Lot and His Daughters

by Nicodemus 11 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Nicodemus

  NOTE: I wrote what follows this introductory paragraph some time back on the “old” H2O. It may be of some interest here, in view of discussions on the “Read God’s Word the Holy Bible Daily” thread. The poster known as “Friend” had also participated on this old H2O thread, which will explain the references to his name.

  I've been following this discussion with great interest, and this latest thread got me to go back and look at the account carefully. To be honest, I have had the same question as to the propriety of Lot offering his daughters.

  In reviewing the context of the account (I started at the beginning of Genesis 18), there is another thought that occurred to me:

  In the course of an angelic visit, Jehovah brings up the subject of Sodom and Gomorrah. We read in the record of that conversation the following:

  Genesis 18:20-21
  20 Consequently Jehovah said: "The cry of complaint about Sod'om and Go·mor'rah, yes, it is loud, and their sin, yes, it is very heavy. 21 I am quite determined to go down that I may see whether they act altogether according to the outcry over it that has come to me, and, if not, I can get to know it."

  Abraham then pleads with Jehovah to save the city if a certain number of righteous men can be found. He negotiates the number with Jehovah, starting with 50. The account reads that, because of Abraham's pleading (and we must remember that Abraham is referred to in the Bible as "Jehovah's friend"), Jehovah ultimately declares that Sodom will be spared if even 10 righteous men can be found.

  The account next tells us that the two men, who it indicates were in fact materialized angels, enter Sodom. Abraham's nephew, Lot, invites them to stay at his home. What happens next is the subject of debate on this entire thread.

  Let's review the sequence, as Friend outlined it:

  Genesis 19:4-5
  4 Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sod'om, surrounded the house, from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. 5 And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: "Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them."

  Thus, while the entire group is still in the house, the men (and apparently boys as well, the Bible does not indicate a specific age) demand that the "men" visiting Lot be brought out to them.

  Genesis 19:6-8
  6 Finally Lot went out to them to the entrance, but he shut the door behind him. 7 Then he said: "Please, my brothers, do not act badly. 8 Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man. Please, let me bring them out to YOU. Then do to them as is good in YOUR eyes. Only to these men do not do a thing, because that is why they have come under the shadow of my roof."

  Lot exits the house, closes the door behind him, and makes his plea, including the offer of his daughters.

  Now, here's my observation. I believe that this event has to be taken in context with Jehovah's expressed willingness to spare the city if even 10 righteous men can be found. The account in Genesis 18 states that the two "men" had departed for Sodom prior to Abraham having his conversation with Jehovah. Thus, I suppose it could be argued that they had no direct way of knowing of Abraham's negotiation with Jehovah, neither would Lot necessarily have known about this. However, that argument would discount the operation of holy spirit, or Jehovah being able to maneuver matters.

  I believe it is possible that Lot's statements could have been directed by Jehovah, as part of his test to determine whether there were, in fact, even 10 righteous men in the city.

  What response did Lot's offer evoke?

  Genesis 19:9
  9 At this they said: "Stand back there!" And they added: "This lone man came here to reside as an alien and yet he would actually play the judge. Now we are going to do worse to you than to them." And they came pressing heavily in on the man, on Lot, and were getting near to break in the door.

  Interestingly, the Bible record describes the men, not as being intrigued by Lot's offer, but actually becoming incensed at Lot's refusal to supply the men to them, as they requested. It's as if they said, "excuse me, but we're making the demands around here!" Next, the account records, the men's demands turned physical in nature, as they "pressed heavily" on Lot, and were "getting near to break in the door."

  At this point, the angels, who until now have taken no active role, exert their influence, and intervene.

  Genesis 19:10-11
  10 So the men thrust out their hands and brought Lot in to them, into the house, and they shut the door. 11 But they struck with blindness the men who were at the entrance of the house, from the least to the greatest, so that they were wearing themselves out trying to find the entrance.

