Commentary Critical and Explanatory
Genesis 19:31-38
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:
The first-born said unto the younger. The first impression naturally made upon the mind of a reader by the perusal of the horrid details which follow is, that the moral sensibilities of Lot's 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 (Genesis 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; because they knew that the inhabitants of Zoar were alive; and if they were now residing in a cave of the Moabite mountains, they must have seen multitudes of labourers 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, in expectation of which Abraham, with Lot and others, had migrated to Canaan, they brooded in despondency over the apparent loss of that hope-since their mother's death; and believing that their father, who was descended from the oldest branch of Terah's family, and who was an object of God's 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 oldest calling her son Moab х Mow'aab (H4124), an old or corrupt form of mee'aab (H1), 'from father,' or as Kurtz derives it, Mow'aab (H4124) = muw'b, from yaa'ab (H2968), to desire, meaning, 'He that has been desired or longed for'], and the younger designating her son х been (H1121) `amiy (H5971)], 'son of my people.' This, if not an altogether satisfactory, is at least a rational explanation of a course of conduct which, in young women of unsullied purity, is so revolting; but which, as Rosenmuller remarks, 'is in accordance not only with the circumstances of that time, but with the way of thinking and acting in remote antiquity.'
After these observations, it is superfluous to notice the strange criticism of de Wette and Von Bohlen, who consider this concluding narrative a fiction, which the national jealousy and hatred of the Jews to the Moabites and Ammonites invented; to bring disgrace on the origin of these people. But the value of their criticism will be seen at once by a reference to Deuteronomy 2:9-19, where the Israelites are expressly told not to molest the Moabites and Ammonites, because they were the descendants of Lot; and the narrative which forms the conclusion of this chapter must have had an influence in fostering brotherly feelings toward these people.
The history of Lot ends here. Dr. Robinson mentions ('Biblical Researches') that 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 whence he next morning viewed the distant conflagration.