And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
30 38 (J). The Origin of the Moabites and Ammonites
30. And Lot went up ] He left the Plain, and withdrew “to the mountain,” viz. “the mountains of Moab”; see Gen 19:17.
he feared ] Why did he fear to dwell in Zoar? Not, as has been suggested, lest the people of Zoar should put him to death, as one who either had escaped just punishment, or, like Jonah, had been the cause of catastrophe; but lest Zoar, one of the cities of the Plain, should still be overtaken by catastrophe.
in a cave ] The definite article in the Hebrew has been thought to mean either a well-known cavern, or a locality in which caves were numerous. But compare the idiomatic use of the def. art. in Gen 8:7.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Gen 19:30
And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain
The folly of seeking our own choice
Lot was bidden to go to the mountain, but requested that he might be allowed to seek refuge in Zoar.
We only land ourselves in greater difficulties when we act according to the suggestions of our own human wisdom in opposition to the Divine will. Of such conduct we observe:–
I. THE ROOT OF ITS UNBELIEF. Lot could not trust God fully, and therefore the infinite charity of God stooped to his infirmity. We must trust in God, with our whole heart, and lean not to our own understanding. Our faith falls short in so far as we seek to modify the commands of duty by our own wilfulness. Imperfect obedience has its bitter root in unbelief. In the instance of Lot, we see the sad consequences of this timid and imperfect faith. Here we trace the source of the inconsistency and vacillation of his character. Our walk in the path of life and obedience is only steady and sure in proportion as our faith is clear and strong.
II. WE ARE MADE BITTERLY TO REPENT OF IT. He feared to dwell in Zoar. He was afraid that the destruction would overtake him even there. That spirit of unbelief which renders our obedience imperfect brings dread. We take alarm, for conscience tells us we have left some ground for fear. To commence following Gods command, and then to impair our obedience by our own foolish will, leads in the end to doubt and uncertainty-to that sense of insecurity in which we feel that nothing is sure and safe.
III. WE MAY BE COMPELLED TO ACCEPT GODS WAY AT LAST. Lot finds refuge, at length, in the mountain, where he had been ordered to go at first. A merciful Providence brought him up to the full measures of his duty. He finds, in the end, that it is best to fall in with Gods plan. By a painful discipline we are often brought round to Gods way, and made to feel that what He chooses is best. (T. H. Leale.)
Another wrong choice
On leaving Sodom he was very earnest to have Zoar granted him for a refuge, and to be excused from going to dwell in the mountain; yet now all on a sudden he went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and that for the very reason he had given for a contrary choice. Then he feared some evil would take him, if he went to the mountain; now he fears to dwell in Zoar. It is well to know that the way of man is not in himself, and that it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps. Our wisdom is to refer all to God, and to follow wherever his word and providence lead the way. But why did not Lot return to Abraham? There was no occasion now for strife about their herds; for he had lost all, and but just escaped with his life. Whatever was the reason, he does not appear to have made a good choice. Had he gone to the mountain when directed, he might have hoped for preserving mercy; but going of his own accord, and from a motive of sinful distrust, evil in reality overtakes him. His daughters, who seem to have contracted such habits in Sodom as would prepare them for anything, however unnatural, drew him into intemperance and incest, and thus cover his old age with infamy. The offspring of this illicit intercourse were the fathers of two great, but heathen nations; viz., Moabites, and the children of Ammon. (A. Fuller.)
Lessons
1. Mans choice of rest and safety crossing Gods command will not content him long.
2. Man, upon the failing of expected comfort in his own way, may be then moved to try Gods
3. Weakness in the best of man may be such as disobediently to do that which sometimes God justly commands; so Lot goeth when God bids not to the place formerly commanded.
4. Naturally mans own will maketh him move faster than the will of God.
5. Solitary and sad may be the peregrinations and habitations of the best families here below. Lot and his daughters in a cave, not a city.
6. Fear of sin and vengeance and evil to come will make a soul fly from its desired refuge in the world
7. A cave or den in a mountain with God is a better habitation then a palace in a city of sin. Lot chooseth so. (G. Hughes, B. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 30. Lot went up out of Zoar] From seeing the universal desolation that had fallen upon the land, and that the fire was still continuing its depredations, he feared to dwell in Zoar, lest that also should be consumed, and then went to those very mountains to which God had ordered him at first to make his escape. Foolish man is ever preferring his own wisdom to that of his Maker. It was wrong at first not to betake himself to the mountain; it was wrong in the next place to go to it when God had given him the assurance that Zoar should be spared for his sake. Both these cases argue a strange want of faith, not only in the truth, but also in the providence, of God. Had he still dwelt at Zoar, the shameful transaction afterwards recorded had in all probability not taken place.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
He feared to dwell in Zoar, lest he should either suffer from them or with them; perceiving now that though it was a little city, yet there was more wickedness in it than he imagined.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And Lot went up out of Zoar,…. Which lay in the plain, and therefore when he went from thence to the mountain, it was by an ascent:
and dwelt in the mountain; which the Lord had directed him to go to before, but was unwilling, and chose Zoar, and desired he might flee thither, and that that might be spared; but now he likes God’s advice for him better than his own, and therefore betook himself to the mountain, where he might think himself safest, and where he continued; very probably this was the mountain Engaddi, under which Zoar is said to lie by Adrichomius n:
and his two daughters with him: his wife was turned into a pillar of salt, and these two were all of his family that with him were saved from the destruction; and these are the rather mentioned for the sake of an anecdote hereafter related:
for he feared to dwell in Zoar; it being near to Sodom; and the smoke of that city and the rest might not only be terrible but troublesome to him, and the tremor of the earth might continue and reach as far as Zoar; and perceiving the waters to rise and overflow the plain, which formed the lake where the cities stood, he might fear they would reach to Zoar and swallow up that; and especially his fears were increased, when he found the inhabitants were as wicked as those of the other cities, and were unreformed by the judgment on them; and so he might fear that a like shower of fire would descend on them and destroy them, as it had the rest, though it had been spared for a while at his intercession; and, according to the Jewish writers o, it remained but one year after Sodom:
and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters; which was in the mountain, the mountain of Engedi. Josephus p makes mention of the mountains of Engedi; and here was a cave, where David with six hundred men were, in the sides of it, when Saul went into it, 1Sa 24:1; and perhaps may be the same cave where Lot and his two daughters lived.
n Theatrum Terrae S. p. 54. o Juchasin, fol. 8. 1. p Antiqu. l. 6. c. 13. sect. 4.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Lot’s Disgrace. | B. C. 1898. |
30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. 31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: 32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. 37 And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. 38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben-ammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.
Here is, I. The great trouble and distress that Lot was brought into after his deliverance, v. 30. 1. He was frightened out of Zoar, durst not dwell there; probably because he was conscious to himself that it was a refuge of his own choosing and that herein he had foolishly prescribed to God, and therefore he could not but distrust his safety in it; or because he found it as wicked as Sodom, and therefore concluded it could not long survive it; or perhaps he observed the rise and increase of those waters which after the conflagration, perhaps from Jordan, began to overflow the plain, and which, mixing with the ruins, by degrees made the Dead Sea; in those waters he concluded Zoar must needs perish (though it had escaped the fire) because it stood upon the same flat. Note, Settlements and shelters of our own choosing, and in which we do not follow God, commonly prove uneasy to us. 2. He was forced to betake himself to the mountain, and to take up with a cave for his habitation there. Methinks it was strange that he did not return to Abraham, and put himself under his protection, to whom he had once and again owed his safety: but the truth is there are some good men that are not wise enough to know what is best for themselves. Observe, (1.) He was now glad to go to the mountain, the place which God had appointed for his shelter. Note, It is well if disappointment in our way drive us at last to God’s way. (2.) He that, awhile ago, could not find room enough for himself and his stock in the whole land, but must jostle with Abraham, and get as far from him as he could, is now confined to a hole in a hill, where he has scarcely room to turn himself, and there he is solitary and trembling. Note, It is just with God to reduce those to poverty and restraint who have abused their liberty and plenty. See also in Lot what those bring themselves to, at last, that forsake the communion of saints for secular advantages; they will be beaten with their own rod.
