EXPOSITION
And it came to pass—not a pluperfect (Rosenmüller), as if a direct continuation of the preceding narrative, but a preterit, being the commencement of a new subdivision of the history in which the writer treats of Lot's residence in Zoar—when God—Elohim. Hence, as a fragment of the original Elohist's composition, the present verse is by the pseudo-criticism connected with Genesis 17:27 (Ilgen, Tuch, Block); but "a greater abruptness of style and a more fragmentary mode of composition" than this would indicate "could not easily be imagined" (Kalisch). The change in the Divine name is sufficiently explained by the supposition that the destruction of the cities of the plain was not at the moment viewed by the writer in its connection with the Abrahamic covenant and intercession, but as a sublime vindication of Divine justice—destroyed (literally, in he destroying, by Elohim, or in Elohim's destroying) the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham. If the narrative containing the intercession of Abraham and the overthrow of Sodom was due to the Jehovist, how came the earlier author to know anything about those events? The obvious allusions to them in the present verse could only have been made by one acquainted with them. Either, therefore, the present verse proceeded from the hand of the so-called Jehovist, or it requires explanation how in the original document this should be the first and only occasion on which they are referred to. And—in answer to Abatham's prayer (Genesis 18:23)—sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow (there is no reason to suppose that Abraham was aware of his nephew's escape), when he overthrew—literally, in the overthrowing of the cities, the inf. being construed with the case of its verb—the cities in the which—one of which (cf. Judges 15:7)—Lot dwelt.
And Lot went up out of Zoar (probably soon after), and dwelt in the mountain (i.e. of Moab, on the east of the Dead Sea), and his two daughters—step-daughters, it has been suggested, if Lot married a widow who was the mother of the two girls (Starke)—with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar—from which the panic-stricken inhabitants may have fled towards the mountains (Murphy), either because at that time it was shaken by an earthquake (Jerome, Rosenmüller); or because he dreaded the conflagration which devoured the other cities might spread thither (Poole, Kalisch, Wordsworth), or the rising waters of the Dead Sea which engulfed them might reach to it (Bush)—apprehensions which were groundless and unbelieving, since God had granted Zoar for an asylum (Lange); or because he saw the wickedness of the inhabitants, who had not been improved by Sodom's doom (Vatablus, Inglis); or simply because he was driven by "a blind anxiety of mind" (Calvin). And he dwelt in a cave,—i.e. in one of those cavernous recesses with which the Moabitish mountains abound, and which already had been converted into dwelling-places by the primitive inhabitants of the region (cf. Genesis 14:6)—he and his two daughters
And the firstborn said unto the younger,—showing that she had not escaped the pollution, if she had the destruction, of Sodom. "It was time that Lot had left the cities of the plain. No wealth could compensate for the moral degradation into which his family had sunk" (Inglis)—Our father is old,—an indirect confirmation of the inference (vide Genesis 11:26) that Abram was younger than Haran, since Lot, Haran's son, now an old man—and there is not a man in the earth—not in the entire world (Origen, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Kalisch), which is scarcely probable, since they knew that Zoar had been spared; but either in the district whither they had fled (Calvin, Willet), being under the impression that, living in so desolate a region, they could have no more intercourse with mankind; or in the land of Canaan (Ainsworth, Bush), meaning that there were no more godly men with whom they might marry; or perhaps they meant that no man would now care to unite himself with them, the remnant of a curse-stricken region (Knobel, Keil)—to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth.
Come, let us make our father drink wine,—either, therefore, Lot had not left Sodom totally unprovided (Inglis), or some little time had elapsed after his escaping to the mountain cave, since his daughters are provided with this intoxicating beverage—and we will He with him. Considering the town in which the daughters of Lot had been reared, the mother of whom they were the offspring, and the example they had received from their father (Genesis 19:8), "we can understand, though we cannot cease to abhor, their incestuous conduct" (Kalisch). Their proposal was revolting and unnatural in the extreme. By subsequent Mosaic legislation a transgression of such enormity was rendered punishable by death. Even in the present instance the perpetrators were not wholly unconscious of the wickedness of their conduct. The fact that they required a stratagem for the attainment of their purpose shows that at least they could not calculate on their father's approbation. The entire story has been regarded as the invention of later Jewish hatred to the Moabites and Ammonites (De Wette), a conjecture believed by some to be " not improbable (Rosenmüller); but if so, how should the same writer exhibit Abraham (Genesis 18:23) as filled with compassionate tenderness towards the cities of the plain? (Havernick). That we may preserve seed of our father. Literally, quicken or vivify seed (cf. Genesis 19:34). Lot's daughters may be credited with whatever virtue may be supposed to reside in this motive for their conduct.
And they made their father drink wine that night—which was sinful both in them and him (vide Isaiah 5:11; Proverbs 20:1; Habakkuk 2:15)—and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. That it was his own daughter quacum concumberet (Rosenmüller), being so intoxicated that he could not discern who it was to whom he had approached, or even what he was doing (Keil). The reading, "when he lay down and when he arose (LXX.) is incorrect, and the explanations that Lot was a mere unconscious instrument in this disgraceful transaction (Kalisch), that he was entirely ignorant of all that had taken place (Chrysostom, Cajetan), that he was struck on account of his intemperance with a spirit of stupor (Calvin), are not warranted by the text.
And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn 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.
And they made their father drink wine that night also. The facility with which Lot allowed himself to be inebriated by his daughters Clericus regards as a sign that before this the old man had been accustomed to over-indulgence in wine. The inference, however, of Kalisch, that because "Lot's excess in the enjoyment of wine is no more blamed than it was in Noah," "the narrative exempts him from all serious reproach," can scarcely be admitted. And the younger arose, and lay with him (following the bad example of her sister); and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose (vide supra, Genesis 19:33).
