Genesis 19 - Page 9

Questions and Answers - Verses 31 – 38

31. a) How long a time elapsed before this plan was hatched?

It seems like some years could have elapsed. Lot now is old. He wasn’t young while in Sodom, but he wasn’t this old. A good space of time elapsed before this plan. Also, the daughters had observed the plain where they were, and the mountains, and they didn’t find other humans. They had reason to believe themselves alone in this region. The text doesn’t say how far into the mountains or along the mountains they traveled from Tzoar before settling. What else isn’t known is where the obtained the food and the drink.

31. b) If they are determined to sire children, of what must they have a sufficient supply?

They must have a sufficient supply of food and of cloth. These two women were very self-sufficient! I propose that Yehovah made sure that they learned so many things about survival and how to find, obtain, propagate, and utilize materials for food and for clothing. The idea of hunting to obtain both food (like from wild goats) and to obtain animals from which to gain wool and milk was also part of their abilities.

All these things take time to learn. The number of years that they were there must have been large. Yet, in all this time, they didn’t know of local populations of humans.

31. c) Why did they assume that “a man ‘ain’t’ in the land”?

They thought that the whole plain, by now, had been scraped off by Yehovah. They had no hope of other humans in this area; they didn’t see signs of human population.

31. d) Explain the use of the word ‘ain’t’:

The Hebrew word ain is used in many texts. I have found that it is akin to isn’t, but is much stronger. Thus, I place ‘ain’t’ in the texts in translation when ain is used.

31. e) What does to come upon us mean?

This means to sexually mount them.

31. f) What does “as the way of all the land” mean?

This means, “like how it is done everywhere.” On all of planet Earth, human males mount females in the same ways during sex.

32. a) Who is saying “Walk-thou” to whom?

The firstborn is speaking to her younger sister.

32. b) Why did she say, “Walk-thou”?

The idea is to get the wine provisions, and to bring them to their father.

32. c) How could they cause their father to drink wine?

They could have claimed a celebration! If the wine is very good, and the conversation is right, a person can drink much more than the person realizes.

32. d) This idea of laying with their father—did the sisters have any reason to find this objectionable?

No. No command against sexual intercourse with a very near of kin, including a father, had been given at this time. Besides this, be aware that these two daughters were as pagan as the normal citizens of Sodom. Assuming that the daughters somehow were fearers of Yehovah like Lot was isn’t a wise thing to do.

32. e) Why did they have to cause their father to drink wine in order for their plan to work?

The daughters knew that Lot would not have had sex with them. It wasn’t as if a command had been given against this; but instead, folks normally understood by conscience certain things. Yet, they figured that if Lot’s guard was down, they might succeed in this plan.

32. f) Was their laying with their father a sin against God?

No. Nothing is considered sin without a command against it, or a violation of conscience being present.

32. g) Though this wasn’t a violation of their consciences, was this a violation of Lot’s conscience, by which they had to temporarily render his conscience not working in order for the plan to succeed?

The two daughters thought that Lot would not have done this without being drunk. Therefore, if they are right, Lot’s conscience was against this act. Yet, no future text indicates that Lot suffered with shame from the pregnancies of his two daughters.

Lot was inebriated. Therefore, what they did didn’t violate his non-working conscience. Later, when he considered what they did to become pregnant, he easily could have seen that they did the right thing, since they did believe that no other humans were in the area, and they daughters did bring heirs to Lot! Getting him drunk may have been in respect to his sensitivities. This may be akin to what occurred in the last part of Judges, when the Benjamites took daughters from the other tribes when the other tribesmembers had vowed to never give daughters to the Benjamites. A scenario was constructed where the vows were not violated; and yet, the results were that tribesmen of Benjamin were able to obtain daughters from the other tribes.

32. h) Did the daughters do bad to cause Lot to go against his conscience? Did they sin?

We can know that Yehovah didn’t declare this to be sin or bad. We also can know that they both had prosperous pregnancies, which is remarkable. Their offspring became large races.