II. The great sin that Lot and his daughters were guilty of, when they were in this desolate place. It is a sad story.
1. His daughters laid a very wicked plot to bring him to sin; and theirs was, doubtless, the greater guilt. They contrived, under pretence of cheering up the spirits of their father in his present condition, to make him drunk, and then to lie with him, Gen 19:31; Gen 19:32. (1.) Some think that their pretence was plausible. Their father had no sons, they had no husbands, nor knew they where to have any of the holy seed, or, if they had children by others, their father’s name would not be preserved in them. Some think that they had the Messiah in their eye, who, they hoped, might descend form their father; for he came from Terah’s elder son, who separated from the rest of Shem’s posterity as well as Abraham, and was now signally delivered out of Sodom. Their mother, and the rest of the family, were gone; they might not marry with the cursed Canaanites; and therefore they supposed that the end they aimed at and the extremity they were brought to, would excuse the irregularity. Thus the learned Monsieur Allix. Note, Good intentions are often abused to patronise bad actions. But, (2.) Whatever their pretence was, it is certain that their project was very wicked and vile, and an impudent affront to the very light and law of nature. Note, [1.] The sight of God’s most tremendous judgments upon sinners will not of itself, without the grace of God, restrain evil hearts from evil practices: one would wonder how the fire of lust could possibly kindle upon those, who had so lately been the eye-witnesses of Sodom’s flames. [2.] Solitude has its temptations as well as company, and particularly to uncleanness. When Joseph was alone with his mistress he was in danger, ch. xxxix. 11. Relations that dwell together, especially if solitary, have need carefully to watch even against the least evil thought of this kind, lest Satan get an advantage.
2. Lot himself, by his own folly and unwariness, was wretchedly overcome, and suffered himself so far to be imposed upon by his own children as, two nights together, to be drunk, and to commit incest, v. 33, c. Lord, what is man! What are the best of men, when God leaves them to themselves! See here, (1.) The peril of security. Lot, who not only kept himself sober and chaste in Sodom, but was a constant mourner for the wickedness of the place and a witness against it, was yet, in the mountain, where he was alone, and as he thought quite out of the way of temptation, shamefully overtaken. Let him therefore that thinks he stands, stands high and stands firm, take heed lest he fall. No mountain, on this side the holy hill above, can set us out of the reach of Satan’s fiery darts. (2.) The peril of drunkenness. It is not only a great sin itself, but it is the inlet of many sins it may prove the inlet of the worst and most unnatural sins, which may be a perpetual wound and dishonour. Excellently does Mr. Herbert describe it,
| “He that is drunken may his mother kill Big with his sister.”—————— |
A man may do that without reluctance, when he is drunk, which, when he is sober, he could not think of without horror. (3.) The peril of temptation from our dearest relations and friends, whom we love, and esteem, and expect kindness from. Lot, whose temperance and chastity were impregnable against the batteries of foreign force, was surprised into sin and shame by the base treachery of his own daughters: we must dread a snare wherever we are, and be always upon our guard.
3. In the close we have an account of the birth of the two sons, or grandsons (call them which you will), of Lot, Moab and Ammon, the fathers of two nations, neighbours to Israel, and which we often read of in the Old Testament; both together are called the children of Lot, Ps. lxxxiii. 8. Note, Though prosperous births may attend incestuous conceptions, yet they are so far from justifying them that they rather perpetuate the reproach of them and entail infamy upon posterity; yet the tribe of Judah, of which our Lord sprang, descended from such a birth, and Ruth, a Moabitess, has a name in his genealogy, Mat 1:3; Mat 1:5.
Lastly, Observe that, after this, we never read any more of Lot, nor what became of him: no doubt he repented of his sin, and was pardoned; but from the silence of the scripture concerning him henceforward we may learn that drunkenness, as it makes men forgetful, so it makes them forgotten; and many a name, which otherwise might have been remembered with respect, is buried by it in contempt and oblivion.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
30. And Lot went up out of Zoar. This narration proves what I have before alluded to, that those things which men contrive for themselves, by rash counsels drawn from carnal reason, never prosper: especially when men, deluded by vain hope, or impelled by depraved wishes, depart from the word of God. For although temerity commonly seems to be successful at the beginning; and they who are carried away by their lusts, exult over the joyful issue of affairs; yet the Lord, at length, curses whatever is not undertaken with his approval; and the declaration of Isaiah is fulfilled,
‘
Woe to them who begin a work and not by the Spirit of the Lord; who take counsel, but do not ask at his mouth,’ (Isa 30:1.)
Lot, when commanded to retake himself to the mountain, chose rather to dwell in Zoar. After this habitation was granted to him, according to his own wish, he soon repents and is sorry for he trembles at the thought that destruction is every moment hastening on a place so near to Sodom, in which perhaps the same impiety and wickedness was reigning. But let the readers recall to memory what I have said, that it was only through the wonderful kindness of God, that he did not receive either immediate, or very severe punishment. For the Lord, by pardoning him at the time, caused him finally to become judge of his own sin. For he was neither expelled from Zoar by force nor by the hand of man; but a blind anxiety of mind drove him and hurried him into a cavern, because he had followed the lust of his flesh rather than the command of God. And thus in chastising the faithful, God mitigates their punishments so as to render it their best medicine. For if he were to deal strictly with their folly they would fall down in utter confusion. He therefore gives them space for repentance that they may willingly acknowledge their fault.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
8. Lots Last End (Gen. 19:30-38)
30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. 31 And the first-born said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: 32 come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the first-born went in, and lay with her father: and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the first-born said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yester-night with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. 35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose. 36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. 37 And the first-born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. 3 8 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben-ammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.
The Flight to Zoar. Lot and his two daughters reached Zoar some time after sunrise. Evidently he did not stop there, however, but kept on going until he found a cave where he continued to dwell, for how long we do not know. Lots rescue is ascribed to Elohim, as the Judge of the whole earth, not to the covenant God, Jehovah, because Lot in his separation from Abraham was removed from the special providence of Jehovah. In his flight from Sodom he seems to have been driven by a paralyzing fear: just how much of the obedience of faith was involved it is impossible to say. (We must remember that fear is the opposite of faith). Evidently a kind of paralyzing terror gave way to a calculating fear which has been properly designated an unbelieving fear. At any rate he kept on until he could bury himself and his daughters in a cave. Caves are said to be numerous in these mountains of Moab. He knew, evidently, that it had been decreed that Zoar also was to be destroyed and had been spared only because he could not reach the mountain in time. Now that there was time to go on, naturally he feared that the decree would be fulfilled. Or it is possible that the inhabitants of Zoar who had been spared did not feel too hospitably inclined to this family who had once been inhabitants of the cities now lying in ruins. Lange (CDHCG, 442): The chastising hand of God is seen in the gravest form, in the fact that Lot is lost in the darkness of the mountains of Moab, as a dweller in the caves. But it may be questioned whether one is justified by this, in saying that he came to a bad end. . . . His not returning poor and shipwrecked can be explained upon better grounds. In any case the testimony for him, 2Pe. 2:7-8, must not be overlooked. There remains one bright point in his life, since he sustained the assaults of all Sodom on his house, in the most extreme danger of his life. To this Gosman adds (ibid., 442): It may be said, moreover, that his leaving home and property at the divine warning, and when there were yet no visible signs of the judgment, and his flight without looking back, indicate the reality and genuineness of his faith. This again raises the question: Was Lots flight without looking back entirely an act of faith, or was it indicative primarily of a paralyzing terror? Of course it may be that the inhabitants of Zoar, panic-stricken, had fled from the region of danger and dispersed themselves for a time in the adjacent mountains. At any rate Lot is now far from the habitations of men, with his two daughters as his only companions.
