Genesis 19:30-38

8. Lot's Last End (Genesis 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. Lot's 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, 2 Peter 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 Lot's 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 (Genesis 19:30-38). There is great variability of opinion as to what motivated Lot's 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 Lot's 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 Lot's 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, Genesis 19:33; Genesis 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. Lot's 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 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; 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 mother's death; and believing that their father, who was descended from the eldest 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 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 Lot's 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 father's 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 Lot's susceptibility to inebriation certainly does not add one iota of glamor to his character. We feel that Speiser's 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 earth's 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: Leviticus 18:6-18; Leviticus 20:11-12; Leviticus 20:19-21; Deuteronomy 22:30; Deuteronomy 27:20; Deuteronomy 27:22-23; Ezekiel 22:11; cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1. Cases of incest: Lot with his daughters, Genesis 19:31; Genesis 19:36; Reuben, Genesis 35:22; Genesis 49:4; Judah, Genesis 38:16, 1 Chronicles 2:4; Amnon, 2 Samuel 13:14; Absalom, 2 Samuel 16:21-22. Cf. also Genesis 20:12-13; Genesis 11:29; Exodus 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 God's part is not revenge, but vindication, that is, the vindication of God's 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 (Romans 2:5, Revelation 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 (Numbers 21:15; Numbers 21:28; Isaiah 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 (Deuteronomy 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. Revelation 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. Ammon's abomination was the worship of the god Moloch, and that of Moab was the worship of the God Chemosh (1 Kings 11:7, Numbers 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. 2 Kings 3:27; Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:2-4; Jeremiah 32:34-35; 2 Kings 23:10; Amos 5:26, Acts 7:43). Their idolatrous practices included also the worship of pagan gods of surrounding peoples (Judges 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 latter's misfortunes and taking delight in spreading their abominations of false gods among the Israelites and debasing their moral ideals through intermarriage). (Cf. Numbers 25:1-5, 1 Kings 11:1-8, 2 Kings 23:13, 1 Chronicles 8:8, Ezra 9:1-4; Nehemiah 13:1-3; Nehemiah 13:23-27). Note also the predictions of divine judgments on the Moabites and the Ammonites (Isa., chs. 15, 16; Jer., chs. 48, 49; Ezekiel 25:5; Ezekiel 25:8-11; Amos 2:1-2; Zephaniah 2:9). As for political and military maneuvers and battles, cf. Judges 3:12-30; Judges 11:17-18; Judges 11:25; Num., chs. 22-24; Joshua 24:9; Judges 11:17-18; Judges 11:29-33; 1 Samuel 14:47; 1 Samuel 22:3-4; 2 Samuel 8:2; 1 Kings 11:1-7, 2 Kings 1:1; 2 Kings 3:5-27; 2 Kings 13:20; 2 Kings 2 Chron., ch. 20; Micah 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 (Deuteronomy 2:2; Deuteronomy 2:9; Deuteronomy 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 (Deuteronomy 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 David's parents in a time of crisis (1 Samuel 22:3-4). (5) The Moabites and Ammonites are represented as having been used by Jehovah as instruments for the punishing of Judah (2 Kings 24:1-4).

In view of these scriptures, to speak of the account of the origins of the Moabites and the Ammonites (Genesis 19:30-38) as a fiction of Israelite animosity, a gibe at Israel's 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 Deuteronomy 2:9 surely indicate that Israel always maintained a friendly spirit toward these brother nations, especially toward the Moabites. David's 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 Deuteronomy 2:9; Deuteronomy 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 (Deuteronomy 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. Matthew 1:5-6, Luke 3:31-32, Isaiah 9:6-7,Acts 2:29-36, Romans 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. Genesis 19:6). Moab disappeared as a political power when Nebuchadnezzar (605-562 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 Genesis 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 Genesis 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, 569-570): But what construction shall we put upon the statement, -Yahweh rained. from Yahweh from the heavens-'? We consider Meek's 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. [Koenig's Kommentar on Genesis] lists the instances of this sort that have been met with in Genesis up to this point: Genesis 1:27 a,: Genesis 1:28 a; Genesis 5:1 b; Genesis 8:21 a; Genesis 9:16 b; Genesis 11:9 b; Genesis 12:8 b; Genesis 18:17 a; Genesis 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 Calvin's 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 Genesis 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 Genesis 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 Keil's 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. Hosea 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, 127-128 (Scribners, New York, 1924). Referring to John 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 [Isaiah 6:1-11]. The latter conception had been already expressed in the phrase, Your father Abraham exulted to see my day [John 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 John 8:56, Your father Abraham exulted to see my day. It is the conception of Paul (e.g., Galatians 3:16 f.), who also traces a messianic significance in Genesis 17:17; and Philo, before him, had explained (De Mutat. Nominum, 29-30), commenting on the Genesis passage, that Abraham's 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 John 1:1-14; John 8:58; John 1:18; John 17:3-5; 1 Timothy 3:16; Galatians 4:4; Hebrews 1:1-4; Colossians 1:12-23; 2 Corinthians 5:17-20; Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 2:14-18; Revelation 1:12-18, etc.

Remember Lot's Wife

Luke 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 Cain's 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 Lot's 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 men's wives, you won-'t be fit to join church. Besides, there is nothing in Scripture about -joining-' church. You don-'t -join-' church; you believe, repent, and obey Christ, and He adds you to His church. But you-'re not ready for that until you repent. The Lord Himself has warned us about the futility of casting pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6). (The key to the problem of Cain's wife is made very clear in Genesis 5:5).

The only woman in the entire Bible whom we are admonished to remember is Lot's 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 (1 Peter 4:18). What manner of woman Lot's 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 (Luke 9:62; Hebrews 5:12; Hebrews 6:1). 4. The possibility of being nearly saved, yet wholly lost (Mark 12:34). 5. The inevitability of divine judgment on the disobedient (Hebrews 5:9; Hebrews 10:26-27; Romans 2:5-11, Galatians 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. 2 Peter 3:10; 2 Peter 3:13). Hence Luke 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, Genesis 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 (Jude 1:23). The salvation of the most righteous men must be attributed to God's 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 (Genesis 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 Master's 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 faith's 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. Hebrews 12:29; Hebrews 10:27-31).

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON PART THIRTY-TWO

1.

What was the first proof that Lot's 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 Lot's sitting in the gate of Sodom?

5.

What were the details of Lot's 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 Lot's presence at the gate have been evidence of his degeneracy?

10.

What occurred at Lot's house that night?

11.

What does the verb know (Genesis 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 Lot's 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 Lot's 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 Lot's action was an attempt to avoid sin by sin?

20.

What is the Apostle Peter's testimony concerning Lot?

21.

Summarize Whitelaw's analysis of Lot's character.

22.

Summarize Speiser's treatment of Lot's character.

23.

How does Lot's 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 Lot's sons-in-law take in response to his warning? What does their attitude indicate about them and about Lot?

35.

How correlate Genesis 19:8, Genesis 19:12, and Genesis 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 Lot's 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 Kraeling's 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 Lot's 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 God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah point forward to, ultimately?

57.

In what respects is the story of Lot's wife far superior to all folk tales of the kind?

58.

Why the change in the name of the Deity to Elohim, in Genesis 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 Lot's 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 Lot's 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 Israel's 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 Genesis 19:24.

75.

Who has commanded us to remember Lot's wife? What lessons are we to derive from the story of her tragic end?