Were Lot's daughters married or not?

[Isatis]

So, we're in Sodom, the two Angels are in Lot's house and when men of Sodom want to have sex with them, Lot stands up for them and, in desperation to protect them, offers his two daughers "who have known no man" (Ge19.8) but I have a problem when I read in verse 14 that Lot speaks to his sons-in-law, who had married his daughters.

So, my question is how can they be single in verse 8 and married in verse 14?

 

[grasping the after wind]

So, we're in Sodom, the two Angels are in Lot's house and when men of Sodom want to have sex with them, Lot stands up for them and, in desperation to protect them, offers his two daughers "who have known no man" (Ge19.8) but I have a problem when I read in verse 14 that Lot speaks to his sons-in-law, who had married his daughters.

So, my question is how can they be single in verse 8 and married in verse 14?

I don't see where it says they were single. Being married doesn't mean they had "known men". The question should be "What was wrong with Lot's sons-in-law?". Perhaps being married to Sodomites we can guess why Lot's daughters remained virgins after marriage.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Good question Isatis, I never even thought about it. I know there is a dispute on just how many daughters Lot had. Whether it be 4 or 2 of them, I only see 2 mentioned (there) and then as you pointed out his sons in laws, so we know there were more then one son in law. And we know the angels said gather your family up and get them out of there, and only the sons in law are mentioned in thinking he was mocking. So Lot, his wife and two daughters left and the mention of Lots wife looking behind and becoming a pillar of salt, but the 2 daughters making it out with him, so I honestly cant say. It would be purely speculation on my part to guess (like if there were only 2 and they didnt consumate their marraige? Or that there were more then 2 (4 at least) and the other 2 arent mentioned?


There some real humzingers in there sometimes. I would suppose to make it work (without question on my part) might be to say they were newly married and hadnt had their honeymoon or something, I havent a clue. Maybe someone else has a much better answer, because Ive never noticed that before.

I apologize for not being much help here

God bless you sister

 

[earagun]

Interesting catch! I always like these cunundrums.......I'll have to check it out..........I'm not to familiar with Jewish custom, maybe someone else is but I find it strange that the married daughters are living in Lots house, and not in the houses of the son in laws which is usually custom in that regard, daughters go to the husbands family, maybe its more like the custom of being promised in marriage, as young girls are somtimes subjected to this custom, where they are married at a ridiculas young age and the husband needs to wait until they come of age. this could be seen in the story of Isaac, Rebekah left her family with a nurse. according to the bible Isaac was very old and blind, when his wife Rebekah was still very active and able to prepare food as she is seen cooking, and making skins to cover Jacobs arms.........the book of Jasher has according to all the ages of historical patriarchs, put Isaac at forty and Rebekah at ten. while many might want dispute this, it would be apparent from the bible that Isaac was quite a few years older than Rebekah none the less, I would hardly believe Isaac would commit an act of pedophilia, and would have waited until Rebekah reached an appropriate age, before knowing her as the bible puts it. we see from scripture Rebekah was barren for quite a few years, as Isaac reaches 59 and Rebekah persuades Isaac to pray for her to God to remove her barreness, thus she conceived at the age of 29, so at least says the book of Jasher, which for the record has all biblical ages correctly identified and in order with regards to what we find written in the bible. So I would conclude and make the assumption Lot had beqeathed his daughters in marriage, possibly even had them perform a marriage ceremony much like Gypsies still do today, and still keep the daughters at home until they have reached an age where they feel they are ready to be intimate with their spouse. thus the bible was true in both they were married and yet remained virgins

 

[Isatis]

Good question Isatis, I never even thought about it. I know there is a dispute on just how many daughters Lot had. Whether it be 4 or 2 of them, I only see 2 mentioned (there) and then as you pointed out his sons in laws, so we know there were more then one son in law. And we know the angels said gather your family up and get them out of there, and only the sons in law are mentioned in thinking he was mocking. So Lot, his wife and two daughters left and the mention of Lots wife looking behind and becoming a pillar of salt, but the 2 daughters making it out with him, so I honestly cant say. It would be purely speculation on my part to guess (like if there were only 2 and they didnt consumate their marraige? Or that there were more then 2 (4 at least) and the other 2 arent mentioned?


