Genesis 19 - Page 2

1. And two of the messengers came to Sodom in the evening. And Lot sat in the gate of Sodom. And Lot saw. And he rose up to meet them. And he prostrated noses toward the land.

2. And he said, “Behold na, my lords, turn away, na, unto your slave's house. And lodge. And wash your feet. And ye shall cause-to-early-rise, and ye shall walk to your way.” And they said, “No! For we will lodge in the boulevard.”

3. And he very-much pressed into them. And they turned away unto him. And they came unto his house. And he made a drinking-feast to them. And he baked matzahs. And they ate.

4. Before they will lay down... And the men of the city, the men of Sodom, were compassed upon the house from young and unto old─all the people from the edge.

5. And they called unto Lot. And they said to him, “Where are the men who came unto thee tonight? Cause- them -to-exit unto us. And we knew them!”

6. And Lot exited unto them to the opening. And he shut the door after him.

7. And he said, “Do not, na, my brethren, bad-do.

8. Behold, na, two daughters are to me who knew not a man. I will-cause- them -to-exit, na, unto you. And do ye to them as is good in your eyes. Only don’t do a speech to these men. For concerning establishment they came into the shadow of my beams!”

9. And they said, “Near-thou beyond!” And they said, “The one came to sojourn. And he judged, judging! Now will we bad-do to thee from [more than] them!” And they very much pressed into the man─into Lot. And they neared to break the door.

10. And the men sent their hand. And they brought Lot unto them houseward. And they shut the door.

11. And they smote the men who are the opening of the house via blindnesses─from little and big. And they wearied to find the opening!

12. And the men said unto Lot, “Who else is to thee here?—son-in-law and thy sons and thy daughters and all who are to thee in the city─cause-thou-to-exit from the place!

13. For we are rotting this place! For their scream is big with the faces of Yehovah, and Yehovah sent us to rot her!”

14. And Lot exited. And he spoke unto his sons-in-law, takers of his daughters. And he said, “Arise! Exit from this place! For Yehovah is causing- the city -to-rot!” And he was as a joker unto his sons-in-law.

15. And as the sunrise ascended, and the messengers hastened into Lot saying, “Arise! Take thy woman and two of thy daughters who are found lest thou wilt be consumed in the iniquity of the city!”

16. And he what-whated himself. And the men caused-to-grasp into his hand and into the hand of his woman and into the hand of two of his daughters in the compassion of Yehovah upon him. And they caused- him -to-exit. And they rested him from outside to the city.

17. And he was, as their causing-to-exit them outsideward. And he said, “Cause-thou-to-escape concerning thy being! Peer-thou not after thee! And stand thou not in all the round-area! Cause-thou-to-escape mountainward, lest thou wilt be scraped-off!”

18. And Lot said unto them, “Not, na, my lords!

19. Behold, na, thy slave found favour in thine eyes. And thou magnified thy grace that thou did with me to cause-to-keep-alive my being. And I, I will not be able to-cause-to-escape to the mountain lest the bad will cling to me, and I will die!

20. Behold, na, this city is approached to flee there. And he is insignificant. I will escape, na, there. Isn’t he insignificant? And my being lived!”

21. And he said unto him, “Behold, I carried thy faces also to this speech to-my not to-flip-over this city that thou spoke.

22. Hurry! Cause-thou-to-escape there! For I will not be able to do a speech unto thy coming there!” Therefore, he called the name of the city ‘Little’ (Zoar).

23. The sun exited upon the land. And Lot [Enveloped] came to Zoar.

24. And Yehovah caused-to-rain upon Sodom and upon Amorrah sulfur and fire from with Yehovah from the heavens.

25. And He flipped-over those cities and all the plain and all the inhabitants of the cities and the sprout of the soil.

26. And his woman peered from after him. And she became a pillar of salt.

27. And AvRaham [Father-Of-A-Multitude] early rose in the morning unto the place where he stood with the faces of Yehovah.

28. And he distantly-looked upon the faces of Sodom and Amorrah and upon all the faces of the land of the plain. And he saw. And behold, the incense of the land ascended as the incense of a furnace.

29. And he was via Elohim rotting the cities of the plain. And Elohim remembered AvRaham. And He sent Lot from the midst of the flipping-over via flipping-over the cities which Lot sat in them [fem.].

30. And Lot ascended from Tzoar [Little]. And he sat in the mountain. And two of his daughters are with him. For he feared to sit in Tzoar. And He sat in a cave─he and two of his daughters.

31. And the firstborn said unto the little, “Our father is old. And a man ‘ain’t’ in the land to come upon us as the way of all the land.

32. Walk-thou. We will-cause- our father -to-drink wine. And we lay with him. And we enlivened seed from our father.”

33. And they caused- their father -to-drink wine in that night. And the firstborn [fem.] came. And she lay with her father. And he did not know via her lying and via her arising.

34. And he was from tomorrow. And the firstborn said unto the little, “Behold, I lay last night with my father. We will-cause- him -to-drink wine also tonight. And come-thou. Lie-thou with him. And we enlivened seed from our father.”

35. And they caused- their father -to-drink wine also in that night. And the little arose. And she lay with him. And he did not know via her lying and via her arising.

36. And the two daughters of Lot conceived from their father.

37. And the firstborn childed a son. And she called his name Mo-Av [From-Father]. He is the father of Moab unto today.

38. And the little [fem.], also he, childed a son. And she called his name Ben-Ami [Son-of-my-People]. He is the father of the children of Amon unto today.

Page 1 of Genesis 19 Questions and Answers

Questions and Answers - Verse 4

4. a) This verse starts with, “Before they will lay down…” The sentence has no ending. Why is this fragment placed at this point in the text? This sets the scene about to take place; and it gives a haunting statement. It wasn’t long after sunset or at sunset that the folks from the edge began their approach to Lot’s house. Those from the edge are coming under the cover of darkness. Those folks from the edge knew that the travelers, the sojourners, were tired.

4. b) Were all the men of the city participant in this event? Only those “from the edge” were participant.

4. c) What does “from the edge” mean? I propose that the edge isn’t referring to a physical location, but instead to a social standing. These folks were not demonstrating behaviours of the majority in this city; they were from the minority: “the fringe element.”

4. d) What does “were compassed upon” the house mean? The men surrounded the house.

4. e) Why did they surround the house? They determined to keep anyone from escaping. This was a mob intent upon grabbing the sojourners.

4. f) The text states that the men were from young unto old. What does this mean? All age groups of males (no females involved) were looking for a night of sexual fun with these sojourners. This sexual form was coerced: it was violent. The normal result will be that the sojourners are raped to death.

4. g) Define people as used in the Bible: This word, being singular and not plural (unless peoples is used) indicates a group of individuals who share a common culture.

4. h) How many cultures were represented in those from the edge, according to this verse? One! One culture was represented: that of the edge culture: homosexual rapists.

5. a) How did these folks from the edge know that the men came unto Lot that night? Some of them saw or reported that Lot had taken them while it was still daylight, and that he had taken them to his home. Lot had been at the city gates where judging was taking place. Even one of the other judges could have been one of these folks from the edge.

5. b) Why did they ask, “Where are the men” when they knew where the men were? The men were not in sight, being in the house. The question implies that the men’s location must change to the outside of the house. The question itself is intimidating, or is intended to be intimidating.

5. c) Why didn’t they wait for a reply to the first question before continuing with their command? They knew the answer. The command was enforced by the intimidation.

5. d) The command, “Cause them to exit unto us” implies what? It implies that Lot must be the reason for the men exiting to be used by these folks from the edge! It also implies a threat.

5. e) Who is being commanded to cause them to exit? This command is to Lot himself, and not to anyone else. They commanding the leader of the house to cause these men to exit.

5. f) Why did they give away their intent along with the command? They were not ashamed; they had no fear. They didn’t mind announcing their goal for the sojourners.

5. g) What does knew mean in this verse? It means to screw: to sexually be intimate with someone. This word indicates intimacy. The Hebrew word for know either indicates information along with understanding, or intimacy, often of a sexual nature, but not always.

5. h) Why is, “And we knew them” in the past tense, seeing that they hadn’t known them? In Hebrew, when a statement or command is made in a future or present tense, and is directly followed by a past tense form related to what was said, this indicates certainty. In this case, #1: cause them to exit unto us; #2: Certainty: “We knew them!” This is a normal formula in Biblical Hebrew. If ‘A’ occurs, ‘B’ is certain to follow.

