Hi BornAgain, I know that part i was asking theTruth101 about his statement that God instructed Lot to roam the city telling people to rape his daughters.
Never heard that one before.
Our all loving God instructing a father to offer his daughters for the heinous of crimes? nope I can't see it.
the verses Bornagain quoted back up my interpretation of the scenario in that Lot's daughters got him drunk to the point of unconciousness if one is not concious one cannot be held accountable for sin. That's why Lot is described as a righteous (although sometimes drunken) man.
Also if God commanded that man should not prostitute his daughter, why would He command Lot to do just that?
Definitely holes in the scholars points of view if you ask me
Hi Paul1965,
Did God command this to happen? I ran across this commentary from and maybe this will give some insight...I am learning this, too.
And he perceived not when she lay down, nor when, etc.—That is, he did not perceive the time she came to his bed, nor the time she quitted it; consequently did not know who it was that had lain with him.
In this transaction Lot appears to me to be in many respects excusable.
1. He had no accurate knowledge of what took place either on the first or second night, therefore he cannot be supposed to have been drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. That he must have been sensible that some person had been in his bed, it would be ridiculous to deny; but he might have judged it to have been some of his female domestics, which it is reasonable to suppose he might have brought from Zoar.
2. It is very likely that he was deceived in the wine, as well as in the consequences; either he knew not the strength of the wine, or wine of a superior power had been given to him on this occasion. As he had in general followed the simple pastoral life, it is not to be wondered at if he did not know the intoxicating power of wine, and being an old man, and unused to it, a small portion would be sufficient to overcome him; sound sleep would soon, at his time of life, be the effect of taking the liquor to which he was unaccustomed, and cause him to forget the effects of his intoxication.
Except in this case, his moral conduct stands unblemished in the sacred writings; and as the whole transaction, especially as it relates to him, is capable of an interpretation not wholly injurious to his piety, both reason and religion conjoin to recommend that explanation. As to his daughters, let their ignorance of the real state of the case plead for them, as far as that can go; and let it be remembered that their sin was of that very peculiar nature as never to be capable of becoming a precedent. For it is scarcely possible that any should ever be able to plead similar circumstances in vindication of a similar line of conduct.
—Adam Clarke's Commentary
