What is so great about Lot?

[PloverWing]

The Bible says he is righteous.

and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the depraved conduct of the lawless
2 Peter 2:7

Yes, you're right; I missed that. What the author of II Peter is basing his evaluation on, I can't say, because I don't see much about Lot in Genesis that's commendable. But I do see that statement in II Peter.

 

[MournfulWatcher]

How do you turn an incestuous guy into a hero?

He wasn't responsible for his daughters raping him. And he wasn't a hero either. The text never calls him that.

 

[martymonster]

How about he was perfectly willing to slaughter his own kid?

Do you have a problem with God sacrificing his only begotten son?

 

[packermann]

Yes, you're right; I missed that. What the author of II Peter is basing his evaluation on, I can't say, because I don't see much about Lot in Genesis that's commendable. But I do see that statement in II Peter.

That is why I think that it must be derived by Jewish oral tradition and nothing that was written down. Also, 2 Peter writes this as a matter-of-fact, as something that his reader would have been aware of. He did not have to convince his readers of this. He just wrote "righteous Lot" as if all knew. It is not that 2 Peter received this as a special revelation from God.

This is just one example of many that the New Testament based its teaching on tradition and not on the Old Testament. This counter-balances Mark 7:8 where Jesus condemned the Jewish leaders for nullifying the Word of God by the traditions of men. It shows that there were bad traditions and there were good traditions - traditions that nullified the Word of God were traditions of men but the tradition that 2 Peter relied on did not contradict anything that was in the Word of God and so it was assumed to be reliable.

So we cannot discount all traditions just because they are not in the Bible, only traditions that obviously go against the Bible. It is not enough to say "but where is that in the Bible?". You would have to show that the Bible teaches against it.

 

[DamianWarS]

We know that he offered his virgin daughters to rapists. And then had sex with them, resulting in pregnancies. Why did God find him righteous?

Don't forget Abraham was also quick to release his wife over to Abimelek

We don't live in a culture so driven by honour that we don't understand these moves. Abraham was honour driven to a King when he allowed Abimelek to take his wife and Abimelek later returns her because of a dream from God and so he too is honour driven when giving her back. Lot too was honour driven to his guests when he offered his daughters to the crowd.

We like to superimpose our perfect views of these people but they were products of their environment where women were viewed differently and treatment in this way was not uncommon and honour always is the highest value, even over truth or flesh and blood. Look at Jephthah, he sacrificed his own daughter because he vowed he would do so to God to the first thing that came to greet him. Honour is the highest value in these accounts and it is the driving force.

 

[bekkilyn]

I never excused it. Don't know how you got that impression. He did the wrong thing even for that time. But those girls were not the innocent children that you are trying to make them out to be. 'Nice' girls don't go and rape their own father.

I liked your explanatory post and agreed with much of it concerning Lots' character, but I do feel I need to mention there are people here on this thread who have been excusing Lot's behavior concerning his daughters because Lot is considered to be righteous in a NT verse. Personally, I find that particular interpretation to be appalling and can very well understand why Emmy is upset. It upsets me as well.

 

[bekkilyn]

Yes, you're right; I missed that. What the author of II Peter is basing his evaluation on, I can't say, because I don't see much about Lot in Genesis that's commendable. But I do see that statement in II Peter.

I think it's likely pointing towards the idea that we as Christians are only deemed righteous because of Christ's righteousness and not due to our own efforts at righteousness. For all Lot's selfishness (choosing what he thought were the best lands when separating from Abraham down to his despicable behavior concerning his daughters, he did trust God enough to leave Sodom when directed and also had his uncle Abraham as a mediator.

I don't in ANY way agree that Lot was righteous because of what he did concerning his daughters. God never told him to do that and just because it's "in the bible" and done by a "righteous man" (perhaps before he was ever deemed to even be righteous) doesn't make it right or God-approved.