5. i) What is their intent? Their intent is to rape them.

6. a) Why did Lot exit unto them? Wasn’t this, well, crazy? Lot was a judge! He knew that he wouldn’t be raped. He had clout in that city! He had determined to appeal to them.

6. b) To what opening did Lot exit? It was the opening of the door of the house.

6. c) Was the door already open, or did Lot open the door? Verse 5 states that they called unto Lot. The text doesn’t say whether the door was already open. It was a warm night. This location is the lowest below sea level place on Earth. His house would have had windows that would be open.

6. d) Why did Lot shut the door after him? That would keep the men from the edge from just charging past Lot. This also shows Lot’s intent to protect the inhabitants. Doing what he did would have affected those men, seeing that Lot showed obvious distrust of them. Lot was very brave.

7. a) What does na again mean? It is a Hebrew particle (that is, a word that has no other form and takes no other form) that indicates a softness to what is being said. What Lot said could have sounded like a demand. Therefore, the word na shows that Lot wasn’t demanding; he was appealing. This word removes the potential for understanding his communication as belligerent.

7. b) Define the word brethren as used in the Bible: Depending on context, this word can be one or more of the following:

Saints

Fellow Jews/Israelis or fellow persons of any one race

Physical siblings including physical half-siblings

Members of one tribe

Members of one family

Compatriots in any goal

Dwellers in the same location

Fellow humans

7. c) In this case, what does the word brethren indicate? It must be the last two bullet points.

Lot is speaking to them in a non-challenging way; he is doing de-escalation. He is not doing wrong by calling them brethren.

7. d) What does bad-do mean? It means to do harm of any kind; destruction of any kind where the destruction results in loss or injury.

7. e) Did Lot really think that these men might listen to him? He did. He is about to try to bargain with them, knowing what they desire.

8. a) How many daughters did Lot have at this time? He had at least four daughters, at least two which are married. (I say at least, because the text doesn’t specify the number except for the two living at home.)

8. b) What does “who knew not a man” mean? This means that these daughters never had sex with a man; they are virgins.

8. c) Why would Lot include their virginity when describing them? This makes it more appealing to some men who are violent.

8. d) Why would Lot desire to make his daughters at home seem more appealing to rapists? Lot is attempting to steer these rapists from the two sojourners. He has no idea that the two sojourners are angelic beings. Had he known that, he wouldn’t have invited them to his home, seeing that angels have no need of food, drink, shelter, protection, or human help.

8. e) Was Lot doing a righteous act by potentially turning over his virgin daughters to rapists in the pursuit of the protection of two male sojourners? The text elsewhere verifies that Lot is righteous:

2 Peter 2:6 And having reduced the cities of Sodom and Amorrah to ashes with an overthrow, He condemned, having set an under-showing [to those] being about to live ungodly! 7And He delivered righteous Lot oppressed by the conduct of the unanchored-[ones] in licentiousness. 8For through seeing and hearing day by day, the righteous-[one] dwelling among them tormented [his] righteous being with [their] anti-Teaching works.

Lot had daily suffered, seeing and hearing the violence of these unanchored ones (without a yoke: no anchor of morality for the soul) and their licentiousness (living as if one has license to sin).

Please consider the following when attempting to answer the question posted here:

Lot knew very well that if these rapists managed to break into the house, they would rape and kill everyone in the house. If a judge is attacked, what violent folks don’t desire are witnesses who can testify later regarding perpetrators.

Lot knew that these men were very angry, and wouldn’t show compassion for anyone who got in their way.

Lot determined that if all were going to be killed, it is better if two die rather than all die.

Lot knew the justice of Yehovah: that the sojourner must be protected even at the expense of the entire family; else Yehovah will take vengeance for the sakes of sojourners. Lot had knowledge of the justice and Teachings of Yehovah, which copies we don’t have; but Yehovah’s Teachings do not change over the centuries. Truth is absolute; Truth doesn’t change.

Lot indeed did the righteous act by potentially turning over his virgin daughters to rapists in the pursuit of the protection of two male sojourners. He was doing what the entire city’s population of Sodom should have been doing: protecting the sojourners at all costs.

During the Tribulation, this price will be paid by a number of folks who will protect sojourners at the appearance of traitorism against their own families and friends; they will be doing right. Those who choose to instead do what is safer for their families and their friends, regardless of the plight of sojourners will everlastingly lose their lives and the lives of their families and friends. That is the Godly morality of the Bible.

8. f) What is Lot declaring when he states, “I will cause them to exit unto you”? He is stating that they will obey him, and will do this not by their will to go out to them. He is offering the most precious ones he owns to them in order to save the lives of the sojourners.

8. g) Did Lot know that the sojourners will be killed, and not ‘just’ raped? Lot had previous experience with these behaviours. Though the text doesn’t say so, other sojourners had been found dead. This is why Lot determined to take them in in the first place. This wasn’t Lot’s first rodeo.

8. h) What did the above demonstrate about the characters of Lot’s two daughters? They would have gone, had their father told them to exit to these rapists. Those daughters well-knew the events of the nights in Sodom! They were not shielded from that knowledge.

8. i) What does Lot mean by, “do ye to them as is good in your eyes”? This is saying to those men that they have no limits on what they will decide to do to his daughters. (Lot is appealing to their consciences.)

8. j) What does, “Only don’t do a speech to these men” mean? These men refer to the sojourners. Since a speech is something that describes a thought, an action, history, the future, whatever, if they don’t do a speech to these men, that indicates that they have done nothing at all to these men; there is nothing to later speak about what they did.

8. k) What are these beams that this verse describes? It refers to the supports of the house: the roof supports, the ceiling supports, the wall supports, the doorframe supports, etc.

8. l) What does “come into the shadow of my beams” mean? It means to come into the house, and out of the sun or moon light.

8. m) What does “for concerning establishment” mean?

If establishment refers to custom, Lot is stating the custom that was established regarding sojourners.

By taking the sojourners in, that establishes the sojourners in a safe location.

9. a) What does “Near thou beyond” mean? It is a strong way of saying, move back there. In other words, “Get the hell out of the way!”

9. b) Did Lot do so? No! He refused to move out of the way.

9. c) Who is meant by, “the one,” in, “The one came to sojourn”? This is a reference to Lot. It is a very derogatory statement made in all sarcasm. This also indicates that Lot wasn’t ‘from around here.’ He is a foreigner, anyway!

9. d) What is meant by, “And he judged, judging”? Lot was truly placed as a judge of the city of Sodom! Not only did he judge, but he also judged! Not only did he do formal rulings, but he also found fault with locals who were violent!

9. e) Who are they in, “And they said,” and to whom are they speaking? They are the bad guy-rapists. They are speaking to each other! They are prodding each other to violence.

9. f) Identify the pronouns in, “Now will we bad-do to thee from them”:

We (in, "Now will be bad-do"): We are the bad guys, the rapists.

Thee (in, "to thee"): This is Lot.

Them (in, "from them"): They are the sojourners.

The homosexual rapists are threatening Lot to bad do more to Lot than to the sojourners. (Thus, they will torture Lot to death.)

9. g) Did these men from the edge receive the appeal of Lot? No. This is a warning to readers: Attempting to appeal to a mob set on violence is too often useless.

9. h) If they very much pressed into Lot, what were they physically doing? They were attempting to push their way in by pushing Lot out of the way.

9. i) Why do they feel that they must push Lot out of the way? He is standing between the man and the door. He was told to move; and Lot didn’t move. I propose that the door opened outward.

9. j) What does they neared to break the door mean? The mob was pressing in to break the door down in order to get past the door. (Had the door opened inward, they wouldn’t have had to break down the door; just the latch on the door.)

9. k) How many were in this mob? There were enough that they could surround the house! The number must have been more than 20; perhaps 50 persons; yet, these are just the folks from the edge.

10. a) Who are the men who sent their hand? These are the two sojourners.

10. b) What does “the men sent their hand” mean? This means that they extended a hand (as if just one hand) in order to grab Lot.

10. c) Why didn’t the angels already respond to what was occurring, putting a stop to this violence before it occurred, especially before Lot offered his daughters? This is vital for Lot’s character and the characters of his daughters to be recorded in the text.

