GENESIS 19

This disturbing passage contains several controversial incidences. There is the whole question of Lot's character as it is revealed in this narrative, the exact marital status of his daughters, and what their subsequent actions say about their character. In addition, we see several parallels in this story to others in the Old Testament.

Genesis 19:1-11 This well-known story begins with Lot sitting at the city gate and greeting the angels-in-disguise. They reluctantly take up his offer to put them up for the night in his house, but then all the men of the town beat on the door and demand that he give up the “men” so that they can “know” them. He refuses and offers his two virgin daughters instead. When things begin to get serious, the angels blind the men so that they begin to wander around aimlessly. The major issues here are (1) what the men in town were after and (2) the way this incident reflects on Lot's morality or lack thereof.

Regarding the first issue, one school of thought takes the verb “know” in v. 5 to simply mean that the townsfolk wanted to talk to the strangers to find out more about them.

Sprinkle mentions that commentators as early as Calvin and as recently as J. Boswell have held to such an interpretation and that the real sin of the crowd was violating the custom of hospitality. As Sprinkle concludes, “Such a reconstruction is hardly sufficient, however.” For example, if that is all it means, then why does Lot call their request “wicked” in v. 7, offer them his daughters instead who have never “known” (same Hebrew word) a man, and why do the townsmen become so outraged by his refusal? In addition, the parallels in a later story recounted in Judges 19 (discussed below) point to a clear sexual component to their demand.

Hamilton says that the interpretation that “know” here (v. 5) means just that and no more is “wild and fanciful.”

Some such interpretations appear to be motivated by an obvious attempt to avoid associating homosexuality with sin in any way, shape or form. But that is really not at all necessary in this case since it is not homosexual orientation or practice that is the point of Lot's criticism of the men, only their very real threat of forcible gang rape.

Perhaps the most elaborate scenario to explain the situation and defend the actions of both the townsmen and Lot is that proposed by Morschauser (as explained by D.A. Carson). He starts out his interpretation probably correctly by stating that Lot's place at the city gates indicates that he is an elder of the town, but then rapidly descends into rank speculation. Lot's sole reason for not wanting the visitors sleeping outside is that he fears they may be spies and so he wants them in his house where he can keep an eye on them. But since Lot has not lived in the town that long, the other leaders of Sodom are suspicious and even think that Lot himself may be a spy. Therefore they demand that they be allowed to interrogate the visitors themselves. Lot refuses and becomes upset that they are questioning his way of dealing with the situation. And so he proposes that his two daughters be kept by the town leaders temporarily as hostages while he is allowed to proceed with his own interrogation. At that point they become really suspicious of his motives and refuse to cooperate.

Carson concludes Morshauser's scenario by saying: “What they are trying to do, against a recognized official, is simply anarchic, and God judges them for it. But Lot himself comes out as a righteous man who acts honorably throughout.” Carson then states that “even if part of Morshauser's reconstruction is correct, and even if in consequence Lot appears more righteous than he otherwise would, he remains a flawed figure.”

    Hamilton: “Lot's offer of his daughters is unsuccessful and unheroic even if he acts out of a desire for hospitality for his guests.”

    Wenham: “...presumably in desperation, he offers to sacrifice his virgin daughters to the lusting mob...Putting their [the visitors'] welfare above his daughters' may have been questionable, but it shows just how committed he was to being a good host.”

    Carr: “Hospitality is valued so strongly in this context that the text positively portrays Lot's offer of his virgin daughters in place of his guests.”

The bulk of commentators today do not feel the need to whitewash the actions of either Lot or the people of Sodom:

    Sprinkle: Lot tried to dissuade the crowd “and in a concession showing that he had been influenced by Sodom's ethical standards, Lot offered the mob his virgin daughters instead.” That was despite what was clearly God's will. See the later law: “Do not profane your daughter by making her a prostitute that the land not become prostituted and full of depravity.” (Leviticus 19:29)

    Payne: “...his offer of his daughters does him no credit...”

    Ross: “Ironically, Lot offered them his daughter to do whatever seemed 'good' (tob) in their eyes, but even this perverted good was rejected by those bent on evil...Lot is first a hypocrite, then a buffoon...and then passive.”

    Kline: “The warp given to Lot's spiritual and moral perspective by his unhappy choice of Sodom had distorted his judgment, producing vacillation and shockingly confused compromise.”

Genesis 19:12-29

This is an appropriate place to stop and ask about the marital status of Lot's daughters. In v. 8. Lot states that he has two daughters who have never known a man. In other words, they are virgins. But when the angels tell Lot in v. 12 to get hold of his sons-in-law, Lot does so (v. 14). In this latter verse we run into some ambiguity in the Hebrew language. The KJV says that these men had married his daughters while many modern translations say that they “were to marry” the daughters. Grammatically, this solution is possible.

Hamilton lays out three additional options for understanding the text:

    1. One extreme solution is to simply remove all references to “sons-in-law” in vv. 12-14 as being a later addition to the text. There is some manuscript evidence to support this approach. Additionally, as Wenham explains, the Hebrew text says “son-in-law,” not “sons-in-law.” This fact may also be used to support Option #3 below.

    2. Or one could say that they were betrothed to be married and therefore could be logically called sons-in-law. At least in later Judaism, it was common for a couple to undergo a period of time of celibacy between the engagement and actual marriage. The example of Mary and Joseph comes to mind immediately. Hamilton opts for this approach.

