0

From that part I've marked in Genesis 19:14

So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, and said, “Up, get out of this place, for the Lord is destroying the city.” But he appeared to his sons-in-law to be joking.

Can we infer from the sons-in-law reaction that God wasn't much present in Lot's life? As Heather Dodds noted, this question raised from taking

the reference to joking to mean that Lot might not have been in the habit of relaying that something from the Lord is of interest to anybody

5
  • What? I don't understand why you would think that sentence would imply in any way that God wasn't much present in Lot's life. Please edit to explain. – curiousdannii Jan 10 at 0:05
  • The apostle Peter disagrees with you. And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: 8(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) 9The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: 2 Peter 2: 7-9. – Nigel J Jan 10 at 1:19
  • @curiousdannii done – Tiago Martins Peres 李大仁 Jan 10 at 5:27
  • Personally, I still can't make any logical connection between what the text says and your idea that God wasn't in Lot's life. Heather Dodds' quote doesn't make that connection either. – curiousdannii Jan 10 at 6:35
  • 2
    @curiousdannii i also didn't say that. "wasn't much present in Lot's". – Tiago Martins Peres 李大仁 Jan 10 at 7:55
0

I would agree, yes, that we can infer this if we take the reference to joking to mean that Lot might not have been in the habit of relaying that something from the Lord is of interest to anybody (I can think of no examples of that). Although, I get more from the implication that the sons-in-law had no idea anything wrong was even happening (Ref Luke 17:26-32, esp v.27 where marriage is mentioned as it is the marriage relationship that is emphasized with who these 2 men of an infamous city where marriage might have itself been a laughable [non-serious?] event: "People were eating and drinking, marrying and being given in marriage...)

There are other places where it is implied that Lot is not fully aligned with God's plans:

Gen 12:1 Then the LORD said to Abram, “Leave your country, your kindred, and your father’s household, and go to the land I will show you

This shows that God's plan was for Abram to leave his family and since it's physically not possible for Abram to have children with Lot (ahem) but Sarai is, she is "family" to go with Abram (even if she was "kindred" or of Abram's father's household, she has a role to play in God's plans) but Lot is not part of the plan, being "kindred" or possibly of Abram's father's household--meaning that Lot is Abram's brother's or sister's son. Thus, technically it is very possible that God was commanding Abram to not take Lot with him.

Then in Gen 12: 4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had directed him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he left Haran.

Notice the placement of Lot, after the "as the Lord had directed him". So it is implied that Lot was an add-on, not part of God's original plan for Abram.

Indeed, Lot proves to be a thorn in Abram's life over and over:

  • Gen 13:5-9 Herdsmen contention
  • Gen 13:10-11 Lot chose the easy life, perhaps to the dismay and certainly to the agricultural inconvenience of his uncle.
  • Gen 14:10-15 Lot had to be rescued, entangling Abram in regional wars and tension that continued for years.
  • Gen 18:16-33 Abram interceded for the life of Lot in a situation where God has heard of the wickedness in Sodom (in a foreshadowing moment of one man sacrificing himself for many others)
  • Gen 19:1 Lot, whatever his herdsmen skills when he first arrived, has become a city elder of Sodom--at the city gates. This is not a position one would fall into, thus he must be at the very least aware of the evil of Sodom (and alludes that he knows rape is ahead, in the act of men taking spiritual beings to have sex with them, in verse 8, a reversal of Gen 6:1-2).

I know you didn't ask, but the "looking back" of Lot's wife doesn't say much good about her either and they were a family unit, so...

Of course, the final confusing and despicable act of getting so drunk as to not know he was having sex with his daughters (which raises all kinds of questions of any pressures he was putting on his daughters to get married or live in caves forever or was he a common drunk or was he grieving or just...what?).

In this, we see God's ability to take something which was NOT part of the original plan and weave it in as Ruth, a Moabitess, a daughter of Lot so-to-speak, is placed in the direct lineage of Jesus.

Hat tip to 2 Peter 2:4-10 as I think Peter is making a point that one can live in an ungodly world, have it bother you, and still have to chose every day one's actions for God. Thus, I am neither saying that Lot was good or bad in nature; he was human, a mixture of both.

3
  • Peter, the chief apostle, esteems Lot to have been 'just' 'righteous' and 'godly'. – Nigel J Jan 10 at 3:37
  • 1
    Hi Heather Doods, welcome (+1). Interestingly to note Lot's lack of trust in the promise of no destruction of Zoar, as Robert observes here. – Tiago Martins Peres 李大仁 Jan 10 at 4:37
  • Would that be the same Peter known for his hot temper and denied Jesus three times? I'm not stepping onto the slippery slope of determining the godly nature of people with you @NigelJ. (See David, Moses, Abraham, etc for pillars of the faith that all had elements of their lives NOT to be admired.) I acknowledged your point about Peter by referencing 2 Peter in my post. – Hobbs Constantine Jan 10 at 15:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.