  Yes, the angels apparently physically opened the door, retrieved Lot while keeping the mob out, and shut the door. What an amazing experience that must have been for Lot and his family! The Bible also does not record any conversation that may have been taking place inside the house as Lot was taking his stand outside. We don't know what reassurances the angels may have given Lot's family, specifically his daughters.

  Apparently, though, this was enough to once and for all settle the issue of whether there were 10 righteous men in Sodom. Why can this be said? Well, the next verses convey finality, a decision having been reached.

  Genesis 19:12-13
  12 Then the men said to Lot: "Do you have anyone else here? Son-in-law and your sons and your daughters and all who are yours in the city, bring out of the place! 13 For we are bringing this place to ruin, because the outcry against them has grown loud before Jehovah, so that Jehovah sent us to bring the city to ruin."

  Yes, it was at this point that the angels specifically instructed Lot and his family to get out. For, as they said, "we are bringing this place to ruin."

  I agree with Friend on this one. I believe that, if you take the time to examine the account carefully, and in context, it does not offer a valid reason for disagreeing with Peter's statement that Lot was, indeed, "a righteous man."

  In fact, when examined carefully, and when one considers how the angels rescued Lot and his family, this account actually gives a basis for confidence in what Peter says next:

  2 Peter 2:9
  Jehovah knows how to deliver people of godly devotion out of trial

  Yes, as I outlined above, at the precise moment the question of whether 10 righteous men existed in Sodom was clarified, Jehovah, through his angelic representatives, stepped in and "delivered [Lot and his family] out of trial.
• 

  JT

  COME ON NIC:

  The Bible also does not record any conversation that may have been taking place inside the house as Lot was taking his stand outside. We don't know what reassurances the angels may have given Lot's family, specifically his daughters.

  ####THIS is where every bible beleiver starts getting into trouble;
  and this is what has gotten wt into so much trouble-

  to try and make the story fit One has to add lib which is sad

  if the bible doesn't say so and so - then one must leave it at that

  of course that will often lead to questions that a believer can't address.

  even when i was in wt as an elder i always thought this was a little cold bloodied to offer up your girls for some guys you don't know

  let's take it from a woman point of view as one former female jw asked me

  if the angels had been women - would he still have given up his girls

  of course we don't know - it is as if the bible leaves out so much stuff that one is only left with trying to fill in the gaps

  and how sad

  james
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  James, if a mob of weirdoes were at my door threatening violence to my household and they would not cease when I tried reasoning with them, then I might tell them “Okay, you can rape my daughters, let me go and get them for you.” I would come back with the 10 gauge and put their brains where their minds already were, in the gutter. Would that make me a pervert for saying what I did, or a dishonest man for acting as I did? I think you assume a great deal in your assertions on this subject.

  Nicodemus, I did not mean to turn your discussion about reading God’s word away from the comforting message it contains. I apologize.
• 

  funkyderek

  Seems Lot's whole family were pretty debauched. He's happy to let these guys rape his daughters, so as not to seem like a bad host. Mrs. Lot really has a hankering for the good life in Soodom, and the daughters get their father drunk so he can impregnate them. (And they were the people God saved!)

  --
  Ubi dubium ibi libertas
• 

  GinnyTosken

  It is important that the episode in Sodom be understood in historical context. What follows are excerpts from a chapter called, "The Sin of Sodom: Inhospitality" from the book What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality by Daniel A. Helminiak, Ph.D.

  Ginny

  The story of Sodom is probably the most famous Bible passage that deals with homosexuality—or, at least, is said to deal with it. This story is found in the book of Genesis, chapter 19, verses 1 to 11:

  The two angels came to Sodom in the evening; and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed down with his face to the ground. He said, “Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you can rise early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the square.” But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.” Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they replied, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien [Lot was not originally from Sodom], and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near the door to break it down. But the men inside reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they were unable to find the door.

  . . .