Yehovah does this, at times! He waits to respond until the excellent character of a person has been fully shown! At times, even then, Yehovah doesn’t respond to the death of the person of excellent character so that others, later, will come to faith! This is what occurred to the Roman Saints! They so often weren’t delivered from torturous deaths; and their testimony brought about the everlasting Salvation of quite a number! (This, also, isn’t normally taught in Modern Conservative Liberal Christianity. Instead, what is sometimes taught is this: “Come to Christ, and He will take care of your problems.”)

10. d) If the door opened outward, what did the men have to do in order to send their hand and grab Lot? They had to push with a far greater force on the door than the mob that seeks to break the door, and open the door wide enough for Lot’s body to be pulled in.

10. e) Why is the word hand singular? Both men sent one hand that is from both of them: they are working together. When a group works together, that group has and uses one hand. This is used in the Bible quite frequently! That is why if one becomes part of a mob, and the mob does action, it does it with one hand, one mouth, one heart! Thus, all in that group are as guilty as the rest! Yehovah does hold groups responsible in this very manner! So, the two men (who are angels) acted as a group, and sent the group’s hand to fetch Lot.

10. f) Why is the word brought used instead of a more coercive word, like yanked, pulled, towed, dragged, jerked? It shows very little effort. It is a gentle word, as if transporting Lot into the house were done using two fingers.

10. g) Did Lot realize at this moment that the two men were greater than two sojourning men? When Lot realized that these two weren’t human isn’t given in the text; Lot realized that he was about to be harmed, and the door about to break. Then this hand brings him into the house and shuts the door. Lot is still in shock regarding the violence.

10. h) Why does the text affirm that they shut the door? It is because of the order of events! Verse 11 will show that the men smote the men outside via blindness. They first shut the door before causing the blindness! The door has no property that stops the action of these ‘men’ who are angels! A physical door does not stop an angel.

11. a) Who smote the men? The two angels did this smiting.

11. b) What does “who are the opening of the house” mean? They are physically acting, or rather blocking, the entryway of the house. Now, the door is shut; yet, the men are still there.

11. c) Why did the angels smite those men specifically with blindness? Why didn’t the angels just slaughter those men? Angels have no business slaughtering humans unless either directed to do so, or given that authority to do so. Otherwise, angels that slaughter humans will find themselves locked up until the Tribulation! That would be an act of rebellion against Yehovah, since angels are ministering spirits to them who will be heirs of Salvation! Any angel is far more powerful than every human; but angels are lower in ranks than all humans.

Another reason for smiting these men and youths with blindness is so that readers can see how sexually intent they were on their goals! The blindness won’t stop them!

11. d) The text states, “from small and big.” What do small and big indicate and describe? The terms small and big indicate two things in Hebrew:

Size

Rank

In this case, both are in mind. Regarding rank, this is akin to what some children speaking English say to each other when they are very young, “You think you’re big!”

11. e) Was this blindness permanent? The text doesn’t say. I propose that the blindness didn’t wear off, and these folks went home blinded.

11. f) Why is the word blindnesses plural? Whatever the forms of blindness were, more than one form occurred. Some, for example, can still see light, but cannot recognize the form of anything. Others see neither light nor darkness.

11. g) Why did both angels do this smiting of blindnesses? Wouldn’t the work of one angel be enough? They were working together! They thought in the same manner at the same time regarding what to do! They didn’t discuss what to do; they knew what to do! Also, the men and youths had surrounded the house; one angel could have taken 180 degrees of the circle, and the other the other 180 degrees.

11. h) Were these angels given the information of what to expect before being sent on their mission? They knew at every step exactly what to do. Yet, they understood their goals. This goal understanding doesn’t come from osmosis; it requires particular details. The text doesn’t say what they were told; instead, it shows that these two angels were perfectly coordinated (‘of one accord’) in all that they said and did. I maintain that those humans who are doing right can be also that coordinated in the means and the goals.

11. i) What was the reaction of these men being smitten with blindness? Did they go home, terrified that blindness would be for the rest of their lives? That blindness was almost like a ‘turn-on’ to them! They determined even more to find the opening, to get inside, and to rape the men!

12. a) Who are these men speaking to Lot? They are the two angels. Yet, the text still calls them men.

12. b) Why did Yehovah continue to call them men when they are angels? They look like men; the speak like men; and it is up to the reader to realize that these aren’t ordinary men with magical powers or supernatural powers. The Bible is written for readers to discover for themselves regarding such things.

12. c) When these men-angels asked, “Who else is to thee here,” didn’t they already know the answer to this? Unless Yehovah gave them knowledge of this information, and unless these two had studied Lot and his family, these angels wouldn’t know.

Be aware that angels often have much information about particular humans! They can study humans, including humans in private circumstances.

I could propose that these men-angels didn’t know who else was with Lot’s family; but I find angels very informed. I find it interesting that two angels were sent, and not more than two or less than two. This will later be so strategic.

12. d) Why didn’t the angels go directly to Lot’s relatives to give warnings to them? Those other relatives weren’t righteous, and no one in those home was righteous. Therefore, Lot’s relatives outside of his home (and indeed inside his home) were as pagan as the rest of those in the city! Had any of Lot’s relatives outside of Lot’s home been righteous, that person or persons would have been sent angels to give escape.

12. e) What assignment did the angels give to Lot to do at this point in this verse? Lot was assigned to cause any of his relatives to exit from the place!

12. f) Could Lot cause relatives to exit from the place? Lot could as long as the others were willing.

12. g) This one city is mentioned. Suppose that Lot had had relatives in another city, like Amorrah; would the men (who are angels) have worded what they said in another way? If Lot had had relatives in Amorrah, Lot would have been given time to visit them and convince them to leave. The wording would have been different. I propose that instead of, “in the city,” the men would have said, “in the cities of the plain.”

13. a) Who, according to this text, is rotting this place? At first, I am thinking that this refers to the two angels. Actually, the three who came participate in this rotting; and one of the three is Yeshua! This group is unified in rotting this place and the other places that are about to be destroyed.

13. b) To what does this place refer? It consists of the cities of the plain!

13. c) Identify the pronouns in this verse:

We (in, "We are rotting …"): The two angels and Yehovah of hosts

Their (in, "Their scream"): The two cities: Sodom and Amorrah

Us (in, "Yehovah sent us"): The two angels and Yehovah of hosts

Her (in, "to rot her"): The land of the plain

13. d) Why is the word scream singular? The cities themselves are unified as one group! They, together are screaming to Yehovah!

13. e) If the scream is big with the faces of Yehovah, what is occurring? Yehovah is both looking at the cities, and the scream is very intense right in Yehovah’s faces! The scream is only heard by Yehovah, and by those who have ears to hear it.

13. f) Could the angels hear the scream of these cities? I have no idea. They certainly know about this.

13. g) Who is Yehovah Who sent this us to rot the place? This is Yehovah the Father, because the us includes Yehovah of Hosts, Yehovah Elohim.

14. a) Is it evident in this text that Lot believed the testimony of the two angels? Yes! He went to his sons-in-law, and told them to leave! He believed! I am convinced that the blinding that the angels had done would have convinced Lot that what they say is true.

14. b) What time did Lot exit? It was still night when Lot exited. Therefore, it is quite possible that he had to awaken his sons-in-law to speak to them. It won’t be morning until verse 15. This was an all-night event.

14. c) The text affirms that Lot spoke unto his sons-in-law. Why didn’t Lot speak unto his daughters? This could be for several reasons.

I propose that in this culture, one approaches the husbands for family decisions, and one doesn’t skirt around that.

Lot knew better than to try to separate his married daughters from their husbands even to save their lives. This will occur in the Tribulation in the very same way. Married folks are one flesh!

I am also thinking that Lot knew that if the husbands didn’t believe Lot, neither would his daughters.

14. d) In this verse, sons-in-law are also called ‘takers of daughters.’ What does this tell the readers? This tells the readers that the tradition and custom was for a man to take a woman as his woman. It was not a two-way situation. I don’t recall an event in the Bible in which a woman took a man as her man. Our cultures include a two-way concept, but this was not part of many cultures of the world.

14. e) Did this taking imply that a woman was as chattel? It implied no such thing. Some men then, as today, viewed a woman as chattel; one who feared Yehovah didn’t have that perspective. A man who takes a woman, where he loves her, and she isn’t bitter at being taken, but responds, will end up with an excellent relationship if both of them concentrate on the relationship’s growth.