    3. A final interesting option is that Lot had more than two daughters and only the two unmarried ones lived in his house. Lot gets the husbands of the other daughters and they are the ones who laugh at him when he tells them to leave the city (v. 14). Therefore they stay with their wives and are destroyed in the fire. This interpretation may also help explain why Lot's wife looked back at the city as they were leaving; she was grieving for her other daughters. Of course, even that is no excuse for her actions; Jesus uses her as a negative example in Luke 17:32 when he says, “Remember Lot's wife.” Supporting this view, also held by Kline, is the comment by Lot in v. 15 that he has “two daughters who are here.” indicating that Lot had additional daughters living in town. (Wenham)

We get additional insight into Lot's character in verses 16-23. Grogan: In Genesis 19, Lot “revealed both his weakness and his inclination to compromise.” Even Carr is not willing to support Lot's subsequent actions: “Although Lot has been positively portrayed up to this point [most commentators would disagree], his repeated lingering compares negatively with Noah's immediate compliance with God's commands.” Regarding Lot's comment in v. 20, Wenham says, “Out of his own mouth, Lot proves himself to be fearful, selfish, and faithless.”

Genesis 19:30-38 The final scene in this chapter finds Lot and his two daughters living in a cave. They express fear that there are no men left on earth for them to have children by, and so they get their father drunk and are impregnated by him. Scholarly judgment on their actions is almost uniformly negative:

    Wenham: Like their mother, they too had imbibed a love of Sodom and its attitudes...The angels have rescued Lot and his virgin daughters from the Sodom mob; now they sacrifice their virginity and their father's honor when there is no actual danger.”

    Kline calls them “two Sodom-tainted daughters.”

    Dictionary of Biblical Imagery: “Although Lot takes his daughters out of Sodom, he does so too late to keep the impulse toward sexual perversion from them.”

    Payne: “The girl's actions well illustrate the corrupting of an evil environment such as Sodom.”

    Ross: “Those who have grown comfortable in the wicked city may retain its corruption.”

Some commentators add that what happened was really Lot's fault in the first place for offering up his daughters earlier:

Hamilton: “If he is so willing to turn them over as pawns to a sexually aroused mob, then they, when their chance comes, will not hesitate to get their father drunk and have intercourse with him.” Hamilton also tries to put a somewhat positive spin on the daughters' behavior when he compares their actions with those of Tamar (Gen. 38) and Ruth. “In all three cases a father or father figure becomes the one by whom the family is perpetuated. And in each instance the initiative is taken by a woman who offers herself clandestinely or by guile to the “father.”

And finally there are those who give little credence at all to the historical nature of this story. Thus, Blenkinsopp labels these verses as “the ethnic satire in which its [Moab's} incestuous origins are spoofed.”

Genesis 18

Looking at the previous chapter, we see some parallels here with Lot's story.

In the first place, as Lawlor says, “Genesis 19:1-3 stands as a clear parallel to the 'welcoming scene' of Genesis 18:1-5.” Both Abraham and Lot offer oriental hospitality to the three angels-in-disguise who have arrived.

In 18:9, the angels ask where Abraham's wife is, in parallel to their question of Lot in 19:12 regarding his family members. Then Ross states, “Whereas Sarah's laughter (18:12) was at God's word promising life, Lot's family laughs at a word warning against death (19:14).”

Genesis 18:22-33 recount a series of “negotiations” between the LORD and Abraham regarding the minimum number of righteous people in town needed to prevent destruction of the city. Abraham carries out these in a futile attempt to save those in the city. By contrast, Genesis 19:15-23 describes the several pathetic attempts of Lot to outline a better escape plan than presented by the angels in order to assure that his own neck is saved.

By the way, it is probably this section in which the number of “righteous” is concerned that caused Peter (II Peter 2:6-10) to label Lot as “righteous,” despite his many flaws. (Grogan)

Genesis 6-9

The Flood narrative forms another obvious parallel to the story of Sodom since they form the two major destruction accounts in Genesis. The actual flood story is bracketed by two similar incidents. In chapter 6 the improper sexual relations of angels with women is described (although there are other feasible interpretations of the text) whereas in chapter 9 there is an incident of dubious impropriety between Noah and his son Ham (again there have been many different understandings of this narrative). Turning to Genesis 19, it begins with an indecent proposal of a homosexual nature and ends with a case of incest between father and daughters.

The two opening events in the two patriarch's lives are similar, as Sprinkle points out when he references Jude 7. “Jude compares pejoratively what is probably the angel-to-women unions of Genesis 6:1-4 with the male-to-male lusts at Sodom.” The final recounted events in Noah's and Lot's lives are also the same in that both get drunk and are taken advantage of by their own children.

Between these bracketing events in both cases we have:

    God sees the “wickedness” of mankind in 6:5, and Lot labels the Sodomites' plans as “wicked” in 19:7.

    The same Hebrew word for “destroy” is employed in 6:13 and 19:13.

    Both men “find favor with” God (6:8; 19:19)

    Noah is labeled as “righteous” (6:9), as is Lot (as in II Peter 2:6-10).

    The offer of salvation is extended to the families of both men.

    By stark contrast, all of Noah's family is saved while not all members of Lot's are.

Judges 19

The parallels between this later account and Genesis 19 are too numerous to mention. As an exercise, you might want to compare the two side-by-side sometime and see how many correspondences you can find. Or you can just look at A.P. Ross' table of parallels in his fine book entitled Creation and Blessing.

Hamilton summarizes the situation as thus: “The canonical witness is that the sin of non-Israelites (Gen. 19) was practiced later on by Israelites, particularly Benjamites (Judg. 19). The sins of the nations become the sin of the chosen nation.”