  It is shocking to think that Lot would have offered his daughters to the Sodomites. This is a good example of how different Lot’s culture was from our own. In that time the father of the house actually owned the women. They were his property. He was free do with them almost whatever he wanted. It would have been very costly for Lot to give his daughters to those men, financially costly. For no one would then want to marry those women, already “used.” It is surprising that Lot preferred to let the men of the town rape his daughters than to let them abuse his houseguests.

  What did the men of Sodom want with Lot’s two visitors? They say they wanted “to know them.” Some take this to mean the men wanted to have sex with the visitors. Lot’s offering his daughters for sex in place of the male visitors certainly indicates as much. Still, others argue the word “to know” need not refer to sex. It may simply be that the men of Sodom wanted to find out who these strangers were and what they were doing in their town. After all, Lot was not a native of Sodom. He, too, was an outsider. The townsfolk were not happy with his inviting strangers in.

  In the end there is no way of being absolutely certain whether this text refers to homogenital acts or not. In fact, most experts believe that it does. What is certain is that this text is concerned about abuse, not simply about sex.

  As we will see below, in the many biblical references to the sin of Sodom, there is no concern whatever about homogenitality, but there is concern about hardheartedness and abuse. Allowing that the word “to know” really does have a sexual meaning here, what is at stake is male-male rape, not simply male-male sex.

  The Duty of Hospitality

  Why would Lot have been willing to expose his daughters to rape? Why would Lot object to the townsfolk interrogating and abusing the visitors? Lot was a just man or, as the Scriptures say, a righteous man. He did what was right, as best he could. Of all the people in Sodom, only he had the kindness to invite the travelers in for the night.

  In desert country, where Sodom lay, to stay outside exposed to the cold of the night could be fatal. So a cardinal rule of Lot’s society was to offer hospitality to travelers. The same rule is a traditional part of Semitic and Arabic cultures. This rule was so strict that no one might harm even an enemy who had been offered shelter for the night. So doing what was right, following God’s law as he understood it, Lot refused to expose his guests to the abuse of the men of Sodom. To do so would have violated the law of sacred hospitality.

  The Meaning of Male Anal Sex

  If, in addition, the Sodomites did want sex with the town visitors, the offense against them would have been multiplied. For forcing sex on men was a way of humiliating them. During war, for example, besides raping the women and slaughtering the children, the victors would often also “sodomize” the defeated soldiers. The idea was to insult the men by treating them like women. So part and parcel of the practice of male-male anal sex was the notion that men should be “macho” and that women are inferior, pieces of property at the service of men.

  In fact, throughout Western history, a main reason for opposition to male-male sex was that it supposedly makes a man act like a woman. Saint John Chrysostom in the Fifth Century and Peter Cantor in the Twelfth, outspoken Christian opponents of homogenitality, both raised that argument. To be the active partner was generally more acceptable, but to be the receptive partner was “unmanly.” Evidently, the objection was more to a man’s being “effeminate” than to his having sex with another man.

  The Sin of Sodom

  So what was the sin of Sodom? Abuse and offense against strangers. Insult to the traveler. Inhospitality to the needy. That is the point of the story understood in its own historical context.

  [Bolding Ginny's]

  When male-male rape becomes part of the story, the additional offense is sexual abuse—gross insult and humiliation in Lot’s time and in our own. The whole story and its culture make clear that the author was not concerned about sex in itself. Lot offered his daughters without a second thought. The point of the story is not sexual ethics. The story of Sodom is no more about sex than it is about pounding on someone’s front door. The point of the story is abuse and assault, in whatever form they take. To use this text to condemn homosexuality is to misuse this text.

  The Bible’s Own Understanding of the Sin of Sodom

  That is the conclusion that follows from an historical-critical reading of the Sodom story. But in this particular case the meaning of the text is obvious from other parts of the Bible. For the Bible often refers back to the story of Sodom and says outright what Sodom’s sin was.

  The prophet Ezekiel (16:48-49) states the case baldly: “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” The sin of the Sodomites was that they refused to take in the needy travelers.