14. f) Where were the angels located when they told Lot, “Yehovah sent us to rot her”? They were still in the house with Lot, Lot’s woman, and two of Lot’s daughters.

14. g) When Lot exited, what did he exit? He exited from the house.

14. h) Where were the sons-in-law located? They were in their own homes, and their homes might have been quite a walk one from the other.

14. i) How many sons-in-law did Lot have? He had at least two. The text doesn’t specify the number of married daughters that Lot had; it only gives the plural form, showing at least two to exist.

14. j) Why is son-in-law singular in verse 12, while being plural in the other verses? The term son-in-law in verse 12 refers to species, and not to persons with numbers.

14. k) Did Lot say, “Arise! Exit from this place! For Yehovah is causing- the city -to-rot!” to each of his sons-in-law? Yes. He came in the middle of the night to say this.

14. l) Did Lot’s sons-in-law have reason to think that Lot had become crazy or disconnected from reality (I am not referring to what he said to them)? Not at all.

14. m) Did Lot’s sons-in-law now have reason to think that he had stripped a brain gear with what he was saying? They thought he was joking; not crazy. They knew that Lot was a man of responsible sense. What they didn’t understand was his coming late at night, potentially waking them up, and joking.

14. n) Did Lot truly expect his sons-in-law to respond to his plea? If Lot had known that they wouldn’t respond, he would have had no reason to go. Lot certainly desired that they would respond.

14. o) Why didn’t his sons-in-law ask questions, like, “What do you mean?” and, “How do you know?” “Who told thee that?” They truly didn’t take Lot seriously. Also, a ‘late at night’ sudden shock of the declaration of destruction usually wouldn’t come as credible to a person.

14. p) Did the citizens of the cities of Sodom, Amorrah, Admah, Zeboim, and Zoar have warnings before this night regarding dangers from Yehovah?

Amos 3:7 For my Lords Yehovah will not do a speech but-except He exposed His secret unto His slaves the prophets!

With this in mind, Yehovah sent prophets to those cities to warn them regarding the destruction. Those warnings may have been several years ago, and would have come from a much earlier time, since Yehovah doesn’t quickly destroy a location’s citizens. He waits to see if those citizens will turn, knowing in advance whether they will turn, or not. The cup of the wine of the wrath of God takes time to fill even in the most violent locations. Only when that cup has filled to the brim will Yehovah destroy. However, He gives warnings!

I maintain that the citizens of the cities of the plain had significant and clear warning regarding the sin done in those cities and the consequences that were coming. Only, if this is true, they figured that this warning wasn’t true.

14. q) Did the sons-in-law of Lot mock him when they heard what he said? The text doesn’t in any way indicate that they mocked him; it only indicates that they thought he was joking.

I will propose that they were used to folks becoming drunk and joking about things; they may have thought that somehow, Lot had become inebriated.

15. a) Did Lot find sleep this night? No. He had attempted to save lives; and he knew that the lives of at least two daughters were about to be destroyed, as well as all the lives of all the citizens, and their animals, that he had personally come to know. He had no reason to find sleep that night.

15. b) Why did the messengers (now being called that instead of ‘men’) hasten into Lot? They hastened into him to get him moving! He hasn’t yet even begun to pack. Lot is still in shock that at least two daughters and sons-in-law are about to be dead with the entire city.

Lot is a cowboy! Cowboys are not easily incapacitated! They have to deal with all kinds of situations, and they see all kinds of terrible things. Yet, Lot is being incapacitated, and the messengers know this. Therefore, they will give him a boost toward reality.

15. c) Why are the daughters described as, “who are found”? The two daughters in that house and the ones who are found. The others who aren’t found aren’t in Lot’s power to cause to exit from the city.

15. d) The wording, “lest thou wilt be consumed in the iniquity of the city” implies what? It implies that Lot himself is in danger of being destroyed. In other words, if a Godly person refuses to leave a city that Yehovah has declared that He will destroy, the Godliness of that person will not stop Yehovah from destroying that person with the city!

A Saint must not presume on God to stop a destruction by refusing to leave.

15. e) Suppose that Lot had refused to leave; would Lot have been considered a Saint after this? Yes.

This kind of action has occurred in other places. There will be times when a city will be destroyed, and a Saint will stay in that city, knowing it will be destroyed, in order to remain with another person there who is terrified of dying alone.

Lot was born of God; where he died and why he died would not have changed that outcome. His name is in the scroll of the lives of the lamb.

15. f) Define iniquity: This is true guilt there remains from a committed sin, not having been removed by some appropriate means.

If a person sins, and then later stops sinning, the iniquity of the previous sins continues until that iniquity, that guilt, is likewise removed along with the forgiveness of the sins. Modern Conservative Liberal Christianity doesn’t teach about iniquity and its consequences.

15. g) Why would Lot be consumed in the iniquity of the city of Lot didn’t arise and take the family members, and leave? The city will be consumed! If a Saint refuses to take warning and leave when such destruction is determined, the Saint will die with the destruction. That doesn’t in any way stop that person from being a Saint; one born of God cannot become unborn of God. That would, however, be the end of that Saint’s life.

15. h) Is the city guilty of anything? The city is totally innocent; the city called to Yehovah to respond to what the citizens were doing and weren’t doing to help sojourners. Thus, the iniquity is of the citizens that make up the city, and not of the city land herself.

In the Bible, when a city is referenced, at times (and the reader must discern), the land is being specified without regard to the inhabitants. At times, the set of the citizens of the city is being targeted. A reader must distinguish; otherwise, what the reader understands will be incorrect.

In a text above, the city called to Yehovah; no inhabitants called to Yehovah, since the city desired Yehovah to do something because of the violence. Now, in this text, iniquity is associated with the city; yet, the land is innocent, and is being polluted with the blood of innocent folks. Therefore, in this verse, ‘the city’ refers to the set of inhabitants.

15. i) In the Bible, what is a city? A city consists of a group of humans dwelling together and functioning together for the common good, including some basic services, trade, and usually some form or presence of law.

A city, in another perspective, consists of permanent or temporary structures (as in ‘a tent city’), roads, infrastructure, and places of business, as well as dwellings for inhabitants. (Thus, a city can be totally evacuated of humans, and still be a city.)

Then, a city can be a land, with or without inhabitants, but that did have inhabitants at one time; this city form is a moral entity in the Bible, capable of acting and reacting regarding citizens, and capable of speaking to Yehovah and hearing Yehovah. A city can sleep with false gods, entertaining those gods by prospering citizens and sojourners who bring, make, and use false gods.

A city (referring to citizens) consists of both those who are permanent residents with permanent citizenship and sojourners. Those sojourners, in Yehovah’s view, are part of that city.

The daughters of a city are the suburbs of that city (when not referring to human women).

15. j) Why, then, doesn’t Yehovah destroy only the inhabitants, and preserve the city, its buildings, the land, its fields, its animals, etc., if the city calls out to Yehovah because of the violence? Were Yehovah to only destroy the inhabitants, and leave the rest, other groups of humans would most certainly come and take the places of the prior inhabitants, calling out to the gods of the prior inhabitants. This is even what occurs in archaeological digs that are thorough and thoroughly researched: humans, hearing of the practices and seeing the objects, are too often drawn to the same deities and practices, restarting what was destroyed. Demons are quite willing to help.

16. a) Identify the following pronouns:

He (in, "He what-whated himself"): Lot

Himself (in, " He what-whated himself "): Lot

His (in, "into his hand"): Lot

His (in, "of his woman"): Lot

His (in, "of his daughters"): Lot

Him (in, "upon him"): Lot

They (in, "they caused him"): The angels

Him (in, " they caused him "): Lot

They (in, "they rested him"): The angels

Him (in, "they rested him"): Lot

16. b) What does the verb, ‘to what-what oneself’ mean? It is an expression of confusion and consternation. It is seen by a person asking questions like, “What will happen to us?” “What will we do?” “What source of food will we have?” “To what location will we go?” In other words, a series of ‘what’ questions is spoken by a person who is ‘what-whating himself.’

16. c) Why did Lot ‘what-what himself’? He was still in shock and grief regarding the fact that he is about to have at least two dead daughters and sons-in-law. Now, he will be homeless; landless; incomeless; and without any idea of how to start all over again. This kind of shock is very difficult for humans to withstand unless they have been trained (like in certain forms of military training).