 

[bekkilyn]

Don't forget Abraham was also quick to release his wife over to Abimelek

We don't live in a culture so driven by honour that we don't understand these moves. Abraham was honour driven to a King when he allowed Abimelek to take his wife and Abimelek later returns her because of a dream from God and so he too is honour driven when giving her back. Lot too was honour driven to his guests when he offered his daughters to the crowd.

We like to superimpose our perfect views of these people but they were products of their environment where women were viewed differently and treatment in this way was not uncommon and honour always is the highest value, even over truth or flesh and blood. Look at Jephthah, he sacrificed his own daughter because he vowed he would do so to God to the first thing that came to greet him. Honour is the highest value in these accounts and it is the driving force.

That's why books such as Hebrews emphasizes that Abraham was deemed righteous because of his faith and not because of his obedience to the law or because of of any sort of perfect behavior because we can certainly see a number of deficiencies in his behavior, such as your example above (which actually happened with him TWICE in getting Sarah to pretend she wasn't his wife.) Even in the OT, salvation was never through obedience to the law or based on good behavior.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

I asked you in another thread Em, if you were/are a believer, and said if you did not answer, that was an answer. You did not answer.
I believe when you signed up for this forum you agreed you ARE a Christian, but it seems you are not, and are, in fact, on this website to try to disprove the Bible.
But there is a God, one God, and He hates duplicity, so at least be honest about where you are coming from. Since you are not a believer, I assume, if you have questions, if you are truly searching for the truth, then ask away. Just be clear as to where you are at; what you believe and don't believe. And you are asking the right questions. The hard questions. Questions every thinking believer asks.
And ya, I always hated the story of Abraham being called to kill his son too, but it is a foreshadowing of what Jesus did for us, and also, Jews have a tradition that it was also a way for God to say no child sacrifice, which was rampant in that day.
I thought of that myself, but it took me years to come to that thought, then I went and heard a Jewish poet, and he rambled it off as if it was common knowlege. I was stunned.
But I think it was also a test for all of us reading it. Because not far before that, that same story, if you take it as a whole, which you/we should, and very early on in the Bible, God tells Abraham He is going to destroy Sodom ans Ghamorra (sp?) and Abraham has this long, very touching kind of argument with him....
'But God, what if there are 100 righteous there...you would not destroy the righteous with the just would you? And God says no, if there are 100 righteous I will not destroy them. Then Abraham rethinks it, and says but what if there are 50? Again God says no.
Abraham finally gets down to a really small number to which God replies again no, but at the same time is sendimg his angels to retrieve Lot and his daughters (their husbands would not come if I remember correctly).
The point is,( in spite of my bad paraphrase of the story), that God knows what he is doing. And the Bible leaves out a whole lot. We do not know Isaac's perspective on the matter, but we do know he continued to be a believer.
So the question is, what do you believe? And who do you trust?
Ironically, it was Satan that taught me to believe in God, in large part, many years ago, because I have seen Satan's works, (evil) and I have seen God's, (Good) and I will trust God, in spite of the many things I do not understand.
That story about Abraham questioning God, if He would destroy the righteous along with the wicked, was like God saying, 'you're going to read some difficult things ahead...Who do you trust?'

Does anywhere in scripture say that story is a foreshadowing or are making the connection because you believe it fits?

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Lets see, you post in a Christian only forum while your profile says 'seeking'. We give you answers that you won't accept and claim we are somehow condoning sin because we are trying to explain why people did what they did. This thread isn't on Paul, it's on Lot.
So yes we are questioning your motives.

How are “we” trying to explain why people did what they did when the scripture doesn’t say why they did what they did?

 

[GraceBro]

We know that he offered his virgin daughters to rapists. And then had sex with them, resulting in pregnancies. Why did God find him righteous?