Consider that the wages of sin is/are death. When something is done that only produces life, and not death, it cannot be viewed as sin. Yehovah only commands against those things that either always or often produce death. Doing bad is causing destruction or harm: something negative. What these daughters did produced no bad at all. If they had to cause Lot, their papa, to have a conscience that is shut off in order to bring good about, what they did was not wrong.

32. i) Explain the word enlived:

It means to either give life, or to cause to continue to live.

32. j) Were they prophesying?

One does not have to be a Saint to prophesy Truth.

I propose that they expressed a plan and made a declaration. I don’t see this as prophetic, but I could it that way. They both had one-night stands (or lay-downs), and they not only got pregnant, but they also had sons. This success isn’t normal among humans.

For all I know, the Spirit of God could have given them this wisdom.

32. k) Is their concern actually for their father?

Their concern certainly was for their father. I also think that their concern was for children, knowing that they needed help in their old age; and they desired to sire children.

32. l) What does enliven seed mean?

Technically, this is to form a zygote. From Dictionary.com, the zygote is “the cell produced by the union of two gametes, before it undergoes cleavage.” The two gametes are a cell from the egg of the woman and the cell from the sperm (delivered by a tube into the egg), from which the cells join, and form the zygote.

Once the zygote forms, that is the enlivening of seed. The zygote grows, being the fetus.

33. a) How much wine did Lot drink?

It was enough for him to be inebriated to the point that he didn’t remember when his daughter lay with him and when she arose.

33. b) Did they do wrong by getting their papa drunk?

No.

33. c) Did Lot know what his daughter was doing during sexual intercourse?

The text words it such that he didn’t know. Her success is verified in the text; his knowledge is not verified in the text.

33. d) Did Lot later know what had happened?

When the two daughters became pregnant, and Lot knew that there had been no male visitors, of course he knew what had happened.

33. e) Was Lot ashamed of what had happened?

Nothing in the text indicates any shame at all. What his daughters did was to bring him sons.

An issue of sin comes up in these texts. Be aware that the wages of sin is death. If the end result isn’t death, but is life, what was done isn’t sin. Later, when Israel has developed, and anti-incest commands are given, if humans among the Israelis do incest, the results of the destruction of relationships will be death and deadly. Where there is no command, there is no sin:

Romans 4:15 Where no teaching is, no transgression is!

34. a) Does this verse describe a plot of evil?

Not at all. Their determination is to overcome the mores of their papa in order to preserve his lineage.

34. b) Again, why were they so certain that they would be successful, considering how hard it is for some women to become pregnant?

It is as if they knew that they would be successful.

In the history of the world, there are times when humans know far more than they should be able to know. This doesn’t give evidence that it is the Spirit of God giving this knowledge. The Spirit of God can and does, at times, give knowledge. Yet, at other times, there is no indication of the source of knowing. That doesn’t mean that the source is form some other entity. No demon could give knowledge of the certainly of a pregnancy occurring. Yet, these two women seemed to be certain, and they were right.

The wording, “And we enlivened seed from our father,” speaks of an inevitable result! How they knew isn’t told in the text.

34. c) Was their knowing that they will become pregnant miraculous?

The definition of miraculous is the occurrence of something physical in the natural world that cannot possibly occur in nature by natural means. Therefore, their knowing that they will become pregnant was not a miracle. Knowledge of a human cannot be tested scientifically. All miracles can be tested scientifically.

34. d) What is so special or important about birthing children in a family to continue a lineage?

From the creation of man, Yehovah gave to humans a desire, if possible, to continue lineages. That is built in to many humans. The idea of a lineage ‘going dead’ by no children being produced has seemed a very inferior result to many (unless a lineage is, say, very violent, in which case persons of other lineages might seek to annihilate that violent lineage).