16. d) Who took hold of whose hand, according to this verse? The two angels each took hold of two persons, totaling four persons.

16. e) Explain the wording, caused to grasp into: This shows that the angels didn’t seek permission; they grabbed the hands of these folks. There was no time for permission.

16. f) Why were two angels dispatched to do this rescue? Each angel had two hands. Yehovah knew that only four persons will be grabbed to be taken out of the city. Yehovah knew very well that the sons-in-law wouldn’t be willing to go.

16. g) What took place that was “in the compassion of Yehovah upon him”? It is the men causing to grasp into the four! It is the physical salvation of all four. (The text will describe what the angels do next.)

16. h) Define compassion: The Hebrew word חמל, khamal, means to spare, pity, have compassion on. It is the closest to the English word mercy, but it is used far more rarely in the Bible. It shows investment on another because the other who is the target is in such a bad position. The one with compassion therefore determines to do something to help.

16. i) How did the angels cause Lot to exit, according to this verse? They flew them out. The text declares that they rested him from outside the city.

16. j) Why does the text refer only to Lot being caused to exit when four were caused to exit? It is because Lot is the main person of the group. He is the head of the group; the group has been transported.

A word used in the KJV in other texts is to translate. The following is the acceptation for this usage: to bear, carry, or move from one place, position, etc., to another; transfer (Dictionary.com).

16. k) What does “from outside to the city” mean? This is a removal that isn’t only to the border of the city; it is beyond the border of the city.

16. l) What kind of a distance was this flight through the air? It would have been like the equivalent of perhaps half a mile? We don’t know. Only, it wasn’t just a small amount of coverage for that flight.

17. a) Who is he in, “And he was”? This is the event.

17. b) Who are their in this first sentence? They are the two angels.

17. c) How did they manage to cause them to exit? What did they do? They laid hold on the hands of two, each; and they flew them to outside of the city (including of the fields that belonged to the city). (The text doesn’t indicate if the flight was fast through the air, like being flown, or if it was more like teleportation.)

17. d) Who is he in, “And he said”? It is one of the two angels.

17. e) What is the being as used in the Bible? It consists of one, two, or all three of the following, depending on the text:

Body

Soul

Spirit

17. f) In this verse, what is the being? It is all three. What happened with Lot’s woman was that her body had escaped, but she, the soul, and her spirit didn’t escape.

17. g) What does “Cause thou to escape concerning thy being” mean? It is another way of telling them to “get the heck out of Dallas!” In other words, he (Lot is the subject) must act to cause his own being to escape! He cannot stand there, and he must not look to anyone else to transport him! His being is in his own hands! If he will escape, he must go on his own.

The angels transported them outside of the city; the rest is up to Lot.

17. h) Why didn’t the angel speak to all in the group at this point, telling all of them to cause to escape concerning their beings? Why focus only on Lot?

The others are hearing what is being spoken to Lot. So, they are not in the dark regarding the command. They will know that what Lot is being commanded is also true for them. At times, a command to one person in a group is obviously a command for all in that group; at other times, a command to one person in a group is obviously a command for only that one person. Rarely will this be confusing.

The idea was to not confuse all in the group; the angel knew that whatever Lot did, the rest would do the same.

Lot is the head of this family remaining; Lot is the responsible party, and the reason why they are escaping at all!

17. i) What does peer mean? It means to look at something that is distant or small in order to discern what is being viewed. Binoculars are instruments of peering. Dictionary.com has one acceptation that fits: to look narrowly or searchingly, as in the effort to discern clearly. Thus, it indicates focusing on something.

Thus, to peer requires more time and consideration. It is not done instantaneously.

The word look in Hebrew is from the verb to see. The verb to see doesn’t include any assumption of consideration, of discerning, of any effort. One can see with other characteristics being included, but they must be added in Hebrew, and cannot be assumed.

17. j) Who are thou and thee in, “Peer-thou not after thee”? Thou and thee are Lot.

17. k) Why is the command to not peer after Lot so important? The angel knew that if Lot peered after himself (that is, if Lot looked back to the city to peer at it), he would reinvest in the city, and would be destroyed with the city.

No text here commands Lot to not look back; peering isn’t the same as looking.

17. l) What is the act of peering after? The word after indicates behind. In other words, don’t peer behind thee. Peering ahead is fine.

17. m) Why is a warning given about not peering behind? Lot is being warned that to peer behind is lethal. This warning is given because the angel speaking knows what can and will happen if this command is violated. Such commands are given to preserve life.

17. n) How could one stand in all the round area? One couldn’t. This is a misunderstanding of the text. The statement considers the entire round area: the geographical area. The command is to stand nowhere in that area; the entire area is off-limits (if Lot desires to live).

17. o) What does the round area include? It includes all of Sodom. This was a circle with the city in the middle and farming and grazing fields around it. The command is to flee outside of the entire area.

17. p) Which direction is mountainward? It is eastward. An entire range of rock hills is to the east, and extends for many miles both northward and southward. These hills, called ‘mountains’ in this text, are very stark, very bare, very red, very unfriendly-looking for the lack of green, for the lack of trees.

17. q) Was Lot himself in danger of being consumed with the city? If he didn’t follow the commands, he was in as much danger as anyone in the city!

In the End Times, the same thing will occur for ‘the good guys!’ They will be in danger of death with the cities if they don’t obey the specific commands that they will be given, or if they don’t follow their senses regarding what is occurring! (For they will know, from what they hear others saying, that they must leave, or die!)

17. r) Define scrape-off in this text: It is to remove as with a tool or a knife, as to shave. It is a very demeaning word for killing a population. In this case, Yehovah will be the scraper! It is like scraping off dog excrement from one’s shoe.

18. a) What did Lot mean by, “Not!”? He was telling these angels, whom he was calling “my lords,” that he could not escape mountainward. He terribly feared going to those hills; he knew how desolate they are.

18. b) Was Lot doing right by referring to the angels as, “my lords”? The word lord means sir. It is a demonstration of respect, and also a willingness to serve. It is an indication of humility.

He was doing right, because the angels appeared as humans, and they demonstrated great powers. A reader of the Bible who is careful will find that humans are higher in ranks than angels. Therefore, prostrating to an angel isn’t appropriate. Prostrating to humans by humans is fine. Lot didn’t have the theology of humans having higher rank, though he likely knew that. All he knew was that these human-appearing angels were telling him to flee to a desolate place; he had to respond.

18. c) Explain the use of na: It is a Hebrew particle (that is, a word that has no other forms but the one) that is a softener of what is being communicated.

As one knows who sends text messages, without softeners, folks who receive the text can assume a very strong voice, and can be offended. A softener would help text messages! It also helped those in personal communications, because Hebrew is a very ‘direct’ language. What one says can sound rude. A softener removes the rudeness aspect.

19. a) Is it ever right for a human to be a slave to an angel? No. This is never right. However, if a human sees an angel who appears as a human, and who has powers that are life-saving, that human is doing no wrong to see himself/herself as a slave to a good angel. It isn’t right, but it also isn’t a violation.

19. b) What is so important about a slave finding favour in the eyes of a master or lord? That means that the slave is exhibiting behaviour that is pleasing to the master, and that the master or lord is more likely to grant a request of the slave.

19. c) Why are eyes mentioned in this expression? The slave’s behaviour is being seen by the master. This expression is a ‘childism;’ it is an expression best understood by a very young child who understands adults by the ways that their eyes respond to them. Very young children figure that if they aren’t seen, they are invisible! If they are seen, they are susceptible! The Hebrew language uses children’s expressions throughout.

19. d) How did Lot determine that somehow Lot had found favour in the eyes of these guests? These guests had saved him from those from the edge! These guests also had transported them from the city about to be destroyed. Indeed, Lot must have realized that these guests had come as sojourners for Lot’s sake. Therefore, Lot knew that Lot had found favour in the eyes of these sojourners. (Please be aware that Lot is so confused, that he might not have registered that these are actually angels; they could be humans with great powers.)

19. e) Is one of the two messengers the leader of the two, such that Lot is addressing just one of the two at this time? Lot’s response can be to the last speaker and the one who took him by the hand to transport him. I don’t see in the text where the angels are different in ranks one from the other. They could be, or they could be of the same rank.

19. f) Define grace: This is a fervent, ardent zeal by which one is actuated (moved to take action), being either for or against the target.

