Lot Offers His Daughters To The Immoral Men – Genesis 19:8

Author:

Text (ESV): “Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof” (Gen 19:8).

I. Exegesis

1) Original-Language Observations (MT; contextual sense prioritized)

  • “have not known any man” — lōʾ yādeʿû ʾîš (לֹא יָדְעוּ אִישׁ).
    The verb yādaʿ (ידע, “to know”) in sexual sense is well-attested (e.g., Gen 4:1; Judg 19:22; cf. HALOT s.v. ידע). Context (the crowd’s stated intent to “know,” v. 5) confirms the sexual meaning. The plural yādeʿû Qal perfect indicates a state (“they have not had intercourse”). “Man” (ʾîš) is generic.

  • “do to them as you please” — ʿaśû lāhen kaṭṭōḇ beʿênêkem (עֲשׂוּ לָהֶן כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם).
    Idiomatically, “as seems good in your eyes,” i.e., without ethical restriction from the speaker’s standpoint (cf. Judg 19:24). This does not imply divine approval; it reflects Lot’s proposed appeasement.

  • “Only do nothing to these men” — raq laʾănāšîm hāʾēlleh ʾal-taʿaśû dāḇār (רַק לָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה אַל־תַּעֲשׂוּ דָבָר).
    raq (“only”) marks a restrictive appeal. “Do nothing” (ʾal … taʿaśû dāḇār) is a categorical prohibition (neg. particle ʾal + jussive nuance).

  • Grounding clause (“for…”) — kî ʿal-kēn bāʾû beṣēl qōratî (כִּי עַל־כֵּן בָּאוּ בְּצֵל קֹרָתִי), literally “for therefore they have come under the shadow of my beam/roof.”
    Idiom of sanctuary/asylum via hospitality: one who has entered the shelter of a host’s roof-beam (qōrāh) is under his protection (cf. Ps 91:1; ANE parallels). In Jewish idiom, beṣēl (“in the shadow”) often connotes protection.

  • Contrastive cohesion: v.7 “do not act evil” (ʾal-tāreʿû, implied from context) aligns with Lot’s moral judgment of the mob’s intention while his offered alternative (v.8) is itself a moral failure—the narrator offers no commendation.

2) Grammar & Syntax Highlights

  • The speech is framed with deictic “behold now” (hinneh-nāʾ in v. 8a, implied by hinneh; cf. v. 2), a polite yet urgent entreaty formula.

  • The motivation clause (kî ʿal-kēn…) signals Lot’s value hierarchy: the inviolability of guests supersedes all else within the hospitality code, even at grotesque moral cost.

  • Narrative syntax pairs Lot’s entreaty with angelic intervention (vv. 10–11), which decisively overrules his sinful proposal.

3) Textual Issues (MT, LXX, Targum; significance)

  • The LXX renders “know” with γνῶναι (Gen 19:5, 8), matching the sexual sense by context (cf. Judg 19:22 LXX). No major textual variant alters the substance of v. 8.

  • Targum Onkelos maintains the hospitality/protection frame (paraphrastic but not exculpatory of Lot).

  • Conclusion: No significant textual variant mitigates the moral scandal of Lot’s offer; the canonical text intentionally preserves the tension.

II. Theological Analysis

1) Arminian/Provisionist and Dispensational Synthesis

  • Human responsibility & moral agency: Lot’s action is his sinful compromise, not divine decree. Scripture elsewhere names him “righteous Lot” (2 Pet 2:7–8) due to covenantal affiliation and fundamental God-ward orientation, not because all his choices were righteous. Moral lapses in believers are real and consequential; this coheres with a Free-Will reading that preserves genuine choice and culpability.

  • Common ANE hospitality vs. biblical ethics: The biblical storyline never sanctions violating the weak (cf. Deut 22:25–27). Narrative description ≠ prescription. God immediately nullifies Lot’s plan via angelic rescue (Gen 19:10–11).

  • Dispensational observations: The event occurs within God’s governmental judgment on historical Sodom (Gen 18–19) while preserving a remnant for the covenant line (Abrahamic promises continue unthwarted). Israel/Church distinction is not in view yet, but the pattern of divine rescue amid judgment anticipates later deliverances (e.g., future Day-of-the-LORD motifs; 2 Pet 2:6–9 uses Sodom typologically).

2) Contrast with Reformed/Calvinist Emphases (for clarity, not polemic)

  • Both traditions affirm the text does not commend Lot’s act.

  • A Reformed reading may stress divine sovereignty in rescuing Lot (electing grace; 2 Pet 2:7–9) and the noetic/moral effects of sin evidenced in a believer’s compromised judgment within a corrupt culture.

  • A Free-Will/Provisionist emphasis underscores avoidable compromise: Lot’s choices (settling near Sodom, Gen 13:12–13; entanglement with its civic life, 19:1 “sitting at the gate”) contribute to his peril, without attributing the moral evil to God.

III. Historical Context

  • Hospitality as sacred duty: In the ANE (and reflected in Israel’s later law), hosting travelers obligated protection (cf. Gen 18; Job 31:32). The idiom “under the shadow of my roof” encodes this.

  • Sodom’s civic depravity: The scene gathers “the men of the city” (19:4), “both young and old,” signaling communal complicity. Later Scripture identifies layered sins: pride, prosperous ease, inhospitality to the poor (Ezek 16:49–50), plus sexual immorality contrary to nature (Jude 7; “pursued strange flesh”), confirming that Sodom’s evil is not reducible to inhospitality alone.

