Amidst the oaks of Mamre, Abraham stood before the Lord and declared something rather audacious:
Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just? (Gen. 18:22–25)
What’s going on here? Is Abraham rebuking God? Is he criticizing God’s plan to judge Sodom and Gomorrah even though his nephew Lot lives there? Is he challenging God to “think more clearly and responsibly about his vocation [as God]?”[1] Theories abound.[2]
1. Brueggemann, Genesis (IBC; Atlanta, John Knox, 1982), 176 cited in Nathan MacDonald, “Listening to Yhwh: Divine Justice and Mercy in Genesis 18:16–33,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 no.1, 2004:27.
2. MacDonald, “Listening to Yhwh,” 36–37; Edward Bridge, “An Audacious Request: Abraham’s Dialogue with God in Genesis 18,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 40 no.3, 2016:294.
I am convinced that Abraham already had a “doctrine of God” based upon prior supernatural revelation, specifically the global flood (Gen. 6–9). As a result, Abraham’s exchange with the Lord over Sodom and Gomorroah in Genesis 19:23–33 exhibits not an interrogation, but a declaration of God’s character. By showing this to you, I hope to convince you that Abraham can be a model for our own doctrinal formulation, demonstrating—in prototypical fashion—the proper redemptive-historical path from “canon to concept.”[3]
The Theologian in Mamre
3. From “canon to concept” is a term taken from Stephen Wellum. See Stephen J. Wellum Systematic Theology: From Canon to Concept, vol. 1 (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024) where he borrowed the term from Kevin Vanhoozer. I understand it is anachronistic to apply the idea of canon to Abraham, but I simply intend to point to the fact that Abraham was comprehending the full content of special revelation he possessed at his time.
First, let’s get our bearings in the narrative itself.
Three men were visiting Abraham—one of whom was the Lord—at the oaks of Mamre. After hosting these men and receiving again the nation-blessing, history-bending promise from the Lord that Sarah shall bear the promised son (18:9–14), the men set out and turned their gaze toward Sodom (Gen. 18:16), for the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah was great and their sin was very grave (Gen. 18:20). It was time for the Lord to see if the desperate pleas against this city were true.
Knowing his nephew lived in this city, Abraham drew near to the Lord and uttered:
“Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” And the Lord said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.” (Gen. 18:22–25)
What is crystal clear here is that Abraham’s appeal is grounded in a theological conviction, namely that God must act a certain way because he is a certain way—God is just and therefore must do what is just. Abraham’s doctrine of divine justice consists of these two features:
- The Lord is the Judge of all the earth (v. 25e)
- As Judge, the Lord must always do what is just
- Justice demands that God not to put the righteous to death with the wicked (v. 25b)
But how did Abraham know God was like this? Where did he get his doctrine of God?
A Model for Doctrinal Formulation
I am convinced that each of the two features of Abraham’s doctrine of divine justice are grounded in special revelation. In the preceding narrative (Genesis 18:22–33), it is the flood event that fundamentally shaped Abraham’s knowledge of God’s nature and character.[4] Let’s unpack this by considering (1) some historical details and (2) the three horizons of Scripture.
4. I do believe that others things contributed to Abraham’s knowledge of God, namely his own relationship with the Lord, as well as his own natural knowledge of God’s justice (Rom. 1:18, 32).
Historical Details
In light of Scripture’s genealogies, it is interesting to note the overlap of Abraham’s life with Noah, or even more significantly with Shem.[5] Noah was likely still alive when Abraham was born, and Shem may have outlived him![6] Given the living proximity these individuals had with each other, it is very difficult to imagine that the knowledge of a global catastrophe—through which the new patriarch of humanity escaped through an ark (and whose son Shem was still alive at the time of Genesis 18)—had utterly disappeared.
5. Due to the close genealogical connection, there eventually arose a Jewish tradition (that I do not hold) that equated Melchizedek with Shem.
6. Refer to Genesis 9:28–29 and Gen. 11:10–26. The former states the number of years Noah lived after the flood as well as his total lifespan; the latter is Shem’s genealogy.
Is it not likely then that by the time Abraham made this weighty appeal to God’s character and just action in Genesis 18 that he knew about the flood? Surely he did. And undoubtedly, he understood its redemptive significance as both a prophet (Gen. 20:7) and friend of God (Is. 41:8).
The Three Horizons
Textual & Epochal Horizons. As the narrative unfolds, we find a progression, or strengthening, of the connection to the flood both through allusion and word. We can divide Abraham’s appeal to God to spare Sodom in Genesis 18:23–32 into three sections.
