Church of São Domingos: Lisbon’s Beautiful Burnout

Visiting Igreja de São Domingos in Lisbon? Just off Rossio Square, this fire-scarred church turns ruin into reverence.

Once dripping in gold and glory, the Church of São Domingos in Lisbon, Portugal now wears its wounds with pride. A fire-charred interior, a bloody past, and a defiant refusal to hide the damage make it one of the most hauntingly honest churches in Europe.

We’d already been in Lisbon a couple of days when I flipped through a guidebook and saw a photo of São Domingos’ interior, with those scorched terracotta-colored walls and raw stone arches. I stopped mid-page. It didn’t look like any church I’d ever seen; it looked like something that had survived the end of the world. I turned to Duke and said, “We have to find this place.”

“Workers reinforced the structure but left the burn marks as they were, creating an atmosphere that feels halfway between holy and haunted.

It’s not “beautiful” in the traditional sense, but it’s impossible to forget. ”

Imagine our surprise when we realized it was right under our noses — tucked just off Rossio Square in a strangely angled building we’d already walked past several times without noticing. From the outside, São Domingos looks a bit plain, its façade rather unassuming. But step through the doors and it’s like falling through time. Lisbon’s brightest square gives way to one of its darkest, most moving spaces.

Inside Igreja de São Domingos

The first thing you notice inside Igreja de São Domingos isn’t the altar or the statues — it’s the walls. They’re scorched, cracked and blistered like the inside of a volcano. You half-expect to smell smoke. Once upon a time, this was one of Lisbon’s most lavish Baroque churches — all gold leaf, marble and over-the-top devotion. Then, in 1959, fire ripped through it, devouring the splendor and leaving behind something much more human.

Most churches would have been restored to postcard perfection. São Domingos wasn’t. The decision to leave its wounds visible — blackened stone, warped columns, burnt sienna ceilings that look like they still ache — feels radical, especially in a city that prides itself on polished tiles and pastel façades. This one’s not pretending. It’s survived earthquakes, massacres and flames, and it’s still standing — raw, imperfect and more sacred for it.

The fire that ravished São Domingos is believed to have started at the high altar — with, possibly, a candle to blame.

The Fire That Changed Everything

In 1959, a fire tore through São Domingos, leaving only its stone skeleton behind. The blaze gutted centuries of gilded wood and painted ceilings, the kind of gaudy grandeur that Baroque churches specialized in. Parishioners watched in horror as molten gold dripped from the altar and statues melted into unholy puddles. Yet instead of rebuilding it to its former blingy glory, Lisbon decided to do something almost heretical: It left the scars.

The fire broke out on August 13, 1959, just after dawn, starting near the high altar — the very heart of the church. No definitive cause was ever confirmed, though some reports suggested a stray candle or heat rising through an old chimney shaft. 

Within minutes, flames shot through the wooden roof and raced down the nave, feeding on centuries of lacquer, paint and gilt. 

More than 100 firefighters from across Lisbon rushed to the scene, and crowds filled Rossio Square to watch in disbelief and despair. 

Despite the firefighters’ efforts, the roof collapsed, killing two of them and reducing the sanctuary to a molten ruin.

Saint Dominic’s vision of receiving the rosary from the Virgin Mary

Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Dominican Order’s scholar-saint

The losses were staggering. The great pipe organ, centuries of paintings and sacred objects — including a revered 17th century image of Our Lady of the Rosary — were destroyed. 

The heat was so intense that the marble itself split, and the once-golden altars ran like wax. 

For a church that had hosted royal weddings, funerals, baptisms and national ceremonies, the devastation felt almost personal — a wound carved into Lisbon’s collective memory. That same year, São Domingos was declared a National Monument, ensuring that what survived would never again be hidden behind fresh plaster.

Saint Dominic (São Domingos), founder of the Dominican Order, was devoted to truth through study and preaching.

São Domingos, the Saint Who Started It All

It feels poetic — maybe even karmic — that the church dedicated to Saint Dominic, the man who founded the Dominican Order, should end up looking like penance. Dominic was no quiet monk. Born in 1170 in Spain — supposedly on a Sunday (domingo), hence his name — he was a fiery preacher famous for fighting heresy and convincing people through debate rather than violence. At least, that was the idea. His order later became the intellectual arm of the Inquisition — less conversation, more confession under duress. Not quite the legacy he’d hoped for.

Dominic himself, though, was fascinating. Legend says his mother dreamed of a dog carrying a torch in its mouth, setting the world aflame — a symbol of how her son would spread faith like wildfire. (“Dominican,” after all, comes from Domini canes — “the dogs of the Lord.”) 

He died in Bologna, Italy in 1221, apparently of sheer exhaustion from walking and preaching barefoot across Europe. 

Standing inside São Domingos today, it’s hard not to think of that dream — of flames and faith intertwined. 

Saint Joseph (São José), the carpenter stepfather of Jesus and patron of Portugal, gets more reverence here than perhaps any other country.

The Shadow of the Inquisition

For a church that now feels so peaceful, São Domingos has a disturbingly violent past. Long before the fire, before Lisbon’s earthquakes and rebuilds, this was the epicenter of something far darker: the 1506 Massacre of Lisbon’s Jews.

It started with a miracle gone wrong. A drought had gripped the city, and crowds filled the church, praying for rain. When someone claimed to see Christ’s face glowing on the altar, a man in the crowd dared to doubt it — and was beaten to death on the spot. The frenzy that followed spilled into the streets, egged on by Dominican friars who urged the mob to “cleanse” Lisbon of unbelievers.

For three days, chaos ruled. Jews and New Christians (converted Jews, many forcibly baptized) were dragged from their homes and slaughtered. By the time it ended, an estimated 2,000 people were dead. The king was away; the city, soaked in blood. And São Domingos — that grand, gold-drenched house of God — had become a stage for fanaticism.

Outside the church today, there’s a modest memorial stone, easy to miss unless you’re looking for it. It reads, in both Portuguese and Hebrew: “In memory of the thousands of Jews who were victims of intolerance and religious fanaticism.” A single Star of David rests at its center, quietly defying centuries of silence.

Nearby lies Rossio Square — once the site of Lisbon’s public executions, where the condemned were burned at the stake in the name of faith. The Dominican friars, the same order tied to this church, often presided over those ceremonies, chanting prayers as flames rose.

It’s impossible not to sense the irony: The very order that once helped fuel the Inquisition now prays beneath ceilings blackened by fire. The church that once blessed the flames became a victim of them.

Step inside afterward and the air feels heavier, as if the walls themselves are still atoning. Maybe it’s Lisbon’s way of keeping the story honest — no whitewash, no denial, just stone and ash and memory.

Rebuilding, Remembering, Reclaiming São Domingos

Lisbon has a complicated relationship with ruin. It’s a city that’s burned, crumbled and drowned more times than seems fair — yet it always finds a way to look good doing it. After the devastating 1755 earthquake, much of Lisbon was rebuilt with Enlightenment precision: straight boulevards, orderly plazas, symmetrical façades — all courtesy of the Marquês de Pombal (Marquis of Pombal), who refused to let chaos have the final word. But São Domingos never quite conformed.

When fire tore through the church in 1959, the city could’ve easily restored it to its former Baroque bling. Instead, Cardinal Manuel Gonçalves Cerejeira, the Patriarch of Lisbon at the time, made the startling decision to leave the damage visible. He wanted the church to stand as a monument to survival — a spiritual scar that reminded worshippers of both faith and fragility. 

In the days after the fire, thousands of Lisboetas crowded around the smoldering ruins, stunned by what they saw. The interior that had once hosted royal weddings and state funerals was gone, its marble columns cracked and its altars reduced to cinders. Yet amid the shock, something shifted — the city seemed to accept the ruin as part of itself. When rebuilding began, Lisbon’s leaders chose not to repaint or replaster. The church’s new status as a National Monument cemented that choice, enshrining the damage as a public act of remembrance.

The heat had cracked the limestone, buckled the arches, and scorched the marble into shades of rust and rose. Replastering it would’ve been like putting concealer on a masterpiece.

So the charred stone stayed. Workers reinforced the structure but left the burn marks as they were, creating an atmosphere that feels halfway between holy and haunted. It’s not “beautiful” in the traditional sense, but it’s impossible to forget. The decision echoed another Lisbon landmark: the Carmo Convent, whose roof collapsed in the same 1755 quake and was never rebuilt. It now houses the Carmo Archaeological Museum, a stunning open-air ruin that, like São Domingos, celebrates what survived rather than what was lost.

Both spaces — Carmo’s skeletal Gothic arches and São Domingos’s fire-blistered vaults — speak to the same Lisbon instinct: to remember through ruin. There’s a kind of integrity in that — a refusal to rewrite history with fresh paint. Walk into São Domingos today and you can still see the melted lines where gilding once was, like ghosts of devotion past. 

A Living Testament

Step inside São Domingos on any given morning and you’ll find people lighting candles in front of walls that look like they’ve survived the apocalypse. The soot stains catch the flicker of each flame. Tourists wander in hushed awe, cameras half-lowered as if they’re intruding on something sacred. Locals cross themselves and sit quietly, lost in prayer. 

If you look closely, the worst fire damage still clings to the area around the high altar — the spot where the 1959 blaze began. The marble floor still gleams in places, though time has softened its edges.

There’s a quiet honesty here. In a city famous for azulejos and ornament, São Domingos doesn’t try to impress you. It doesn’t sparkle or hide the damage. It simply endures. That’s its sermon.

A statue of the Virgin Mary as Our Lady of the Rosary

The Church That Refused to Hide Its Pain

Lisbon does polished beautifully — the colorful façades, the shiny blue tiles, the pastry cases that look like art installations. But São Domingos offers something braver. It’s a church that said no to cosmetic miracles, a reminder that survival itself can be sacred.

Maybe that’s what makes it unforgettable. The gold is gone, the glory has burned away, and yet what’s left feels closer to the truth — the raw, cracked heart of a city that refuses to give up. Lisbon rebuilt itself a dozen times over, but here, at São Domingos, it decided to remember instead. 

Visiting São Domingos 

You’ll find Igreja de São Domingos tucked just off Rossio Square, in the Largo de São Domingos, where locals queue for ginjinha (Lisbon’s famous cherry liqueur) right outside its doors. It’s hard to miss — the façade is stately but unassuming, the real drama waiting inside.

Hours: The church is usually open daily from 7:30 a.m. to 7 p.m., and entry is free. Early morning or late afternoon is best if you want to feel the light shifting across the walls. –Wally

Igreja de São Domingos

Largo São Domingos
1150-320 Lisboa
Portugal

 

Controversial Theories of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot’s Wife and His Daughters’ Incest

Long held up as a reason God hates gays, the Bible’s tale of Sodom and Gomorrah is soaked in fire, lust and cruelty — and its true meaning might not be what you expect.

The tale of Sodom and Gomorrah is so disturbing, I have to imagine it’s skipped over in Sunday school.

We read parts of the Bible as literature in my Honors English class (it was the ’80s, and it was in California). I couldn’t believe what I was reading: attempted gang rape of a couple of angels, a father offering his daughters to be raped instead, a city wiped out by fire from heaven, and a woman killed in a bizarre fashion for daring to look back on the destruction of her city. And all that’s before the insane incest episode.

If the men of your town want to gang rape a couple of angels, you could offer up your virgin daughters instead, like Lot did.

The Story of Sodom and Gomorrah Retold

The tragic tale of Sodom and Gomorrah begins with Abraham receiving three visitors near his tent (Genesis 18:1–2). One is presented as the Lord himself, the others as angelic messengers. (Follow the link if you’re curious about what God looks like, according to descriptions in the Bible.)

After announcing that Abraham’s barren wife Sarah will bear a son, the conversation shifts:

“Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me” (Genesis 18:20–21).

It’s Noah’s Ark and the Flood all over again.

But Abraham does something no one expects: He bargains with God. “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?” he demands. Starting at 50 innocents, Abraham haggles down, until God finally agrees that if 10 righteous people can be found, the cities will be spared. Spoiler: It’s not looking good.

Two angels arrive at Sodom in the evening. Lot, Abraham’s nephew, sees them at the city gate and insists they stay at his house. Hospitality is a sacred duty in the ancient world — it involved food, shelter and protection for strangers.