For example, a she-bear will demonstrate the very same grace toward her cub and toward a wolf attempting to get her cub! That very same grace will ‘feel’ different to the cub and to the wolf!

Yehovah’s grace in everlasting Salvation to the Saints is the same grace in everlasting damnation to those who perish.

19. g) Why did Lot state that the sojourner had magnified the sojourner’s grace? Explain magnification: To magnify is to cause to appear big (or bigger). The object doesn’t change size; the perspective changes dramatically.

The rescue was extraordinary! This wasn’t a small demonstration of grace; it was a miraculous demonstration of grace. Thus, the amount of zeal that this rescue took was very big!

19. h) Why did Lot speak only of himself in the grace that this sojourner had done? He is speaking singularly to the messenger, and is about to make a request regarding himself.

19. i) Define being: See 17-e above.

19. j) What is Lot stating that the sojourner did when Lot said, “And thou magnified thy grace that thou did with me to cause-to-keep-alive my being”? Lot is admitting already that the sojourner has saved Lot’s life! Lot already knows this! Though nothing yet has happened to the citizens of the city, Lot knows that Lot’s life has already been saved.

Lot knew that the sojourners had saved Lot’s life before when they had brought Lot into the house and they had closed the door. This must be to what he is referring.

19. k) Why does Lot view that he won’t be able to escape to the mountain? He is so concerned that ‘the bad’ (whatever that is) will cling to him by his going to the hill range that is some miles off.

Consider that Lot will view that going into the hills will lead to his death just as much as remaining in the area. Instead, he will propose to go to a city where he can live.

19. l) What is ‘the bad’ of which Lot speaks? One proposal was that the bad referred to the memory of what will take place: that the remembrance of losing his daughters who remained will kill him. Another proposal is that something in the mountains will cling to him, like the lack of vegetation, of food supplies, of life. Whatever the bad is, Lot views it as life-threatening. It is as if no matter where he went, except to another city, whatever is the cause of the destruction of Sodom will follow him.

19. m) Why does Lot put stock in “the bad”? Lot knows that the entire area is polluted with the kinds of sin that are in Sodom. He also knows that he isn’t equipped to deal with those stark hills, where rainfall can be less than 10 inches a year: in other words, a dry desert among deserts. His concern is that he is being rescued from a city about to be totally scraped off, and is being sent to a place where he and his family will die of thirst even before dying of hunger. The angels flew them out with no provisions. Thus, he fears; he doesn’t assume that Yehovah will do miracles for him.

19. n) Is Lot right that the bad will cling to him, and he will die? He isn’t right, but he also isn’t presumptuous. In other words, he, like the Saints in the Bible, didn’t presume on God and on God’s goodness. Modern Conservative Liberal Christianity is filled with arrogant presumers in so many denominations. Those who truly fear Yehovah the Gods of Israel and who have sense won’t presume; they will make requests. A major subtheme in many movies and films today is, “Everything will be alright.” Folks advise others in this way: “It will be Ok.” This is presumption! It gives false hope! Things may not be Ok at all! Instead, one can make a request.

20. a) Identify this city: This is the city called Zoar, though that wasn’t the original name. The original name was Bela (see Genesis 14:2), meaning, He Swallowed.

20. b) To whom is Lot speaking? He is speaking to the one who delivered him from Sodom.

20. c) Is Lot and the angel able to see the city in question? All these cities were in proximity to each other, but not necessarily that close. Yet, sight distance is very good in the desert! A city can be 20 miles away, and yet be visible. I propose that they could see the buildings of Zoar.

20. d) Why didn’t the angel instruct Lot to flee to Zoar in the first place? Zoar was targeted for destruction along with Sodom, Amorrah, Admah, and Zeboim! Their inhabitants were all the same in terms of refusing to save the lives of sojourners who were being attacked in their midst!

20. e) What is the significance of the city being little? Why would that be of consequence in the mind of Lot? It could be that Lot knew that in a smaller city, there would be more knowledge of each other, and less folks from the edge who were violent. Even today, we think of smaller communities as having less crime than what occurs in very large cities.

20. f) Why would Lot’s being live if he fled to this small town? He would have the ability to work and to trade and to obtain food and water. Every settled community had these resources.

20. g) Why did Lot use the past tense, “And my being lived,” when speaking about a hypothetical future situation? In Hebrew, when a person speaks of a future event that will result in something, the future event is in the future tense; the result is in the past tense, indicating a sure thing. In English, if a person says, “Roll the ball to me,” and the person then indicates, “and I will kick it,” that is a simple declaration. In Hebrew, the same wording would be like this: “Roll the ball to me, and I kicked it!” indicating much more certainty.

20. h) The pronoun used in Hebrew is masculine (though those who provided dotting claimed it was feminine, since a city is feminine, and since the Samaritan Torah does have the feminine pronoun, היא). To what does the masculine pronoun refer? It refers to the Hebrew word מצער, a small-[one], what we would call a small place. The word for small-[one] is masculine.

21. a) Who are he and him in, “And he said unto him”? He is the angel; him is Lot. The angel is answering Lot’s request.

21. b) What does to carry faces mean? It means to cause another’s faces to be elevated and carried, which is a childism for granting a request.

When a child makes a request, and the request is denied, the adult can watch the faces of the child droop down. This is an act of disappointment. If a request is granted to a child, the child looks up with delight, and the faces of the child remain up!

21. c) If the angel carried Lot’s faces also to this speech, what is the angel doing? He is granting Lot’s request to keep that city from being flipped over so that Lot can run to that city, and live!

21. d) Is it strange that the angel has the authority to grant such a request that will involve keeping a city that was about to be destroyed by Yehovah from ruin for a personal request? It may seem strange, but angels are moral agents just as humans are moral agents. (I did not say that they are free moral agents; there is no such thing as a free moral agent. Every moral agent in existence has limitations on moral agency! To think otherwise is to raise beings above God who Himself has limits on His moral agency! He cannot defy His own character morally!

Humans have done the same thing. David obtained the showbread for his men for food when food wasn’t otherwise available. This could have been a lethal decision on David’s part, but it was not. Indeed, it is used as an example of good in the ‘New Testament.’

In other case, Aharon took a bull sacrifice that was supposed to be used for another purpose, and he sacrificed it for himself after his sons were burned to death because of a violation! Moshe was furious with Aharon until he heard why Aharon did this; and then Moshe knew that Aharon had done right.

This angel knew Yehovah well enough that this angel knew that sparing one of the five cities of the plain for the sake of Lot was not countermanding the will of Yehovah. Indeed, such things will occur in the End Times.

21. e) What does flip over a city mean? It means to take the city from a living city to a city of ash. Thus, it is as if the city were turned upside down and changed to become something else. For example, when the moon is flipped over to blood, it temporarily becomes a sphere of blood liquid!

22. a) Who is being commanded to hurry? Lot is being commanded! The command is singular.

22. b) Whom is Lot to cause to escape to that city? He is to cause his family to escape to that city!

22. c) What occurs if a person or angel does a speech? Doing a speech indicates fulfilling what has been spoken. That which was spoken could be a command; it could be a promise; it could be a design; it doesn’t matter. If the speech is done, what was spoken was completed: was fulfilled.

In this case, the angel has been given a speech of destruction for the city. The angel cannot do that speech until Lot arrives at the city’s area to where he is fleeing.

22. d) What speech will the angel not be able to do unto the arrival of Lot and his family to the Zoar area? Since the angel will not be the destroyer of the cities of the plain, but Yehovah will be the destroyer, the angel must have been given another assignment that the reader can figure out. I propose (and maintain) that the assignment was to make sure that every righteous person was warned and rescued, and then to report back to Yehovah regarding the completion of the assignment and the delivery of the righteous person or persons to the safe destination. Yehovah knows all things; yet, He participates in actions as if He didn’t know. Angels are assigned to deliver information to Yehovah! This is a regular process, and one for which the angels will be judged!

22. e) Explain the meaning of unto, and how it differs from until: Until has a stopping point! Unto has no stopping point built into its usage. The Hebrew language has no until; it only has an unto.

22. f) Again, to where must Lot arrive before the angel can do the speech he was commanded to do? The city of Zoar must be where Lot must arrive (in the outer fields).

22. g) Who called the name of that city, “Zoar”? It appears that Lot renamed the city. Yet, that doesn’t make sense. How can a sojourner rename a city that is already occupied, and has a name (Bela, in this case)?