These three sections are each characterized primarily by a unique word Abraham uses to refer to God’s impending destructive judgment. The first two sections (vv. 23–24 and v. 25) allude to the Noahic epoch, while the third utilizes a term also used by Moses to describe God’s judgement in the flood. Here is a brief summary:
- Verses 23–24 (Sāp̄â). In verse 23 we find Abraham’s provocative inquiry: “Will you indeed sweep away [sāp̄â] the righteous with the wicked?” This is the first time the verb sāp̄â appears in Scripture, and it is next used to describe the city’s total annihilation in Genesis 19:15–17. Abraham’s question evokes the memory of God’s past act of global judgment in the flood. It is used in reference to both the people (Gen. 19:23) and the place (Gen. 19:24), recalling God’s prior determination to destroy all flesh (the people), along with the whole earth (the place—see Gen. 6:13). Sodom, and those within it, are doomed to become a microcosm of God’s previous global judgment (Gen. 19:15). But the question remains: if Noah didn’t fare as the wicked, will God—this time— “destroy” or “sweep away” (sāp̄â) the righteous with the wicked? Surely he will act as he did before!
- Verse 25 (Mûṯ). Genesis 18:25 appears to be a principle that Abraham has drawn from believing that God would not sweep away the righteous with the wicked in his destruction of the whole city. It is a restatement of the notion of justice underlying Genesis 18:23–24, delivered with a bit more dogmatic umph. No—never—could God conceivably “put to death” (mûṯ) the righteous with the wicked. If God thought it right not to destroy Noah along with the wicked, then surely he must apply the same logic to the righteous in Sodom. For such a judgment to protect righteous Noah from the fate of the world was a just judgment.
- Verses 26–32 (Šāḥaṯ). This section connects us directly to the Noahic epoch. Moving from “sweep away” (vv. 23-24) to “put to death” (v. 25), Moses places the word “destroy” (šāḥaṯ) in the mouth of Abraham in the remainder of his appeals (Gen. 18:26–32), the same word used in Genesis 6:13: “God said to Noah, ‘I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy [šāḥaṯ] them with the earth.’” In Noah’s day, God finally destroyed (šāḥaṯ) the wicked along with the earth itself. In Abraham’s day, God destroyed (šāḥaṯ) the wicked along with Sodom and Gomorrah itself (Gen. 18:23, 18:24, 18:28, 18:32; 19:23, 19:24). Just as God remembered Noah in his righteousness, “so it was that, when God destroyed (šāḥaṯ), the cities of the valley, God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow when he overthrew the cities in which Lot had lived” (Gen. 19:29). Thus, the imagery evoked by Abraham, along with the verbal progression Moses employs in this narrative, draws a connection between Abraham’s appeals to God and his knowledge of this God’s act of global judgment in the flood.
Canonical Horizon. Joining Abraham and Moses, even the New Testament’s inspired authors closely associate God’s redemptive-historical acts of judgment in the Noahic and Abrahamic epochs. In Luke 17:26–30, Luke views the two cataclysmic events of the flood and Sodom as the same in some way (Luke 17:28). In each case, sudden destruction came upon all, except for the righteous. In both cases, therefore, we are prompted to consider these events as typological of the imminent return of the Son of Man, which marks the final, cosmic judgment (Luke 17:26, 30; see also 2 Pet. 2:5–8).[7]
7. Surely, God will not sweep away the righteous away with the wicked then, right? In a more thorough study, we could explore the idea that, in light of the New Covenant, we know that no one is righteous (Rom. 3:10). Thus, the pressure of the contemplation of God’s just character moves us inexorably to the blessed Cross of our Savior, who in his death was made to be sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21).
So, weaving together these various dimensions—(1) the likelihood of Abraham possessing a traditional or historical knowledge of the flood, along with (2) the textual and epochal links between Genesis 6 and 18, which (3) finds a confirmed connection in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 17:26, 30)—all this demonstrates where Abraham likely got his doctrine of God’s justice, namely the flood. Abraham “exegeted” God’s supernal act of redemption and judgment in the historical flood and was prophetically illuminated unto its true meaning and significance. Through this, he came to know something of the steadfast and immovable justice of the Lord he loved and followed.
Abraham’s Move from “Canon to Concept”
Now, I want to suggest that through Abraham’s “exegesis” of the flood, he came to know something about God’s nature and predicated fitting attributes to him, which constitute his dogmatic claim of divine justice. In this way, Abraham demonstrates, in proto-typical form, the proper process and priorities for theological reflection. Here are at least two ways we see that in this text.
