I was doing some reading in Genesis about Abraham and re-read the chapters about Lot in the process. My brain said, “Wait, where’s the verses that speak to how Lot’s righteous soul was vexed?” as it retrieved from my ancient memories the KJV wording. I read all through the account of Lot in Genesis but couldn’t find it. I brought up the browser and did a search on “Lot’s soul” and the first hit took me to a blog post where it had the reference to those verses I was remembering right at the top of the post from 2 Peter. I didn’t remember they were in the NT.
7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)
2 Peter 2:7-8 KJV
But I started reading the entire blog post about these verses and it sent me down another path that caused me to open up the old word processor and think through where this post took me because of where the blog author went with it as he had big problems with these verses.
You see, it turns out the blog was from a man, just a tad older than I, who was an evangelical pastor for 25 years. However, he left the ministry in 2005 and apostatized in 2008, proclaiming himself an atheist and humanist. His blog was thus “Ex-vangelical” in nature. And no, this isn’t a post about “they went out from us…”; I’m going somewhere totally different because I saw his point (!) on this one post. If you’ve read this far, you’ve got to hang with me till the end because now I’ve told you I agree with this ex-vangelical atheist.
The post led the reader through what Scripture really says about Lot, his character, and his life. It starts with his covetous eye, choosing when Abraham gave him a choice to pitch his tent toward Sodom, saying covetousness caused him to turn a blind eye to what was best for his wife and daughters. He goes into detail about when the angels came to Sodom and how Lot offered up his own virgin daughters to be ravaged by the lustful men of the city, even saying “do to them as is good in your eyes.” What kind of father is that? It’s unimaginable. He goes into vulgar graphic detail about when Lot’s daughters got him drunk with wine in order to commit incest on two subsequent nights and both are impregnated.
Why is he recounting this from Scripture? Because what so incites the post’s author is that in Genesis and in 2 Peter, Lot is described as “righteous Lot.” He writes, “I ask you, dear readers, what in this story says to you that Lot was a ‘righteous’ man?”
He goes, as many do, down the road of the social gospel. Adding such (even good) adjectives to the word ‘gospel’ typically over time leads away from it – time and again the emphasis gets placed on the adjective, not the gospel. This is another case. He can’t fathom “righteous Lot” because Lot doesn’t have any of “the marks of a Christian that Jesus laid out in Matthew 25”, namely:
- Feeding the hungry
- Giving drink to the thirsty
- Taking in strangers (immigrants?)
- Clothing the naked
- Visiting people in prison
Lot obviously cannot be called righteous from the evidence of his works, or lack thereof. The book cannot be true or trusted since it calls THIS horrifying man righteous! Just simply look at how the Bible speaks of his life!
As I read this post, it became clear to me that this ex-pastor is truly upset because Lot is called righteous and that makes the gospel of God’s grace absolutely SCANDALOUS.
As I finished reading, I could not help but think that I completely agree with him that it is scandalous to call Lot a righteous man.
But the gospel IS scandalous. God’s grace IS scandalous. Gloriously so! And I love that it is. It is my only hope. I had a little private worship time thinking about just how scandalous the gospel is. What drives some away, drives others to worship.
What saddens me is here’s a man who was a pastor for a quarter century, yet he misses the core of the gospel. I quote, “Evangelicals explain away Lot’s profane life by saying that Lot was “righteous” because of the righteousness of Jesus, and not anything good that he had done. This same argument is used to defend adulterous, murderous King David, whom the Bible calls a “man after God’s own heart.”“
That we are deemed righteous ONLY by the imputed perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ IS THE GOSPEL.
The gospel is that the Father counted Jesus on that cross as performing all of our (and Lot’s) wickedness and poured out his full wrath on him AND now imputes or counts Christ’s perfectly righteous life to us. This is not ‘explaining it away’, its explaining the core of the gospel – and yes, it is scandalous.
I contemplate the thief on the cross. A man who not only didn’t help others less fortunate but is hanging on a cross condemned for thievery! In a moment he looks over at the man next to him and simply believes He is the promised King who will have his kingdom despite him hanging on the cross beside him, simply stating “Remember me when you come into your kingdom” (Luke 23:42). Not a single social justice work, not a crumb to the hungry, no water baptism, no tithing, no nothing. Or the tax collector who made his living extorting from others and simply beat his chest saying, “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner” whom Jesus said went home justified (declared righteous).
The gospel of Jesus Christ is simply scandalous.
Calling Lot righteous did not agree with this exvangelical’s social gospel. Lot’s story isn’t full of good deeds to his fellow man, he didn’t volunteer down at the homeless shelter or food pantry, he didn’t join in the latest causes. What is presented about these men isn’t a satisfactory gospel to some who can’t see the glory of God’s scandalous grace. He goes on to write, “Notice that Jesus said nothing about beliefs. True Christianity is measured by good works, not doctrinal fidelity. Based on this standard, how many Americans are truly Christians? From my seat in the atheist pew, what I see is a form of Christianity that focuses on right beliefs; that Lot and David are considered “righteous,” not because of their behavior, but because of what they believed. All that matters is having beliefs deemed orthodox. Is this the kind of Christianity Jesus envisioned?”
And I answer “Yes; a thousand times yes. God’s grace is so free it seems scandalous to us.” By grace alone through faith alone. The fundamental question asked of us all by Jesus is not about our social works, but simply “Who do you say that I am?”
This ex-pastor it seems fails to see the difference in justification of a sinner before a Holy God and progressive sanctification, and that the beliefs, the doctrine that motivate our fruit, is the crux of the matter. There is nothing distinctly Christian about feeding the hungry or welcoming a stranger. A social gospel can be and is the gospel of any religion including secular, atheistic humanism. Think about it. (BTW, the data on actual charitable giving I’ve seen through the years portrays it is actually all those ‘hypocritical evangelicals’ that do most of the charitable giving; but that’s a subject for another time.)
But the gospel of Jesus Christ can take David, who certainly did have an adulterous affair and then had a man killed to cover it up, and call him a righteous man. It can call Lot, with all he did, a righteous man. It can call the man currently writing this sentence a righteous man, with all his evidence to the contrary. And one day, fully righteous indeed at glorification.
Why? Because righteousness is by FAITH alone. Belief. An assurance and conviction of who Christ is and HIS works and a personal trust in it for our salvation.
It is scandalous. Gloriously so.