RELATED: What did angels and monsters of the Bible actually look like?

But soon the men of the city surround Lot’s house and demand, “Bring them out to us, that we may know them” (Genesis 19:5). The Hebrew verb yadaʿ (“to know”) can mean simply “to be acquainted,” but this is unmistakably a sexual context: The crowd is demanding sexual access to the strangers — in plain terms, a gang rape.

Lot steps outside and does the unthinkable. “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please” (Genesis 19:7–8). In protecting his guests, Lot offers his own innocent daughters to the mob. It’s one of the Bible’s most horrifying moral reversals: The sacred code of hospitality is upheld by sacrificing family.

The crowd surges forward, but the angels intervene. They strike the men blind and warn Lot: Gather your family, because the city is about to be destroyed. Lot hesitates, so the angels drag him, his wife and his daughters outside the city and command them not to look back.

Then comes the fire and brimstone:

“The Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground” (Genesis 19:24–25).

As they flee, Lot’s wife can’t help herself; she looks back — and she is instantly turned into a pillar of salt. The text doesn’t explain why. We’ll get into that later.

By morning, Abraham looks down and sees the aftermath: The cities are ash. The people have been slaughtered.

Was the sin of Sodom actually not homosexuality, but inhospitality? That’s what a prophet states in the Bible.

What Was the Sin of Sodom, Really?

Ask most people what Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for, and you’ll get one answer: homosexuality. The very word sodomy was coined from this story. For centuries, preachers and politicians alike have pointed to Genesis 19 as God’s final word on same-sex relations.

But here’s the problem: The text itself is more complicated — and so is the Bible’s own commentary on it. Let’s break down the main theories.

1. The homosexuality reading

On the surface, it seems straightforward. The men of Sodom demand Lot’s guests be brought out so they can “know” (rape) them (Genesis 19:5). For traditional interpreters, this sealed the case — Sodom was destroyed because of same-sex desire.

This reading has dominated Christian tradition for centuries. Theologians from Augustine to Aquinas hammered it home. English law codified it: “Sodomy” became shorthand for outlawed sexual acts, especially between men. Even today, when someone thunders about “the sin of Sodom,” they usually mean homosexuality.

2. Inhospitality and cruelty

But later prophets in the Bible revisit the story — and they say something else entirely. Ezekiel, writing in the 6th century BCE, names Sodom’s real guilt:

“This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezekiel 16:49).

For Ezekiel, the problem isn’t sex. It’s arrogance, greed and cruelty to outsiders. Rabbinic tradition runs with this, imagining Sodom as a place where feeding the poor was a crime, and where cruelty to strangers was institutionalized. Michael Carden, author of Sodomy: A History of a Christian Biblical Myth, calls this the “counter-myth”: Sodom as the anti-charity city, not the gay city.

3. Sexual violence, not orientation

Another line of argument: The story isn’t about homosexuality at all, but about rape. The mob’s demand to “know” the strangers isn’t a request for consensual intimacy — it’s the threat of gang rape as a weapon of humiliation. In the ancient world, raping a man wasn’t about desire; it was about domination.

Scholars like Daniel M.G. Peterson (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 2016) argue that Genesis 19 is about violent abuse of guests, not a blanket condemnation of same-sex relations. Todd Morschauser (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 2003) adds that the real violation here is against the sacred duty of hospitality — a core social law in the ancient Near East.

4. Angelic lust and “strange flesh”

And then there’s Jude 7, one of the New Testament’s strangest verses. It says Sodom and Gomorrah “indulged in sexual immorality and pursued strange flesh.” What’s “strange flesh”? Some scholars, like Richard Bauckham, argue it means the townsmen were lusting after non-human beings: the angels. This ties Sodom’s sin to another bizarre biblical episode, Genesis 6, where “sons of God” mated with human women. In this reading, Sodom’s crime is literally interspecies sex. Philo and Josephus, Jewish writers of the 1st century CE, leaned into the same interpretation.

So which is it?

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: The Bible itself doesn’t give a single answer. Genesis suggests violent sexual intent. Ezekiel condemns arrogance and neglect of the poor. Jude hints at lust for angels. And later interpreters layered centuries of theology on top.

The result? Sodom has been weaponized in debates over everything from sexual orientation to social justice to migration. Which makes the story less about what really happened in some desert city, and more about what every generation wants it to mean.

Did a Meteor Destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?

Modern scientists have even tried to explain this “fire from heaven” literally. In 2021, archaeologists at Tall el-Hammam in Jordan argued the site was destroyed by a cosmic airburst — a meteor exploding in the sky with the force of a nuclear bomb. They pointed to melted pottery, “shocked quartz” (minerals only formed under extreme heat), and destruction debris. The resemblance to Genesis 19 was uncanny: an entire city leveled in an instant.

But in 2025 the journal Scientific Reports retracted the paper, citing flaws in methodology and dating. Critics warned the evidence could just as easily be explained by conventional fire. Still, the idea isn’t so far-fetched. Events like Tunguska in 1908 prove that airbursts can flatten cities. If something like that happened near the Dead Sea, it’s easy to see how storytellers would remember it as divine fire raining from the sky.

Don’t look back. You might get turned into a pillar of salt like poor Lot’s unnamed wife.

Lot’s Wife: Punished, Petrified or Politicized?

When fire rains down on Sodom, Lot’s family flees into the hills. The angels warn them not to look back. But then comes the infamous moment:

“But Lot’s wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt” (Genesis 19:26).

No explanation. No name. Just a glance — and she’s erased.

This hauntingly brief verse has spawned centuries of speculation, interpretation and flat-out weirdness.

1. The moralistic reading

Most traditional commentators take it at face value: Lot’s wife was punished for disobedience. The church fathers doubled down on this, making her the ultimate warning against nostalgia for a sinful past. Augustine in City of God saw her as an allegory for those “who set their heart upon the things they left behind.” In Christian sermons she becomes a cautionary tale: Look back, and you’ll turn to salt, too.

But this interpretation is shaky. Genesis doesn’t say she disobeyed an explicit command not to look back (only that the family should “not look behind you” in Genesis 19:17). Was one backward glance really enough to justify obliteration?

2. The misogynist scapegoat theory

Feminist scholars point out that Lot escapes with impunity despite offering his daughters to a mob, yet his wife is destroyed for… turning her head. Phyllis Trible, in Texts of Terror, argues the story reflects a patriarchal worldview, where women’s bodies and choices are more heavily policed than men’s. Her erasure is less about sin than about the text’s need to silence her.

3. Geology and topography

Mount Sedom is a giant salt diapir (an underground dome of salt pushed up by tectonics) that produces natural pillars as it erodes. One pillar, still standing today, is even called “Lot’s Wife.”

Geologist Amos Frumkin has studied the region extensively, showing how the salt formations collapse and reform over time. In 2019, researchers mapped Malham Cave beneath it — the world’s longest salt cave, stretching more than six miles. This landscape generates what might be considered women of salt. The biblical story may have been a myth grafted onto a strange geological reality.

4. Josephus and the “I saw it myself” school

The Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 1.203) claimed he personally saw her salt statue near the Dead Sea: “I have seen it, and it remains at this day.” He wasn’t alone — later pilgrims also reported a “Lot’s Wife” pillar, treating her as a literal tourist attraction.

But note: Josephus is writing centuries after the supposed event. Was he describing an actual salt formation — one of many human-shaped columns along Mount Sedom — or simply playing into readers’ appetite for proof?

5. The metamorphosis theory

Others see the salt transformation not as punishment but as mythic metamorphosis, a trope familiar in Greek and Mesopotamian stories, where humans turn into stone, trees, stars or other objects. Scholar Tikva Frymer-Kensky points out that in the ancient world, such transformations were ways to explain uncanny natural features. Lot’s wife isn’t so much executed as fossilized into story — the Bible’s version of a myth explaining why a salt pillar looks like a woman.

Why the Story of Lot’s Wife Still Shocks Us

Lot’s wife lingers because she’s the most human character in the tale. Who wouldn’t look back as your entire world burns? Yet the text freezes her into silence, her memory crystallized in salt. Whether you read her as a moral lesson, patriarchal scapegoat or geological metaphor, she embodies the story’s strangest truth: Sometimes the Bible isn’t about justice at all, but about the terrifying cost of looking back.

What do you do when you think you’re the last survivors of an apocalypse? If you’re Lot’s daughters, the answer is as twisted as it gets: Get your father drunk, seduce him, and call it saving the human race.

Lot’s Daughters: Desperate Survival or Smear Campaign?

The story doesn’t end with fire or a wife turned to salt. It takes an even darker turn. In a cave outside of town, Lot’s daughters are some of the most intriguing women of the Bible. They believe they’re the last people alive and decide they must preserve humanity. Their shocking solution? Get their father so drunk that he won’t know what’s happening, then sleep with him on successive nights to conceive children. As disturbing as it sounds, the plan works:

“Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. The firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab… The younger also bore a son and called his name Ben-Ammi” (Genesis 19:36–38).

Why is this story here?

On the face of it, this is a grotesque act of survival — women convinced that humanity has been annihilated, preserving the family line at any cost. But as most scholars point out, this is less about family drama and more about national smear.

1. A political insult
These names could be construed as insults in Hebrew: Moab = “From Father,” Ben-Ammi = “Son of My Kin.” The text is inventing an incestuous origin story for Israel’s neighbors, the Moabites and Ammonites. 

2. Echoes of trauma and survival

Some feminist and trauma theory interpreters argue the daughters’ actions should be read less as villainy and more as desperation. Trible calls them “victims turned perpetrators,” noting the way the text frames women as responsible for preserving lineage in a collapsing world. The fact that Lot is passed out drunk — silent, passive — makes him more of a tool than a father. In this reading, the daughters are both condemned and heroic, doing what’s necessary when the men fail.

3. Lot’s moral collapse
Readers often notice the contrast: Lot, once rescued by angels, is reduced to a drunken vessel of incest. He who offered his daughters to a mob now unknowingly fathers their children. It’s as if the text is saying: This man is no patriarch. His line doesn’t produce Israel but its despised neighbors instead.

4. Comparative myth: drunken fathers and cursed sons

Scholars like Frymer-Kensky point out that stories of drunkenness leading to shameful sex or exposure appear elsewhere in the Bible (think Noah and Ham in Genesis 9). 

Even in a book filled with violence and betrayal, this story stands out. Incest, intoxication, national insult — it’s as messy as myth gets. And that’s the point. For Israel’s storytellers, the worst thing you could say about your enemies was that their ancestors were born of drunken incest in a cave. For modern readers, it’s a reminder that not all Bible stories are morality tales. Some are propaganda with a razor’s edge.

Have archeologists found evidence of an actual city of Sodom?

Did Sodom Exist? The Archaeology Wars 

It’s one thing to read about sulfur raining from heaven. It’s another to try to find the ruins. For over a century, archaeologists and Bible-believers alike have gone hunting for the “cities of the plain.” The results? Charred ruins, wild theories and even a retracted scientific paper.

1. The southern Dead Sea theory
Back in the 1970s and ’80s, excavations at Bab edh-Dhrāʿ and Numeira, sites along the southeastern shore of the Dead Sea, revealed Bronze Age cities suddenly destroyed by fire. Ash and collapsed buildings looked like a smoking gun. Scholars like Paul Lapp and later Bryant Wood suggested these were Sodom and Gomorrah.

The problem? The dating doesn’t quite line up with when Genesis was written. These cities were destroyed around 2350 BCE, more than a thousand years before Israel’s storytellers put pen to papyrus. Still, for many, the fit was too good to ignore: real ruins for a fiery legend.

2. The Tall el-Hammam explosion

Fast forward to the 2000s. Archaeologist Steven Collins began excavating Tall el-Hammam, a massive mound in Jordan northeast of the Dead Sea. He argued this was the real Sodom — and in 2021, his team published a blockbuster paper in Scientific Reports.

The claim? Around 1650 BCE, Tall el-Hammam was obliterated by a cosmic airburst — basically, a meteor exploding in the sky with the force of a nuclear bomb. The story went viral: The Bible was right all along, and Sodom was nuked from the heavens.