  According to Wisdom 19:13, the sin of Sodom was a “bitter hatred of strangers” and “making slaves of guests who were benefactors.” Recall that the strangers, the guests, were actually angels on mission from God. The sin was to treat them abusively. The reference to “making slaves of guests” may refer to a common practice of the day wherein the master of a house would freely use the slaves for sexual purposes. But again, the offense was not in having sex nor even in keeping slaves but in taking advantage of, demeaning and abusing others.

  Even Jesus makes reference to Sodom, and the issue is rejection of God’s messengers:

  These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “. . . Whatever town or village you enter, find out who in it is worthy, and stay there until you leave.... If any one will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.” (Matthew 10:5-15)

  What is the reference in this gospel incident? There is no reference to sex. But there is a clear reference to rejection of God’s messengers. The parallel between the gospel and Sodom is the closed heart that rejects the stranger, the wickedness that will not welcome God’s heralds.

  There are other less direct biblical references to Sodom: Isaiah 1:10-17 and 3:9, Jeremiah 23:14 and Zephaniah 2:8-11. The sins listed in those places are injustice, oppression, partiality, adultery, lies and encouraging evildoers.

  Adultery is the only sexual sin in that list, and even in this case sex itself is not the concern. In the mind of the Hebrew Testament, adultery is not an offense against a woman nor against the intimacy of marriage nor against the inherent requirements of sex. Adultery is an offense against justice. Adultery offends the man to whom the women belongs. Adultery is the misuse of another man’s property.

  The Bible often uses Sodom as an example of the worst sinfulness, but the concern is never simply sexual acts. Least of all is the concern homogenital acts.

  The Sin of Sodom Today

  Even Jesus understood the sin of Sodom as the sin of inhospitality. Other passages in the Bible come right out and say the same thing. Yet people continue to cite the story of Sodom to condemn gay and lesbian people.

  There is a sad irony about the story of Sodom when understood in its own historical setting. People oppose and abuse homosexual men and women for being different, odd, strange or, as they say, “queer.” Lesbian women and gay men are just not allowed to fit in; they are made to be outsiders, foreigners in our society. They are disowned by their families, separated from their children, fired from their jobs, evicted from apartments and neighborhoods, insulted by public figures, beaten and killed on the streets. All this is done in the name of religion and supposed Judeo-Christian morality.

  Such oppression is the very sin of which the people of Sodom were guilty. Such behavior is what the Bible truly condemns over and over again. So those who oppress homosexuals because of the supposed “sin of Sodom” may themselves be the real “sodomites,” as the Bible understands it.
• 

  AGuest

  May you all have peace!

  May I comment on the 'righteousness' of Lot, please? Thank you. In fact, let me comment on 'righteousness' in general.

  Noah was found drunk... and his sons saw his nakedness... and yet... he was a 'righteous' man.

  Abraham gave his wife to another man to save his tribe... and took another woman and bore a child... and yet... he was a 'righteous' man.

  Moses committed murder... and failed to glorify my Father in heat of anger and frustration... and yet... he was a 'righteous' man.

  Samson's lust for a woman resulted in the breaking of his Nazirite vow...

  Barak failed to carry out a directive and lost the battle to a woman...

  David connived, coveted, set up for murder, condoned the murder of, committed adultery with and TOOK the wife of another man...
  and yet... he was a 'righteous' man...

  Dear ones, some of you have been misled to understand just what 'righteousness' is in the eyes of my Father. Righteousness is not perfection in the physical flesh. The physical flesh was SOLD... into sin. Righteousness has to do with a HEART condition... whether one WANTS to do a wrong deed, whether one has wicked IN HIS HEART... and whether when a wrong act is REVEALED to such one, such one attempts to hide, rationalize and justify... use DECEIT... or acknowledges the error. Doesn't even mean one necessarily STOPS, but acknowledges. Rather than 'raising himself up' and 'exalting himself', such one LOWERS himself... in meekness and humility... before God.

  My Father does not examine the deeds of the flesh; it is the deeds of the HEART that are under consideration. For as Paul(?), sometimes what we WANT to do that is right, we DON'T do, but instead we do what we KNOW is wrong. That is the WEAKNESS of the flesh... and why we NEED a ransom.