The Origins of Moab and Ammon (Gen. 19:30-38). There is great variability of opinion as to what motivated Lots daughters to resort to deception to cause themselves to be impregnated by their father. These, of course, were incestuous unions, severely condemned even by primitive peoples extant in our own day. It is not difficult to see how repugnant such an act was to the Israelites of a later age. At some point in this phase of Lots life, his daughters resolved to procure children through him, and for that purpose on two successive evenings they made him intoxicated with wine, and then lay with him through the night, one after the other, that they might conceive seed. To this accursed crime they were impelled by the desire to preserve their family, because they thought there was no man on earth to come in unto them, i.e., to marry them, after the manner of all the earth. Not that they imagined the whole human race to have perished in the destruction of the valley of Siddim, but because they were afraid that no man would link himself with them, the only survivors of a country smitten by the curse of God (BCOPT, 237). We can hardly agree with the charge that these young women took advantage of Lots inebriation to indulge incestuous passion for the simple reason that the text does not justify such a conclusion. Of course, even though it was not lust which impelled them to this shameful deed, their conduct was worthy of Sodom, and shows quite as much as their previous betrothal to men of Sodom, that they were deeply imbued with the sinful character of that city. In all likelihood, incest was not under any taboo in Sodom. As for Lot himself, Gen. 19:33; Gen. 19:35 do not state that he was in an unconscious state: they simply tell us that in his intoxicated condition, though not entirely unconscious, yet he lay with his daughters without clearly understanding what he was doing. It surely would be stretching the truth, however, to say that his behavior in this instance was that of a strong man. Lots daughters are, like Tamar, not here regarded as shameless; their ruling motive is to perpetuate the race (JB, 37). Jamieson summarizes as follows (CECG, 165): The theory is suggested that the moral sensibilities of Lots daughters had been blunted, or rather totally extinguished, by long and familiar association with the people of the Pentapolis, and that they had already sunk to the lowest depths of depravity, when they could in concert deliberately plan the commission of incest with their own father. But this first impression will soon be corrected or removed by the recollection that those young women, though living in the midst of a universally corrupt society, had yet maintained a virtuous character (Gen. 19:8) ; and therefore it must be presumed that it was through the influence of some strong, overpowering motive they were impelled to the adoption of so base an imposture. It could not be, as has been generally supposed, that they believed themselves to be the sole survivors of mankind; for they knew that the inhabitants of Zoar were still alive, and if they were now residing in a cave in the Moabite mountains, they must have seen multitudes of laborers working in the vineyards with which those heights were extensively planted. They could not be actuated, therefore, with the wish to preserve the human race, which, in their view, was all but extinct. Their object must have been very different, and most probably it was this. Cherishing some family traditions respecting the promised seed, and in expectation of which Abraham, with Lot and others, had migrated to Canaan, they brooded in despondency over the apparent loss of that hopesince their mothers death; and believing that their father, who was descended from the eldest branch of Terahs family, and who was an object of Gods special charge to the angels, had the best claim to be the ancestor of the distinguished progeny, they agreed together to use means for securing the much-longed-for result. This view of their conduct is strongly confirmed by the circumstance that, instead of being ashamed of their crime, or concealing the origin of their children by some artfully-contrived story, they proclaimed it to the world, and perpetuated the memory of it by the names they bestowed upon their children; the eldest calling her son Moab (meaning, from my father), and the younger designating her son Benammi (son of my people). It is evident from the text that these sexual relations of Lots daughters with their father occurred only this once: there is no intimation that it was a continuous affair or even repeated. That they used subterfuge (their fathers intoxication) to accomplish their purposes seems to be additional evidence that they themselves regarded what they did as repugnant, but under the circumstances as the only means possible to secure the perpetuation of the family. The whole affair apparently is a case in point of the oldand falsecliche, that the end justifies the means. We might add that Lots susceptibility to inebriation certainly does not add one iota of glamor to his character. We feel that Speisers treatment of this incident (ABG, 145) should be given here as follows (even though we cannot fully agree with it): As they are here portrayed, Lot and his two daughters had every reason to believe that they were the last people on earth. From the recesses of their cave somewhere up the side of a canyon formed by the earths deepest rift, they could see no proof to the contrary. The young women were concerned with the future of the race, and they were resolute enough to adopt the only desperate measure that appeared to be available. The father, moreover, was not a conscious party to the scheme. All this adds up to praise rather than blame. (Note that incest is defined and strictly forbidden in Scripture: Lev. 18:6-18; Lev. 20:11-12; Lev. 20:19-21; Deu. 22:30; Deu. 27:20; Deu. 27:22-23; Eze. 22:11; cf. 1Co. 5:1. Cases of incest: Lot with his daughters, Gen. 19:31; Gen. 19:36; Reuben, Gen. 35:22; Gen. 49:4; Judah, Gen. 38:16, 1Ch. 2:4; Amnon, 2Sa. 13:14; Absalom, 2Sa. 16:21-22. Cf. also Gen. 20:12-13; Gen. 11:29; Exo. 6:20). Note the following significant paragraph: Grace, in conversion, seldom takes away the original character of the natural man, but merely overrules its deficiencies to humble him and warn others; and refines and elevates its excellencies; and thus, by the Spirit, mortifies the old while it quickens and establishes the new man (SIBG, 244). Finally, this comment of Skinner (ICCG, 312), who follows rather closely the so-called analytical interpretation of Genesis, Whatever truth there may be in the speculations, i.e., about the origins and character of the patriarchal stories, the religious value of the biblical narrative is not affected. Like the Deluge-story, it retains the power to touch the conscience of the world as a terrible example of divine vengeance on heinous wickedness and unnatural lust; and in this ethical purpose we have another testimony to the unique grandeur of the idea of God in ancient Israel. But let us not forget that vengeance on Gods part is not revenge, but vindication, that is, the vindication of Gods absolute justice in not permitting His purposes and laws to be violated with impunity. Penal infliction of the right kind must have for its primary end the sustaining of the majesty of law against all transgressors. This, we are told, will be the essential character of the Last Judgment (Rom. 2:5, Rev. 20:11-12).
The History of Lot ends here. According to Robinson, the Arabs have a tradition that he was buried on Beni-Naim, the elevated spot where Abraham stood before the Lord interceding for Sodom and from which next morning he viewed the smoke rising from the distant destruction. Lot is never mentioned again. Separated both outwardly and inwardly from Abraham, he was of no further importance in relation to the history of salvation, so that even his death is not referred to. His descendants, however, frequently come into contact with the. Israelites; and the history of their descent is given here to facilitate a correct appreciation of their conduct toward Israel (BCOTP), 238).