There some real humzingers in there sometimes. I would suppose to make it work (without question on my part) might be to say they were newly married and hadnt had their honeymoon or something, I havent a clue. Maybe someone else has a much better answer, because Ive never noticed that before.

I apologize for not being much help here

God bless you sister

God bless you too sis!

Genesis 19-30-38, we hear about Lot's daughters again when they sleep with their father to get pregnant and continue the "family line". We don't have much on his genealogy Complete Bible Genealogy - Lot

 

[Isatis]

Some have suggested that Lot had two daughters. They believe that these virgins who were offered to the mob were also betrothed to the men who are called sons-in-law. Others believe Lot had at least four daughters. Two or more had already married men of the city. If this was the case then the husbands had authority over their wives. Lot could not rescue his daughters without convincing their husbands to depart. The men weren't persuaded, and Lot had to leave his children to die.

I copied this from here Why Fathers Are So

This makes sense, don't you think so?

 

[REHTERNEGREH]

The greatest problems we run into when it comes to scripture are many:
The first and foremost is reading into the passages with our own pre-conceived ideas and feelings.
The second would be to add to God's revealed word.
The third would be to apply today's standards against the backdrop of the age being spoken of.

Now to the question on Lot's daughters and the act of Incest.
Scripture does not leave it open for more than two daughters.
And as for the two daughters being married? They were betrothed to two men, which in that day and society they were married without sexual privileges until a specified date. (Which we are not given.)

As for the Incest in that day and age, it may not have been common even though it was practiced at times by different groups of people. Pro-creation was more important than how close your spouse was to you. Example: Sarah was Abraham's half-sister. Gen. 20:12. (Now adultery was a different matter.)
As for Lot and his two listed daughters; their betrothed husbands were dead at the destruction of Sodom, which made them free from adultery. As for their motives to continue their father's lineage, they must have felt he would have refused to willingly participate in the act. Therefore the need to render him incapacitated to make the decision. As for Lot being able to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] his sperm into the womb of his daughters is not a problem as his body would respond even though he was intoxicated.
Virgil

 

[-V-]

Some translations state in verse 14 as the sons-in-law "were TO marry" or "were GOING TO marry" the daughters, indicating they were betrothed but not yet married.

The NET translation includes the following note:
The language has to be interpreted in the light of the context and the social customs. The men are called “sons-in-law” (literally “the takers of his daughters”), but the daughters had not yet had sex with a man. It is better to translate the phrase “who were going to marry his daughters.” Since formal marriage contracts were binding, the husbands-to-be could already be called sons-in-law.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So, we're in Sodom, the two Angels are in Lot's house and when men of Sodom want to have sex with them, Lot stands up for them and, in desperation to protect them, offers his two daughers "who have known no man" (Ge19.8) but I have a problem when I read in verse 14 that Lot speaks to his sons-in-law, who had married his daughters.

So, my question is how can they be single in verse 8 and married in verse 14?

We assume that everyone told the truth in the Biblical accounts. It is conceivable that Lot might have lied to the men of Sodom in saying that his daughters were virgins. How do we know he didn't? That could quite easily solve the apparent contradiction.

 

[birdetto]

So, we're in Sodom, the two Angels are in Lot's house and when men of Sodom want to have sex with them, Lot stands up for them and, in desperation to protect them, offers his two daughers "who have known no man" (Ge19.8) but I have a problem when I read in verse 14 that Lot speaks to his sons-in-law, who had married his daughters.

So, my question is how can they be single in verse 8 and married in verse 14?

Thanks for asking. The thing about Genesis 19 is that it is providing a picture for us, in parable sense, of the times towards the end of the church age. That is why Jesus referred to Lot coming out of Sodom (in Luke 17) as a picture of the contrast between true believers and the fallen congregations at a later time, not just at the Genesis time of the Genesis story: "Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."

