Refer to Genesis 19:4-8.
Why does Lot offer his daughters to the wicked men? Why kind of father would do such a thing?
Why does Lot offer his daughters to the wicked men? Why kind of father would do such a thing?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What is the meaning of Genesis 19:4-8?
- Thread starter Hestha
- Start date
GrowingSmaller
Muslm Humanist
I take it as a parable for temptation. God allows the possibility wickedness and will judge us accordingly. This is freely chosen "knowledge of good and evil". We cannot have the true reflection without the free choice. Accurate symmetry has it's conditions.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The land he lived in was wicked. Terribly wicked.
Those people wanted to have sex with the angels that came to Lot to deliver a message from God. It wasn't an offer like a pimp would do to a harlot, it was a plea to the men: instead of [the thought of] defiling these angels that have come for whatever reason, I would rather you take my daughter. It was a sacrifice.
In reality, God (and perhaps even Lot) knew that these men wouldn't want anything to do with her. They were too infatuated with the angelic men (in human bodies.) I see that you are agnostic, so you many not understand the spiritual implications of offering one's self for something spiritually greater (I am not being facetious, I am assuming.) However, this is similar (not equal) to what Abraham did for God with Isaac. Lot would rather his daughter be given to the men rather than the men attempt to defile a Holy angel of God. But, if you read a little further, that wasn't his decision to make anyway. The angels were more than capable of defending themselves from the mob. It is, however, an example of [a human attempt at] sacrifice. Altruism.
Upvote
0
GrayAngel
Senior Member
The people thought that these foreigners were foreign men. The men surrounding the house, contrary to what many assume, were not gay. They didn't want to have sex with the angels because they were physically attracted to them. This was an ancient practice which men would perform to foreigners in order to shame them, and it has nothing to do with attraction.
Lot, however, thought that he was doing the right thing in defending his guests. He didn't seem to have full understanding of exactly who it was he was housing. Neither God nor the angels gave their approval of Lot's offering his daughters as substitutes.
Upvote
0
So, the angels are more worthy than the daughters? What makes the daughters less worthy and thus must be treated as a sacrifice to protect the angels?
If Lot knew that these men wouldn't want anything to do with the daughters, then why did Lot offer his daughters anyway? Did he know that his altruistic attempt was going to be useless?
So, you are saying that the men of Sodom were infatuated with the angelic men's human bodies. If the angels had been female, and the men of Sodom were infatuated with the female angels, and Lot still sacrifices his daughters to protect the angels, then would that mean that the status of an angel is higher than that of a virgin because an angel is nonhuman while a human is born a sinner?
Upvote
0
I didn't say the angels were more worthy than his daughters, I said it was an act in altruism.
I didn't say lot knew, I said he may have known (but that is a stretch in itself.)
Second paragraph is conjecture. They were infatuated with the angels because of their own lust and wickedness. The angelic men, exuded "something" which remains to be known, most notably because of their nature (as angelic beings; Lot knew they were angels when he saw them, and bowed himself to them.) It doesn't matter if they were female - of course not. Otherwise, Lot wouldn't think to sacrifice his female daughter. It was because they lusted after the two angels. Their focus was on them.
The event was an evil encounter: the mob wanted to have their way with these "out of towners" that were so attractive (for whatever reason: angelic aura, beauty, novelty, etc.) that they were willing to charge Lot's residence just to get to the angels. That is the point. Their eyes caused them to lust. That is why the angels blinded them.
Now, as I said before it may be hard for you to understand the order of beings, being agnostic. But, holy angels of God are a different, albeit higher order of being than humans. Therefore, self-sacrifice or sacrifice by proxy may have seemed appropriate for Lot, as he was a man of God. He pressed to host the angels at his house, after all. And, then that incident happens.
So, I have a question for you: are you just looking to argue, or are you really looking for answers? I don't want to keep responding if your intentions are some form of the former (nor do I think anyone else should.)
Upvote
0
This is an important point. Like it was said before, the angels were very capable of defending themselves. It was Lot's attempt in sacrifice/altruism, especially since he pressed the angles to stay with him (after they said they would stay in the streets.)
Upvote
0
I wasn't arguing. Not sure where you saw that.
I never really understood the story of Sodom. I have thought of the story as a series of strange events that happened. What's stranger is that Abraham/Abram asked God whether God would destroy Sodom if there were so-and-so many good persons living there, and God replied that he would not destroy it. Later, it appears that God destroyed Sodom anyway, though by that time Lot and his family had already left. Still, What qualifies Lot as the only family who is decent enough? Why can't Lot stay in Sodom to prevent God from destroying it?
Upvote
0
I wasn't arguing. Not sure where you saw that.
