“Then the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him that we may preserve our family through our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. On the following day, the firstborn said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.” Gen. 19:31-35
In our modern time, it is in our nature to be appalled by such things as incest, however the scriptures do not condemn or applaud the fact that Lot’s daughters sleep with him. Instead the text remains neutral, merely offering an explanation as to why it happened, and attempting to absolve all of guilt.
First we must consider that in their culture at that time, continuing the family line was very important, much more so than today. This explains, at least in part, why Lot’s daughters would even consider such a plot.
Second, surely all involved were familiar with the story of Noah and how from just a few persons the earth’s population had to be replenished. So great and sudden was this destruction that Lot’s daughters did not know the extent of it and expected the worst. Verse 31 informs us that Lot’s daughters thought Lot may have been the only male left alive, and as such the only path through which procreation could occur. We see in verse 14 that their husbands did not believe destruction was coming and thus they were left behind and destroyed.
Third, they enticed Lot to drink and become drunk. This at the very least tells us that Lot would not have willingly taken part in their plan while sober. Scripture seems to do its best to preserve Lot’s innocence. Though we do observe that the scenario happens twice – two nights in a row his daughters get him drunk and one of them sleeps with him. This seems to leave a moral gray area, as if Lot had any suspicion of the previous night’s happenings, he would have likely avoided drinking wine the next eve. Also note that Lot likely understood the destruction was not global (v. 13), so Lot would know he was not the only male left, though his daughters did not know this.
A popular teaching in Christian circles is that Lot was “backslidden” in his faith and thus his morals were compromised. I find this curious because the scriptures do not teach this; in fact, despite what potential evidence is in the Hebrew scriptures to this effect, 2 Peter in the New Testament specifically refers to Lot as being righteous, and even distressed about the wickedness around him while in Sodom. Though even if someone is called “righteous”, it does not mean they have never sinned, but I am not sure the lesson here is about Lot being backslidden.
Perhaps the lesson to be gleaned is to be careful with your words. It Lot’s case, he offered his own daughters to the town mob. Whether he was jesting or not, we do not know, however we do know that Lot himself ended up sleeping with his own daughters.

16 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 21, 2011 at 8:45 am
thebiblestop
Great post. Another point in relation to this. Lot lived in the time of Abraham. God did not make a law against incest until Moses. In fact, the earth was originally populated by Adam and Eve’s children marrying, and again after the Flood by first cousins (Noah’s grandchildren) marrying, both of which Law calls incest. By this time, the human genome had degenerated enough to start making chances of birth defects from incest greater, so God included it in His Law to stop.
November 9, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Kaeser
So let me get this straight. God just destroyed sodom and gomorrah because they commit acts of homosexuality or sin if you will call it, and right after he has no say in this situation of with Lot and his daughters? Also what about the fact that the children have a high percentage of all kinds of birth defects.
You have no evidence for your claim about the “degeneration of their DNA” at the time. Might I add that words like genome or DNA are not even mentioned in the bible. .
Also i think the word you mean is degradation.
November 10, 2011 at 8:18 pm
jhonse
Brian, I didn’t mention many of the things you said in your comment, perhaps you were reading something else. I am not saying the bible condones what was done between Lot and his daughters, I am just making note that in this portion of the narrative nothing is spoken against it. You can read about my thoughts on why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed here:
http://liveyourtheology.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/what-was-sodom-and-gomorrah-really-about/
Take care,
Justin
May 13, 2012 at 4:59 pm
adamnjoy@live.com
Not only does God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their sex sins, but he turns Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt just for the mere fact that see looked back at the citys; yet Lot has not consequence for having sex with his daughters. I guess being drunk absolves people of their immoral behaviour according to God.
May 23, 2012 at 5:20 pm
jhonse
Well, Lot lost his wife, his house, and his future son in laws, so I would not say he was without consequence. He was shown much grace that’s for sure. Further, we see that the children that came of this act grew into peoples that troubled Israel at times – the Ammonites and the Moabites. You can read a little more about this here:
http://ponderingscripture.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/genesis-1936-38-the-moabites-and-the-ammonites/
January 10, 2012 at 4:22 pm
kuhlmann
Guys, this passage ALONE is enough to invalidate all of the bible and proves god, adam, noah, lot, etc. didn’t exist. Either morality isn’t universal and unchanging and non-relative. Or the universal morality (whatever it happens to be exactly) is immoral.
Let’s not even go into God’s killing everyone in Sodom/Gommorah (including fetuses, newborns, children and tweens), killing everyone on Earth with his genocidal flood, killing the Amalekites, Canaanites, and every tribe that opposed Israel down to the last man.
And let’s not get into why slavery and rape are unaddressed in the 10 commandments (4 deal with not dissing god, 0 deal with slavery); jesus himself said not that slavery was evil and unjust, but that slaveowners shouldn’t treat their slaves badly. Thanks, bro.