As we we think about this, it is the city Sodom which provides a picture of the fallen congregations of the church age. Eating and drinking and buying and selling and planting and building are all spiritual terms describing, in parable form, the activities of the congregations of the church age. People eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, and merchandise in the souls of persons, and plant and build 'churches' and so on. In contrast, those inside Lot's house are a picture of the true believers as the church age winds down. The term 'angels' in the Bible simply means messengers and is used to describe true believers often, and the term angel of the Lord and simply angel can even refer to Christ. True believers are God's messengers (angels). (Incidentally, these angels are referred to as men in Gen 19:10). The people of Sodom want to "know" the true believers but they only want to do so in order that they can abuse them or treat them wickedly, as Lot says. It so happens that God 'knows' his true believers in the Bible, his own sheep. This is not really a sexual 'know'. It is God knowing in a spiritual way his own sheep because they are of him spiritually speaking. It is not for the fallen congregations to 'know' the things of God or to be known of God, since they only have evil in their hearts towards God. I would not think of the term 'know' in Genesis 19 as being so much a sexual reference as what is implied by the parable meaning, to know spiritually. Thus, Lot refuses, because of their wicked intent spiritually. The terms "which have not known man" and "sons in law, which married his daughters" are loaded terms with spiritual meanings in relation to Christ. The sons-in-law seem to have trouble heeded Lot's warning and it seems to them that he is mocking them. They also do not get mentioned again as ones whom the angels take out of the city. Anyhow, if you are focusing on the surface story, as being one about physical sex, I think it should be taken more as one of spiritual knowing rather than physical. In like manner, the blindness that is inflicted on the city of Sodom by the messengers of God should be looked at as ultimately not pointing to physical blindness but to the spiritual blindness that the congregations of the church age have as the church age draws to a close, and how they weary themselves trying to find the door (which is a parable word for Jesus).

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Thanks for asking. The thing about Genesis 19 is that it is providing a picture for us, in parable sense, of the times towards the end of the church age. That is why Jesus referred to Lot coming out of Sodom (in Luke 17) as a picture of the contrast between true believers and the fallen congregations at a later time, not just at the Genesis time of the Genesis story: "Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."

As we we think about this, it is the city Sodom which provides a picture of the fallen congregations of the church age. Eating and drinking and buying and selling and planting and building are all spiritual terms describing, in parable form, the activities of the congregations of the church age. People eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, and merchandise in the souls of persons, and plant and build 'churches' and so on. In contrast, those inside Lot's house are a picture of the true believers as the church age winds down. The term 'angels' in the Bible simply means messengers and is used to describe true believers often, and the term angel of the Lord and simply angel can even refer to Christ. True believers are God's messengers (angels). (Incidentally, these angels are referred to as men in Gen 19:10). The people of Sodom want to "know" the true believers but they only want to do so in order that they can abuse them or treat them wickedly, as Lot says. It so happens that God 'knows' his true believers in the Bible, his own sheep. This is not really a sexual 'know'. It is God knowing in a spiritual way his own sheep because they are of him spiritually speaking. It is not for the fallen congregations to 'know' the things of God or to be known of God, since they only have evil in their hearts towards God. I would not think of the term 'know' in Genesis 19 as being so much a sexual reference as what is implied by the parable meaning, to know spiritually. Thus, Lot refuses, because of their wicked intent spiritually. The terms "which have not known man" and "sons in law, which married his daughters" are loaded terms with spiritual meanings in relation to Christ. The sons-in-law seem to have trouble heeded Lot's warning and it seems to them that he is mocking them. They also do not get mentioned again as ones whom the angels take out of the city. Anyhow, if you are focusing on the surface story, as being one about physical sex, I think it should be taken more as one of spiritual knowing rather than physical. In like manner, the blindness that is inflicted on the city of Sodom by the messengers of God should be looked at as ultimately not pointing to physical blindness but to the spiritual blindness that the congregations of the church age have as the church age draws to a close, and how they weary themselves trying to find the door (which is a parable word for Jesus).

And I thought that the account of Sodom and Gomorrah was just straight history!

 

[birdetto]

And I thought that the account of Sodom and Gomorrah was just straight history!