  If all of us... and all of them... could have controlled every aspect of the flesh, from jealousy and anger, to fornication and drunkeness... then what need is there of a saviour? What need is there of redemption? Heck, save yourself.

  BUT... for those of my brothers before me... and I myself... we KNOW that we are sinners, some of us among the FOREMOST... and that is why we have sold ourselves to the One that BOUGHT us... with his blood. By LISTENING to him and telling others about the free GIFT of life (it is a gift, dear ones, because it is due to UNDESERVED KINDNESS; had we all been able to conquer our flesh entirely, such kindness would then be DESERVED), such demonstration of love can be among that which 'covers a MULTITUDE of transgressions.'

  In truth, it actually only takes one person to commit incest, because for all intents and purposes... Lot was raped. Yes, it was rape, because he didn't CONSENT to it. We don't even know if he protested; the account doesn't say. We know he was VERY drunk. And at night, it doesn't take much to get a VERY drunk man... well, off. All it takes is a 'night' emission for impregnation, yes? And there are even men TODAY... and woman... who in a drunken stupor go home and sleep with people and don't even remember the event when they wake up: "What did we DO last night?"

  We are all adults here, for the most part, and we know this to be true. It CAN occur that someone can have sex with someone else, without consenting to it forthrightly, or even remembering it.

  Lot was considered a 'righteous' man BECAUSE... rather than have his guests subjected to something they didn't WANT... which would be rape as well as sodomy, he offered his daughters. This, to save both his guests... AND the souls of the men clamoring for them. He was willing to GIVE his daughters, which was his RIGHT to do under the 'law' they lived by at that time (and trust me, the girls would NOT have disobeyed...) in order to save the SOULS of these men. But... they did not 'want' it.

  For those who like to take certain accounts and find the 'unrighteousness' in the acts of others, might I ask you why? Is that not tantamount to the hypocritical judging of the WTBTS... accusing people of unrighteousness and wickedness, when you have but one part of the 'picture'? Indeed, are we not ALL sinners? Have we not ALL done things of which we are ashamed and might not ever confess here and HOPE TO GOD nobody sees fit to write it down? And yet, could we not have committed such acts and STILL be basically good people: love God, love our neighbors... even love our enemies?

  If we don't want to be judged based on OUR errors... why in the world would we look back at someone else and point fingers at theirs, thinking we have all of the facts, when actually we have only that which was deemed pertinent by the writer? An examination of our hearts should follow the question of WHY we need to do this. Part of it is due to our 'training' from the 'borg. Indeed, rather than look at ANY in love, they spend countless hours trying to find fault in everyone but themselves. How is that like 'christ'?

  There is only ONE that is without sin, dear ones. One. The rest of us are all WITH sin. Every last one of us. But my Father does not 'judge' us based on that if we are 'covered'. And the One who 'covers' us taught us to 'see' people in a better 'light', did he not? With the exception of those who wickedly lie to others to mislead them AWAY from life, my Lord condemned NO ONE. And he judged NO ONE.

  I understand that the institution of 'christianity' is one of finger pointing and looky-looing and say, "Whoo-wee, did you see what HE (or SHE) did?" But TRUE christianity is not like that. TRUE christianity says, "Well, he or she must have their reasons, unbeknownst to ME, and while I may not AGREE with the situation, I have no 'room' in which to throw stones. Unless I have all of the facts... or unless I am TOLD by the spirit to address the 'error'... it is really none of my concern. My Father will deal with it... either directly or by means of the systems He has in place... either now... or later."

  If such error involves personal harm to me or mine, directly or indirectly, I have every right to seek out the assistance of this 'system' that is available to me. But that is also my CHOICE. But I don't have the right to take information regarding others... and come to my own conclusion of righteousness, unrighteousness... or judgment. That is not 'mine' to do.