When Yehovah gave the command to Adam to fill the land, it is like Yehovah implanted into humans a desire to produce offspring. Not everyone will produce offspring; some lineages will ‘go dead.’ Yet, some find it so important to produce offspring, that they will give their very lives to do that.

If birthing children didn’t continue among humans, humans would go dead as a species, and the plans of Yehovah would likewise go dead. Yehovah has made sure that humans will continue to produce humans!

One family will lead to a dead end. Another will not. One family will see having a son as so important; another will not. The importance depends on the perspectives of the family. Yet, overall, Yehovah sees the continuance of humanity as vital to His plans.

35. a) Again, did either of the women have any mores against what they were doing?

Not at all. Indeed, they will be joyful at the births of the children.

35. b) Did Lot suffer from a hangover from the night before?

A hangover is a vitamin B deficiency. If a person has a sufficient supply of Vitamin B1, that person will not suffer with a hangover. In the days of Lot, the foods were very rich in what folks needed. Had he had a hangover, he wouldn’t have been willing to drink that wine the second night. Instead, he was willing, and they again got him drunk.

36. a) This verse gives a simple declaration. Was what happened to the two daughters (their becoming pregnant upon the first attempt, and one night after the other) natural?

Only four or five days a month is when a woman is fertile. They had to be fertile at the time of the month. Also, the likelihood of pregnancy depends on so many factors.

What happened was natural in that it wasn’t a miracle; it wasn’t in violation of normal science. What happened was unnatural in that the likelihood of all factors being right for their pregnancies is very low. The text doesn’t indicate whether the Spirit of God did anything to ‘tilt the scales,’ or even more, to bring about the pregnancies regardless of factors being against that. The text just declares that this is what occurred.

36. b) Why did the text need to add, from their father?

This is for the readers to know from the text that no other man was involved.

Sometimes, readers of the Bible will invent or inject other ideas of the causes of events. Therefore, Yehovah knowing this, made sure to write the way He prodded those who penned the Bible to write so that readers could know what really happened or didn’t happen.

36. c) Who wrote this scroll of Genesis?

Moshe this scroll. He prophesied the contents, being given by the Spirit of God what took place in history, long before Moshe existed.

Luke 2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the Torah of Moshe were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present [him] to Yehovah.

The Torah of Moshe includes Genesis through Joshua (though Joshua was written by Joshua and added to the Torah of Moshe). Genesis is definitely included in the Torah (Teaching) of Moshe.

37. a) Why did she name her son From Father?

She had no problem with the origin of the conception of the child. She was not ashamed; she was pleased. She had no moral problem with this arrangement of being unmarried and having a child. (Yehovah had given no commands regarding incest or unmarried pregnancies to the Israelis at this time, since the Israelis didn’t exist. Had a command been given regarding these things, Lot would have known of the commands.)

37. b) Who comes from the Moabites?

Ruth, David, and Yeshua come from the Moabites. Indeed, a group of women who will rescue and help the Israelis during the Tribulation will come from this people.

37. c) Has this people, Moab, been friendly to Israel throughout Israel’s history (much after the timing of this text)?

No. Moab will prove to be an enemy of Israel for much of Israel’s history.

37. d) Since Moab will later turn out to be an enemy to Israel, does this give demonstration that what is done in sin has consequences: in this case, what that daughter did to conceive the way she did was the reason why an enemy of Israel was formed?

No! Moab could have been a friend to the people of Israel had Moab determined to be that. Just because a group is an enemy in no way gives evidence that the beginning of that group came about by sin.

Syria has been a terrible enemy to Israel in modern times; yet, Syria is not on Yehovah’s ‘radar’ for destruction. Instead, what the Bible says about Syria is endearing! AvRaham and Sarah (as far as I know) came from either Syria or the Syrian culture. The wives of Isaac and Jacob had to be Syrian!

37. e) Who is the father of Moab?

Moav (spelled as ‘Moab’). See, we think of the race: Moab. Yet, each race started with one child. This child was named Moav, which the King James folks made into Moab.

