Why did Lot offer the angry mob his daughter?

[Dave_Noonan]

If it was that grossly immoral and cowardly, one would assume he would have perished as part of the judgement befalling Sodom and Gomorrah, given that he would, by your definition, not be one of the “just men” found fit to avoid the judgement, and rightly would have deserved it. Why was he spared, then?

Gen 19:29; I think someone already quoted this.

 

[glendab]

Hello Dave.

If you read Judges 19, it’s clear that raping mobs don’t care anything about the gender of the people they are raping. They just want to rape so the daughters were offered as an alternative.

In reading some of these posts, it’s hard to believe that people in the 21st century want to justify Lot’s behavior as anything other than grossly immoral and cowardly. It’s immoral now; it was immoral then. He gets his comuppance later in chapter 19.

If you get nothing out of the story but this, it would be sufficient - Lot and his family were corrupted by living in a corrupted society, hands down. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. No one is immune from the filth of corruption. It spreads and defiles everyone it touches. The only soul to have passed through this life without it was the Blessed Virgin Mary herself, whose Feast day we celebrate today. I think it very ironic that I am writing this today about Lot’s daughters. I am in no way condoning anything that occurred but they were human beings living in a human sewer of a place. It wasn’t a movie they could turn off and they hadn’t even the grace of Baptism. They were corrupted by what they lived with a saw every day and their limited diseased thinking obtained for them what they really wanted - children by any means possible. The only thing that shows their consciences weren’t entirely deadened by the sins they witnessed is that in order to carry out their deeds, and they knew their father wouldn’t comply, so they got him drunk and their deeds were done in darkness, at night, away from the light of day. They knew what they were doing wasn’t right, but they did it anyway.

The contrast this is to our Blessed Mother is as far as the East is from the West and beyond!

Today the corruption of our society seems to magnify itself with every news cast. If taken as a whole, it appears to spread its filth in our day each and every day by any and every means available and those trying to hold back the flood gates are wearied warriors. But learn from the story of Lot and his family - corruption left outside one’s door will do damage greater than anything you ever imagined if you ignore it and simply close your door and hope for the best.

Glenda

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Hello Dave.

If you get nothing out of the story but this, it would be sufficient - Lot and his family were corrupted by living in a corrupted society, hands down. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. No one is immune from the filth of corruption. It spreads and defiles everyone it touches. The only soul to have passed through this life without it was the Blessed Virgin Mary herself, whose Feast day we celebrate today. I think it very ironic that I am writing this today about Lot’s daughters. I am in no way condoning anything that occurred but they were human beings living in a human sewer of a place. It wasn’t a movie they could turn off and they hadn’t even the grace of Baptism. They were corrupted by what they lived with a saw every day and their limited diseased thinking obtained for them what they really wanted - children by any means possible. The contrast this is to our Blessed Mother is as far as the East is from the West and beyond! Today the corruption of our society seems to magnify itself with every news cast. If taken as a whole, it appears to spread its filth in our day each and every day and those trying to hold back the flood gates are wearied warriors. But learn from the story od Lot and his family - corruption left outside one’s door will do damage greater than anything you ever imagined if you ignore it and simply close your door and hope for the best.

Glenda

True. Another element of the story is that Lot chose to live there, arguably as a result of his greed (Gen 13:10) and become part of the leadership of the city (Gen 19:1; the city elders were positioned by the city gate). Cities in Genesis are often associated with evil (Gen 4:17; 11:4; Gen 19; Gen 34).

 

[Gorgias]

In reading some of these posts, it’s hard to believe that people in the 21st century want to justify Lot’s behavior as anything other than grossly immoral and cowardly.

Well, there’s a certain nuance that I think it’s necessary to recognize, that you aren’t making an allowance for here.

It’s immoral now; it was immoral then.

Yes and no. If it runs counter to Natural Law, written in our hearts – and it does! – then it was as immoral then as it is now. However, it wasn’t recognized as such by the culture of the day; for them, it would have been horribly immoral to have allowed one’s houseguests to be abused in that manner, and therefore, if Lot felt that this was the only option to keep his guests safe, well…

It’s not that it’s praiseworthy to “choose a lesser evil.” Rather, I think it’s valid (in the context of a 21st-century understanding of moral theology) to say that, while his actions were certainly objectively gravely sinful, we would assert that Lot isn’t culpable of mortal sin. (After all, there’s more to the discussion of a mortal sin than simply ‘gravely sinful content.’) In light of this, I think that a technical theological discussion of Lot’s situation might just conclude that he is ‘just’ and ‘righteous’ (not that this implies that he was ‘sinless’ or that his status as a ‘just man’ was the reason that he was saved from the destruction of the city).

He gets his comuppance later in chapter 19.

Thanks for bringing this up. In light of the earlier citation from an ECF, I hesitated in mentioning this. It’s interesting, isn’t it? For Lot – who’s willing to abandon his defense of his daughters’ virtue – it turns out that his chickens come home to roost, so to speak: his daughters themselves besmirch their virtue by rationalizing an excuse to commit incest. :sad_yes:

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Yes and no. If it runs counter to Natural Law, written in our hearts – and it does! – then it was as immoral then as it is now. However, it wasn’t recognized as such by the culture of the day; for them, it would have been horribly immoral to have allowed one’s houseguests to be abused in that manner.

I guess I could perhaps be convinced but you’d have to show me some pretty good evidence backing up your assertion. Certainly there were strong values of hospitality at the time, but I don’t think values supporting hospitality were ever understood to trump protecting the family–especially the sexuality of the women in the household. (A good collection of scholarship on Israelite families is Leo Perdue’s Families in Ancient Israel.)

I think the ancient readers of Genesis would have been just as appalled by Lot’s actions as we are today. Maybe even more so.

Thanks for bringing this up. In light of the earlier citation from an ECF, I hesitated in mentioning this. It’s interesting, isn’t it? For Lot – who’s willing to abandon his defense of his daughters’ virtue – it turns out that his chickens come home to roost, so to speak: his daughters themselves besmirch their virtue by rationalizing an excuse to commit incest. :sad_yes:

Just like when Abraham plays fast and loose with his wife’s sexuality he later on has “offspring problems.” Stories in the Bible often work this way–kind of poetic justice, if you will.

 

[EricDamian]

Actually, there was nothing wrong with Lot offering his two daughters to the sodomites. The passage states that Lot “offered” them, he did not “give” them.

If someone asked for my daughters, I could “offer” them and wait for their response. Then, if the men wanted to take them immediately, I could demand that the men court them, and marry them before I “gave” them away.

Therefore, the act of offering bears no moral weight. It is a neutral act. It is only when one follows through on an intention, or in Lot’s case an ‘offer’, would there be a sin.

It would seem very prudent for Lot to offer his daughters given the situation because he new the men were homosexuals. By offering his daughters he was exposing their homosexual desires explicitly. It could be said that he was deflating their desires by offering them a path to good moral behavior.

If what I’ve said in anyway obscures or goes against Church teaching, please let me know.

Duc in Altum,
Eric of Manchester