9. The Moabites and Ammonites
The story of Lot, which is a kind of drama within a drama in relation to the story of Abraham, has now come to a rather inglorious end. The inspired writer never loses sight of the fact that history, in the last analysis, is made by individuals. But the individual, in turn, mirrors larger issues and events (ABG, 142). Apparently the narrative is designed to lead ultimately to the story of the Moabites and the Ammonites, two ethnic groups whose history becomes interrelated to a considerable extent with the history of Israel. (The Moabites occupied the area east of the Jordan directly opposite Bethlehem, extending from Edom on the south northward to the river Arnon. Their capital city was Ar, the site of which is unknown today (Num. 21:15; Num. 21:28; Isa. 15:1). The Ammonites occupied the region east of the Jordan northward from the river Arnon to the watershed of the Jabbok, on the banks of which their capital, Rabbath-Ammon (Deu. 3:11), was situated. This city lives on in our day in Amman, the capital of the Kingdom of Jordan: it was rebuilt by Ptolemy Philadelphus in the 3rd century B.C., and was named Philadelphia (cf. Rev. 3:7). The Ammonite territory was bounded on the north by Gilead, which lay almost exactly opposite Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, to the west of the Jordan.)
Generally speaking, the Moabites and Ammonites repeatedly were sources of annoyance, and at times of outright opposition to the Israelites. Their idolatrous practices are said to have been abominations to Jehovah. Ammons abomination was the worship of the god Moloch, and that of Moab was the worship of the God Chemosh (1Ki. 11:7, Num. 21:29): these were the tribal gods around whom the customary ritual of the pagan Fertility Cult was centered, an integral phase of which usually was human sacrifice (cf. 2Ki. 3:27; Lev. 18:21; Lev. 20:2-4; Jer. 32:34-35; 2Ki. 23:10; Amo. 5:26, Act. 7:43). Their idolatrous practices included also the worship of pagan gods of surrounding peoples (Jdg. 10:6). Both the Moabites and the Ammonites are frequently portrayed in Scripture as being a constant snare to the Children of Israel (as rejoicing in the latters misfortunes and taking delight in spreading their abominations of false gods among the Israelites and debasing their moral ideals through intermarriage). (Cf. Num. 25:1-5, 1Ki. 11:1-8, 2Ki. 23:13, 1Ch. 8:8, Ezr. 9:1-4; Neh. 13:1-3; Neh. 13:23-27). Note also the predictions of divine judgments on the Moabites and the Ammonites (Isa., chs. 15, 16; Jer., chs. 48, 49; Eze. 25:5; Eze. 25:8-11; Amo. 2:1-2; Zep. 2:9). As for political and military maneuvers and battles, cf. Jdg. 3:12-30; Jdg. 11:17-18; Jdg. 11:25; Num., chs. 2224; Jos. 24:9; Jdg. 11:17-18; Jdg. 11:29-33; 1Sa. 14:47; 1Sa. 22:3-4; 2Sa. 8:2; 1Ki. 11:1-7, 2Ki. 1:1; 2Ki. 3:5-27; 2Ki. 13:20; 2 Chron., ch. 20; Mic. 6:5, etc.).
There is another side to this coin, however, which cannot be ignored, as follows: (1) Yahweh did not permit the Israelites to distress the Moabites and Ammonites in passing through their territories because those lands had already been allotted to the children of Lot for a possession (Deu. 2:2; Deu. 2:9; Deu. 2:19). (2) Moses died in the land of Moab, where from the summit of Pisgah he was given a view of the Land of Promise, from Dan and Gilead on the North to the valley of Jericho even unto Zoar, on the South; and the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days (Deu. 34:1-8). (3) The book of Ruth indicates free travel and friendly relations between Judah and Moab. (4) The king of Moab brought aid to David against Saul and provided shelter for Davids parents in a time of crisis (1Sa. 22:3-4). (5) The Moabites and Ammonites are represented as having been used by Jehovah as instruments for the punishing of Judah (2Ki. 24:1-4).
In view of these scriptures, to speak of the account of the origins of the Moabites and the Ammonites (Gen. 19:30-38) as a fiction of Israelite animosity, a gibe at Israels foes, etc., as the critics have done, is absurd. Leupold (EG, 576): Again and again critics label this whole story the outgrowth of a mean prejudice on the part of Israel against these two neighboring nations, a hostile fabrication and an attempt to heap disgrace on them. Yet passages like Deu. 2:9 surely indicate that Israel always maintained a friendly spirit toward these brother nations, especially toward the Moabites. Davids history also may serve as an antidote against such slanders. We have here an objective account of an actual historical occurrence. Similarly K-D (BCOTP, 238); This account was neither the invention of national hatred to the Moabites and Ammonites, nor was it placed here as a brand upon these tribes. These discoveries of a criticism imbued with hostility to the Bible are overthrown by the fact, that, according to Deu. 2:9; Deu. 2:19, Israel was ordered not to touch the territory of each of these tribes because of their descent from Lot; and it was their unbrotherly conduct towards Israel alone which first prevented their reception into the congregation of the Lord (Deu. 23:4-5).
It seems, of course, that the Ammonites did become inveterate enemies of the Children of Israel. But not the Moabites, apparently. This brings us, in conclusion, to the most significant phase of the question before us, which, strange to say, seems to be overlooked by commentators generally. That is the fact that the Moabites did playone might well say, an indispensable role in the development of the Messianic Line. That role was played by a Moabite maiden, Ruth by name, who in the course of human events (providentially directed, no doubt) married a wealthy, land-owning Bethlehemite by the name of Boaz, by whom she became the ancestress of Obed, Jesse, and David, in the order named genealogically, and hence of Messiah Himself. The canonicity of the Book of Ruth is determined by this genealogical connection with the Messianic Line. Cf. Mat. 1:5-6, Luk. 3:31-32, Isa. 9:6-7, Act. 2:29-36, Rom. 1:3-4, etc., and especially the book of Ruth.
The Ammonites survived into the second century B.C. Judas Maccabaeus fought them in his day (1 Macc. Gen. 19:6). Moab disappeared as a political power when Nebuchadnezzar (605562 B.C.) subjugated the country, but it persisted as an ethnic group. The Nabataeans (capital, Petra) held and developed Moab in the first two centuries B.C. and the first century A.D. (See any Dictionary of the Bible for information about the Moabite Stone).
See Gen. 19:37-38, the phrase, unto this day. That is, the days of Moses. They have remained Moabites unto this day, not having intermingled with strangers. Or the meaning may be: This fact is known to this day (SC, 99). Leupold suggests present-day Moabites and present-day Ammonites as a better rendering (EG, 577).
FOR MEDITATION AND SERMONIZING
The Angel of Jehovah
Concerning the significance of Gen. 19:24, Yahweh rained . . . from Yahweh out of heaven, Whitelaw writes (PCG, 256): From the Lord, i.e., Jehovah (the Son) rained down from Jehovah (the Father), as if suggesting a distinction of persons in the Godhead (Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Athanasius, and others, Delitzsch, Lange, Wordsworth) ; otherwise the phrase is regarded as an elegancy of speech (Ibn Ezra), an emphatic repetition (Calvin), a more exact characterization of the storm (Clericus, Rosenmuller) as being out of heaven.