Thus were both the daughters of Lot (who after this disappears from sacred history, not even his death being recorded) with child by their father.
And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab—Meab, from the father, alluding to his incestuous origin; though Mo (water, an Arabic euphemism for the semen virile) and ab has been advanced as a more correct derivation (Rosenmüller). The same is the father of the Moabites—who originally inhabited the country northeast of the Dead Sea, between the Jabbok and the Arnon (Deuteronomy 2:20), but were afterwards driven by the Amorites south of the Arnou—unto this day. This phrase, indicating a variable period from a few years to a few centuries (cf. Genesis 48:13; Exodus 10:6; Numbers 22:39; Joshua 22:3), cannot be regarded as a trace of post-Mosaic authorship (De Wette, et alii), since in Genesis it is always used of events which had taken place several centuries before the time of Moses, as in Genesis 26:33; Gen 35:1-29 :30; Genesis 47:26 (cf. Heil, 'Introduction,' part 1. § 2, div. 1, § 33).
And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Ben-ammi. I.e. son of my people, meaning that her child was the offspring of her own kind and blood (Rosenmüller), or the son of her relative (Kalisch), or of an unmixed race ('Speaker's Commentary'). The same is the father of the children of Ammon—an unsettled people who occupied the territory between the Yabbok and the Arnon, from which they had ejected the Rephaims or Zamzummims (Deuteronomy 2:22), and in which they possessed a strong city, Rabbah (2 Samuel 40:1); in their habits more migratory and marauding than the Moabites (Isaiah 15:1-23; Isaiah 16:1-23; Jeremiah 48:1-24.), and in their religion worshippers of Molech, "the abomination of the Ammonites" (1 Kings 11:7)—unto this day.
HOMILETICS
The last days of Lot.
I. HAUNTED BY TERROR.
1. The terror of Divine judgment. The appalling spectacle of Sodom's overthrow had no doubt filled him with alarm. And so are God's judgments in the earth designed to put the souls of men in fear (Psalms 9:20; Psalms 46:8-19; Psalms 119:120).
2. The terror of men. Dwelling in Zoar, he apprehended an outburst of wrath from the citizens, who probably regarded him as the cause of the ruin which had invaded Sodom. So are better men than Lot sometimes overtaken by the fear of man (2 Samuel 22:5; Psalms 18:4), though they should not (Isaiah 51:12).
3. The terror of conscience. That Lot enjoyed while in Zoar a calm and undisturbed repose of heart and mind is scarcely supposable. Rather it may be safely conjectured that after the storm and the fire and the earthquake through which he had lately passed, the still small voice of conscience spoke to him in awe-inspiring accents, unveiling his past life, reproving him of sin, and piercing him through with many sorrows; and that under the agitations produced by its accusations and reproaches he became afraid, and withdrew to the mountains. "Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all."
II. SOUNDING THE LOWER DEEPS.
1. Descending into unbelief. God had promised to spare Zoar for him, and him in Zoar, and one would have thought Lot had been sufficiently warned of the sin of distrusting God. Yet he is scarcely established in the city which God had granted in response to his own prayer than he begins to think it hardly safe to remain within its precincts. How inveterate is unbelief!
2. Plunging into sin. The details of the present story clearly show that Lot, when he went to the mountain cave, endeavored to escape from his terrors not by carrying them to God's throne, but by drowning them in dissipation. The wretched man, who had once been a saint in God's Church, must have been in the habit of drinking to excess, else his daughters would never have thought of their abominable stratagem. Only one little gleam of virtue can be detected as entitled to be laid to Lot's account, viz; that his daughters apparently believed that unless their father was drunk he would never be brought to assent to their lewd proposal.
3. Sinking into shame. Twice overcome by wine, he is twice in succession dishonored by his daughters; and twice over, while in his drink stupor, he allows himself to commit an act which almost out-Sodoms Sodom. To what depths a saint may fall when once he turns his back on God!
III. DISAPPEARING INTO OBLIVION. Nothing could more distinctly mark the Divine disapprobation with Lot's conduct than the fact that after this he was suffered—
1. To live an unrecorded life, being never heard of again in the pages of Holy Scripture.
2. To die an unnoticed death. Where and how he met his end the historian does not condescend to state.
3. To sink into an unknown grave. Whether buried in his mountain cave or entombed in the Jordan valley no man knoweth unto this day.
See—
1. The danger of turning aside from God and good men (Hebrews 3:12; Hebrews 10:25.
2. The melancholy end of a worldly life (1 Corinthians 10:6; Philippians 3:19 : 2 Timothy 4:10).
3. The bitter fruits of parental neglect (1 Samuel 2:27-9; Proverbs 29:15-20)
HOMILIES BY W. ROBERTS
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
I. THE VISIBLE JUDGMENT. "God overthrew the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah—the cities in which Lot dwelt."
1. The reason.
2. The instrumentality.
3. The reality.
4. The lessons of the overthrow.
II. THE UNKNOWN MERCY. "He sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow." To Abraham this was—
1. A great mercy.
2. A mercy granted in answer to prayer. But—
3. An unknown mercy, there being no reason to believe that Abraham ever saw Lot again, or knew of his deliverance.
Learn—
1. That God always mixes-mercy with his judgments.
2. That his mercies are not always so perceptible to the eye of sense and reason as his judgments.
3. That God's people get more mercies poured into their cups than they are at all times cognizant of.—W.