3. The retraction bombshell
But science, unlike myth, has peer reviews. In 2025, the Scientific Reports editors retracted the paper after a wave of criticism. Other archaeologists pointed out flaws in dating, methodology and interpretation. Was there a destructive event? Probably. Was it a meteor? The evidence was inconclusive. And was it Sodom? That was wishful thinking.

In the end, the shovel hasn’t solved what the story means. Archaeology can uncover ash and ruin. But it can’t make the leap from disaster to divine fire.

Gomorrah barely gets its own story — it’s lumped in with Sodom, doubling the body count and amping up the horror.

Burning Questions About Sodom and Gomorrah

Taken as a whole, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is one of the most unsettling in the Bible. Abraham bargains with God, only to watch the city go up in flames. A mob demands to rape angelic visitors, and Lot offers his virgin daughters instead. His wife is erased for a single glance. His daughters seduce him in a cave and give birth to Israel’s future enemies. And hovering over it all is the question: What, exactly, was the sin that brought fire from heaven?

For centuries, most Christians have answered: homosexuality. Yet the Bible itself offers multiple interpretations — violent inhospitality, arrogance and greed, even lust for angels. 

What Sodom shows us is not divine clarity but interpretive chaos. The story has been a weapon, a warning, a myth to explain geology, a national insult and a theological Rorschach test. Every generation has found in it what it fears most: sex, strangers, arrogance, outsiders, women, enemies.

And maybe that’s the real controversy. Not whether sulfur actually fell from heaven, or whether a salt pillar still stands along the shores of the Dead Sea — but the way this story keeps being recycled to serve human agendas. The text itself smolders with a fire that never quite goes out. –Wally

MORE: Read controversial theories about the Tower of Babel

Jesus the Radical

Meet the Jesus you weren’t taught in Sunday school. How Christ’s message defied norms and continues to be misunderstood. 

If you grew up with a sanitized, polite version of Jesus — the one who smiled at children, patted sheep on the head, and delivered motivational speeches about kindness — you were misled. 

The real Jesus was a troublemaker, a rule-breaker, and a threat to religious and political elites. He was a man who told his followers to abandon their families, rebuked the religious authorities of his day, and welcomed women, tax collectors and sinners into his inner circle. He preached radical nonviolence while shaking up every power structure around him. And yet, modern Christianity has often sanitized him, turning a revolutionary into a figurehead for power-hungry, greedy, corrupt and close-minded institutions he surely would have condemned.

So, what did Jesus actually teach? And how has he been completely misunderstood? Let’s start with the ways he upended everything people thought they knew about God, religion and power.

How Jesus Was a Radical

He tore down religious authority.  

Jesus didn’t uphold the religious establishment. He wanted to dismantle it.

The Pharisees and Sadducees — the religious gatekeepers of his time — were obsessed with rules, from Sabbath restrictions to purity laws. Jesus? He ignored them. He healed people on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6), touched lepers, and even ate with “unclean” sinners. But he didn’t stop there: He actively attacked their authority, calling them “blind guides” and “hypocrites” (Matthew 23:13-24).

Perhaps the most blatant act of defiance came when he stormed into the Temple, flipped over tables, and drove out money changers with a whip (John 2:13-16). That was an assault on the entire system of religious corruption that profited from people’s faith. No wonder they wanted him dead.

He rejected earthly power (and made Rome nervous). 

The Jewish people were expecting a military messiah — someone to overthrow the Roman Empire and restore Israel’s glory. Instead, they got a man who rode into town on a donkey — yes, a humble beast, but also a deliberate nod to prophecy. Their savior wasn’t a warrior, though; he told people to “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) and “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:39). What a letdown.

Jesus’ entire Kingdom of God message was subversive because it challenged both Rome and Jewish leadership. When people tried to trap him by asking if they should pay taxes, Jesus delivered his famous line: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12:17). It wasn’t just a clever dodge; it was a denial of Rome’s ultimate authority. His kingdom wasn’t built on armies and taxes, but on justice, mercy and radical love. That made him a political liability.

He told people to abandon their families. 

This one rarely makes it into the warm-and-fuzzy Jesus narrative. Jesus wasn’t about family values — at least, not in the traditional sense.

He explicitly told people to leave their families behind if they wanted to follow him:

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters — yes, even their own life — such a person cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

Hate your parents? That’s… extreme. But Jesus wasn’t advocating literal hatred; he was saying that loyalty to God’s kingdom had to come first, even before family obligations. In a society where family was everything, this was shockingly countercultural.

And when someone told him, “Hey, I’ll follow you, but first let me go bury my father,” Jesus replied, “Let the dead bury their own dead” (Luke 9:60). Translation: No excuses. This mission is urgent. Of course he did think the end times were going to happen within his lifetime. 

He elevated women in a society that saw them as inferior. 

Women in first-century Judea weren’t exactly treated as equals. They couldn’t testify in court, they were largely excluded from religious leadership, and they were often considered property. Yet Jesus shattered these norms.

• He taught women as disciples (Luke 10:38-42), something unheard of for a Jewish rabbi.

• He defended a woman caught in adultery from being stoned, challenging a law everyone accepted (John 8:1-11).

• He spoke to a Samaritan woman at a well (John 4:7-26), ignoring racial, gender and religious taboos in one go.

• Mary Magdalene, not Peter nor any other male disciple, was the first to witness and proclaim his resurrection (John 20:11-18).

In a culture where a woman’s testimony was considered worthless, Jesus entrusted the most important message in Christian history to a woman. If that’s not radical, what is?

How Jesus Is Misunderstood Today

He wasn’t a champion of organized religion. 

Ironically, many churches today function like the Pharisees — obsessed with rules, hierarchy and institutional power. But Jesus was against organized religion; he was about tearing down barriers between people and God.

When he said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27), he was dismantling the idea that religious rituals were more important than people. Today, some Christian institutions do the opposite — using doctrine to exclude, judge or control.

Jesus’ kingdom wasn’t about political power. 

Some modern groups try to hijack Jesus for political agendas — whether it’s nationalism, capitalism or theocracy. But Jesus never sought earthly power. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36), which means he wasn’t interested in ruling governments.

Any time Jesus is used to justify violence, nationalism or oppression, we’ve strayed far from his teachings.

Christianity has made Jesus more about rules than love. 

Jesus didn’t say, Follow these 613 laws and you’ll be saved. He said, Love God and love your neighbor — that’s the whole deal (Matthew 22:37-40). But over time, his message got lost in a maze of rules, shame and endless theological debates about who’s in and who’s out.

The irony? Jesus spent most of his time calling out religious folks for their obsession with rules while embracing the most marginalized people in society.

Reclaiming the Radical Jesus

The real Jesus wasn’t a goody-goody figurehead of religion — he was a revolutionary who upended the status quo. He was killed precisely because he was a threat to those holding religious and political power.

Those who follow him should reject the sanitized, institutionalized version of Jesus and embrace the radical, table-flipping, rule-breaking teacher who challenged authority, welcomed the outcasts, and preached a love so dangerous it got him executed.

So the question is: Are we following the real Jesus, or just a comfortable version of him? –Wally

Fierce, Flawed and Faithful: The Boldest Women of the Bible

Meet the women of the Bible who defied kings, led armies, seduced heroes, saved nations — and rewrote the rules. From Jezebel and Bathsheba to Deborah and Delilah, these are the stories of power, survival and divine disruption.

When people picture women in the Bible, they often imagine quiet obedience, gentle kindness or domestic virtue. But crack open the text, and you’ll find something far juicier: prophets, rebels, assassins, queens and seductresses. These are women who changed the course of history — whether scripture painted them as saints or sinners.

Some were praised, others demonized. Some saved lives with wisdom or loyalty. Others spilled blood without blinking. But one thing’s for sure: None of them were forgettable.

So let’s meet the fiercest women in the Bible: the faithful, the flawed and the downright fearsome.

“These women weren’t just background characters. They were prophets, plotters, protectors and provocateurs.

Some were praised. Others were punished. All of them left a mark.”

Righteous Rebels

These women broke the rules to do what was right — even when the world was stacked against them.

Shiphrah and Puah

The midwives who quietly launched a revolution

Bible Verses: Exodus 1:15–21

What They Did: When Pharaoh demanded the death of every Hebrew baby boy, these two women — likely low-status midwives — flatly refused. Instead of violence, they used wit, telling Pharaoh that Hebrew women gave birth too quickly for them to intervene. Their rebellion allowed a generation of children — including Moses — to live.

Modern Take: In a time when midwives had little social power, Shiphrah and Puah used the only weapon available: their word. Their civil disobedience predates Moses’ leadership and reminds us that revolutions often begin with women operating behind the scenes. Historically, midwives were both caretakers and quiet community leaders. Their defiance speaks to moral courage — choosing life over law in the face of a brutal regime.

Tamar

The widow who outplayed a patriarch — and won her place in history

Bible Verses: Genesis 38

What She Did: Twice widowed by the sons of Judah, Tamar was promised a third husband — but her father-in-law failed to deliver. Taking matters into her own hands, she disguised herself as a prostitute and slept with Judah. When she was found pregnant, he ordered her execution — until she produced his own staff and ring as proof of paternity. Judah, stunned, admits, “She is more righteous than I.”

Modern Take: Tamar’s actions are morally complex but deeply rooted in justice. In a system that left widows vulnerable and childless women powerless, she navigated patriarchal structures with strategy and nerve. From a historical lens, she subverted the levirate marriage laws — which stated that if a man died without children, his brother or another close male relative was expected to marry the widow — to claim her rightful place. Her story is one of resilience and survival: a woman taking back agency in a rigged game. Notably, she becomes an ancestor of King David and Jesus, canonizing her in the royal line.

Ruth

The loyal outsider who played the long game

Bible Verses: Book of Ruth

What She Did: After losing her husband, Ruth makes a bold choice: She refuses to abandon her mother-in-law, Naomi, and travels with her to Judah. To survive, she gathers leftover grain from fields — a practice called gleaning, where the poor could pick up scraps after harvest. Her loyalty and grit catch the attention of Boaz, a wealthy landowner and relative of Naomi. Ruth later approaches him at night and proposes marriage — a daring move that leads to a new beginning and places her in the lineage of King David.

Modern Take: Ruth’s story is often cast as sweet and romantic, but beneath the surface lies a tale of calculated risk and social navigation. As a Moabite, she was a foreigner and likely looked down upon. But she used cultural customs — gleaning, kinship ties, levirate marriage — to secure a future. Historically, her story challenged ideas of purity and inclusion. She represents the emotional strength of caretaking and long-term resilience.

Rahab

The outsider who brokered salvation with scarlet thread

Bible Verses: Joshua 2; Hebrews 11:31

What She Did: Rahab, a Canaanite sex worker living on the edge — literally, her home was built into Jericho’s city wall — welcomed two Israelite spies into her house and hid them under stalks of flax on her roof. When the king’s men came knocking, she coolly lied through her teeth, saying the spies had already left. Then she cut a deal: If she helped them escape, they’d spare her and her family when the Israelites conquered Canaan. Her one condition? “Tie a scarlet cord in the window” — a bright, bloody thread of survival hanging from the same place where she’d once advertised her services. And when Jericho crumbled, hers was the only household left standing.

Modern Take: Rahab embodies the cunning of marginalized people who work outside the system to survive. While labeled a prostitute, she displays diplomatic skill, foresight and shrewd negotiation. In the New Testament, Rahab is actually praised for her faith and included in Jesus’ genealogy, highlighting the Bible’s complicated relationship with female outsiders. Her courage in the face of annihilation marks her as a figure of radical faith.

The Syrophoenician Woman

The woman who changed Jesus’ mind

Bible Verses: Mark 7:24–30; Matthew 15:21–28

What She Did: A non-Jewish woman asks Jesus to heal her daughter. He rebuffs her, saying it’s not right to give the children’s bread to the dogs. She replies, “Even the dogs eat the crumbs under the table.” Jesus is impressed — and heals her daughter.

Modern Take: This exchange is one of the most shocking in the Gospels. A woman, doubly marginalized by ethnicity and gender, challenges Jesus — and wins. From a cultural standpoint, her story exposes deep prejudices of the time, including those Jesus himself inherited. It’s a moment of boundary-pushing faith, persistence and maternal desperation. Theologically, it’s a turning point that expands the scope of Jesus’s mission — and it happens because a woman insisted she mattered.