Note also the following excellent presentation by Leupold (EG, 569570): But what construction shall we put upon the statement, Yahweh rained . . . from Yahweh from the heavens? We consider Meeks translation an evasion of the difficulty by alteration of the text, when he renders: The Lord rained . . . from the sky. . . . However, there is much truth in the claim that the name of God or Yahweh is often used in solemn or emphatic utterances in place of the pronoun that would normally be expected. K.C. [Koenigs Kommentar on Genesis] lists the instances of this sort that have been met with in Genesis up to this point: Gen. 1:27 a, : Gen. 1:28 a; Gen. 5:1 b; Gen. 8:21 a; Gen. 9:16 b; Gen. 11:9 b; Gen. 12:8 b; Gen. 18:17 a; Gen. 19:13 b, etc. But that would hardly apply in this case, for our passage would hardly come under the list of those where the divine name is used instead of the pronoun. For how could Moses have written: Yahweh rained from Himself? Yet the statement is certainly meant to be emphatic, but not merely emphatic in the sense in which Keil, following Calvins interpretation, suggests. For both hold that the statement is worded thus to indicate that this was not rain and lightning operating according to the wonted course of nature, but that it might be stated quite emphatically that more than the ordinary causes of nature were at work. We believe that the mere expression, God, or Yahweh, rained from heaven, would have served very adequately to convey such an emphatic statement. But in this instance Yahweh was present in and with His angels, whom He had delegated to this task and who acted under specific divine mandate. He who had the day before been visibly present with them, was now invisibly with them. When his agents acted, He acted. Consequently we believe that the view which the church held on this problem from days of old is still the simplest and the best: God the Son brought down the rain from God the Father, as the Council of Sirmium worded the statement. To devaluate the statement of the text to mean less necessitates a similar process of devaluation of a number of other texts like Gen. 1:26, and only by such a process can the claim be supported that there are no indications of the doctrine of the Trinity in Genesis. We believe the combined weight of these passages, including Gen. 1:1-2, makes the conclusion inevitable that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is in a measure revealed in the Old Testament, and especially in Genesis. Why should not so fundamental a doctrine be made manifest from the beginning? We may see more of this truth than did the Old Testament saints, but the Church has through the ages always held one and the same truth. Luther says: This expression indicates two persons in the Godhead.
Lastly, we quote Lange (CDHCG, 438): The antithesis which lies in this expression, between the manifestation of Jehovah upon the earth, and the being and providence of Jehovah in heaven is opposed by Keil. [The Hebrew phrase here] is according to Calvin an emphatic repetition. This does not agree with Keils explanation of the Angel of the Lord. Delitzsch remarks here: There is certainly in all such passages a distinction between the historically revealed, and the concealed, or unrevealed God (comp. Hos. 1:7), and thus a support to the position of the Council of Sirmium: the Son of God rains it down from God the Father. The decisive execution of the judgment proceeds from the manifestation of Jehovah upon the earth, in company with the two angels; but the source of the decree of judgment lies in Jehovah in heaven. The moral stages of the development of the kingdom of God upon the earth, correspond with the providence of the Almighty in the heavens, and from the heavens reaching down into the depths of cosmical nature.
In relation to the foregoing, we add here the following pertinent comments by James Moffat, The Theology of the Gospels, 127128 (Scribners, New York, 1924). Referring to Joh. 12:39-40, Moffatt writes: In Matthew this follows a quotation from Isaiah, which is also cited in the Fourth Gospel, and for much the same purpose, to account for the obduracy of the public, who are no longer the Galileans but the Jews, and also to explain, characteristically, that Isaiah the prophet had a vision of the pre-existent Christ or Logos. These things said Isaiah because he saw his glory, and he spoke of him [Isa. 6:1-11]. The latter conception had been already expressed in the phrase, Your father Abraham exulted to see my day [Joh. 8:56]. The Fourth Gospel thus deepens and at the same time reverses the synoptic saying. The prophets and just men of the Old Testament had not simply longed to see the messianic day of Jesus Christ: they had seen it. The pragmatism of the Logos-idea enables the writer of the Fourth Gospel to believe that the saints and prophets of the Old Testament had more than anticipations of the end; their visions and prophecies were due to the pre-existent Christ who even then revealed His glory to their gaze. The glory of Yahweh which Isaiah saw in his vision was really the glory of the pre-existent Logos, who became incarnate in Jesus Christ.
The theology of the Fourth Gospel thus elaborates the truth that the mission of Jesus had been anticipated in the history of Israel. This is the idea of the saying in Joh. 8:56, Your father Abraham exulted to see my day. It is the conception of Paul (e.g., Gal. 3:16 f.), who also traces a messianic significance in Gen. 17:17; and Philo, before him, had explained (De Mutat. Nominum, 2930), commenting on the Genesis passage, that Abrahams laughter was the joy of anticipating a happiness which was already within reach; fear is grief before grief, and so hope is joy before joy. But Philo characteristically avoids any messianic interpretation, such as the Fourth Gospel presents. For Scripture affirmations of the Pre-existence of Christ, see Joh. 1:1-14; Joh. 8:58; Joh. 1:18; Joh. 17:3-5; 1Ti. 3:16; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 1:1-4; Col. 1:12-23; 2Co. 5:17-20; Php. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:14-18; Rev. 1:12-18, etc.
Remember Lots Wife
Luk. 17:32the words of Jesus Himself, a warning which no human being can afford to ignore.
Judging from personal experience both the ignorant and the sophisticated of this world have been inclined to worry themselves about Cains wife, when as a matter of practical import, that is, having to do with the origin, nature and destiny of the person, they should be concerning themselves, and that seriously, about the fate of Lots wife and what the example of her tragic end means for all mankind. In days gone by, every community harbored one or two old reprobates who liked to pose as preacher-killers. One of our pioneer preachers was confronted by just such a self-appointed critic on occasion, who said to him, Preacher, I would probably join church, if I could find any of you fellows who could answer a question for me. And what is the question? asked the evangelist. If you could just tell me where Cain got his wife, I might give more serious though to joining church. The evangelist thought for a moment and then replied: Old man, until you quit thinking about other mens wives, you wont be fit to join church. Besides, there is nothing in Scripture about joining church. You dont join church; you believe, repent, and obey Christ, and He adds you to His church. But youre not ready for that until you repent. The Lord Himself has warned us about the futility of casting pearls before swine (Mat. 7:6). (The key to the problem of Cains wife is made very clear in Gen. 5:5).
The only woman in the entire Bible whom we are admonished to remember is Lots wife, and the admonition is from the Lord Himself. From her inglorious end we derive the following truths:
1. The manner in which an entire family can be corrupted by an evil environment. 2. The difficulty of saving a good person from an evil end (1Pe. 4:18). What manner of woman Lots wife was we do not know. But this truth surely applies in some measure to Lot and his two daughters. 3. The danger of looking back, when as a matter of fact God can use only those who look to the future (Luk. 9:62; Heb. 5:12; Heb. 6:1). 4. The possibility of being nearly saved, yet wholly lost (Mar. 12:34). 5. The inevitability of divine judgment on the disobedient (Heb. 5:9; Heb. 10:26-27; Rom. 2:5-11, Gal. 6:7, etc.).
Our text is directly related by our Lord to the account of His Second Coming. When that occurs, He tells us, it will be the concern of His saints to escape for their lives, as Lot and his family were told to do. They are not to look back lest they be tempted to go back. They are not to be reluctant to leave an environment marked for destruction (cf. 2Pe. 3:10; 2Pe. 3:13). Hence Luk. 17:33, Whosoever shall seek to gain his life shall lose it, but whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
M. Henry (CWB, 36): With what a gracious violence Lot was brought out of Sodom, Gen. 19:16. It seems he did not make as much haste as the case required. It might have been fatal to him if the angels had not laid hold of his hand, and brought him forth, and saved him with fear (Jud. 1:23). The salvation of the most righteous men must be attributed to Gods mercy, not to their own merit. We are saved by grace. With what a gracious vehemence he was urged to make the best of his way, when he was brought forth (Gen. 19:17). He must not hanker after Sodom: Look not behind thee. He must not loiter by the way: Stay not in all the plain. He must not take up short of the place of refuge appointed him: Escape to the mountain. Such as these are the commands given to those who through grace are delivered out of a sinful state. (1) Return not to sin and Satan, for that is looking back to Sodom. (2) Rest not in self and the world, for that is staying in the plain. And (3) Reach towards Christ and heaven, for that is escaping to the mountain, short of which we must not take up.
