Why did Lot offer up his daughters to be raped?

  • Thread starter Thread starter safa92
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

safa92

Guest
Gen 19:8

I’m sure this question has been raised but I can’t find an answer. What the heck is happening here?
 
Oh please… (?) you are not basing that on the text. You are just making it up. Nobody ends up touched at all.

So calm down. Yikes.
 
Gen 19:8

I’m sure this question has been raised but I can’t find an answer. What the heck is happening here?
Gen 19:
8 I have two daughters who as yet have not known man: I will bring them out to you, and abuse you them as it shall please you, so that you do no evil to these men, because they are come in under the shadow of my roof.
Haydock Commentary on Gen 19:
Ver. 8. Known man. They were neglected, while men were inflamed with desires of each other. See Rom. i. H.
Abuse. Lot tries by every means to divert them from their purpose; being well assured, that they would have nothing to do with his daughters, who were promised to some of the inhabitants. He endeavours to gain time, hoping perhaps that his guests would escape by some back way, while he is talking to the people. H.
— Some allow that, under so great a perturbation of mind, he consented to an action which could never be allowed, though it was a less evil. M.
H = Haydock
M = Menochius

The comments in the New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version discuss the value of hospitality, violated by the townspeople, and is valued so much that even the daughters were offered in this context.
 
Last edited:
It is also important to note that if the men had indeed abused the daughters, they would not only have been required to MARRY the girls, but also never to DIVORCE them.

This is actually a big deal.

First, in the culture of the time, male supremacy ruled. Stinks, but it’s history; one cannot change what happened, or hold people to the same standards as today.

And in fact, just because male supremacy could allow for this kind of rape, the Jewish people actually, through God, came up with an answer that protected the woman who was raped.

If the man was unmarried and raped a woman, he had to marry her, give her a dowry, and never divorce her (since divorce was allowed for MEN, this was a big safeguard as a raped woman couldn’t be ‘married and discarded’).

If the man was MARRIED and raped a woman, he could not marry her but he was required to compensate the woman.

So as far as Lot and the men of Sodom were concerned, if they truly were interested in making ‘alliances’ (which was usually done by sexual interactions) and NOT in homosexual actions, Lot’s offering his daughters would mean that he was offering a perpetual alliance, not one that could be broken by divorce, and between his daughters and the townspeople; people who must have KNOWN each other and probably liked each other. If the men had good intentions they would have been ashamed of the ‘rape’ offer and would have made arrangements for the usual marriage rituals with Lot’s daughters.

But if they had bad intentions, which they did, this was an opportunity to find out. And Lot did. Instead of the men wanting to form an alliance with a man whom they had known for years, they were only interested in forcing themselves onto ‘new men’. In abusing Lot’s hospitality. In this culture, guests in a home were SACRED and were to be protected, even if the host died for it.

It is hard for 21t century feminist sensibilities, but the ‘offering of Lot’s daughters’ is not even a major part of the story. It is part of a strategy of determining the intentions of a mob. The girls themselves were never in danger of being raped, discarded, or killed. Their marriage offering was an attempt to see if the mob was ‘in good faith’, and they were, in fact, never victimized themselves in any way.
 
That makes a LOT of sense… thanks for giving the insight. Sorry for the bad pun.
 
Gen 19:8

I’m sure this question has been raised but I can’t find an answer. What the heck is happening here?
Part of Middle Eastern culture (to this very day) is guest-friendship. If you accept a guest into your house, you and your family are bound to protect them with your lives. Many American soldiers in Afghanistan found that their (native) translators were ready to fight to the death for them. I believe the same concept applies here.
 
Last edited:
Lot didn’t fight to the death. He shoved his family to protect the men.
 
The family is hosting the guests; the whole family is accountable to protect them. (The same is still true in the present-day Middle East.)
This more or less shows how Sodom influenced Lot.

As you yourself said.
Many American soldiers in Afghanistan found that their (native) translators were ready to fight to the death for them. I
Versus what Lot said.

“Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”
 
Lot had indeed been influenced by the cruelty of
the sodomites so he DIDN’T care for his OWN
daughters!! He probably was more concerned about
what his NEIGHBORS would think if he allowed his
GUESTS to be raped.
Note what one of his descendants did to HIS OWN
SON when his city was in danger of being taken(See
2 Kings 3:27)
 
And Abraham also agreed to kill Isaac, his own son!
What is important is not what was offered, but what actually happened. There was no actual rape. We should read it in that context.
 
It is also important to note that if the men had indeed abused the daughters, they would not only have been required to MARRY the girls, but also never to DIVORCE them.
Under Mosaic Law, you mean, right? But they weren’t. (Nevertheless, that cultural convention, in one form or another, might have been in place.). Alternately, you might make the claim that the intended audience were Israelites already under the Mosaic law, so the author imbued a pre-Mosaic-Law setting with Mosaic law sensibilities.
 
On a similar situation, Haydock’s commentary on Judges 19:24 says, in part, “It is lawful to advise a man, who is about to commit two crimes, to be satisfied with the less…”
 
God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. That’s a totally different circumstance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top