I never really understood the story of Sodom. I have thought of the story as a series of strange events that happened. What's stranger is that Abraham/Abram asked God whether God would destroy Sodom if there were so-and-so many good persons living there, and God replied that he would not destroy it. Later, it appears that God destroyed Sodom anyway, though by that time Lot and his family had already left. Still, What qualifies Lot as the only family who is decent enough? Why can't Lot stay in Sodom to prevent God from destroying it?
I was just making sure this wasn't a "baiting" thread. No worries if you are genuinely asking questions.
Yes, what happened is that Abra[ha]m asked God to spare the city if he found merely 50 people that were righteous. Righteous did not mean sinless, it meant people who were striving to be Godly - people that (even through faults) continued to follow God's word to the best of their ability, acknowledging Him in every respectful and loving way. God agreed, but not even 50 people could be labeled "righteous." Eventually, the number went down to 10. Not even 10 people could be deemed righteous. Sodom was incredibly wicked, with no recognition of God, neither respect for Him.
This is another example of a man attempting to make a spiritual situation better (which proved to be folly.) Abraham was bargaining with God, hoping that there were enough people righteous enough to evade God's judgment. God obliged and entertained Abraham's plea, but in the end there weren't enough people even by Abraham's plea to save the city. Likewise, Lot attempt to alleviate spiritual matters, attempting to sweeping the embarrassing actions of the Sodomites under the rug by offering them his daughter. They refused. They got judged. In a way, it is a lesson in man's attempt to solve spiritual matters, especially when they have already been decided upon.
Another example of man attempting to solve spiritual matters is Johan avoiding Nineveh to prophecy to them concerning their wickedness. He was literally swallowed into the belly of the beast before he decided to do what he was supposed to do. But, before that he attempted to solve spiritual problems on his own.
Fun Fact: Sodom means "scorch/burnt," and in more detail, "vulcanism or bituminous [coal]". At the site where it is thought that Sodom and Gomorrah event occurred, there is a high amount of sulfur (in the form of balls,) which is common with vulcanism. Sulfur is biblical equivalent to brimstone.
Upvote
0
What if the people of Sodom does not recognize God or respect God but are very hospitable and friendly and cooperative to each other? Would God still punish the godless people of Sodom, even if the people of Sodom had been sweet and gentle and very virtuous? What if the people of Sodom were atheists (lack of belief in God) but were moral atheists?
So, if the story of Sodom is really about trying to solve spiritual problems by an ordinary human being and ultimately failing, then that is essentially teaching a lesson that you need God to solve spiritual problems for you or decide upon the ultimate judgment, right? OK, but what's with the pillar of salt that Lot's wife has turned herself into by disobeying God? How come she has become one of those evil folks? If Sodom is an allegory of humanity's attempt of solving spiritual problems, then why didn't Lot do anything to prevent that? Why did Lot's own wife disobey God?
Upvote
0
Well, I can't judge because I am not God. What I can say is that Sodom was most likely not the only nation that did not recognize/respect God - it was their illicit and blatant disrespect that caused judgment. God is merciful with the Godly and ungodly alike. He makes a way for people who do not respect Him. So, I don't know if God would punish godless people even if they were sweet or gentle, virtuous, etc. One thing about humanity is it cannot compete with Godliness. Being God-like is superior to humanity. So, despite how "good" you think you are, you don't stand a chance at godliness. God may have judged other nations (in different degrees, as He judged Egypt and Nineveh.) It isn't your ungodliness, however, that "chaps God's hairs," it is your apathy toward Him. In the case with Nineveh, they repented, spread ashes on their heads and lamented. God spared them. A continual disobedience and ignorance of God will eventually warrant a response from Him. Depending on the degrees of ignorance/disrespect, it can range from a "warning" to "destruction."
I think the side-story is about man trying to solve spiritual problems on his/her own. Sodom was about a wicked nation that had no regard, respect or remorse. You do need God to solve all problems (not just spiritual.)
Lot's wife became a pillar of salt as a metaphor (real, and figurative.) God said "Don't look back," meaning "do not hope for, long for, or wish for your previous life in a city of iniquity." It is sort of like if God told you to leave America, and head for the Amazon, and don't look back. Sure, on a physical and literal scale it means don't look back while running, but it also means do not lament on what you will be missing in America while going to the Amazons - the Ipods, internet, supermarkets, etc. This is also similar to the "weeding out" of Hebrews during the Exodus. The Hebrew slaves complained that it was better to be in Egypt rather than wondering in the desert because of things like meat and onions. Meanwhile, Egypt is undergoing horrific judgment. The Hebrews wanted meat so bad (even though God rained down Angel's food/Manna) that when God dropped fowl down some of them ate the birds raw! The died on the spot as judgment, because it was a slap in the face to beg for the old ways of the place God was saving them from! Likewise, to figuratively or literally look back at the place that was so wicked not even 10 people could save the land is a slap in the face to God, who is saving you from destruction.