What is so great about Noah (drunkard)? What is so great about Abraham (lier)? What is so great about Moses (killed a man)? What is so great about David (adulterer, had her husband killed)? What is so great about Samson (disobedient)? What is so great about us (all of the above)? All of us have sinned, yet God counts us righteous because we believe Him. Whatever criteria God used to determine Lot's righteousness was enough to satisfy Him. If you need evidence, it says he was distressed by what he had heard going on in the city, he did try to tell the angels to stay with him instead of in the square, he left with his family as he was told, and he didn't look back when God destroyed the city. While that may not be enough evidence to persuade you, it is evidence.
Grace and Peace

 

[packermann]

What is so great about Noah (drunkard)? What is so great about Abraham (lier)? What is so great about Moses (killed a man)? What is so great about David (adulterer, had her husband killed)? What is so great about Samson (disobedient)? What is so great about us (all of the above)? All of us have sinned, yet God counts us righteous because we believe Him. Whatever criteria God used to determine Lot's righteousness was enough to satisfy Him. If you need evidence, it says he was distressed by what he had heard going on in the city, he did try to tell the angels to stay with him instead of in the square, he left with his family as he was told, and he didn't look back when God destroyed the city. While that may not be enough evidence to persuade you, it is evidence.
Grace and Peace

I think it was more than they just believed in Him. The demons believe and tremble (James 2:19). We must repent. The good news is that no matter how bad we are we can always contritely turn back to God (Psalms 51:17). We must die in friendship with God, otherwise we are eternally lost. That is why the thief on the cross is with Christ in Paradise. No matter all the crimes he committed, at the end he turned to Christ, and all was forgiven.

God is all merciful, but His mercy is only given to those who fear Him (Luke 1:50). A person who fears God may still sin now and then, but in the end he is with God and not with the devil. Faith is still needed. It is a prerequisite. No one can fear God unless he first believes in Him. Although without faith it is impossible to please God, there is still more we need to do. We must repent and believe (Mark 1:15). Both verbs are in the present tense in the Greek. We must keep on repenting and keep on believing. It is not a one-time act, but one that is done continually until we die. Noah, Lot, David, and Abraham committed some serious sins, but they never stopped repenting and believing because they feared God if they should stop.

 

[GraceBro]

I think it was more than they just believed in Him. The demons believe and tremble (James 2:19). We must repent. The good news is that no matter how bad we are we can always contritely turn back to God (Psalms 51:17). We must die in friendship with God, otherwise we are eternally lost. That is why the thief on the cross is with Christ in Paradise. No matter all the crimes he committed, at the end he turned to Christ, and all was forgiven.

God is all merciful, but His mercy is only given to those who fear Him (Luke 1:50). A person who fears God may still sin now and then, but in the end he is with God and not with the devil. Faith is still needed. It is a prerequisite. No one can fear God unless he first believes in Him. Although without faith it is impossible to please God, there is still more we need to do. We must also fear and love Him.

You may think it is "more than they just believed," but the Bible says differently. "For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness (Romans 4:3).” The demons believe, but demons can't be saved, much less have righteousness credited to them. As I alluded to before, God was satisfied with Lot's level of belief and Lot was rewarded for it. Grace and Peace.

 

[packermann]

You may think it is "more than they just believed," but the Bible says differently. "For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness (Romans 4:3).” The demons believe, but demons can't be saved, much less have righteousness credited to them. As I alluded to before, God was satisfied with Lot's level of belief and Lot was rewarded for it. Grace and Peace.

I am sorry. But I must disagree. Romans 4:3 does NOT say:

Abraham believed God, and he was counted as righteousness (Romans 4:3)

It is not that Abram was righteous before God because of his faith. For all the years I was a Protestant, and even a Baptist minister, I interpreted it that way. But I was wrong.

Instead, it said this:

Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness (Romans 4:3)

What is "it"? "It" could not refer to Abraham. "It" is his faith. His faith was considered meritorious. It was counted as a good work, as righteousness. The verse is not saying that Abraham was considered righteous. Maybe he was and maybe he was not. You cannot tell from this verse alone. All the verse says is that God has counted his faith as having merit.

Also, there is not a single verse in the Bible that says that Lot was rewarded for his faith. This seems inconsistent. I presume, but maybe I am wrong, that you would believe that everything we believe must be from the Bible. So where does the Bible say that Lot was rewarded for his faith?