37. f) Why does the text include what appears to be totally unnecessary: “unto today”?

After all, in the history of the world, a race has never switched its original ancestor!

First, today refers to the day of the writing of the scroll. Moshe penned this scroll quite a time later after these events (like, centuries later).

Next, unto today shows that this ancestor is the correct ancestor for this race. I say this, because sometimes more than one son is given the same name. I saw where two different persons were named Ashur, and only one is the father of the Assyrians. Therefore, the Moabites that existed in Moshe’s day were from this son named From Father.

A third point is that today also can refer to when a reader reads this scroll. What this means is that when we, in 2021, read this text, we can know that the Moabites in Jordan are from this offspring of Lot and Moav.

38. a) Identify the following pronouns:

He (in, "also he"): This is the human, with direct reference to the younger daughter of Lot. It is not infrequent in the Bible that a reference to a human who is of the feminine gender (a woman or a girl) is masculine. It is like calling a person, “this one,” or, “this.” The generic human term is used to underscore the importance of that woman or child in that event. Therefore, this is a vital demonstrative pronoun.

She (in, "she called his name"): She is the little—that is, the younger daughter of Lot.

His (in, "she called his name"): This is the second-born baby who will be named Ben-Ami, and the people will be called later, Amon.

My (in, "Son of my people"): The little: the younger daughter of Lot.

He (in, "He is the father"): Ben-Ami

38. b) If “he” hadn’t been put into the first line of this verse, would that have changed the text at all?

Yes. Every pronoun that the Spirit of Yehovah supplies in every text given is vital.

Consider the issue of proximity when using the demonstrative pronoun. In the scroll of Genesis, a narrator speaks. That narrator is not the writer who penned the scroll (that is, the narrator is not Moshe). Instead, the narrator is the Spirit of God. When a reader is reading this scroll, the reader is hearing the voice of the narrator: the voice of the Spirit of Yehovah: the Spirit of Yeshua. The way one deals with the text, therefore, is the way that such a person deals with the Spirit of God. Those who mangle the text are mangling the Speech of the Spirit of God.

This proximity would be one reason why a demonstrative pronoun was used, as if the narrator is standing right there.

I maintain that the use of a demonstrative pronoun in the Bible is because the speaker is underscoring some issue, and in close proximity.

38. c) Why weren’t the names of the daughters of Lot supplied?

A name specified in the Bible is a name shown to be important for some usage (like in genealogical sentences). (That doesn’t mean that the person was or wasn’t important; it means that the name being mentioned is important.)

If a name is mentioned, and a genealogical sentence or paragraph is constructed, that name must be employed; it cannot be left out. If a name isn’t given, the other names that are mentioned will be used and will be vital.

Yehovah knew that later in human history, when incest was firmly established as morally wrong, sinful, and as morally disgusting, those two names would have been associated with incest (though wrongly), and the names would have thus not been given to daughters.

38. d) How long was the time between the two childings?

The text doesn’t say. It could be that enough time elapsed between the birthings that the women could help each other. One might reasonably consider that the time wasn’t more than, say, a month; but no evidence in the text shows this.

38. e) If Ben Ami, meaning, Son of my people, speaks of the daughter as my, who is the people to which she is referring?

The daughter of Lot, and indeed Lot, come from a people group. That people group is the same people group from which AvRaham came. So, when the daughter states that this baby is the son of her people, that shows that she didn’t acquire seed from another people. This daughter wasn’t declaring so blatantly that the son was from her father. Any woman who marries among her own people and childs a son can call that son, Son of my people.

38. f) What does Amon mean?

The derivation of Amon is Am, meaning a people in Hebrew. It is as if the word means peopled, or is some other form that indicates a people, or even the people.

38. g) Are the names of the two children prophetic?

The first, From Father, certainly describes Yeshua later on once He is born a mortal. Son of my People also describes Yeshua, since He is the Son of Yehovah’s People, Israel. I have no reason to reject these names as descriptive of Yeshua!