  • Second Temple/Jewish reception: Jewish literature condemns Sodom as paradigmatic wickedness (e.g., Wisdom of Solomon 10:6–8; 19:13–17), often combining cruelty to strangers with sexual perversion. Mishnaic/Amoraic material characterizes the “measure of Sodom” as radical selfishness (m. Avot 5:10) and details Sodom’s injustice (b. Sanh. 109a–b). These traditions illuminate the moral climate pressuring Lot, without justifying his response.

IV. Scholarly Insight (conservative, with preferences noted)

  • Narrative ethics (descriptive ≠ prescriptive): Conservative commentators consistently reject the notion that Gen 19:8 approves Lot’s offer. See Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), on 19:8; Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), on the Sodom pericope; Bruce K. Waltke with Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001).

  • Hospitality code and asylum: Gordon J. Wenham (more centrist) details the cultural weight of hospitality while condemning Lot’s proposal, Genesis 16–50 (WBC 2; Dallas: Word, 1994).

  • Free-Will/Dispensational voices: Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Book of Genesis (Ariel’s Bible Commentary; San Antonio: Ariel Ministries, 2009), highlights Sodom’s corporate evil and Lot’s compromise, while maintaining the integrity of God’s rescue and covenant trajectory.

  • Comparative text (Judg 19): The parallel atrocity at Gibeah (Judg 19:22–24) shows that such offers are portrayed as horrific symptoms of societal decay, not ideals. The canon uses these scenes as negative exempla.

(No direct quotations from the above are reproduced here; references identify representative conservative treatments.)

V. Synthesis of the Passage’s Meaning

  1. Authorial aim: To expose Sodom’s comprehensive wickedness and to contrast human compromise with divine deliverance. The moral abhorrence of offering one’s daughters is part of the narrative indictment—of Sodom, and of Lot’s compromised moral calculus under its influence.

  2. Theological coherence:

    • God’s holiness demands judgment on entrenched evil (Gen 18:20–21; 19:24–25).

    • God’s mercy rescues the compromised righteous (19:16; cf. 2 Pet 2:7–9).

    • The covenant line continues—grace persists despite human failure (through Abraham, not through Sodom’s culture).

  3. Canonical guardrails: Any reading that treats Gen 19:8 as normative or morally acceptable violates Torah’s protection of the vulnerable (Deut 22), prophetic denunciations of oppression, and apostolic sexual ethics (Rom 1:26–27; 1 Thess 4:3–8).

VI. Addressing Objections & Difficulties

  • “Isn’t Lot commended here?” No. The text records his speech; the angels’ immediate intervention (19:10–11) overrules it. Later Scripture calls him “righteous” with respect to his fundamental allegiance and torment at Sodom’s lawlessness (2 Pet 2:7–8), not for this act.

  • “Does hospitality justify sin?” Never. The Torah’s ethic protects both guest and household; violating daughters (or any vulnerable person) is condemned.

  • “How can his daughters be ‘virgins’ if 19:14 mentions sons-in-law?” 19:14 likely refers to betrothed men (“who were to marry his daughters”), consistent with virginity (cf. ancient betrothal customs). The text maintains the daughters’ virgin status to heighten the atrocity of Lot’s offer.

VII. Practical Application (for conservative evangelical life, ethics, mission)

  1. Do not normalize cultural sin: Proximity to a corrupt culture can distort moral judgment; resist assimilation (cf. Gen 13:12–13 → 19:1).

  2. Hospitality under biblical ethics: Embrace hospitality (Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9) but never at the expense of the vulnerable; Scripture consistently protects women/children/sojourners.

  3. Trust divine protection: Human schemes that trade one evil for another are forbidden; look to God’s deliverance and obey his moral law without compromise.

  4. Teach narrative ethics well: Distinguish description from prescription in preaching/teaching; emphasize the canon’s unified sexual ethic and protection of the weak.

VIII. Select Ancient & Canonical Cross-References

  • Sexual sense of “know”: Gen 4:1; Judg 19:22.

  • Hospitality protection idiom: “shadow” as protection—Ps 91:1; Isa 4:6 (conceptual).

  • Sodom’s layered sins: Ezek 16:49–50; Jude 7; 2 Pet 2:6–9; Wisdom 10:6–8; 19:13–17.

  • Law’s protection of the vulnerable: Deut 22:25–27.

  • Parallel atrocity (Gibeah): Judg 19:22–30.

IX. Works Cited / Recommended (SBL form; no quotations reproduced)

  • Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. The Book of Genesis. Ariel’s Bible Commentary. San Antonio, TX: Ariel Ministries, 2009.

  • Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

  • Ross, Allen P. Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.

  • Waltke, Bruce K., with Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.

  • Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 16–50. WBC 2. Dallas: Word, 1994.

  • Ancient Jewish/Patristic:

    • Mishnah Avot 5:10.

    • Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 109a–b.

    • Wisdom of Solomon 10:6–8; 19:13–17.

    • Josephus, Antiquities 1.11 (for Sodom narrative retelling).

X. Concluding Theological Judgment

Genesis 19:8 exposes (it does not endorse) the catastrophic moral deformation produced by Sodom’s culture—even in Lot. The text’s structure, idioms, and canonical context collectively condemn the proposed violation of the daughters while underscoring God’s holy judgment on systemic evil and His merciful rescue of the compromised righteous. The passage thereby functions as a negative paradigm: the people of God must uphold hospitality within God’s moral law, never sacrificing the weak to placate the violent, and must trust divine deliverance rather than broker sin for “lesser” harm.

Categories: Difficult Passages