Delilah

The seductress who toppled a legend

Bible Verses: Judges 16

What She Did: The Philistine rulers knew brute force couldn’t bring Samson down. So they turned to something more dangerous: a woman with motive and access. They promised Delilah a king’s ransom if she could uncover the secret of his strength. She smiled. She agreed. Then she got to work. Night after night, she coaxed and teased, feigned frustration, and tested his love with lies of her own. “Tell me,” she whispered, as he lay tangled in her lap. And every time he fed her a false answer, she sprang the trap — watching as Philistine guards failed again and again. But she didn’t give up. Delilah was patient. She made betrayal feel like affection. Eventually, Samson cracked. He told her the truth: His hair had never been cut. It was his covenant with God. That night, he fell asleep with his head in her lap. She summoned a barber. The scissors whispered. The covenant snapped. And by morning, the man who had once torn lions apart was blind, bound, and defeated.

Modern Take: Delilah is usually cast as a cold-hearted betrayer, but we’re never told her motivations. Was it about money, survival or political loyalty? Unlike Samson, she wasn’t operating under divine direction — just practical, if dangerous, cunning. Her story is a study in how women’s power — especially when sexual or strategic — is often cast as villainous in ancient texts. She fits a familiar mold: the woman blamed for the downfall of a powerful man.

Lot’s Daughters

Survivors of Sodom with a disturbing plan

Bible Verses: Genesis 19:30–38

What They Did: After watching their city go up in flames, losing their mother in a pillar of salt, and seeing their fiancés vaporized in the rubble of Sodom, Lot’s daughters took refuge in a mountain cave with their father. There were no towns, no people, no future. Believing the world had ended, they hatched a desperate plan: get their father drunk, sleep with him, and repopulate the earth. One night at a time. One sister after the other. He never knew. Both girls became pregnant — and their sons, Moab and Ben-Ammi, would go on to found two of Israel’s most persistent rivals: the Moabites and Ammonites.

Modern Take: This story is more complex than it appears at first glance. It’s not just about taboo; it’s about fear, trauma and twisted survival instincts. Culturally, it also serves as an origin story used to discredit rival nations. But viewed psychologically, this is a trauma narrative: displaced, motherless and isolated, the daughters act in desperation. Whether you see their actions as horrifying or human, they force us to confront how messy survival can be.

Athaliah

The queen who killed for the crown

Bible Verses: 2 Kings 11; 2 Chronicles 22–23

What She Did: After her son, King Ahaziah, was assassinated, Athaliah seized power by executing the rest of the royal family — except for one hidden grandson. She ruled Judah for six years until she was overthrown by a priest-led coup.

Modern Take: Athaliah did what male monarchs often did — secured power by eliminating rivals — but as a woman, her actions were scandalous. Her rule is painted as a dark, wicked time, but she clearly held onto the throne with force and strategy. She may have been protecting her dynastic line (as the daughter or stepdaughter of Jezebel). Her reign reminds us how easily women in power are branded as unnatural or evil, especially when they don’t play “mother” or “queen” in the expected ways.

Herodias

The queen who silenced a prophet

Bible Verses: Mark 6:17–29; Matthew 14:3–11

What She Did: Herodias didn’t just marry into power — she remarried into it, divorcing Herod Philip to wed his half-brother, Herod Antipas. The move consolidated her influence but scandalized the region, and no one was louder about it than John the Baptist. He didn’t whisper, he shouted — from the riverbanks and beyond — that her marriage was unlawful. Herodias, humiliated and enraged, bided her time. That moment came during Herod’s birthday banquet. Wine flowed. Dancers twirled. Her own daughter took the floor — young, dazzling and magnetic. Herod was so pleased he promised her anything, even half his kingdom. Coached by Herodias, the girl made a simple, chilling request: “I want the head of John the Baptist — on a platter.” Moments later, the prophet’s severed head was paraded through the banquet hall like a party favor. 

Modern Take: Herodias is often reduced to a manipulative villain, but she was defending her position in a fragile political marriage. John the Baptist was attacking the legitimacy of her union. In ancient honor-based societies, public shame could be fatal. While her methods were brutal, they weren’t out of place in Herodian politics. Her story underscores how women were forced to wield indirect power — often through spectacle, scandal or seduction — because direct influence wasn’t allowed.

Prophets, Leaders and Warriors

They spoke for God, commanded armies, interpreted law, or held entire kingdoms together — often in sandals, not armor.

Deborah

The prophetess who led from both the palm tree and the battlefield

Bible Verses: Judges 4–5

What She Did: Deborah was both a prophet and a judge — meaning she settled disputes, delivered divine messages, and led Israel during one of its most chaotic eras. She summoned the general Barak to battle and foretold that a woman (not him) would get the glory. Spoiler: She was right.

Modern Take: Deborah is often treated as an exception to the rule. But maybe she just proves the rules were never the point. She’s not framed as masculine or controversial; she simply leads, with wisdom and clarity. Her story challenges the idea that women in ancient Israel were always silent or sidelined. Historically, her rise may reflect periods when traditional structures collapsed and leadership was open to those with proven charisma and vision — regardless of gender.

Jael

The housewife who nailed it — literally

Bible Verses:: Judges 4–5

What She Did: After the Canaanite general Sisera fled the battlefield, he sought shelter in Jael’s tent. She welcomed him, gave him milk, waited until he slept — and then drove a tent peg through his skull.

Modern Take: Jael’s act is both shockingly violent and deeply subversive. She’s not a soldier, but her tent is her battlefield — and she uses tools from daily life (a hammer and peg) to carry out a political assassination. In ancient Bedouin culture, women often set up tents, so she used her own domestic domain as a trap. The story celebrates her action without moral panic — unusual for biblical violence involving women. She’s framed as a hero, not a murderer. Think of her as the ancient world’s quiet avenger.

Esther

The queen who played the long game and saved a nation

Bible Verses: Book of Esther

What She Did: Chosen as queen for her beauty, Esther kept her Jewish identity secret — until the king’s righthand man plotted genocide. Risking death, she approached the king without invitation and, through a series of well-timed banquets and pleas, exposed the plot and saved her people.

Modern Take: Esther is often seen as a passive beauty queen turned heroine — but she’s far more strategic than that. She uses every tool available to her in a deeply patriarchal court: silence, timing, performance and, yes, her looks. Her story reflects the vulnerability of diaspora communities under imperial rule. Esther’s courage is slow-burning but explosive. She teaches us that bravery doesn’t always look loud — and that saving lives can sometimes start with throwing a really well-planned dinner party.

Judith

The widow who prayed, seduced and beheaded her way to freedom

Bible Verses: Book of Judith (in the Apocrypha)

What She Did: With her city under siege, Judith took matters into her own hands. Dressed in her finest, she infiltrated the enemy camp, charmed the general Holofernes, got him drunk — and decapitated him in his sleep. She returned home with his head in a bag, and the enemy scattered.

Modern Take: Judith’s story is so cinematic it’s almost unbelievable — which is why many scholars see it as historical fiction or parable. Either way, she embodies a radical blend of piety and violence. She fasts and prays before taking action, but once she moves, it’s swift and irreversible. Her tale has inspired centuries of art — and fear. She’s the kind of woman whose name never got dragged through the mud because she left no room for interpretation. She was both sword and salvation.

Huldah

The prophet who interpreted a rediscovered scroll — and shaped reform

Bible Verses: 2 Kings 22:14–20; 2 Chronicles 34:22–28

What She Did: When a lost book of the law was found in the temple during King Josiah’s reign, the officials didn’t go to a priest; they went to Huldah. She read it, confirmed its authenticity, and prophesied destruction for Judah — but peace for Josiah because of his humility.

Modern Take: Huldah was a recognized religious authority at a time when prophets like Jeremiah were also active. That’s a big deal. She shows us that literate, spiritual women had real influence in ancient Judah. Her brief story reveals how women’s voices were, at times, the final word. In a world that often forgets female scholars, Huldah remains a quiet but powerful counterpoint.

Women of Wisdom and Influence

They weren’t always the ones with swords or scrolls —but they knew how to read a room, bend a situation and leave a legacy.

Abigail

The diplomat who stopped a king from bloodshed

Bible Verses: 1 Samuel 25

What She Did: Married to the boorish Nabal, Abigail intervened when David — still a rising outlaw — was about to slaughter her household in revenge. She rushed out with gifts and a speech so persuasive that David praised her wisdom, thanked her for saving him from a terrible sin, and, after Nabal died, married her.

Modern Take: Abigail is the master of de-escalation. She’s calm, strategic and fast-moving. In a culture where women’s voices were often private or domestic, she steps directly into a military crisis and changes the outcome. She represents the “wise woman” archetype: a kind of informal authority figure often embedded in households or towns. She also offers an early model of emotional intelligence and diplomacy. Also, let’s be honest: She traded up.

Bathsheba

From pawn to power behind the throne

Bible Verses: 2 Samuel 11–12; 1 Kings 1–2

What She Did: First introduced when King David saw her bathing and summoned her, Bathsheba is often framed as passive. But later, after their son Solomon is born, she secures his claim to the throne — by confronting David and collaborating with the prophet Nathan. She later becomes the queen mother.

Modern Take: Bathsheba’s story is often filtered through male guilt: David’s sin, Nathan’s rebuke. But read closely, she transforms. After enduring trauma and loss, she becomes politically astute. In ancient royal courts, the role of queen mother was often more powerful than that of the queen herself. She became one of the few women with real dynastic influence. Psychologically, Bathsheba reflects the shift from victim to strategist: someone who learns the system, survives it, and ultimately shapes it.

The Queen of Sheba

The outsider who tested Israel’s wisdom

Bible Verses: 1 Kings 10:1–13; 2 Chronicles 9

What She Did: The Queen of Sheba traveled to Jerusalem to test King Solomon with riddles, questions and wealth. She left impressed by his wisdom and court — but not before making a striking impression herself.

Modern Take: She represents global intrigue, cross-cultural exchange and intellectual power. Historically, she may have been a South Arabian or Ethiopian ruler, and her story reflects real trade networks between Israel and Africa. In some traditions, she and Solomon have a child together, starting royal lines across Africa. Her visit challenges the idea that all wisdom flows from men or from Israel. She’s the rare woman in scripture who isn’t a wife, widow or mother, but a sovereign in her own right.

Priscilla

The teacher who quietly shaped Christian theology

Bible Verses: Acts 18:24–26; Romans 16:3

What She Did: Priscilla, along with her husband, Aquila, took the eloquent preacher Apollos aside and corrected his theology — offering deeper instruction in “the way of God.” She is often listed before her husband, suggesting she may have been the more prominent teacher.

Modern Take: In the early Church, Priscilla stands out as a female intellectual. Not reduced to the common status of helper or hostess, she was a theological mentor. Her presence shows that women were deeply involved in the formation of Christian doctrine. Some scholars even suggest she may have authored parts of the New Testament (like Hebrews), though that remains debated. She represents a model of collaborative leadership and quiet authority in a male-dominated movement.

Phoebe

The deacon who carried Paul’s most important letter

Bible Verses: Romans 16:1–2

What She Did: Paul introduces Phoebe as a deacon and benefactor (or patron), and entrusts her to deliver his letter to the Church in Rome. That means she didn’t just drop it off; she likely read and explained it.

Modern Take: Phoebe’s title, diakonos, is the same word used for male deacons. She’s the first named Church leader in Romans 16, and one of the few explicitly praised for her work. She reflects a Church still forming its structures, where women had space to lead. This makes us challenge assumptions about who held knowledge and who spread it — especially given how misogynistic the Church has become. 

Divine, Symbolic and Mysterious

These women act as symbols, archetypes and cosmic forces that stretch beyond history into myth, theology and metaphor.

Eve

The first woman — and the first to reach for knowledge

Bible Verses: Genesis 2–4

What She Did: Eve was formed from Adam’s side and placed in the Garden of Eden. She listened to the serpent, ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and gave some to Adam. The result? Consciousness, shame, exile — and, for better or worse, the birth of humanity as we know it.

Modern Take: Often blamed for “the Fall,” Eve has been scapegoated for millennia. But some see her not as wicked, but curious and courageous — a seeker of wisdom. Historically, her story has justified everything from patriarchy to childbirth pain. But reread through feminist or psychological lenses, Eve becomes a symbol of autonomy, awakening, and the cost of choosing freedom over obedience. The first to question. The first to act. And the first to pay the price.