Let us, then, seek to pursue a path of holy separation from the world. Let us, while standing outside its entire range, be found cherishing the hope of the Masters return. May its well-watered plains have no charms for our hearts. May its honors, its distinctions, and its riches be all surveyed by us in the light of the coming glory of Christ. May we be enabled, like the holy patriarch Abraham, to get up into the presence of the Lord, and, from that elevated ground, look forth upon the scene of widespread ruin and desolationto see it all, by faiths anticipative glance, a smoking ruin. Such will it be. The earth also, and the things that are therein, shall be burned up (NBG, 209). (Cf. Heb. 12:29; Heb. 10:27-31).
REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART THIRTY-TWO
1.
What was the first proof that Lots visitors were not just human beings?
2.
What activities took place at the gate of these Canaanite cities?
3.
What did Yahweh do when the angels went on to Sodom?
4.
How account for Lots sitting in the gate of Sodom?
5.
What were the details of Lots ritual of hospitality?
6.
Why probably did Lot suggest delaying the washing of his Guests feet until the next-morning?
7.
Why did Lot pressure his visitors not to abide in the street all night?
8.
Does the Bible indicate that God favors the concentration of population? Cite Scripture evidence to support your answer.
9.
How could Lots presence at the gate have been evidence of his degeneracy?
10.
What occurred at Lots house that night?
11.
What does the verb know (Gen. 19:5) signify?
12.
What offer did Lot make to the mob in an attempt to satisfy their demands?
13.
What light does this proposal throw on Lots character? Do you consider that there was any justification for his action? Explain your answer.
14.
How was Lot rescued from the mob?
15.
List the steps in Lots progressive degeneracy.
16.
What did he do that might be cited in his favor?
17.
How does Delitzsch evaluate his actions morally?
18.
What is the evidence that Lot had become familiar with vice?
19.
How can it be said that Lots action was an attempt to avoid sin by sin?
20.
What is the Apostle Peters testimony concerning Lot?
21.
Summarize Whitelaws analysis of Lots character.
22.
Summarize Speisers treatment of Lots character.
23.
How does Lots action point up the influence of an environment?
24.
Define homosexuality, lesbianism, bestiality, pederasty, sodomy.
25.
What were the besetting sins of the Cities of the Plain?
26.
Explain how homosexuality, pederasty, bestiality, etc., are unnatural acts.
27.
What does the term sodomy, generally speaking, include?
28.
What are the two functions of the conjugal relation that are thwarted by homosexuality?
29.
Explain how any form of sex perversion is an act of utter selfishness.
30.
How does the true conjugal union differ from acts of sex perversion?
31.
What is the prime fallacy of all so-called situationist ethics?
32.
Of what is the true conjugal relation scripturally declared to be an allegory?
33.
What is the over-all teaching of the Scriptures about sodomy?
34.
What attitude did Lots sons-in-law take in response to his warning? What does their attitude indicate about them and about Lot?
35.
How correlate Gen. 19:8, Gen. 19:12, and Gen. 19:14 of chapter 19?
36.
Why did Lot linger in Sodom in spite of his visitors warning?
37.
What light does this cast on his character?
38.
What did his visitors have to do to get him out of Sodom ?
39.
In what sense is it said that God was merciful to him?
40.
What members of Lots family got out of Sodom?
41.
To what small city did God permit Lot to go? What were his excuses for wanting to go there?
42.
What was the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah?
43.
What are the theories as to the nature of this catastrophe?
44.
What is the great moral lesson for man to learn from it?
45.
When and why does moral necessity demand penal infliction by Absolute Justice?
46.
What are the reasons for rejecting the view that the catastrophe produced the entire Dead Sea as it is known today?
47.
What is the traditional theory as to the location of the Cities of the Plain? Why is this theory now generally rejected?
48.
What is Kraelings view of their location, and why?
49.
What does Cornfeld have to say about this problem?
50.
Explain how the natural and the supernatural could have been combined in producing the catastrophe.
51.
What was the fate of Lots wife? What is the most plausible explanation of what happened to her?
52.
What, in all probability, motivated her reluctance to escape for her life?
53.
What was the sight that greeted Abraham when he looked out on the evidences of the disaster?
54.
In what three ways did the catastrophe witness, in subsequent times, to its severity?
55.
It is stated that in many instances the Bible speaks more forcefully by what it omits than by what it tells us. Give examples.
56.
To what does Gods destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah point forward to, ultimately?
57.
In what respects is the story of Lots wife far superior to all folk tales of the kind?
58.
Why the change in the name of the Deity to Elohim, in Gen. 19:29.
59.
In what sense did God remember Abraham?
60.
For what probable reasons did Lot and his daughters resort to dwelling in a cave?
61.
What should we think of Lot from the fact that he did not even look back to see what was happening?
62.
For what reasons may we suppose that Lots daughters sought to produce seed by their father?
63.
Can we charge their act to incestuous passion? Explain?
64.
How is incest treated in Scripture?
65.
What is always the chief end of penal infliction of any kind?
66.
Distinguish between vindication and vengeance.
67.
Where does the history of Lot end, and why does it end where it does?
68.
Who were the sons of Lots daughters by their father? What areas in Palestine did their tribes occupy?
69.
What practices of the Moabites and the Ammonites were abominations to Jehovah?
70.
What does Old Testament history indicate about the subsequent relations between the Israelites on the one hand, and the Moabites and Ammonites on the other?
71.
What evidence do we have that certain friendly relations existed between the two groups?
72.
What reasons have we for rejecting as absurd the critical notion that this account of the origins of Moab and Ammon, in Genesis, was a jibe at Israels foes?
73.
What is the chief importance of the story of the Moabites, i.e., in relation to the Messianic Line and to the Old Testament canon?
74.
Summarize the comments of Whitelaw, Leupold, and Moffatt, on Gen. 19:24.
75.
Who has commanded us to remember Lots wife? What lessons are we to derive from the story of her tragic end?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(30) He feared to dwell in Zoar.Though this little place had been granted him for an asylum, yet, terrified at the sight of the smoking valley, and remembering that he had been originally commanded to go to the mountains, he summons up his courage and proceeds thither. The limestone regions of Palestine are full of caverns; and the patriarch, whose wealth had been so great that he and Abraham could not dwell together, is now content to seek in one of these caverns a miserable home.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
30. In the mountain One of the mountains on the east of the Dead Sea, afterwards known as the mountains of Moab . He who covetously chose the inviting plain (Gen 13:11) now gladly seeks the mountain.
He feared to dwell in Zoar The terror of Sodom’s fall entered into his soul, and he feared to dwell so near the scene of ruin as was Zoar. He knew, also, that even that little city was at first among those doomed to destruction.
Dwelt in a cave The rocks and mountains on the east of the Dead Sea abound in caves, many of them, perhaps, the original homes of the Horites. See on Gen 14:6.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lot’s Subsequent Career ( Gen 19:30-38 ).
By choosing the well-watered Circle of Jordan with little regard for the consequences and the fact that it was outside the land chosen by Yahweh for His people, resulting first in being taken prisoner by the five kings, and then in his gradual absorption into the life of Sodom, Lot has taken the path that led to his own impoverishment. His future now is bleak.
He finds himself with nothing, and with nowhere to go. That his choices have resulted in the lowering of his daughters’ morals comes out in this passage. And yet he is not entirely forsaken. From his seed will come fruitfulness, nations will be descended from him. Thus there must have been some restitution of the fortunes of his family, for the whole nations of Moabites and Ammonites could not be totally his direct seed. As with later ‘Israel’ they would be made up also of descendants of servants and tribal members.