I am thinking that this refers instead to Yehovah. However, be aware that I translate verbs that are supposedly passive as active. Other translators got around this by using the passive form. For example, in the King James Version, the text reads, “Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.”

23. a) What occurs when the sun exits upon the land? This is an unusual Hebrew expression for a sunset. The normal Hebrew expression is for the sun to come to the land. Thus, I understand that this describes that part of the sunset when the light is gone; that is a full exit upon the land. If this is the case, what is about to happen is in the dark.

23. b) Did Lot arrive within the city of Zoar? Lot could have been on the outskirts of the city, and before entering into the city’s gates. The text that follows gives an impression regarding this.

23. c) How long did this journey take from the time that they left the angel to the time of the arrival to Zoar? It took from sunup to sunset! This was quite a walk!

23. d) Did they have supplies with them? No text indicates that. No text denies that. However, Lot and his family had no trouble making the journey.

24. a) Yehovah is mentioned twice in this verse. Identify the first Yehovah, and identify the second Yehovah: The first Yehovah is the One Who showed up with the two angels. This is Yehovah of hosts, the Elohim, Who later will be born as Yeshua.

The second Yehovah is Yehovah the Father!

24. b) If the above is true, who destroyed the cities of the plain? Yehovah the Father did! I propose that this is very unusual in the Bible! Normally, the Destroyer, when referring to Deity, is Yeshua! Yeshua is still the cause, but the supplies came from Yehovah the Father! Then, in verse 29, Elohim did! Therefore, the two verses demonstrate that Yehovah the Father and Yeshua worked together on this destruction!

24. c) Were those two cities the only cities that were destroyed in this fire-and-sulfur bombing? Also, Admah and Zeboim are destroyed; they just aren’t mentioned by name in this text.

24. d) Why use sulfur? It totally disinfects! Thus, no disease arose from this attack. The corpses were either totally burned, or if not, they were sterilized. Also, the smell of rotten eggs will permeate the region. To this very day (2021), the smell of sulfur is strong in some of those areas!

24. e) What is a property of burning sulfur? It is very hard to extinguish burning sulfur, once the sulfur is ignited.

24. f) What time of day did this disaster occur? It was at night! It was at sunset!

24. g) Does Yehovah ever use sulfur from the heavens in any other event? He does in Psalm 11:6. During the Tribulation, it will be used again! In Deuteronomy 29, Yehovah will use this very same bombing technique on the Land of Israel!

24. h) In the expression, “from with Yehovah,” why is with part of the Hebrew text? Wouldn’t “from Yehovah” be enough? The word with makes the supply of the fire and the burning sulfur very personal. Those two didn’t just come from Yehovah; they came from with Yehovah, as if they were from right next to Him, or even from His Spirit: from Him, as with Him!

24. i) Who is narrating these texts? The normal answer will be, Moshe. Only, Moshe himself was not present when these things occurred. Therefore, that answer doesn’t quite explain the narrator. Moshe is the writer of the narration; Moshe is not the narrator. The Spirit Yehovah is the Narrator; indeed, the testimony of Yeshua is the Spirit of prophecy. This text, all of Genesis, is a prophetic narration! Moshe won’t be born for a very long time, long after these things occurred!

Thus, this verse shows Yehovah the Father, Yehovah the Son, and the Spirit Yehovah, being the narrator.

24. j) If the above is true, why involve both Yehovah the Father and Yehovah of hosts, Who will be identified as Yeshua, in this verse? The violence of the destruction is from Yehovah the Father, whom too many in Modern Conservative Liberal Christianity see as being mean and hard (which is wrong), and from Yehovah the Son, whom too many in MCLC see as being sweet baby Jesus, always kind, always nice, always loving, always forgiving. This verse underscores that the two Who are One indeed work totally in unison.

24. k) From where did the sulfur come? Was it from a meteor? It came from with Yehovah! It was not a naturally occurring substance.

24. l) Where was Yehovah (on the ground) located at this time? He was in Sodom! Therefore, He made sure to be there when the fires and the sulfur were raining down! Indeed, He will be there in the Lake of Fire and burning Sulfur for all time!

24. m) What kind of fire was this fire? It was Yehovah’s fire! That fire differs from other fires in that it can come with no heat at all, or with the most intense heat! That fire can preserve lives; it can take lives! That fire can consume rock and water! Yehovah’s fire isn’t like ‘atomic fire,’ since atomic fire requires an energy source in nature. Yehovah’s fire is part of Yehovah!

25. a) Had the cities sinned? No. The cities were innocent! However, if those cities will obtain rest from sinful human occupancy, they must be totally uninhabitable! From that time to the present, the cities have been resting in peace from human inhabitants. Sodom is Biblically guaranteed to later be again inhabited.

25. b) Why did Yehovah flip-over all the plain? He flipped over all the plain to keep human habitation from occurring. This way, all the fertile fields of the area were destroyed in a manner that even over more than 35 centuries, crops cannot be grown.

25. c) Were there survivors among the humans, according to this verse? No. No human survived.

25. d) What is the sprout of the soil? This refers to all crops as if each plant is being considered, and all wild plants! In other words, the whole area became a moonscape.

The Hebrew language often employs a singular form when referring to a very large number of some species.

26. a) Who is him in this verse? He is Lot.

26. b) The text states that his woman peered from after him. Why doesn’t it say that she peered from after her? Her position was after him: behind him. Thus, she wasn’t walking next to him at this point; she was behind him.

26. c) Why did she peer? What prodded her to peer? The events of verse 25, very seeable at night, prodded her to peer. She still had at least two daughters there, and at least two sons-in-law! She was drawn back to them!

26. d) What is so wrong with looking back? Why is this a death-penalty offense?

She did what she was told not to do.

This shows her great investment.

This question holds a wrong premise. The command wasn’t to not look back; it was to not peer back. However, the trouble with looking back is that this invites peering back.

Yeshua noted,

Luke 9:62 And Yeshua said to him, “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

The focus of this ploughman who is ‘looking back’ (perhaps better, is ‘peering back’) is on what is behind, and not on the work that is ahead. This person won’t even start the work which he began to put his hand, and he will cease from that work, instead returning to what he was doing and being before. Consider that this ploughman hasn’t even started the ploughing yet; he only put his hand to the plough.

The previous verse shows a non-starter:

Luke 9:61 And another also said, “Sir, I will follow thee; but I will first go bid them who are at home at my house farewell.”

Looking back, or better, peering back shows a determination to leave what is present, and return to what is past.

I propose that Lot’s woman is a type of persons who, being rescued during the Tribulation, return back to destruction because of a draw of love of family more than a determination to do what is right.

26. e) This verse uses a form of the verb to be. I translated this as to become. What is the justification for such a translation? This verse is what I consider a proof-text for me that the verb to be in Hebrew equally can mean to become, showing a change. Lot’s woman wasn’t previously a salt pillar; Lot hadn’t married a salt pillar. Thus, this verb, in Genesis 1:2, will also indicate a change. Yehovah never created the land a chaotic mess.

26. f) Why did she become a salt pillar? She became this because she reinvested herself into her daughters and the city; therefore, Yehovah judged her with the city.

26. g) Why did she become specifically salt? Explain this particular substance for her to turn into this:

When she did what she did, and when Yehovah judged her, it was vital for there being no reason for Lot or his daughters to bury her; they had to continue into the city of Zoar. Had she dropped dead in the normal fashion, they would have had to stop and to bury her, which would have endangered the other daughters, since they also might have been tempted to peer back.

Instead, the terror of her transubstantiation to salt, and in the form of a pillar which her shape being perfect, peering at the cities of the plain gave incentive to the daughters left alive to not do what their mother had done!

At the same time, the pillar being of salt would quickly wash away with both rain and dew, so that her memorial wouldn’t remain for long.

Yehovah didn’t just reign fire and burning sulfur (brimstone) from the heavens; He made sure that the entire area became very heavily salted. Thus, she was associated with the salt of the area. Deuteronomy 29:23 shows salt as being also part of the destruction of Sodom, Amorrah, Admah, and Zeboim.

27. a) Why did AvRaham early rise in this morning?

AvRaham was a prophet.

He knew that his discussion with Yehovah was about those cities; for they had been mentioned.

He had to see what had become of those cities in which Lot lived, because he knew that Yehovah would destroy those cities.