Mary, Mother of Jesus

The vessel of incarnation who sang a revolutionary song

Bible Verses: Luke 1–2; John 2; Acts 1

What She Did: Mary accepted the impossible: a miraculous pregnancy, divine purpose and certain scandal. After the angel Gabriel appeared and told her she would conceive a son by the Holy Spirit — without ever having been with a man — Mary didn’t panic, protest or faint. Instead, this young, unmarried girl in a patriarchal society said yes to a destiny that could get her shunned, divorced, or even stoned. She visited her cousin and sang the Magnificat — a bold hymn that shouted revolution. She predicted thrones would topple, the rich would go hungry, and the lowly would rise. Throughout the Gospels, the Virgin Mary stays close: from the wedding at Cana, to the cross, to the fledgling early Church.

Modern Take: Mary has long been framed as the pinnacle of passive femininity: meek and mild. But a closer reading reveals something far bolder. She’s a teenage girl who says yes to a life-threatening calling, sings a revolutionary anthem about overturning social hierarchies, and endures the trauma of watching her son executed by the state. In many cultures, she has become a mother, queen, even goddess — a figure claimed by liberation theologians, artists, mystics and mothers alike. She’s a paradox: virgin and mother, humble and exalted, human and divine vessel. Mary holds the sacred tension between idealized womanhood and radical spiritual agency. She doesn’t just bear the Word; she becomes a voice in her own right, whispering comfort, roaring justice and outlasting empires.

RELATED: Artistic Depictions of the Virgin Mary

Mary Magdalene

The much-maligned apostle to the apostles

Bible Verses: Luke 8:1–3; John 20:1–18

What She Did: Mary Magdalene followed Jesus, supported his ministry financially, witnessed the crucifixion, and was the first to see him resurrected. Jesus called her by name — and sent her to tell the others.

Modern Take: Long confused with a prostitute (a smear introduced centuries later), Mary Magdalene was actually one of Jesus’ most loyal followers. She’s the only person mentioned in all four Gospels as witnessing the resurrection. Historically, her demotion from leader to fallen woman reflects the Church’s discomfort with powerful women. But in recent decades, she’s been reclaimed as a true apostle — equal in faith and insight. She was the first to preach the risen Christ. That’s not just symbolic. That’s canon.

RELATED: What Did Early Christians Believe?

The Woman With the Alabaster Jar

The one who poured it all out

Bible Verses: Mark 14:3–9; Luke 7:36–50; Matthew 26:6–13

What She Did: She broke an alabaster jar of expensive perfume and anointed Jesus, either on his head or feet, depending on the Gospel. Some bystanders called it wasteful. Jesus called it beautiful — and said her act would be remembered wherever the Gospel was preached.

Modern Take: This unnamed woman breaks every rule of decorum: She touches a man, pours out wealth, and interrupts a meal. But Jesus praises her more than almost anyone else in the room. Her story blends sensuality, sorrow and sacrifice. Historically, she’s been confused with other women or moralized into irrelevance. But she embodies a kind of devotion: extravagant, intuitive and unapologetic.

Wisdom (Sophia)

She who was with God before the beginning

Bible Verses: Proverbs 8–9; Sirach 24

What She Did: Wisdom is personified as a woman calling out in the streets, standing at the gates, and present at the creation of the world. She builds her own house and prepares a feast, inviting the simple to come and learn.

Modern Take: Sophia is both symbol and spirit — seen by some as a feminine aspect of God, by others as a poetic device. Her presence in Proverbs is striking: She’s active, vocal and cosmic, present at the dawn of creation. In Christian mysticism, she becomes a bridge between human reason and divine truth. For many, Sophia also offers a sacred feminine within traditions that often silence it. She echoes the ancient mother goddesses — not in open defiance of monotheism, but woven quietly into it. In this way, she becomes a goddess in disguise, allowing vestiges of female divinity to survive under the name of wisdom. Across Orthodox icons, Gnostic texts and mystical visions, she whispers of a God who speaks not only with thunder — but with intuition, mystery and grace.

The Woman Clothed With the Sun

A radiant sign of pain, power and apocalypse

Bible Verses: Revelation 12

What She Did: In a vision, John sees a woman “clothed with the sun,” crowned with stars and pregnant. As she gives birth, a dragon waits to devour the child. She escapes into the wilderness as war breaks out in heaven.

Modern Take: Interpretations vary wildly: sometimes Mary, Israel, the Church or divine femininity itself. But whatever she symbolizes, her imagery is intense. She labors while cosmic forces collide. She’s both vulnerable and protected, chased and exalted. Historically, she reflects ancient mythic tropes of the mother goddess and the serpent. Psychologically, she represents transformation: pain that brings new creation, radiance born of struggle. She’s the centerpiece of a celestial showdown.

Bible Study, but Make It Subversive

Sunday school left a lot out. It’s time to shine the spotlight on the women who flipped the script. These women weren’t just background characters. They were prophets, plotters, protectors and provocateurs. Some were praised. Others were punished. All of them left a mark.

Their stories remind us that the Bible is a wild, ancient tapestry of human ambition, courage, desperation and wit. And at the heart of that chaos? Women who dared to act.

So go ahead. Read between the (patriarchal) lines. Ask the uncomfortable questions. If you relate more to the bold, subversive, and violent women of the Bible (like Jael, who literally nailed a Canaanite general to the ground with a tent peg) than to the idealized, domestic “virtuous woman” described in Proverbs 31 — you’re not alone. –Wally

Controversial Takes on the Tower of Babel

Why did God really scatter humanity at Babel? A tale of ambition, jealousy, power — and the tower that dared to reach the heavens.

The Tower of Babel by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1563

The story of the Tower of Babel is one of humanity’s earliest and most ambitious projects — a symbol of both unity and defiance. 

In Genesis, after Noah gets drunk and curses his grandson Canaan, the whole world spoke a single language and, as people settled in the plains of Shinar, they devised a plan: “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens” (Genesis 11:4). Their goal? To make a name for themselves and prevent being scattered across the Earth.

But their ambition drew the attention of God. Observing their progress, he said, “Behold, they are one people, and they all have one language … and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them” (Genesis 11:6). And so, to disrupt their hubris, God confused their language, making it impossible for them to understand each other. The tower was abandoned, and the place became known as Babel. 

This brief but powerful narrative has sparked centuries of debate. What was so dangerous about this unified human effort? And does the name Babel hint at a deeper meaning? Let’s explore the surprising theories surrounding this ancient tale.

Turris Babel by Athanasius Kircher, 1679

Babel: What’s in a Name?

The name “Babel” plays a central role in this story, and its meaning has intrigued scholars for centuries. Genesis 11:9 tells us, “Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the Earth.” The Hebrew word balal, meaning “to confuse,” is a fitting explanation for the chaos that ensued when languages were divided. But there’s more to the name than a simple pun.

Historically, Babel is associated with Babylon, one of the most powerful cities in ancient Mesopotamia. In Akkadian, the word Bab-ilu means “Gate of the God(s),” which gives the story an ironic twist. What was meant to be a gateway to the divine became a symbol of divine judgment. Scholars like John H. Walton, in Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, suggests that the story reflects a jab at Babylon, a city known for its monumental architecture and imperial power.

In this context, the Tower of Babel may not just be a story of human pride but also a critique of Babylon’s attempts to centralize control and elevate itself to divine status. As the story unfolds, the name Babel takes on layers of meaning — confusion, divine intervention and the limits of human ambition.

From a manuscript of Rudolf von Ems’ Weltchronik, circa  1370s

The Tower: Architectural Marvel or Symbol of Tyranny?

What exactly was the Tower of Babel? Some see it as a simple architectural wonder, a testament to early human ingenuity. Others, however, argue that it was more symbolic — a representation of a dangerous kind of unity, one that leaned toward tyranny.

Scholars like André Parrot, in The Tower of Babel, point out that the tower could have been modeled after the ziggurats of Mesopotamia. These massive stepped structures weren’t just places of worship; they were symbols of power, often commissioned by rulers to display their authority and connection to the divine. In the case of Babel, the tower may have been a political statement as much as a religious one — a way for the people of Shinar (modern-day Iraq) to consolidate their power and make a name for themselves.

Bruce K. Waltke, in Genesis: A Commentary, takes this a step further, suggesting that the story represents a critique of human arrogance and centralized control. By attempting to build a tower “with its top in the heavens,” humanity was essentially overstepping its bounds, aiming to control not just the Earth, but the heavens, too. For God, much like with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and that tempting fruit from the Tree of Knowledge, this was an example of human overreach. It also revealed mankind’s potential for tyranny. The scattering of people and languages, then, was more about disrupting a dangerous concentration of power.

Was the Tower of Babel merely a marvel of human engineering, or was it a warning about the dangers of unchecked ambition and centralized control? The story leaves room for both interpretations.

Tower of Babel by Lucas van Valckenborch, 1594

A Test of Unity or Divine Jealousy?

At the heart of the Tower of Babel story is a question: Why did God intervene? Was it simply a matter of preventing human overreach, or was there something more behind his actions? Some scholars argue that God’s decision to divide humanity was a way of protecting us from ourselves, while others suggest it could reflect a more unsettling aspect of divine jealousy.

The Babel story could represent God’s concern over humanity’s growing self-sufficiency. By working together with one language and a unified purpose, humanity was moving toward a level of technological and social advancement that might have made us too self-reliant — possibly even eliminating the need for divine authority. The creation of numerous languages, then, served as a divine check on human ambition, ensuring that we remain dependent on God’s guidance. (I’m not sure why he hasn’t stepped in since, say, with the rise of AI.) 

In other words, God was acting jealous and petty. Whether seen as protective or punitive, the confusion of languages suggests that unity without divine blessing was considered dangerous. Was it out of care or control that God intervened? Scholars continue to debate the deeper motivations behind this ancient narrative.

The Tower as a Return to Eden?

Could the Tower of Babel have been more than just a display of human ambition? Some scholars suggest that it represented humanity’s attempt to re-create the unity they once experienced in the Garden of Eden: a world where they lived in harmony with each other and with God.

Phyllis Trible, in Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives, explores the idea that the Babel project symbolized a desire to return to the original state of unity that existed before the Fall. In Eden, humanity walked in close proximity to God, speaking a divine language, free of conflict and strife. By building a tower “with its top in the heavens,” humans may have been trying to reclaim that lost connection and regain their place alongside the divine.

RELATED: What Does God Look Like?

John H. Walton, in The Lost World of Genesis One, sees things a bit rosier. He argues that God’s disruption of the Babel project was actually a protective act. After the Fall, humans were no longer capable of re-creating Eden through their own efforts. God’s scattering of people and languages could be seen as a way to prevent a repeat of the Fall — protecting humanity from trying to reenter a paradise they could no longer access without divine intervention.

RELATED: Controversial Takes on Cain and Abel

In this light, Babel becomes a story about the limits of human power and the dangers of trying to forcefully regain what was lost in Eden. The scattered languages and divided nations reflect the reality that Eden, and its perfect unity, is gone — at least until a new kind of divine reconciliation can be achieved.

The Confusion of Tongues by Gustave Doré, 1866

The Role of Language: Tool of Power or Divine Gift?

Language plays a crucial role in the story of Babel. The multiplying of languages is God’s method of halting the ambitious project. But what does this division of tongues truly represent? Was it a curse to fracture human unity, or could it be seen as a divine gift, ensuring cultural diversity and preventing totalitarianism?

Some scholars think that the confusion of languages was a political move. By disrupting a single language, God introduced a tool that ensures division and decentralization, preventing any one group from gaining unchecked power over the world. 

In this view, language becomes a form of control. It prevents unified rebellion or dominance by any one people, a theme that would echo through later biblical stories of empires rising and falling.

Others, like Joseph Blenkinsopp in Creation, Un-Creation, Re-Creation, propose that language diversity could be seen as part of God’s larger plan for humanity. Rather than cursing humanity with confusion, the diversity of languages allowed for cultural richness, individuality and the development of multiple civilizations. This theory suggests that pre-Babel unity wasn’t a utopian ideal, but rather a stifling form of uniformity. The multiplying of languages, then, might represent a divine gift that celebrates diversity and human potential in new and unexpected ways.