Gen 19:30
‘And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountains, and his two daughters with him, for he was afraid to dwell in Zoar, and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.’
Lot’s sorry state is emphasised. He is traumatised with what has happened, and it is clear that the devastation was so much beyond what he was expecting that he no longer has any confidence in his situation. Who knows whether Zoar will be next? He dare not risk it. Yahweh was right after all. There is only one place of safety, and that is in the mountains.
We must not underestimate the tumult in Lot’s mind. He is not thinking straightly. Had he been he would have fled to his uncle. But he is totally devastated. He may also have been too proud to admit his mistakes. No doubt Abraham had had words to say on the subject of his choices.
“He dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters”, emphasising how low he has sunk. No civilisation for him now. And his daughters had sunk with him.
Gen 19:31
‘And the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old and there is not a man in the earth (or land) to come in to us after the manner of all the earth”.’
The despair and dreadful condition the girls are in comes out here. They have possibly seen their husbands (o their sisters’ husbands) destroyed in the conflagration, they have seen all that they have known violently destroyed. Possibly they were not welcomed in Zoar but seen as bringing the curse on Sodom and Gomorrah with them. They are traumatised. We must not judge their behaviour as normal. They feel that no one will want to have anything to do with them after this. They are alone and deserted.
Gen 19:32
“Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him that we may preserve seed of our father.”
It is an act of desperation. They feel totally estranged from the world outside. Yet the importance of seed to keep the family in being becomes the one thing that totally absorbs their minds. It takes possession of them above all else. Can we doubt that they are clinically depressed and behaving accordingly? The firstborn has one fixation, to have a child, and she persuades her sister to the same. Her tortured mind sees it as the only means of hope. We must not judge too harshly for they were in a sad condition, and relationships were not quite as clear cut in their day, especially in Sodom.
Gen 19:33-35
‘And they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father, and he did not know when she lay down, nor when she arose. And so it was on the next day that the firstborn said to the younger, “See, I lay last night with my father. Let us make him drink wine as well tonight, and you go in and lie with him that we may preserve seed of our father”. And they made their father drink wine that night as well, and the younger arose and lay with him, and he knew not when she lay down and when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.’
The sorry incident brings out their state of mind and the fact that they had something of Sodom in them. Gladly do we learn that Lot knew nothing of the matter at all. He was probably glad to drink himself into unconsciousness, and never dreamed what his daughters were up to. But depression, and desperation and despair drove them to it. It may be that they even had to repeat the experiment, for they would not be satisfied until they were with child. Whatever the case, in the end they were successful.
It is clear that the writer totally disapproves of what they are doing, for he vindicates Lot. There is little doubt that this would later influence the attitude of the Israelites to the Moabites and Ammonites. This incident may have been partly in mind in the prohibition of Deu 23:3-6; Neh 13:1 although the primary reason is there given. But their actions are never actually condemned.
Gen 19:36
‘And the firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab. The same is the father of the Moabites to this day.’
Loose etymology can make it mean ‘of his father’, and with names loose connection was all that was asked for. In her depressed condition she has a fierce pride that she has begotten a man from her father. He is pure seed, not a Sodomite. That he became the ‘father’ of the Moabites suggests that he inter-married with a local tribeswoman and that eventually his descendants gained ascendancy over the tribe which takes his name.
Gen 19:37
‘And the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi. The same is the father of the children of Ammon to this day.’
Ben-ammi means ‘son of my kinship’. She too exults in bearing seed to her father, although not quite so blatantly. The same applies as with Moab. That this ascendancy is seen as Yahweh’s doing comes out in Deu 2:19 where Yahweh is seen to make clear that He has given their land to them as ‘the children of Lot’.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The sin of Lot and His Daughters
v. 30. And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar; and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. v. 31. And the first-born said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth; v. 32. come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. v. 33. And they made their father drink wine that night; and the first-born went in and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down nor when she arose. v. 34. And it came to pass on the morrow that the first-born said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father; let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
v. 35. And they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down nor when she arose.
v. 36. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. v. 37. And the first-born bare a son, and called his name Moab (from father); the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
v. 38. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Gen 19:30. For he feared to dwell in Zoar We have here another proof (see Gen 19:19.) of the weakness of Lot’s faith. He seems to have been very timorous, and to have had but little of the fortitude of his uncle Abraham. God had lately preserved Zoar for his sake, and yet he is scarcely arrived there, before he thinks himself not in sufficient safety. Some suppose, to justify him, that he found the inhabitants of Zoar extremely wicked, and could not reform them; and, therefore, fearing the destruction of their city also, he fled from it.
Dwelt in a cave That country, being very mountainous, abounded with large caves, which the people often used for dwellings, especially in times of danger: the Scripture and Jewish histories afford numberless examples. In one of these caves Lot took up his abode with his daughters, terrified at the dire calamity which they had so marvellously escaped. It is most probable, that this cave was in that mountain to which the angel had directed him, Gen 19:17 which was one of a range of mountains that lay in the country beyond the Dead-sea, and which was afterwards called Moab, from one of the children begotten here.
Note; Lot’s plenty, which the land could not hold, is now gone, and a hole in a mountain contains his little all. Remember, those who for secular advantage leave God’s people, will smart for it usually in grievous disappointments.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
I detain the Reader but to turn to two scriptures, after the perusal of this melancholy subject. The first is, 1Co 10:12 . The other is 1Pe 1:5 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Gen 19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
Ver. 30. Lot went up out of Zoar, &c. ] So he should have done at first; and so he had obeyed God, saved his wife, and prevented that sin of incest with his daughters.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Gen 19:30-38
30Lot went up from Zoar, and stayed in the mountains, and his two daughters with him; for he was afraid to stay in Zoar; and he stayed in a cave, he and his two daughters. 31Then the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. 32Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him that we may preserve our family through our father.” 33So they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. 34On the following day, the firstborn said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father.” 35So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. 36Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. 37The firstborn bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day. 38As for the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the sons of Ammon to this day.
Gen 19:30-38 These verses serve as an explanation of the origins of Moab and Ammon.
Gen 19:30 “for he was afraid to stay in Zoar” There are two possibilities concerning this verse: (1) he ignored the angel’s special promise in Gen 19:21 or (2) he saw how evil the people of this city were also and was afraid that God’s judgment would surely fall on them too. He went to the very place he said in Gen 19:19 that he feared!
Gen 19:31 The daughters show the same lack of trust in YHWH’s provision as their father. They seem to have forgotten
1. God’s deliverance through Abraham in chapter 14
2. God’s deliverance through the angels in chapter 19
Gen 19:32 The daughters designed a plan to preserve their family line.
1. come – BDB 229, KB 246, Qal IMPERATIVE (cf. Gen 19:34)
2. let us make our father drink wine – BDB 1052, KB 1639, Hiphil IMPERFECT used in a COHORTATIVE sense (cf. Gen 19:34)
3. let us lie with him – BDB 1011, KB 1486, Qal COHORTATIVE (Gen 19:34 IMPERATIVE)
Gen 19:34 repeats these incestuous acts.
Gen 19:36 One wonders if they both became pregnant the first time or that this became a repeated event.
Gen 19:37 “Moab” The popular, but not technical meaning based on similar sounds was “from my father” (BDB 555), which shows the incestuous relationship. This child later became the father of the Moabites who caused such great problems for the Israelites, yet were relatives (cf. Deu 2:9).
Gen 19:38 “Ben-ammi. . .sons of Ammon” Ben-ammi seems to mean “son of my people” (cf. the Septuagint, Jerome, and Augustine). The sons of Ammon (BDB 769) later caused tremendous problems for the nation of Israel, yet were relatives (cf. Deu 2:19). The degradation of Gen 19:30-38 was seen either as (1) a mark of moral failure or (2) pride that they kept the pure racial line of the family. Both names are sarcastic!