If you were a believer, and God told you to drop everything you are doing and run for the Chilean hills NOW, and don't look back, that is to say 1) don't literally look back, and 2) don't remissness on how your life was in America.
Upvote
0
If you were a believer, then what would be of your descendants who would be born in the Chilean hills or the desired place or the godly way of life? Would a descendant of a believer automatically be considered more godly than a first-time, first-generation believer? If that is the case, then wouldn't it be better to be born in a Christian family to be "saved" than to be a first-generation believer who needs to move away from the sinful place or sinful way of life? Perhaps, this is why some Jews believe that if the mother is Jewish, then that automatically makes the baby born Jewish, regardless of actual beliefs. So, the child may be atheist or agnostic or totally irreverent toward God, but the child is still regarded Jewish and should live by Jewish laws, customs, and traditions.
Upvote
0
Me being a believer has nothing to do with my descendant's relationship with God. Each individual has his or her own choice in his/her spiritual relationship with God. I could raise my descendants in the most Christian home, or most atheists home, and my descendants can come out staunch atheists or believers, respectively. It also doesn't matter where you are; sometimes you are put in situations to be an example of leadership under God. Jews being born to Jewish mothers and therefore being Jew by "law" is a Pharisee Law. Spiritually, anyone who believes in Christ, and His sacrifice and resurrection is a Hebrew in spirit. Being an Hebrew in the flesh won't get you to salvation, or righteousness. Moreover, living by Hebrew laws, traditions and customs does not necessarily justify you under God. You have to 1) understand why such laws are there, 2) want to follow them through obedience to God (not because Yaya said so, and 3) know the relationship between you, God and Christ, and that following Hebrew laws does not justify you under God (it is Christ's sacrifice, and your faith in Him that justifies you.)
*I don't use the word "Jew" because it comes from "Juden," which comes from Judah, which is only one tribe of Israel. I use the term Hebrew to refer to all tribes of Israel, including Judah.
Upvote
0
So, if a person has a Jewish mother and a Christian father, and that person becomes a staunch atheist, then that person would be considered ethnically Jewish but religiously atheist. Now, if the same person becomes a Christian at some point of his life, then that person would be considered ethnically Jewish but religiously Christian... or Jewish Christian.
Upvote
0
Ethnically Jewish, yes.
Spiritually Hebrew, "religiously" Christian.
In reality, Christ was an Hebrew. That comes with certain implications, one of which is that "religious" Christians - followers of Christ - should do what He did, which is follow the Law of God, and the Hebrew prophets. He fulfilled the Law because He was the only human capable of doing everything lawfully right (whereas other humans like me and you sin, and fall short of the Law.)
Upvote
0
A rabbi is a Jewish teacher or cleric. Often in the Bible, Jesus is referred to as a "rabbi". In one scene in the Book of John, Mary Magdalene is calling out "Rabboni!" when she meets Jesus in the tomb at which he resurrects from the grave. Therefore, he is Jewish. I am not sure where you get the idea that "Hebrew" broadly denotes the people. The way I think of it, Hebrew is the language that the Jews use to write and speak. Judaism is a religion as well as an ethnicity.
Upvote
0
Because Jew is a [derogatory] word for the tribe of Judah, which is 1/12 of the tribes that make up Israel, which are Hebrews.
Using the word Hebrews is a broad term for all 12 tribes of Israel - especially since Israel (11 tribes sans Judah,) and Judah were socially, economically and ethnically separated.
Hebrew is a word referencing members of descendants of Jacob in the books of Moses.
Judaism is a modern, colloquial term for believers of Hebrew faith. It does not represent all 12 tribes of Jacob (Israel,) and it does not incorporate those who do not know their genetic lineages as possible members of 1 of 12 tribes of Israel. It has become the word of choice to describe anyone who believes in the principles of said religion.
Upvote
0
Since you are a Christian, that would make you a follower of Jesus, and by your wording, you would be considered a believer of the "Hebrew faith", and therefore a Jew, correct? Would you consider yourself a Christian or a Jew? You do realize that true Jews do not accept Jesus as the Christ, right? They regard Jesus as a false messiah claimant out of many Jewish messiah claimants.
Also, I am wondering why you are mentioning people who "do not known their genetic lineages". Have you ever met anyone who can trace his or her lineage for 2000 years into the past?
Upvote
0
ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 39,212
- 28,624
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
The text is within the context of a time and place with certain general customs and assumption.