Theological Implications of Babel: Was God’s Action Justified?

The Tower of Babel story raises profound theological questions about the nature of God’s intervention. Was the scattering of people and languages a necessary measure to protect humanity, or was it an example of divine overreach? Scholars remain divided on whether God’s actions in this story reflect wisdom … or an overly controlling approach to human progress.

Walter Brueggemann, in Genesis: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, interprets God’s scattering of the people as a protective act. He suggests that God saw humanity’s unified ambition as leading toward potential self-destruction. By disrupting their efforts, God prevented them from becoming too powerful and overstepping their natural limits, much like the consequences faced in Eden. As God observed, “Nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them” (Genesis 11:6). In this view, divine intervention was an act of mercy, keeping humanity from a path that could have led to another downfall.

On the other hand, David J.A. Clines, in The Theme of the Pentateuch, offers a more critical perspective. Clines questions whether God’s disruption of human progress was truly necessary. What if humanity had been allowed to continue its work, even if it led to failure? This view suggests that God’s intervention may have been a way to maintain divine authority, ensuring that humanity could never challenge or rival God’s position. In this reading, the confusion of languages represents a limit imposed by God — not on humanity’s safety, but on its potential.

These contrasting perspectives raise a larger question: Was God justified in scattering humanity and fragmenting their language — or was it an overreaction to a collective project that may have been doomed to fail on its own? As with many Old Testament stories, the answer depends on how you interpret divine-human relationships and the boundaries between freedom and control.

Tower of Babel by Endre Rozsda, 1958

Babel’s Legacy

The Tower of Babel story is often seen as a straightforward tale about human pride and divine punishment. But as we’ve explored, it’s anything but simple. From questions about the true meaning of Babel’s name to debates over whether God’s actions were protective or controlling, this ancient narrative touches on themes of unity, power and the human desire for greatness. Was Babel a symbol of technological tyranny, a return to Eden, or an expression of divine jealousy? Each theory offers new insights into the relationship between humanity and the divine.

Ultimately, the Tower of Babel reminds us that the limits placed on human ambition — whether through language or culture — aren’t just about division, but about the complexity of freedom. As people reached for the heavens, they were brought back to earth, scattered, perhaps not as punishment but as a way to preserve our potential for diversity, creativity and growth. 

The conversation around Babel continues — in a variety of languages. –Wally

Controversial Takes on Ham and the Curse of Canaan

A biblical tale of nudity, curses and divine justice, the story of Noah’s son and the curse on Canaan raises more questions than answers. What really happened in that tent?

Ham saw his father naked and told his brothers, who rushed to cover up Noah.

The story of Ham isn’t as well known as, say, the Creation or the Garden of Eden. But it’s a head-scratcher of a tale, where nudity, curses and the perplexities of divine justice intertwine in a way that only the Old Testament can deliver.

It begins in Genesis 9:20-27 with Noah, one of the few survivors of the Flood. Having planted a vineyard, he’s now enjoying a well-deserved drink after the harrowing events of the deluge. But this is no ordinary drink — he gets the first recorded hangover in history. Noah, in his post-apocalyptic revelry, indulges a bit too much and ends up sprawled naked in his tent. (Who hasn’t been there?) And this is when things take a bizarre turn.

“This isn’t the first or last time someone inadvertently witnessed a family member in an undressed state.

But in the world of the Old Testament, this act carries deep dishonor and disgrace.”

Noah survived the Flood, planted a vineyard, made wine, got wasted — and goes down in history as having the first recorded hangover.

RELATED: The Flood was a tale borrowed from another culture — and other controversial takes on Noah’s Ark and the Flood

Enter Ham, Noah’s middle child. He stumbles upon his father in this compromising position and unwittingly does something that’ll echo through the generations: He sees Noah naked. 

Ham stumbles upon his father naked — and all hell breaks loose.

The Indignity of Seeing Your Father Naked

Now, you might wonder, what’s the big deal? After all, this isn’t the first or last time someone inadvertently witnessed a family member in an undressed state. But in the world of the Old Testament, this act carries deep dishonor and disgrace.

The shame of nudity in this context isn’t just about physical exposure; it’s about a loss of dignity, a stripping away of the patriarch’s honor. Noah, as the father and leader, is supposed to be a figure of authority, respect and, perhaps most crucially, control. Seeing him naked, vulnerable and unconscious is a direct affront to this image. In the ancient world, where familial honor was paramount, this was akin to a serious breach of respect.

But Ham doesn’t just see his father naked — he goes and tells his brothers, Shem and Japheth, about it. Shem and Japheth respond by carefully covering their father, walking backward with a garment to ensure they don’t see his nakedness. This act of discretion starkly contrasts Ham’s behavior, which some interpretations suggest wasn’t an innocent blunder but perhaps a deliberate act of mockery or dishonor.

Good boys that they are, Shem and Japheth bring a sheet to cover their indecent father.

When Noah wakes up and discovers what Ham has done — or rather, what he’s seen — he doesn’t curse Ham directly but instead curses Ham’s son, Canaan: “Cursed be Canaan; the lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:25). 

Did Ham do more than just see his father passed out and naked?

Castration or Another Violation 

Some scholars, like David M. Goldenberg, have explored the possibility that Ham’s offense was far graver than a mere glimpse of his father’s nakedness. Ancient Jewish interpretations suggest that Ham may have castrated Noah or even violated him, which would explain the severity of Noah’s reaction. Though these interpretations are speculative and highly debated, they attempt to rationalize why Noah’s curse was so intense.

Poor innocent Canaan didn’t do anything wrong — but ends up cursed.

Was this story written later to explain the subjugation of the Canaanites?

Cursing the Canaanites

But why did the curse fall on Canaan, Ham’s son? One theory, as suggested by scholars like Bernard Levinson, is that this curse was a later editorial choice, designed to provide a backstory for the subjugation of the Canaanites by the Israelites. By cursing Canaan, the text offers a divine justification for Israel’s later actions against these people, weaving the story into the sociopolitical realities of the time.

Noah curses Canaan and his descendants.

The Naked Truth?

This story has been the subject of numerous interpretations, many of them controversial. Throughout history, it’s been used to justify various social hierarchies and even slavery, though these takes are now widely criticized. The notion of cursing an entire lineage for the actions of one man is as perplexing as it is unsettling, and it’s one of those biblical moments that leaves us with more questions than answers.

The tale of Ham and the curse of Canaan is a cautionary tale about the weight of family honor, the repercussions of indiscretion, and the enduring power of curses. It’s a story that reminds us that even the most righteous among us, like Noah, are far from perfect — and that sometimes, the consequences of our actions can ripple through generations in ways we might never expect. –Wally

Controversial Theories of Noah’s Ark and the Flood

Was the story of Noah’s Ark a real global flood, borrowed myth or moral allegory? Explore the debates and meaning behind this ancient tale of God’s wrath and human survival.

Strip away the storybook elements of passive animals and hopeful rainbows, and what you have in the story of Noah’s Ark is a tale of despair, destruction and desperation. It’s the ultimate doomsday scenario: a world gone so wrong that the only solution is to drown it all and start over. It all started with the Fall of Man and expulsion from the Garden of Eden, followed by Cain killing Abel — and it was all downhill from there.

The ark was a lifeboat in a sea of death, carrying the last shreds of a lost world. Maybe that’s why this story has stuck around — it forces us to confront the uncomfortable truth that sometimes there’s no easy way out.

“ Is the story of Noah’s Ark a memory of a cataclysmic event, a borrowed myth retooled to fit a single-god narrative or a timeless warning wrapped in allegory?

Maybe it’s all of these at once. ”

Scholars have wrestled with this tale for ages, debating whether it’s factual history, a symbolic myth, or an ancient legend borrowed and tweaked to fit a monotheistic agenda. Let’s look at some of the more controversial theories about Noah and his ark. 

The Flood Narrative: History or Allegory?

One of the biggest debates is whether this flood was truly global, drowning every mountain and valley — or simply a catastrophic local event blown out of proportion by time and retelling. 

The flood account likely reflects a significant regional event — a deluge so devastating it took on mythic status, argues Kenneth Kitchen in On the Reliability of the Old Testament. 

But not everyone’s buying the history angle. John Walton, in The Lost World of the Flood, sees the tale as an allegory dripping with symbolism rather than being drenched in reality. The story is best understood as an archetypal narrative, one that uses the motif of a flood to explore the relationship between God, humanity and the world. In other words, it’s less about the logistics of animal storage and more about delivering a moral gut punch.

Was There Really a Global Flood?

Essentially, it comes down to the million-dollar question: Did a flood cover every inch of the planet? Modern geology says probably not. Despite fervent searches for Noah’s Ark (we’re looking at you, Mount Ararat), the evidence just isn’t there. Geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman suggest the story likely originates from a massive but localized deluge, such as the flooding of the Black Sea around 5600 BCE. In Noah’s Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event That Changed History, they propose that this event was so catastrophic it burned itself into cultural memory, inspiring flood myths across multiple civilizations.

Borrowed Mythology: Gilgamesh and the Biblical Flood

Much like the Garden of Eden, the Genesis flood story has a striking resemblance to the Epic of Gilgamesh, which hit Mesopotamian bestseller lists centuries before Noah ever built his ark. In both, a divine figure warns a righteous man about an impending flood, instructing him to build a boat and save the animals. 

Essentially, the evidence shows the biblical authors took an old tale, stripped it down and rebuilt it with a monotheistic engine under the hood. No need for a pantheon of bickering gods — just one all-powerful deity making a divine point.

Why Did God Cause the Flood? A Divine Temper Tantrum?

The story of Noah’s Ark is often presented as a tale of divine judgment, where the wickedness of humanity becomes so unbearable that God decides to hit the cosmic reset button. But let’s pause and consider this for a moment: Wiping out nearly every living being on Earth seems, well, a bit extreme, doesn’t it? Surely there must have been a less apocalyptic solution. So, why did God do it? 

One could argue that the Flood was a manifestation of divine frustration — a sort of celestial temper tantrum. The ancient world was full of tales where God acted out of anger, jealousy or spite (often enlisting the monsters of the Bible to do his dirty work), and perhaps the Flood is another contribution to this tradition. 

In God: A Biography, Jack Miles suggests that the God of the Old Testament is still figuring things out, developing his character, so to speak. This was early in his divine career, and perhaps he hadn’t yet learned the art of conflict resolution without resorting to mass destruction.

Another controversial take comes from the notion that the Flood wasn’t merely about punishing sin but rather about purification, a sort of cosmic detox. Humanity (and perhaps that mysterious race of Nephilim), in its moral decay, had become so corrupt that a full cleanse was deemed necessary. 

Some scholars, like Jonathan Kirsch in The Harlot by the Side of the Road, suggest that the Flood story serves as a dramatic metaphor for the removal of moral pollution. The message here might be that extreme problems sometimes require extreme solutions — even if that means wiping the slate clean in the most literal sense.

And, of course, there’s the view that the Flood reflects the idea of collective punishment — a controversial concept to say the least. The innocent perish along with the guilty, a notion that seems at odds with modern ideas of justice. Yet, in the ancient world, where the actions of one could bring consequences upon many, this might have seemed entirely reasonable. Perhaps this is less a story about a wrathful God and more a reflection of the harsh realities of ancient life, where survival often came at the cost of others.

The Ark: Feasible Ship or Impossible Fantasy?

OK, let’s talk logistics. Could Noah’s Ark — roughly 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high — really house two of every species, plus food and water? Some engineers argue the boat’s dimensions are surprisingly seaworthy. In The Genesis Flood, Robert Briscoe claims the ark’s proportions would hold up even by today’s standards. 

But others are quick to point out the obvious: A literal interpretation runs aground when you consider how many species you’d have to accommodate. 

Some scholars argue that the Genesis story refers to broader categories rather than every specific species. Carol Hill explains in A Worldview Approach to Science and Scripture, that the word “kind” in the Hebrew Bible isn’t a technical term for species, but rather a more general grouping, perhaps closer to what we might consider families or genera. 

This might reduce the total number of animals to a manageable few thousand. Some literalists have suggested that young animals were chosen to save space and resources, as juveniles require less food and produce less waste.