Women (since 1920) now vote in the US. Isn’t this against God’s law? Theyre supposed to be silent and submissive (1 Cor 14:34-35). Morals are unchanging.
No hyperintelligent, hyperloving God would have a part in any of this. A man or a tribe would, however. Isn’t it pretty obvious the bible was written by men, with human and not divine inspiration?
Thank you for your support. I shall expect to see you all at the next FSM meeting.
January 12, 2012 at 7:03 pm
jhonse
Thank you for your comment. The bible is largely historical documentation of the failures and mistakes of human beings. The instance of Lot and his daughters is no exception. God does not endorse this, it is merely recorded. Just like God never endorses any man in the bible taking multiple wives, but we do it because we are flawed human beings.
Also, on one hand you are saying God does not exist, yet you then infer that he destroyed places and people. If God did not exist, these would merely be natural events and wars. Thus if you choose to believe that God does not exist these things should not bother you beyond what flawed men do. If you believe God exists, then you can seek out to understand why he dislikes what men often do with the freedom he has given them.
February 1, 2012 at 3:29 pm
Mark
This discussion is like who is better, klingons or humans. The Bible is a work of fiction. All objective historians, archeologists and anthropologists agree that it is a conglomeration of more ancient stories plagiarized from other older cultures. Grow-up and start acting like adults.
February 1, 2012 at 5:16 pm
jhonse
Dear Mark,
Your phrase that all objective historians, archeologists and anthropologists think the bible is a work of fiction is actually quite off. The vast majority of its content has been verified by many archeologists and anthropologists. If major places and events in the bible had been disproven, people would probably have stopped studying it years ago, but that has not happened. It is one of the most ancient texts, and millions have studied it over thousands of years. We would be quite remiss if among all those millions of people not a single one has been able to prove it is fiction, and all historical and archeological evidence points to otherwise.
February 28, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Harry K.
The keyword is “WAS” a righteous man. Note that after this incident, Lot is never again mentioned in the Old Testament. From Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary:
See the peril of drunkenness; it is not only a great sin itself, but lets in many sins, which bring a lasting wound and dishonour. Many a man does that, when he is drunk, which, when he is sober, he could not think of without horror. See also the peril of temptation, even from relations and friends, whom we love and esteem, and expect kindness from. We must dread a snare, wherever we are, and be always upon our guard. No excuse can be made for the daughters, nor for Lot. Scarcely any account can be given of the affair but this, The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? From the silence of the Scripture concerning Lot henceforward, learn that drunkenness, as it makes men forgetful, so it makes them to be forgotten.
March 4, 2012 at 10:08 am
jhonse
Harry, I do not disagree that drunkenness has its perils, however we scarcely need Matthew Henry to tell us that. At the same time I do not believe we have any real indication in the scriptures that Lot had a problem with drinking, and no, Lot is not mentioned again in the Old Testament but neither are many others, righteous or not – but Lot is mentioned as being righteous in 2 Peter. If one were to argue from the scriptures about who had a drinking problem, one could argue more for Noah than Lot. What is in common in both accounts however, is that their lives were shaken up by a great destruction, and at some point soon afterward, they got drunk. Lot’s daughters sleeping with him however is really just an anecdote in the whole story of Sodom, and I think it says more about how Lot’s daughters may have been affected by the culture of a place like Sodom than it says about the perils of alcohol.
May 11, 2012 at 2:16 pm
Matt
Ok, so you are taking this to say to you that alcohol is bad and therefore when a person drinks that he or she does not know what they do and therefore they sin when inebriated? But what of the two sober daughters? Are they merely female and do not know better? People take these words and use them any way that suits their cause. Just reading this parable can give a different people 3,000 different interpretations. Not one person knows exactly what point the authors were trying to convey. And no one is here to answer these questions. This is the biggest flaw about the Bible or any other “higher power” driven book and the fact that anyone thinks they have a real grasp on the meanings of these stories is naive and a little bit self righteous. We can debate what point this (and every story in the bible) is trying to get across until we are blue in the face or ready to go to war (many have died and killed for their interpretation of “faith”) but we really have no idea. I’m just saying.
May 23, 2012 at 5:25 pm
jhonse
Well we do not know if the daughters were sober or not. Regardless, I agree with you that there have been man interpretations of the scriptures. Part of the reason I began this blog is for an opportunity to try to provide a more well-rounded understanding, and multiple interpretations when things are not clear. I do not have all the answers, but I compile my information from many resources, and try to glean understanding about the most probable interpretations, which are often lost to today’s popular bible translations.
April 16, 2012 at 9:37 am
apologistwright
Yeah this is a messed up story
May 13, 2012 at 5:05 pm
adamnjoy@live.com
Read the whole thing –it gets worse.
May 9, 2012 at 2:02 pm
sam
None of the other religious books have mentioned the exact wrong doings of mankind but only the Bible.so thruth is always bitter my friends.