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
This is a study guide commentary, which means that you are responsible for your own interpretation of the Bible. Each of us must walk in the light we have. You, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit are priority in interpretation. You must not relinquish this to a commentator.
These discussion questions are provided to help you think through the major issues of this section of the book. They are meant to be thought-provoking, not definitive.
1. What are the major truths communicated in chapters 18 and 19?
2. Why does YHWH appear with angels? What is the purpose (or purposes) of His visit?
3. What does the term Adon mean and imply?
4. List the gradual degradation of Lot in these chapters.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Lot: Gen 19:17-23
for he: Gen 49:4, Jer 2:36, Jer 2:37, Jam 1:8
Zoar: Gen 13:10, Gen 14:22, Deu 34:3, Isa 15:5, Jer 48:34
Reciprocal: Gen 14:10 – the mountain Gen 19:20 – this
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gen 19:30. He feared to dwell in Zoar Probably he found it as wicked as Sodom; and therefore concluded it could not long survive it; or perhaps he observed the rise and increase of those waters, which, after the conflagration, began to overflow the plain, and which, mixing with the ruins, by degrees, made the Dead sea. In those waters he concluded Zoar must needs perish, (though it had escaped the fire,) because it stood upon the same flat. He was now glad to go to the mountain, the place which God had appointed for his shelter. See in Lot what those bring themselves to at last that forsake the communion of saints for secular advantages! He has lost all his substance, and the greater part of his family. His wife is made a monument of the divine wrath against those that prefer the world to God, and the principles of his remaining daughters are so corrupted, and their moral feelings so stupified, through their intercourse with the depraved inhabitants of Sodom, that they are prepared for the greatest crimes; they even lay snares to entangle their own father in the dreadful one of committing incest with themselves. He dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters It seems strange when he was thus reduced, that he did not think of returning to Abraham, from whom he was at no great distance, and who, no doubt, would have kindly received him. But probably he was ashamed to return, being conscious that he had not treated that venerable servant of God with due respect; or, being now stripped of all, and a wretched outcast, he could not brook appearing so degraded among those that had known him in his more prosperous days.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Gen 19:30-38. Lots daughters, fearing that, with the exception of their father and themselves, mankind has perished, feel that upon them rests the responsibility of perpetuating the race. Their father alone is available, and he is old; prompt action is therefore necessary. But since they realise that he will not feel the pressure of the situation with its responsibility so keenly as voluntarily to transgress the normal limits of morality, they make him drunk that they may secure his unconscious co-operation. The plan succeeds, and to it Moab and Ammon owe their origin. The story testifies to the kinship which the Hebrews felt to exist between themselves and these peoples, It is told without comment, but the Hebrew narrator would hardly approve. If, as is not unlikely, it is the story told by the Moabites and the Ammonites, it is told in honour of themselves and the two women. They are of the purest stock, and in a desperate emergency Lots daughters rose to this desperate device. There is no hint of shame or desire for concealment; they themselves give their sons the transparent names, Moab, from a father, and Ben-ammi, son of my fathers kinsman. There is an interesting parallel (also noticed by Bennett) in Morris Sigurd the Volsung, Book I, where Signy secures in disguise the birth of Sinfiotli, his father being her own brother. Since Zoar was spared it is curious that the women despaired of a non-incestuous union; the story may, therefore, have been originally independent of Gen 19:1-28, and told of a catastrophe as universal as the Flood.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he {o} feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
(o) Having felt God’s mercy, he did not dare provoke him again by continuing among the wicked.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Moses evidently included the account of Lot’s incest for at least two purposes.
1. It gives the origin of the Moabite and Ammonite nations that played major roles as inveterate enemies in the later history of Israel. Moab sounds like the words translated "from the father," and Ammon means "son of my kin."
"His legacy, Moab and Ammon (37f.), was destined to provide the worst carnal seduction in the history of Israel (that of Baal-Peor, Numbers 25) and the cruelest religious perversion (that of Molech, Lev 18:21)." [Note: Kidner, p. 136. See also Henry O. Thompson, "The Biblical Ammonites," Bible and Spade 11:1 (Winter 1982):1-14.]
2. This story also illuminates the degrading effect that living in Sodom had on Lot’s daughters. The writer censured Lot’s daughters by not naming them (cf. Rth 4:1). His older daughter was so desperate to marry that she exaggerated the effects of the recent catastrophe (Gen 19:31).
"Lot was able to take his daughters out of Sodom, but he was not able to take . . . Sodom out of his daughters." [Note: Davis, p. 206.]
"Throughout the ancient Near East, incest between father and daughter was regarded as wrong, and OT law punishes more remote forms of incest with death (Lev 20:12). . . . The fact that his daughters had to make him drunk shows that they were consciously flouting normal conventions. Because of his readers’ moral assumptions, the narrator did not feel it necessary to excoriate Lot’s daughters’ behavior. The facts spoke for themselves." [Note: Wenham, Genesis 16-50, pp. 61-62.]
"The story of Lot and his family should provide a sobering reminder that all of our decisions are significant, even that of where we live. Our moral environment significantly influences our lives. For this and many other reasons the New Testament constantly implores the believer to fellowship with those of like precious faith." [Note: Davis, p. 207.]
"There are lives recorded in the Bible which have well been called beacons. There are men like Balaam, Saul, and Solomon, who started well, with every possible advantage, and then closed their careers in failure and disaster. Such a life was that of Lot. . . . There is scarcely a life recorded in Scripture which is fuller of serious and solemn instructions for every believer." [Note: Thomas, p. 171.]
"The impact of the unit focuses more directly on a characterization of the father. The one who offered his daughters for the sexual gratification of his wicked neighbors now becomes the object of his daughters’ incestuous relationship . . . . To be seduced by one’s own daughters into an incestuous relationship with pregnancy following is bad enough. Not to know that the seduction had occurred is worse. To fall prey to the whole plot a second time is worse than ever." [Note: George W. Coats, Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature, p. 147.]
"In tragic irony, a drunk Lot carried out the very act which he himself had suggested to the men of Sodom (Gen 19:8)-he lay with his own daughters.
"The account is remarkably similar to the story of the last days of Noah after his rescue from the Flood (Gen 9:20-27). There, as here, the patriarch became drunk with wine and uncovered himself in the presence of his children. In both narratives, the act had grave consequences. Thus at the close of the two great narratives of divine judgment, the Flood and the destruction of Sodom, those who were saved from God’s wrath subsequently fell into a form of sin reminiscent of those who died in the judgment. This is a common theme in the prophetic literature (e.g., Isaiah 56-66; Malachi 1)." [Note: Sailhamer, The Pentateuch . . ., p. 174.]
From 2Pe 2:6-9 we know that Lot was a righteous man, though from the record of him in Genesis we might doubt that. He chose to live as, what the New Testament calls, a "carnal" believer (1Co 3:3). First, he lifted up his eyes and saw Sodom (Gen 13:10). Then he chose for himself (Gen 13:11). Then he moved his tent as far as Sodom (Gen 13:12). Then he sat in the gate of Sodom as one of its judges (Gen 19:1; Gen 19:9). Then he hesitated as Sodom’s destruction loomed (Gen 19:16). Finally he ended up committing incest with his daughters in a cave (Gen 19:30-38). How far it is possible for a believer to depart from God’s will when we keep making carnal decisions!
A major revelation of this chapter is that it is foolish for a believer to become attached to the things of this world. They will corrupt him, and God will destroy them swiftly and suddenly.