  So, I ask you... give Lot the same consideration as you would want. He paid for his error in that his progeny was ceased. That was the 'price'; it was paid. As for whether his acts with his daughters establishes or disestablishes his 'righteousness'... it is not for any of us to say. For we are not the determiners of who is... and is not... 'righteous'.

  Let 'anger' alone, dear ones... for this is NO benefit in it. 'Righteous indignation... is NOT anger, for it is justified. Anger... is not. Righteous indignation occurs when you see or hear of an INJUSTICE being committed, including a heinous crime. It has purpose and direction... and is controlled. Anger, however, is simply the tendency to HATE... with unsubstantiated rationalization.

  Without trying to sound 'righteous' myself, for please know that I ask you... in TRUE love... to check your hearts.

  I bid you all peace... and I remain...

  Your servant and a slave of Christ,

  SJ
• 

  Nicodemus

  Marvin,

  Just a quick one, for now.

  I always appreciate your comments. No apologies of any sort are needed.

  Nicodemus
• 

  Moxy

  i believe you actually will find a WT reference that says they may have been a ruse on lot's part to buy time. i know because i have the hospitality talk which spends a bit of time on lots story, especially the older version of the talk.

  i had to find a way to explain this satisfactorily to myself and researched it well. i used the idea that it may have been a ruse, pure speculation of course, we dont know but one thing is clear, i would emphasize, it was lot who was on the outside in danger, not his family.

  some said that they could finally kind of reconcile this thorny account from my talk.

  mox
• 

  JT

  Marv says:

  I think you assume a great deal in your assertions on this subject.

  #######

  actually more of an observation about how believers are forced to ad-lib because the bible is so unclear- just take a look at the post of
  Ginny-

  she highlites in an excellent way the problem- just looking at the phrase "TO KNOW"

  it takes 1000's of pages just to try and explain what is meant by one little word.

  one thing i have found so amazing is how a book that is suppose to be from god and inspired requires 100,000 of thousands of other UN-INSPIRED books to explain it.

  when you have to have a Manual to explain another manual that explains another manual ....... you got a real problem

  and that is the way it is with the bible

  i recall a few years back being at Catholic U. on biz and i walked thru their library and it was so sad to look at the 10s of thousands of volume all lined up --just to try and explain the bible

  i work in networking and i have read MSCE books that are easier to understand and ones life is not hanging in the balance because he didnt' understand it.

  why would you write a letter to your kid with instructions that if gotten wrong will require him to die if he couldn't figure it out and thruout history we can see that man still has not figured the bible out

  that is the reason we have different religions they all think they got the inside track to god-

  do you know one of the reasons the internet works- it's due to a little thing know as an IP Address - every internet server uses one and it makes it possible for you and i to reach each other

  KISS keep it simple stupid is what we say all the time

  when you consider the number of god's kids who have killed each other over what they THOUGHT DADDY MEANT is truly sad, but what is worse is to think that "HE" watched his kids kill each other over what they thought he meant
  now that is sad

  So if one wants to believe every single story in the bible -Cool

  that is up to the person, but you can't deny that as a result of so little details being given in the bible it forces religions to fill in the blank and make it up as they go along

  why should the "Culture" of the day influence the bible- did not god have the foreknowledge to know that one day folks would not have any idea of what the culture was like and therefore made sure that what was written would be clear and understandable thruout time-

  so while believers argue over what it means "To Know"

  i will just take a pass

  james
• 

  JT

  Moxy makes my point:

  intead of saying THIS STUFF IS GOOFY

  notice what this person had to do :

  "i had to find a way to explain this satisfactorily to myself"

  "i used the idea that it may have been a ruse, pure speculation of course",

  "some said that they could finally kind of reconcile this thorny account"

  #######now this is really sad sorta like a kid who is 12 trying to ahng on to there is a real santa at the north pole

  so critical thinking would require a person to ask

  Why in the world would a "Loving God" not provide a clearer understanding of something this serious were according to the story FOLKS ARE GOING TO DIE at the end of the story

  so sad

  james