Thanks for your response Oscarr. Do you still feel it is just straight history or do you agree it is a picture of later events? It sounds like maybe you agree of later events. Did you know that the law of God (the Bible) is written in parable form. The Bible tells us this in Psalm 78 when it says: " Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable". Mark 34 backs this up with the statement: "But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples." To say that the Bible is written in parable form means that the seemingly straightforward physical stories actually are pictures of spiritual things. In the Bible's case, spiritual things usually revolve around the theme of salvation. For example, a story about a rock getting struck and water flowing from it is really a picture of Jesus (the rock) and the gospel with the associated spirit being made available to those thirsty for salvation.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Thanks for your response Oscarr. Do you still feel it is just straight history or do you agree it is a picture of later events? It sounds like maybe you agree of later events. Did you know that the law of God (the Bible) is written in parable form. The Bible tells us this in Psalm 78 when it says: " Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable". Mark 34 backs this up with the statement: "But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples." To say that the Bible is written in parable form means that the seemingly straightforward physical stories actually are pictures of spiritual things. In the Bible's case, spiritual things usually revolve around the theme of salvation. For example, a story about a rock getting struck and water flowing from it is really a picture of Jesus (the rock) and the gospel with the associated spirit being made available to those thirsty for salvation.

The thing about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is that it is history and not a parable. Now, having said that, I think your spiritual take on the story is quite good and interesting to read. It goes along with the OT written for our education to show how God responds and reacts in human situations. The people of those cities must have been very very evil for God to want to wreak such destruction upon them.

I saw a documentary on Youtube where this geologist found where he believed Sodom actually was. He was able to point out shapes where there were once buildings. Apparently it was quite a large cosmopolitan area. But the destruction was like it was hit by a nuclear weapon!

It shows that God, although He is a God of grace and mercy, He has His limits. The beauty thing I see in the story about how Abraham bargained with God and beat Him down to just 10 righteous men to stop the destruction. But there were not even that many. There was only one - Lot. God was not going to save Sodom just for one righteous man, so he got Lot and his family out of there. He gave the option to his sons in Law but they refused, and so they were destroyed along with the city.

Jesus made the statement, "Remember Lot's wife." That is a lesson for us that once we are on the road to the Celestial City, we don't look back longingly at the world we left behind. Also, John Bunyan in "Pilgrim's Progress" likens fleeing to Jesus for salvation as escaping the city of destruction. So there are lessons there for us in that history. Jesus also told of a city that rejected Him and he said that in the judgement it will be more tolerable for the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah than for those people. So those who reject Jesus may find a much hotter, wrathful reaction from God than those from those cities. So, if God utterly destroyed a whole group of cities and made a fertile land so desolate that nothing can ever grow there again with such a display of His wrathful power, how shall we escape if we neglect the salvation He offers us.

Boy, I didn't have all that in my mind when I started this post. but it shows that I am in agreement with you when you want to see deeper meanings in OT history.

 

[disciple1]

So, we're in Sodom, the two Angels are in Lot's house and when men of Sodom want to have sex with them, Lot stands up for them and, in desperation to protect them, offers his two daughers "who have known no man" (Ge19.8) but I have a problem when I read in verse 14 that Lot speaks to his sons-in-law, who had married his daughters.

So, my question is how can they be single in verse 8 and married in verse 14?

In the niv it says they were pledged to be married, so I guess they weren't married.
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry[a] his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because the Lord is about to destroy the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

In the niv it says they were pledged to be married, so I guess they weren't married.
14 So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry[a] his daughters. He said, “Hurry and get out of this place, because the Lord is about to destroy the city!” But his sons-in-law thought he was joking.

The thing about Biblical history in the early stages, it can be condensed in time so that it seems like one event is following another closely when the time between the two events could be years. And we are not given details of the relationship between his daughters and their men. All we can do is guess. Actually the question is fairly minor considering there were greater issues surrounding the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[Mark51]

The custom, in ancient times, for engaged couples were considered to be “bound in marriage.” Therefore, the man was called “son-in-law” regardless of whether the marriage alliance were preformed had been fully consummated. Lot’s daughters were only betrothed; otherwise they would most likely have been with their husbands and not living in their father’s house.