates Canaanite cities with very negative qualities, be this the threat of male-male rape or inhospitality (Greenough, 2021, p.21).
Thirdly, in all of his appearances in the Hebrew Bible, Lot is shown to be vulnerable. In Genesis 13:11 he separates from Abra(ha)m, which might reflect a theological and ideological separation between (favoured) uncle and (wanting) nephew, with the narrator emphasising distance between them. In the narrative in Genesis 14, Lot has failed in protecting his household; he is in a position of responsibility, and he has not lived up to this role – hence, Abra(ha)m has to rescue him. In the later narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot is under pressure, going so far as to offer up his own daughters to a mob of threatening men (Genesis 19:8). He cannot save himself or his family; Lot’s own sons-in-law don’t take him seriously (Genesis 19:14); divine messengers intervene to save Lot together with his wife and daughters; even then, Lot dithers (Genesis 19:16). He is portrayed as thoroughly ineffectual.[4]
It might be that the men of Sodom assault Lot in a sexualised manner when he is negotiating with them. The wording describing their interaction is unusual: “Then they pressed hard against the man Lot…” (Genesis 19:9, NRSV). Whatever is going on here, it could be sexually threatening, or, at least, threatening to Lot’s masculinity. Notably (and, arguably, superfluously) Lot is called “the man Lot”. Moreover, to protect his visitors and – presumably – himself also, Lot resorts to offering the mob in Sodom a sexual substitute: his own daughters, whom he identifies as virgins (Genesis 19:8). The offer of his own daughters, whom he ought to protect, is frightful. It also indicates both the acute danger of the situation and the sexually charged nature of the threat.
Finally, it is significant that Lot is the victim of his own daughters’ sexual violation when he is drunk and they, in turn, exploit his lack of awareness to conceive sons with him (Genesis 19:30-38). Again, Lot is rendered vulnerable here; he is exploited for sex.
Chris Greenough observes, “Hegemonic masculinity promotes attitudes, behaviours and regulation within society and culture that all serve to perpetuate notions of men as strong, powerful, warrior-like and consequently, the opposite of a victim” (2021, p.13). Lot repeatedly falls short, including in terms of implied notions of hegemonic masculinity. It is Abra(ha)m who acts as warrior and rescuer – that is, as masculine. Lot, however, needs to be rescued – first by Abra(ha)m (Genesis 14), and then by the divine messengers (Genesis 19). Lot is unable to protect his visitors or his family. He is repeatedly threatened in sexual and sexualised ways (Genesis 19:9, 33, 35) – including, I am proposing in Genesis 14.
In terms of the implied gender ideology of Genesis a man who is overpowered, including sexually overpowered, is a man whose masculinity is diminished. Lot is repeatedly shown to be overpowered – and dramatically so here where Abra(ha)m rescues him. Once more, Lot fails as a man; later, he cannot defend himself against his violent neighbours (whom he calls “brothers”, Genesis 19:7), or against his own daughters (Genesis 19:31-36): he certainly can’t stand up to the armies of several kings. He is completely in their power and control.
The final indicator that sexual violation is implied in Genesis 14 is the occurrence of the Hebrew verbal root lqh (lamed-qoph-chet, Genesis 14:12). This widely used verb is most often translated with variants of “to take”.[5] Relevant to my enquiry, lqh is also used to indicate taking for sex and rape: Sarai (=Sarah) is taken by Pharaoh (Genesis 12:19), and the verb also pertains to the kidnap and rape of Dinah by Shechem (Genesis 34:2). Sandie Gravett (2004) proposes that lqh can be used in instances where force and violence apply, including and prominently where sexual violation is implied.
In Genesis 14, those who are “taken” (including Lot) appear to be taken for purposes of enslavement. Just like the other goods that are seized (Genesis 14:11-12) they become the victors’ property. As enslaved persons, whether they be male or female, they would have no agency and, consequently, no say over their bodies, including any right of refusal of rape. Moreover, in war and so-called conquest, sexual violence of those who are overpowered is no rarity – as is evidenced widely in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Numbers 31:9-18; Deuteronomy 21:10-14; Judges 5:30, and many other examples), as well as in distressing events right up to the present. Gender is irrelevant, as rape is not about attraction or desire, but about dominance and humiliation. There are plenty of biblical indications of males humiliated in war and conquest, including in sexualised ways (e.g. Judges 16:25; 1 Samuel 31:4; Lamentations 5:13).
In summary, four key aspects underline my argument for including Genesis 14:1-24 in discourses of sexual violence and violation in the Hebrew Bible. In this case, the attempted sexual violation is perpetrated by men (the forces led by Chedorlaomer) against a man (Lot). First, surrounding narratives establish a thematic foundation for sexual violation; and secondly, Canaan and its people are prominently characterised as deviant. Third, Lot is juxtaposed with Abra(ha)m, and consistently falls short of him; Lot emerges as vulnerable and ineffectual – in other words, as inadequately masculine and as vulnerable, including as vulnerable to sexual aggression. This vulnerability is demonstrated also by the way he is threatened at Sodom and violated by his own daughters (Genesis 19). Finally, the use of lqh can be suggestive of kidnapping as well as sexual violation. Collectively, this points to, or at least strongly hints at, Lot in Genesis 14 being at risk of enslavement and, therewith, – not for the last time – at risk of sexual violence.
References
Gravett, S. (2004) Reading ‘Rape’ in the Hebrew Bible: A Consideration of Language, JSOT 28, no. 3 (2004): 279-99.
Greenough, C. (2021) The Bible and Sexual Violence Against Men. Abingdon, OX: Routledge.
[1] Abraham, as he is better known, is named “Abram” up until YHWH changes his name in the course of a covenant agreement (see Genesis 17:5).
[2] Melchizedek is a name made up of two Hebrew words meaning “king” and “righteous.” The name occurs also in Psalm 110:4 and in the New Testament, in Hebrews 7. Additionally, allusions to Melchizedek appear in the so-called Melchizedek Scroll found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QMelch or 11Q13).
[3] As part of the covenant (see note 1), God renames Sarai “Sarah” and blesses her (Genesis 17:15-16).
[4] Possibly, Lot had defected to the customs or gods of Sodom. Abra(ha)m steps in and attempts to negotiate with YHWH. Although Abra(ha)m falls short of asking specifically for YHWH to spare his nephew, he effectively asks YHWH to evaluate for himself whether Lot counts as a righteous man (18:23-33).
[5] See NRSV ad loc: “they also took Lot…”.