First, it needs to be said, that the text does not actually tell us one way or the other whether Lot's own intended action was good or bad (it merely describes what Lot tried to do, without assigning moral quality to it).
Moving from that into the actual situation the text describes:
Hospitality, the welcoming of strangers, was a supreme virtue in the ancient near-eastern world. And Genesis describes two episodes as parallels/contrasts to highly the marked difference between Abraham and the Hebrews with the surrounding nations.
Note that prior to the whole ordeal with Sodom, Lot, etc the text talks about three angelic visitors coming to Abraham. Abraham welcomes them, he prepares a sumptuous feast for them.
Following this angelic visitors go into Sodom, and in stark contrast to Abraham and his people's hospitality, these visitors are greeted only by an angry, hostile mob.
Further, let's keep in mind that Genesis is part of the Torah, the five books of Moses, and additionally it is a prologue to the Exodus and God making a covenant with the Israelites. These two stories establish a parallel contrast, with Abraham as Patriarch of the Hebrews, father of Israel, he represents here what is expected of God's people. And, indeed, God established commandments specifically for Israel for the right and just treatment of foreigners and strangers. Hospitality was to be a prime virtue of God's People.
In this context, the text describes Lot trying to bargain for the visitors. While it seems barbaric and misogynistic today, in those days a man's daughters were his property, and thus Lot is bargaining, offering what is his (his own flesh and blood daughters) to try and save the visitors. Now we can look at that from our perspective and make many a moral judgment; but the text must be read from within the context of time and culture.
But this is the context of what is described in the text, it is part of a larger narrative teaching the essential importance of hospitality and how that would be a marked distinctive of God's people in contrast to those people, who in their wickedness, mistreat neighbor and stranger; whereas God's people are to welcome, feed, clothe, and nourish the stranger.
In fact, in the Prophet Ezekiel, we find Sodom as the archetype of a people who mistreated the poor and the oppressed, who did not welcome in strangers. It is also in this context that when Jesus sends His apostles out, He says concerning those who will reject them that it will be far better for Sodom on Judgment day. Sodom's mistreatment of the poor, the stranger, and the needy is the chief sin of the city, and the reason why it was destroyed (at least according to the Bible itself).
-CryptoLutheran
First, it needs to be said, that the text does not actually tell us one way or the other whether Lot's own intended action was good or bad (it merely describes what Lot tried to do, without assigning moral quality to it).
Moving from that into the actual situation the text describes:
Hospitality, the welcoming of strangers, was a supreme virtue in the ancient near-eastern world. And Genesis describes two episodes as parallels/contrasts to highly the marked difference between Abraham and the Hebrews with the surrounding nations.
Note that prior to the whole ordeal with Sodom, Lot, etc the text talks about three angelic visitors coming to Abraham. Abraham welcomes them, he prepares a sumptuous feast for them.
Following this angelic visitors go into Sodom, and in stark contrast to Abraham and his people's hospitality, these visitors are greeted only by an angry, hostile mob.
Further, let's keep in mind that Genesis is part of the Torah, the five books of Moses, and additionally it is a prologue to the Exodus and God making a covenant with the Israelites. These two stories establish a parallel contrast, with Abraham as Patriarch of the Hebrews, father of Israel, he represents here what is expected of God's people. And, indeed, God established commandments specifically for Israel for the right and just treatment of foreigners and strangers. Hospitality was to be a prime virtue of God's People.
In this context, the text describes Lot trying to bargain for the visitors. While it seems barbaric and misogynistic today, in those days a man's daughters were his property, and thus Lot is bargaining, offering what is his (his own flesh and blood daughters) to try and save the visitors. Now we can look at that from our perspective and make many a moral judgment; but the text must be read from within the context of time and culture.
But this is the context of what is described in the text, it is part of a larger narrative teaching the essential importance of hospitality and how that would be a marked distinctive of God's people in contrast to those people, who in their wickedness, mistreat neighbor and stranger; whereas God's people are to welcome, feed, clothe, and nourish the stranger.
In fact, in the Prophet Ezekiel, we find Sodom as the archetype of a people who mistreated the poor and the oppressed, who did not welcome in strangers. It is also in this context that when Jesus sends His apostles out, He says concerning those who will reject them that it will be far better for Sodom on Judgment day. Sodom's mistreatment of the poor, the stranger, and the needy is the chief sin of the city, and the reason why it was destroyed (at least according to the Bible itself).
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0
drich0150
Regular Member
- Mar 16, 2008
- 6,407
- 437
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
One who knows the wrath of God, and looks to perserve a city over the virtues of his own flesh and blood.
Would you sacrifice your own daughters for every man woman and child in say a city like NY, or Tokyo? Lot did, or at least tried to.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