 

[GraceBro]

I am sorry. But I must disagree. Romans 4:3 does NOT say:

Abraham believed God, and he was counted as righteousness (Romans 4:3)

It is not that Abram was righteous before God because of his faith. For all the years I was a Protestant, and even a Baptist minister, I interpreted it that way. But I was wrong.

Instead, it said this:

Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness (Romans 4:3)

What is "it"? "It" could not refer to Abraham. "It" is his faith. His faith was considered meritorious. It was counted as a good work. The verse is not saying that Abraham was considered righteous. All the verse says is that God has counted his faith as having merit.

Also, there is not a single verse in the Bible that says that Lot was rewarded for his faith. This seems inconsistent. I presume, but maybe I am wrong, that you would believe that everything we believe must be from the Bible. So where does the Bible say that Lot was rewarded for his faith?

Okay, I am done. You literally just said the verse doesn't say what it says and then you proceed to quote the same verse again, lol. This is classic. Such a teachable moment for me to use when speaking to others. Thank you. SMH.

 

[packermann]

Okay, I am done. You literally just said the verse doesn't say what it says and then you proceed to quote the same verse again, lol. This is classic. Such a teachable moment for me to use when speaking to others. Thank you. SMH.

I quoted it differently. "Abraham believed God, and he was counted as righteousness" is not the same as "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness".

The first is how I used to interpret it, and how I think you are now interpreting it. It is not what it actually says, only what you think it says.

The second one is what it actually says. The verse does not say that Abraham is righteous, only that his faith is a righteous act.

 

[coffee4u]

How are “we” trying to explain why people did what they did when the scripture doesn’t say why they did what they did?

Because the OP wants to know why, so we drawing on what we know of scripture and Jewish culture at that time to try and answer them. Only I am not sure the OP really wants to know why or is just trying to bait us. I've never seen them say thanks for explaining or they get it or anything that suggests they have been helped by anyone here at all. It's not like we are all ordained ministers. I am sure some people here could be or are Bible scholars, but I think most of us are just regular Christians doing their best to understand some tricky scriptures. If that is just me and you all are highly trained seminary graduates then I will quit trying and leave it to you.

 

[mmksparbud]

And I suppose rape is perfectly fine and dandy with God provided it takes place between a man and a woman?

There isn't much of anything Lot has done in any of the stories he's in that has been particularly noble or good. He was spared for the sake of Abraham.

It is not that rape is considered OK by God in any way. You have to understand the Eastern mind of hospitality. Even an enemy, if he asks for shelter, is to be treated with utmost hospitality. The 2 angels he brought home were under his roof and under his protection. Yes, he offered his daughters, not just because it was going to be a homosexual act, and rape, but because the men were to be given utmost respect as his guests, even at the cost of his own life or the honor of wife or daughters. It was the custom, and still is, to have utmost hospitality for strangers. It is not the only incidence of a man offering a woman of his own house to protect a guest in the bible.

 

[JackRT]

It is not that rape is considered OK by God in any way. You have to understand the Eastern mind of hospitality. Even an enemy, if he asks for shelter, is to be treated with utmost hospitality. The 2 angels he brought home were under his roof and under his protection. Yes, he offered his daughters, not just because it was going to be a homosexual act, and rape, but because the men were to be given utmost respect as his guests, even at the cost of his own life or the honor of wife or daughters. It was the custom, and still is, to have utmost hospitality for strangers. It is not the only incidence of a man offering a woman of his own house to protect a guest in the bible.

Such "honourable behaviour" is only possible in a society in which women are completely devalued. That is the actual context. I greatly prefer a society in which women are equal partners not chattels.

 

[mmksparbud]

Such "honourable behaviour" is only possible in a society in which women are completely devalued. That is the actual context. I greatly prefer a society in which women are equal partners not chattels.

True, never the less, it was the custom. And Lot was not acting in an unusual way.