The Judge of all the Earth
While proof-texting in systematic theology is not inherently bad, it does come with risks. One risk is that we inadvertently fill in biblical language with our own concepts and notions—a kind of theological eisegesis. While we may not be far off base in “filling” our notion of divine Judge with ideas from the Western jurisprudence, our primary labor as theologians should be to let Scripture have the first say. This is where our work with Abraham comes in.
Abraham named God the Judge because of what God proved himself capable of, as the Creator and Ruler of the earth. Looking back, Abraham knew that God spared Noah and his family because he was a righteous man (Gen. 6:9, 7:1). Noah did not fare as the wicked, who were all destroyed with the earth due to their pervasive wickedness (Gen. 6:5–8). Thus, Abraham knew that if God himself thought this was a just and right dealing with mankind, so should he. His proper interpretation of God’s redemptive dealings led him to name the Lord: “Judge.” The flood further evidenced that God did not merely act as a Judge of some small locality—he sits in judgment over the whole earth. Thus, he is “Judge of all the earth.”
Far Be It From You!
Furthermore, as we saw, Abraham declared a principle of God’s just dealings in verse 25b–c, sandwiching it between the strong assertion: “far be it from you” (ḥālîlâ). In context, this word has a deep theological (one could even say metaphysical) resonance to it, communicating: “God forbid.” The Lord-Judge’s name will not be profaned, for it is holy. Given the presence of sin, punishment of the wicked is inevitable and necessary, but so is the salvation of the righteous. If God were to sweep away the righteous with the wicked, therefore, Abraham would see this as an intrinsic contradiction of who God is in himself. Abraham seems to understand that this is impossible, just as Paul said: “he cannot deny himself” (2 Tim. 2:13).
To sum it up: Abraham knew something of God’s nature. The Lord he knew as a friend he also knew as utterly holy and unchangeably just. The Lord is the “Judge of all the earth” and therefore can only do “what is just” (Gen. 18:25). He is the only “lawgiver and judge who is able to save and destroy” (James 4:12).
Conclusion
Abraham developed his “doctrine of God’s justice” in light of the redemptive-historical event of the flood. Through this divine act of judgment and salvation, Abraham knew that God was the earth’s Judge and that his actions were just and right. Abraham, therefore, formulated a kind of confessional statement through God’s action in history and trusted that these true principles characterized his very nature:
Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?”
But, of course, this is not the end of the theological journey. Abraham used this knowledge in his prophetic office to appeal for the salvation of his nephew. Grounded, then, in his doctrine of divine justice, Abraham further “explored” the dimensions of this doctrine through his appeal (Gen. 18:22–23): might God spare a whole city if there were righteous people found dwelling in it?[8] An exploration of how mercy relates to justice will have to wait, but it may be worth considering Anselm’s prayerful reflection:
8. The consensus of critical scholarship sees Abraham’s dialogue with God as kind of haggling (bartering, legal speech, etc). Derek Kidner rightly notes, “It would be easy to say that this prayer comes near to haggling, but the right word is ‘exploring’: Abraham is feeling his way forward in a spirit of faith (superbly expressed in 25c, where he grasps the range and rightness of God’s rule).” See Derek Kidner, Genesis (InterVarsity Press, 2008), 143–144.
It is as if Abraham is saying: “Lord, given your global judgment in the flood, I know you will not destroy the righteous with the wicked. Therefore, might you preserve the righteous in that city by your justice, and in doing so, exercise a sparing mercy over the wicked for a time?”
Assuredly, if you are merciful because You are supremely good, and if You are supremely good only because You are supremely just, then truly You are merciful because You are supremely just. Help me, O just and merciful God, whose light I seek; help me to understand what I am saying. Truly, then, You are merciful because You are just.[9]
Recognizing what Abraham knew about God’s justice and how he came to acquire this knowledge ought to enrich our own doctrine. We can now ensure that we inform our notion of divine “Judge” and “justice” not merely with strict, philosophical retributivism, but fundamentally with the just principles we find God exhibiting in redemptive history. God’s revelation is our foundation for knowledge.
Theology, especially our doctrine of God, must centrally be a God-centered task. We reflect on what he has done, the words he has given, and therefore the truths of himself that he has chosen to graciously reveal to us. A proper theology of the divine attributes begins where Abraham began—humbly before the Lord and his special revelation. Help us, O just and merciful God, to understand what we are saying in our theology.