Of Poop and Predators

Speaking of, the Ark was no small undertaking. Housing and sustaining thousands of animals for an extended period would challenge even modern engineering. Yet literalists argue it was feasible — with some creative problem-solving and, perhaps, divine intervention.

As for feeding this floating zoo, Henry Morris in The Genesis Record suggests that Noah and his family could have stored compact, long-lasting food like grains and dried meat. Carnivores could have been sustained on preserved foods, while herbivores would have been fed hay or something similar. This doesn’t eliminate all logistical challenges, but it helps the story hold together.

Sanitation is another frequently raised issue. Literalists propose that Noah’s Ark may have included simple yet effective waste management systems, like sloped floors to channel waste into designated areas. 

Some even suggest that God put the animals in a state of torpor (similar to hibernation), which would have reduced their movement, food intake and waste production. Lack of evidence aside, it could also explain how the animals all seemed to get along, and Noah’s Ark didn’t turn into a bloodbath. 

But the challenges extend beyond the Ark itself. Critics like William Stansfield in Science of Evolution cite the absence of evidence for the migration of species like kangaroos from the Middle East to Australia. Geneticists, including Francisco Ayala, have also pointed out that the severe bottleneck caused by such a small animal population would have led to genetic collapse in most species.

A Covenant of Survival: Rainbow or Repentance?

After the flood subsides, the skies clear, and a rainbow splashes across the heavens. It’s a warm and fuzzy moment — but there’s more going on here than just a colorful weather phenomenon. Claus Westermann, author of Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary, sees the rainbow as a divine apology of sorts: The rainbow represents not just a promise, but a shift in the divine-human relationship — a move from destruction to preservation. 

But hold the applause. Terence Fretheim argues the real takeaway isn’t just that God put away the smite button; it’s that humans are now on notice. The covenant is conditional, based on humanity’s moral conduct, shifting the focus from divine mercy to ethical living — with the threat of annihilation held over our heads if we don’t behave.

Flooded With Interpretations

The story of Noah’s Ark is like the Flood itself — overflowing with meaning, historical puzzles and theological depths. Is it a memory of a cataclysmic event, a borrowed myth retooled to fit a single-god narrative or a timeless warning wrapped in allegory? Maybe it’s all of these at once. 

But one thing’s for sure: This ancient narrative refuses to be boxed in. It has flowed through centuries, from ancient clay tablets to modern debates, each generation finding alternative meanings or raising new questions. Whether you approach it as fact or fiction, one truth remains: Noah’s Ark keeps sailing through our collective imagination, steering us toward reflections on faith, morality and what it means to endure life’s storms. –Wally

What Are the Nephilim and Sons of God in the Bible?

Exploring controversial theories about Nephilim and the lustful Sons of God. Were they giants, fallen angels, warrior kings — or aliens?!

They’ve confounded readers of the Bible for centuries: the Nephilim — those enigmatic giants who, for a brief moment in Genesis 6:1-4, stride across the stage before vanishing into the mists of time. What are we to make of these mysterious figures, and the equally shadowy “sons of God” who, it seems, were quite taken with the local ladies? If you’re expecting a straightforward answer, prepare to be disappointed — or delighted, depending on your taste for ancient mysteries.

“When the Bible says the Sons of God took any of the women they chose, there’s no indication that their consent was considered. Today, we’d call that rape. ”

Divine Romances and Giant Offspring

Back when the world was young, shortly after the Creation and the Fall of Man, humanity was multiplying, and somewhere out there, celestial beings were looking down at the burgeoning population of Earth. And what caught their eye? The daughters of men, who, according to the text, were beautiful enough to inspire these sons of God to leave their heavenly abode and mingle with the mortals. The result? The birth of the Nephilim — described as mighty men, heroes of old.

It’s a story that practically begs for elaboration, yet Genesis offers little more than a tantalizing sketch. Who are these sons of God? What exactly were the Nephilim — and why do they get only a brief mention before the narrative shifts to the business of the Flood?

The Dark Side of Divine Romance: Consent? What Consent?

Let’s not sugarcoat this: The sons of God in Genesis aren’t exactly the chivalrous type. When the text says they “married any of them they chose,” we’re not talking about a whirlwind romance or a fairy-tale wedding. No, this is more of a divine free-for-all, where the daughters of men were taken — emphasis on taken — with no indication that their consent was considered. Today, we’d call that rape. 

This little detail turns the story from a mythical dalliance into something much darker. It’s not just about heavenly beings mingling with mortals; it’s about power dynamics and the exploitation of vulnerability. The sons of God are exercising a celestial privilege, and the daughters of men are on the receiving end of a cosmic power play.

Some scholars argue that this part of the narrative reflects a broader theme of power imbalance — one that echoes through many ancient myths (including putting the blame on Eve in the Garden of Eden) and even into modern discussions about consent and authority. 

These divine beings, with all their supernatural power, saw something they wanted and took it, consequences be damned. And what were those consequences? Enter the Nephilim, the chaotic offspring of these unions, who were as much a symbol of the moral disorder as they were of physical might.

In this light, the Flood that follows can be seen as more than just a reset button for a world gone wrong; it could be a divine response to the abuse of power. The story’s about what happens when those with power overstep their bounds, and how, in the end, that kind of violation brings about its own downfall.

Sons of God: Angels Gone Wild?

But what exactly were these dubious creatures? One popular interpretation, especially in early Jewish thought, is that the sons of God were fallen angels — divine beings who, perhaps bored or rebellious, decided to have a little fun on Earth. 

This view is championed by the ancient Book of Enoch, a text that didn’t make the biblical cut but still managed to influence a lot of early Jewish thought. In Enoch, these sons of God were explicitly identified as angels who not only fathered the Nephilim but also taught humans all sorts of forbidden knowledge — think weapon-making, sorcery and makeup tips.

If we’re to believe this interpretation, the Nephilim were half-divine, half-human hybrids, giants whose very existence was an affront to the natural order — part of a roster of monsters of the Bible. 

Genesis 6 reflects an ancient belief in a world teeming with divine beings who sometimes overstepped their bounds, argues Michael Heiser, in his book The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible. The sons of God are best understood as members of the divine council who rebelled against God, leading to the corruption of humanity through their offspring, the Nephilim. This reading positions the Nephilim as symbols of chaos, a divine error that needed correction — cue the Flood.

The Nephilim: They Might Be Giants

Not everyone is on board with the angelic interpretation. Some scholars suggest that the sons of God were actually members of a ruling class — mortal kings or warriors who, through their power and prestige, were seen as godlike. 

In this view, the Nephilim were their offspring, not so much giants in the literal sense but towering figures in terms of reputation and strength. After all, Nephilim is sometimes translated as “fallen ones,” which could just as easily refer to warriors who fell in battle as to beings cast out of heaven.

The story is less about divine transgression and more about setting the stage for the Flood, agrees John Walton in The Lost World of Genesis One. He suggests that the Nephilim and the sons of God are narrative devices used to illustrate the moral decline of humanity. The story reflects the ancient Near Eastern understanding of kingship, where rulers often claimed divine parentage to legitimize their authority. The Nephilim, then, are not the literal giants of later myth but represent the corrupting influence of unchecked power.

The Legacy: From Giants to Modern Myth

Whatever their origins, the Nephilim have left a lasting mark on our imaginations. They’ve been linked to everything from the ancient Greek titans to the giant skeletons that pop up in dubious archaeological reports. 

In modern times, the Nephilim have marched their way into modern fiction, appearing as the heroic Shadowhunters in Cassandra Clare’s The Mortal Instruments series — proof that these ancient giants still loom large in our collective imagination.

They’ve even been co-opted by fringe theories and conspiracy buffs, who see in the Nephilim evidence of ancient alien visitations or secret histories suppressed by mainstream scholars. 

So, what are we left with? A tale of divine beings who might — or might not — have fathered a race of giants, a story that straddles the line between history and myth. –Wally

Controversial Theories of Cain and Abel

Why would God pit brother against brother — and what exactly was the mark of Cain? 

The tale of Cain and Abel reveals that it didn’t take long for sibling rivalry to manifest — and in a horrific manner. It’s a narrative of jealousy, fratricide and divine judgment. Yet, beneath the surface, this story is a theological Rorschach test, challenging assumptions about justice, fate and the very nature of God. Why did God favor Abel’s sacrifice over Cain’s? Was Cain always destined to be the villain? And does this story reveal more about human failure — or divine caprice? Scholars have wrestled with these questions for centuries, offering interpretations that range from moral instruction to thinly veiled critiques of the text itself.

“Believe it or not, in some Jewish traditions, Cain kills Abel by biting his neck.”

The Favoritism Dilemma: Why Abel?

The story’s most unsettling moment is also its crux: The two sons of Adam and Eve bring offerings to God, and one is inexplicably favored. Abel’s offering of “the firstborn of his flock” is accepted, while Cain’s “fruits of the soil” are rejected (Genesis 4:4-5). But why? The text remains maddeningly silent, leaving readers to puzzle over a seemingly arbitrary divine preference. 

Gerhard von Rad argues in Genesis: A Commentary that the lack of rationale is deliberate, underscoring a recurring biblical theme — God’s choices often defy human logic, much like the seemingly unjust suffering of Job.

Some interpreters, however, shift the blame from divine whim to Cain’s own shortcomings. In The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, Leon Kass suggests that Cain’s offering reflects his inner state: a heart not fully invested in his act of worship. The offering of fruit was less important than the spirit in which it was given, Kass argues. Cain, in this view, was the architect of his own downfall, his half-hearted devotion sealing his rejection.

Was Cain Set Up to Fail?

But was Cain ever given a real shot at divine favor? Some scholars argue that the narrative stacks the deck against him from the start. Robert Alter, in The Art of Biblical Narrative, notes that Cain’s name echoes the Hebrew word for “acquisition,” signaling his fixation on ownership and control — a precursor to his fatal envy. Alter sees this as foreshadowing, subtly positioning Cain as a tragic figure whose sin is less a spontaneous act and more an inevitable outcome of his character. 

An Allegory of Agricultural vs. Pastoral Societies?

The Cain and Abel story also serves as a lens through which scholars view broader social dynamics in ancient Israel. Cain, the farmer, stands in tension with Abel, the shepherd — a reflection of the historical friction between settled agriculturalists and nomadic pastoralists. 

Some scholars, including Julius Wellhausen in Prolegomena to the History of Israel (1883) and later Hermann Gunkel and Gerhard von Rad, have read the Cain and Abel story as a symbolic conflict between two economic ways of life: pastoral nomadism and settled agriculture. The narrative reveals a deeper cultural tension, with God’s favoritism elevating the pastoral above the agrarian; it’s a dig at the encroachment of settled civilization on nomadic traditions.

The Serpent Seed Theory: Was Cain the Son of the Devil?

Hold onto your fig leaves — this one’s a doozy. What’s known as the serpent seed theory suggests Cain wasn’t Adam’s son at all but the love child of Eve and the serpent. That’s right, some folks believe the snake in Eden didn’t just hand Eve a snack but also fathered a line of human-demonic hybrids. Move over, Maury Povich — “You are not the father” takes on a whole new meaning.

Proponents of this theory latch onto Genesis 3:15, where God curses the serpent and speaks of its “seed” being at odds with Eve’s descendants. They argue this wasn’t just symbolic but a clue that Cain’s very DNA might have been less than human. And that infamous “mark of Cain”? These theorists think it might have been serpent-like traits: scales, reptilian skin or slit-like eyes.

Mainstream theology gives this theory the side-eye, dismissing it as pure hogwash. But, rooted in fringe theological circles and esoteric traditions, this interpretation casts a shadow over the entire Genesis account, reframing the first murder as a cosmic battle between divine and demonic lineages.

How Exactly Did Cain Kill Abel?

The Bible keeps it cryptic, as though nudging readers to ponder over the messy reality of human conflict. Genesis merely tells us that “Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him” (Genesis 4:8). But the lack of details has sparked centuries of debate, each theory a reflection of the storyteller’s time and place.

The Stone

Many scholars, from ancient rabbis to modern theologians, argue Cain used a stone to strike his brother. This idea makes its way into commentary like The Legends of the Jews by Louis Ginzberg, where it’s suggested Cain saw the stone as both a weapon and a twisted reminder of the dust from which humanity was formed.

