Genesis 20:12-13 – Sarah: Sister, Wife, or Both?

“Besides, she actually is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife; and it came about, when God caused me to wander from my father’s house, that I said to her, ‘This is the kindness which you will show to me: everywhere we go, say of me, “He is my brother.”’ Gen. 20:12-13

Abraham here defends his statement about Sarah to Abimelech, king of Gerar.  Because Abraham is generally held in high esteem by both Jews and Christians, most hold that he was not lying, but rather simply de-emphasizing his marital relationship over the familial when he felt his life was in danger.  In both cases the circumstances were precipitated by a combination of Sarah’s beauty along with a perceived lack of morals among the local people.

Genesis 20:12 is the only verse in scripture that supports Sarah being Abraham’s half-sister.  We do not otherwise see a family lineage of Sarah.  There is speculation that Sarah could actually be Iscah, Haran’s daughter (Abraham’s brother, see Gen. 11:29), which would technically make Sarah Abraham’s niece, a little closer to what Abraham was claiming.  However it is only speculation based on Iscah’s name, which could mean ‘to gaze’ (on account of Sarah’s beauty).  Rashi proposed that Sarah was Iscah because Iscah implies aristocracy, and Sarah is generally thought to mean ‘princess‘.

Marrying a half-sister may have been culturally acceptable in the Mesopotamian region where Abraham came from, but was likely not acceptable in Egypt or Gerar, thus the ruse was concocted and agreed to by Sarah, as we see in verse 13.  Later, we see that the Levitical law has restrictions on closeness between certain blood relatives, including sisters, whether born from the father or mother (Lev. 18:9).

It is quite obvious from the narrative here that ultimately God considers the marital relationship to supersede any blood relationship, as He even threatens death to Abimelech if he does not return Sarah to Abraham.  Genesis 2:24 reads “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” This illustrates marriage is to be considered the strongest of all relational bonds between humans.

Genesis 19:36-38 – The Moabites and the Ammonites

“Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father.  The firstborn bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day.  As for the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi; he is the father of the sons of Ammon to this day.” Gen. 19:36-38

First we must realize it would not at all be impossible for the two sisters to get pregnant at nearly the same time.  It is quite common knowledge that when a woman spends a good amount of time around another woman, their monthly cycles often align.

As for the meanings of the names, Moab is likely a wordplay on “from my father” (Plaut) and Ben-ammi means “son of my people” or “son of my kinsmen” which is a little less obvious.  This incestuous origin would affect how the peoples of Moab and Ammon were viewed by the Israelites with regard to their sexual morality.

The Moabites and the Ammonites became somewhat a thorn in the side of Israel, though not quite to the same degree of some of their neighbors.   In Judges 3 we see that the Moabites gathered with the Ammonites and fought against Israel and defeated them, and Israel served the king of Moab 18 years.  However, Israel later defeated the Moabites.  In Ezra 9 we see that the Moabites intermarry with the Israelites, of which God did not approve.

Interestingly, God allowed the Moabites and Ammonites to keep their land rather than give it to the Israelites.  This may well be due to God’s promise to Abraham concerning the land, then, by extension, to Lot.  We know God promised the land to Abraham; then in Genesis 13:9-11, Abraham suggests he and Lot separate due to the land required by their herds, and implies that Lot should go and take whatever land he sees fit as his own, which he does.  As we see in these verses, Lot’s daughters sleep with him, and this ultimately gives rise to the peoples of Moab and Ammon.  In Deuteronomy 2:9 God says to Moses “Do not harass Moab or contend with them in battle, for I will not give you any of their land for a possession, because I have given Ar to the sons of Lot for a possession.” and in Deut. 2:19 “…when you approach the frontier of the sons of Ammon, do not harass them or contend with them, for I will not give you any of the land of the sons of Ammon as a possession, because I have given it to the sons of Lot for a possession.”

Ultimately things do not end well for the Moabites and Ammonites however, according to Zephaniah 2:9:

“Therefore, as I live,” declares the LORD of hosts, The God of Israel, “Surely Moab will be like Sodom And the sons of Ammon like Gomorrah– A place possessed by nettles and salt pits, And a perpetual desolation. The remnant of My people will plunder them And the remainder of My nation will inherit them.”

The Moabites get an honorable mention however, as Ruth was a Moabitess and was ultimately an ancestor of Jesus the Messiah.

Genesis 19:31-35 – Lot’s Daughters Sleep With Their Father

“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.

Genesis 19:29 – Is Lot Saved Because of Abraham?

“Thus it came about, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when He overthrew the cities in which Lot lived.”  Gen. 19:29

Popular Jewish opinion seems to be that this verse means Lot was saved because of Abraham.  If so, it means that Lot may not have been saved by his own righteousness.  However this seems at odds with 2 Peter 2:7 in the New Testament which refers to “righteous Lot”.

One may take the Cavlinistic view that Lot was among the chosen since before the foundation of the world, and the others living in Sodom and Gomorrah were not.

One may also take the view that this statement by Peter was merely his opinion and his own interpretation of who Lot was from the scriptures as he understood them.  This would be difficult however, for those who hold that all of scripture is inspired of the Holy Spirit and is therefore infallible.

Lot is not the only person in scripture shown favor by God though they were sinful.  Consider Moses, a murderer.  Consider King David, an adulterer and a murderer.  Consider Paul, a persecutor of the church.

Perhaps Lot is innocent even.  Of we would have against him, all could arguably be explained away.

• First in Gen. 13 Lot chooses the best land, described like “the garden of the LORD” (Gen. 13:10).  We could see this as covetous, but what if Lot is merely choosing the land closer to the cities because he knows Abraham is older, and likely prefers to live away from the cities?

• Lot chose to move to Sodom.  Was he tempted by wickedness, or was he trying to be a witness of God in that dark place?

• In chapter 20, Lot drinks wine and becomes drunk, to which one could respond that A) his daughters gave him the wine, he did not seek it himself, and B) Lot may have allowed himself to become drunk because of the terrible ordeal he was just through, which includes losing his wife.  Note that after the flood, Noah became drunk from wine as well. (Gen. 9:21).

• Lastly we see Lot’s daughters plotted to sleep with him while drunk, to become pregnant (Gen. 19:31-32).  Perhaps Lot was truly so drunk that he is without guilt in his actions. However scripture does tell us the same happened again with his other daughter the very next night.

The answer may simply be that Lot was not unrighteous, but Abraham was considered more righteous than Lot.  Consider that we see the people of Zoar, who were unrighteous, are saved on account of Lot (19:21), who would be considered more righteous than they.  And so it is not inconceivable that Lot was saved on account of Abraham, if by degrees, Abraham were more righteous.