The Neck Bite

Believe it or not, some Jewish traditions add a far more primal touch. In these interpretations, like those found in The Talmud, Cain allegedly kills Abel by biting his neck. This brutal method underscores the story’s raw, animalistic nature — Cain attacks not with a weapon but with his own body, as if driven to murder by a more visceral rage.

A Sword or Tool

Medieval Christian artists sometimes depicted Cain wielding a crude sword or farming tool, suggesting he struck Abel with something close at hand, a symbol of Cain’s role as a tiller of the earth. This is the perspective you’ll see in certain illuminated manuscripts, where artists added their own medieval flavor to the story.

God’s Hand

An outlying theory, often linked to Gnostic or mystical interpretations, is that Cain’s anger somehow triggered a divine consequence. In these readings, Cain’s jealousy creates a rupture, allowing Abel to die without a physical act — almost as though God allows the anger itself to kill. This unusual perspective can be found in some early Christian texts, like those discussed in Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy by Alastair Logan.

Each theory reflects the cultural lens of its time. Whether it’s a stone, a primal bite or divine intervention, the lack of specificity gives the story a mythic quality, inviting readers to consider not just the act but the consequences of unchecked anger.

The Mark of Cain: Curse or Protection?

Driven by jealousy and anger after God favors Abel’s offering over his, Cain lures his brother into the field and murders him in a fit of rage (Genesis 4:8). 

After this horrifying act, Cain is marked by God — not as a curse, but as protection, ensuring that anyone who tries to harm him will face vengeance sevenfold (Genesis 4:15). 

And what exactly was the mark? The nature of the mark of Cain has sparked wild speculation, ranging from a physical scar to a distinct feature like darkened skin, although these later interpretations often twisted the mark into a symbol of racial or social stigma. In its original context, however, most scholars agree that the mark was likely symbolic, representing divine mercy and protection rather than any visible disfigurement.

Ancient Jewish and Christian traditions offer a variety of theories. Some rabbinic texts suggest the mark was a supernatural sign, such as a glowing forehead or even the Hebrew letter tav etched onto his skin. Early Christian commentators like Augustine speculated that the mark was a form of trembling or perpetual wandering — an internal affliction more than an external brand. 

But they all agree that the mark wasn’t a punishment. As Victor P. Hamilton points out in The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, the mark is a striking blend of judgment and grace, revealing a God who, even in the act of condemning Cain, extends protection.

In this way, the mark of Cain complicates the straightforward idea of divine punishment. The first murderer in biblical history isn’t cast out entirely; instead, he’s given a form of protection that hints at God’s ongoing commitment to flawed humanity. 

A Deeper Moral: Envy, Responsibility and Restorative Justice

At first glance, Cain and Abel reads like a straightforward morality tale about unchecked envy. God’s warning to Cain — “Sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it” (Genesis 4:7) — is often interpreted as a timeless lesson in self-control. 

But beneath this warning lies a story of complex responsibility. Walter Brueggemann, in Genesis: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, suggests that Cain’s fate remains unresolved after the murder, leaving room for redemption. He sees a God who, even in judgment, allows space for healing and transformation. Of course, God’s favoritism is what caused the entire ruckus in the first place. –Wally

---

MORE: Theories about the Creation

Controversial Takes on the Garden of Eden and the Fall of Man

Shocking alternative theories of biblical interpretation of Eden, Eve, the forbidden fruit, the serpent and original sin.

The Garden of Eden is considered the quintessential paradise — an untouched, idyllic realm where rivers flowed, trees bore fruit in abundance, and harmony reigned. At its heart stood the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, both laden with mystery and meaning. But was Eden a literal place, a symbolic lesson or something altogether different? Are you willing to take a bite of the Tree of Knowledge — and face the consequences?

RELATED: Did God Really Create the World in Seven Days?

Was Eden an Actual Garden?

The Hebrew word translated as “garden” (gan) doesn’t fully capture its significance. In fact, some scholars argue that Eden was more akin to a sanctuary or a royal park — a sacred space where divine and human realms intersected. 

For some, this shifts the narrative from a picturesque plot of land to a space designed for communion between humanity and God. If Eden is a sanctuary, it might suggest that this story is about something deeper — less about location, more about the intended relationship between humanity and the divine. Remember: God would hang out and take walks with Adam and Eve. 

RELATED: What Does God Look Like?

The Tree of Knowledge: To Be Godlike?

The Tree of Knowledge is central to this story — a tree that was off-limits yet irresistible. Putting this temptation right in the middle of the garden wasn’t the nicest thing God could have done. 

Scholars have long debated what the tree truly represents. Is it about moral discernment, free will or something darker? 

Ellen van Wolde, in Reframing Biblical Studies, argues that the Hebrew word for knowledge (da’at) implies more than just knowing good from evil. It’s about power, authority and wisdom traditionally reserved for the divine. The tree, then, may be less about moral choice and more about the dangers of encroaching on knowledge and power intended only for God.

East vs. West: Interpretations of the Serpent

The serpent slithers in as the story’s most cryptic figure. While popular culture casts the serpent as Satan himself, the original text never makes that connection. Instead, the serpent’s role is open to interpretation. 

James Barr, in The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality, suggests that the serpent is a trickster figure, a symbol of chaos and subversion found in myths across cultures (think Loki, Hermes, the Joker and Deadpool). 

Gnostic traditions even flip the script entirely, portraying the serpent as a liberator who offers true knowledge, freeing humanity from an oppressive deity. 

In many Eastern cultures, snakes are revered as symbols of wisdom, fertility and even immortality. For example, in Hinduism and Buddhism, the serpent (naga) is seen as a powerful, protective force — often associated with deities and cosmic balance. In Chinese mythology, snakes are linked to longevity and good fortune, with the snake being one of the 12 zodiac animals, symbolizing deep intuition and transformation.

Contrast that with the Western tradition, where snakes have often been portrayed as malevolent creatures tied to deceit and danger. This demonization largely stems from the influence of the Bible, particularly the story of Eden. Over time, Christian theology increasingly equated the serpent with Satan himself — despite the original Genesis text never explicitly making that connection. The idea solidified through later interpretations and religious art, reinforcing the image of the serpent as a vessel of evil.

This stark difference in cultural symbolism reflects a deeper divide in worldview. In Eastern traditions, the snake’s ability to shed its skin is seen as a metaphor for renewal and spiritual growth. Meanwhile, in the West, this same attribute is often viewed with suspicion, implying deception and the capacity to mislead — qualities emphasized in the Eden narrative.

So, the serpent’s reputation as a trickster in the Garden of Eden could be interpreted through a dual lens: one that either condemns it as the catalyst of humanity’s fall or respects it as an agent of transformative knowledge. 

There’s even a fringe theory about Cain and Abel that the serpent’s encounter led to more than just forbidden fruit — he’s suggested to be the father of Cain!

The Fruit: Apple, Fig or Something Else?

The forbidden fruit is widely portrayed as an apple, but the Bible is conspicuously silent on the specifics. Some scholars speculate that it could have been a fig, linking it to the fig leaves Adam and Eve later use to cover themselves (Genesis 3:7). 

Others suggest a pomegranate, a fruit rich in symbolism across ancient cultures, often associated with fertility and the underworld. 

Apples are originally native to Central Asia, specifically the area around modern-day Kazakhstan. They eventually spread to Europe, but they wouldn’t have been a common fruit in the ancient Near East. So how did apples become the go-to symbol for the forbidden fruit?

The answer lies in a combination of linguistic coincidence and artistic tradition. In the 4th century, when the Bible was translated into Latin, the word for evil, malum, closely resembled the word for apple, malus. This play on words may have led to the association between the apple and the forbidden fruit. Over time, Western art reinforced this image, depicting Eve handing Adam an apple in countless paintings and sculptures, cementing the fruit’s place in popular imagination.

Eden and Other Myths: A Remix of Ancient Stories?

The Garden of Eden narrative shares striking similarities with older myths from the ancient Near East, particularly the Sumerian tale of Dilmun, a paradise described as a place without sickness, death or  suffering. In this story, Dilmun is a garden blessed by the gods, where pure waters flow and all living creatures thrive in harmony. Much like Eden, Dilmun is portrayed as a utopia, symbolizing a world untouched by the corruption of mortality.

What’s fascinating is how these myths overlap and diverge. The Sumerian myth, which predates the biblical account by several centuries (the earliest versions of Dilmun date back to around 2100 BCE, as opposed to the Genesis story, which was written sometime much later, sometime around 580 BCE), emphasizes the idea of a divinely created paradise. Genesis, on the other hand, reinterprets this concept in a monotheistic framework. 

One key difference lies in the purpose of these narratives. While Dilmun is primarily a tale of divine blessing and the ideal state of life, Eden’s narrative centers on a moral test, the introduction of human free will and the consequences of overreaching divine boundaries. 

Another parallel is found in the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh, which contains a scene where the hero seeks a plant that grants immortality, only to lose it to a serpent. This echoes the Eden story, where a serpent plays a central role in the loss of paradise. The Epic of Gilgamesh, likely written around 1800 BCE, also predates Genesis and suggests that the themes of a lost paradise and a deceiving serpent (as well as a god-sent flood) were circulating in the cultural consciousness long before the Hebrew Bible was compiled.

The Fall of Man: Paradise Lost

We all know the basics: Adam, Eve, a serpent, a forbidden fruit and the catastrophe that supposedly cursed all of humanity. But what if this story isn’t just a cautionary tale of disobedience? Scholars have long debated whether the so-called “Fall” was a tragic mistake or a necessary event — perhaps even one destined from the start. Is this exile merely a punishment — or is it part of humanity’s necessary evolution? 

Traditionally, the Fall is framed as humanity’s catastrophic lapse — the moment Adam and Eve traded paradise for suffering, death and toil. But what if it was less about disobedience and more about the maturation of humanity? Elaine Pagels argues in The Gnostic Gospels that eating the fruit was a catalyst for growth. Rather than a “fall” from grace, the story can be seen as a necessary step toward knowledge and independence. The departure from Eden marks the beginning of human history, with all its ambiguities, tensions and possibilities. 

The garden may have been a place of bliss, but it was also a place of ignorance. Leaving Eden means entering the world of complexity — where knowledge, creativity and culture become possible. In this reading, the “Fall” is less a tragedy and more the first step toward becoming fully human.

In this light, the knowledge of good and evil isn’t simply a curse but the beginning of human moral consciousness — the first moment when humans took responsibility for their choices and lives.

Eve as the Scapegoat: Misogyny in the Making

It’s impossible to discuss the Fall without addressing Eve’s role. For centuries, she’s been painted as the original temptress, responsible for humanity’s descent into sin. But feminist scholars like Phyllis Trible in God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality argue that this reading is a distortion. Eve’s act is often presented as malicious and subversive, yet the text itself describes her as thoughtful and engaged in ethical reasoning. 

The vilification of Eve has led to centuries of misogynistic interpretations, turning her into a scapegoat for humanity’s flaws. A more nuanced reading might see Eve as curious, rational and willing to take risks — qualities that are both human and, in many ways, admirable.

Original Sin: A Later Invention

The concept of “original sin” — the idea that Adam and Eve’s disobedience condemned all future generations — largely comes from Saint Augustine’s interpretation, which heavily influenced Christian doctrine. But is this really what the Genesis authors intended? John Hick, in Evil and the God of Love, suggests that inherited guilt was an overlay imposed by later Christian theology. There’s no evidence that early Jewish interpretations saw the Fall as a hereditary curse, he argues. 

The original story, then, may have been more concerned with the inevitability of human frailty rather than branding all of humanity with perpetual guilt. The shift in interpretation has had profound consequences, shaping millennia of theology and human self-perception.

Exile From Eden

The tale of Eden and the Fall of Man is a story that has sunk its teeth into human imagination for millennia — a seemingly simple narrative of temptation and transgression that, upon closer inspection, reveals layers of meaning and controversy. 

From a sanctuary more akin to a divine throne room than a garden, to a serpent who might be more liberator than villain, and a bite that offered not just forbidden fruit but the bitter-sweet taste of knowledge and independence, this story challenges our notions of innocence, guilt and what it means to be human. Perhaps we never lost paradise after all. –Wally