(AvRaham could have been an early-riser on all mornings to tend his cattle.)

27. b) When AvRaham early-rose, where did he go on this morning? He went unto the very place where he had stood with the faces of Yehovah! He knew that this location would give him a view of what had occurred.

27. c) Why does the text state, “with the faces of Yehovah,” instead of stating, “with Yehovah”?

This expression is far more personal. AvRaham saw and spoke to the faces of Yehovah!

This is a childism; a child views faces in a different way than an adult does. To a very young child, if an adult’s face doesn’t see the child, the child is invisible!

This text verifies that Moshe wasn’t the only person to speak to and view Yehovah’s faces as a man speaks to a friend! AvRaham also did!

27. d) How haunting would it be for a person to speak with Yehovah about the destruction of several cities before they are destroyed, knowing that those inhabitants will all be dead by the next day?

27. e) How far away was AvRaham from the closest city of the plain? Verse 28 states that AvRaham distantly looked upon the faces of Sodom and Amorrah. Therefore, he was close enough to be able to see that cities were there; he was far enough that the sounds were very distant. (I am thinking that the sounds would have reached his ears, but I don’t know that.) In any case, the smoke ascended to the heavens as the smoke (incense) of a furnace!

28. a) How visible was the destruction? It was very visible. The smoke rose very high into the atmosphere.

28. b) Did AvRaham know that Lot had escaped from the city? AvRaham is a prophet. He therefore will know certain things by the prophecies given to him. Yet, I don’t assume that any prophecy referring to Lot was given to him.

AvRaham knew that for the sake of ten righteous persons, a city would be spared. AvRaham never asked Yehovah if Yehovah would rescue anyone of 9 or less who were righteous in such a city. Yet, I propose that AvRaham, seeing that Yehovah was very personally attending to these matters, would have brought Lot out. I don’t find AvRaham going into mourning over Lot, a man that AvRaham previously had rescued at great risk.

28. c) Exactly what were the accusations that Yehovah had regarding the citizens of Sodom by which He destroyed them?

Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was iniquity of Sodom thy sister:

Arrogance

Sufficiency of bread

Prosperity of quietness—he was to her and to her daughters.

And she didn’t cause-to-grasp the hand of a humble-[one] and a poverty-stricken-[one].

And they heightened!

And they did abomination to my faces!

And I turned- them [fem.] –away just-as I saw!

28. d) Why refer to smoke as incense? Incense is a fragrance that often in the Bible typifies, and therefore, has a meaning.

The incense from the Menorah in the Tent of Appointment is a perfume that is very pleasant, and upon which rests a true curse for anyone in Israel who attempts to copy and use that fragrance.

The prayers of Saints that are not immediately granted are stored before Yehovah as incense so that when they will be later granted, that incense will be released. Revelation 5:8: “And when He took the scroll, the four living beings and the four and twenty elders fell before the Lamb, each having violins and gold bowls full of incenses that are the prayers of the Saints.”

Exodus 30:8 And Aharon, via cause-to-ascend the lamps between the evening, will incense her, incense of continuity to the faces of Yehovah to your generations! Ye shall not ascend upon him strange incense and ascension and rest. And ye shall not drink-offer upon him a drink-offering.

Isaiah 1:10 Hearken-ye-to a Speech of Yehovah, dictators of Sodom! And cause-ye-to-‘ear’ Torah of our Elohim, people of Amorah! 11 “To what is the multiplication of your sacrifices to me?” Yehovah will say. “I was-sated—ascensions of rams and fat from well-fed-[ones]—and I didn’t delight-in blood of bulls and lambs and goats! 12For will ye come to see my faces? Who requested this from your hand—to trample my courtyards? 13Do not increase-ye to bring a resting of vanity! Incense—she is an abomination to me! Month and shabbat, to call a calling—I will not be able!—cruel-devising and restraint! 14My being hated your months and your appointments. Were they concerning me?—to a bother I wearied to carry! 15And I will-cause- my eyes -to-hide from you via your spreading your palms [of the hands]! Also-that ye will multiply prayer, I ‘ain’t’ hearkening! Your hands filled—bloods; your fingers: swelling-longing!”

In some of the examples above, incense isn’t pleasant! It can be an abomination; I propose that it can be a stink.

What Yehovah did was to cause the entire plain to become a fire producing incense so that all humans in the area could smell what Yehovah thought of those humans and their works: the incense of sulfur.

28. e) This incense that ascended to the heavens—was it from the fire and the brimstone, or was it the fragrance before Yehovah of the sinful works of the persons in the plain? I propose that this incense was a combination of sulfur, of burning flesh and hair of humans and animals, of structures made of wood, and of all things that burned. These smells combined, are as incense of the stink that Yehovah experiences from the sins of humans, since both sin and righteousness are portrayed in the Bible as giving smells to God.

28. f) Does a furnace give off a bad smell? This text isn’t about the smell; it is about the way that smoke from a furnace ascends with great fury if the furnace is being heated up! The whole land got that hot! This fire is so intense, and intense fires do give off smells.

29. a) Identify the following pronouns:

He (in, "And he was"): It is the event about to be described.

He (in, "And He sent Lot"): Elohim (Who will later be identified as Yeshua).

Them (in, "which Lot sat in them"): They are the cities of Sodom, Amorrah, Admah, and Zeboim.

29. b) Who actually rotted the cities of the plain according to this verse? Elohim did this rotting! (This isn’t ‘sweet baby Jesus.’)

29. c) Why did the text even need to state, “And Elohim remembered AvRaham”?

This will set a scene change from the destruction back to AvRaham.

Whenever Yehovah did a vengeance destruction that was large-scale, and a Saint was in the area or even affected by that destruction, that is when the text states, “And Yehovah remembered …” specifying a person. That remembrance can be easily not seen by Saints who are witnessing such a destruction. So, the text must include that detail. In this case, Elohim’s remembering AvRaham will be causative.

During the Tribulation, I am thinking that many folks who are righteous will begin to get the impression that God forgot them. That is one reason, I am thinking, that Yehovah will do great works of power for them: to remind them that Yehovah is with them, and hasn’t forgotten them in the midst of His fury!

29. d) The text words it in a manner such that the reader can conclude that Elohim’s saving Lot was for the sake of AvRaham. After all, Elohim remembered AvRaham (it doesn’t say that Elohim remembered Lot). Was Elohim’s saving Lot for the sake of AvRaham, or was it because Lot was righteous? The question has an ‘or’ as a premise; that is a wrong premise. The answer is that Elohim did what He did for the sake of both men.

29. e) A number of places in the Bible uses the wording that God remembered a person, like Noah, and like AvRaham in this text. Does God forget, such that He must remember? Explain what is meant by God remembering.

The Gods of AvRaham never forgets unless He intentionally forgets, in which case, He will not remember after forgetting! The only two cases that I remember where God intends to forget is regarding sin in one case, and the name of a person being put out of remembrance.

The cases that I have observed where God remembers a person or group are the following:

When God is doing a very great destruction or when He has completed it, and His concentration seems to be solely on that destruction, that is when the text states that God remembered a person or group.

When a very long period of time has transpired where it seems like God is inactive (from the Earthly vantage), that is when the text states that God remembered a person or group.

In other words, when it appears that God is either focused on something that would take His eyes off of a person or group, or when God in anger is silent and apparently inactive, that is when the reader of the text is assured regarding a person in the Bible, that God remembered.

This is vital for the Tribulation! Many good guys in the Tribulation will quickly become convinced that Yehovah has forgotten them! They will see the destruction of their homes; of their families; of their friends; of their cities; they will see the rise of violent folks who will be successful. They will see and experience Yehovah’s terrors on Planet Earth and in the heavens! They will think that Yehovah has forgotten them, just as Mount Zion will do the same. Yehovah showed by previous events that He will remember. One particular statement that translators didn’t know to translate in the sacrifices that are types in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, etc., is a one-word statement placed at important points in those sacrifice/types: “I will remember her.”

29. f) What is a flipping-over? This, being pictured by turning something totally upside down, is used to describe a complete change, and very often, a destructive change. This word is not rare in Hebrew.

When Yehovah was finished with the cities of the plain, they must have appeared to have suffered a destruction that came from outer space! No common fire would have done what was done to those cities and to the fields. Yehovah made sure that the fields couldn’t be used for more than 3500 years.

29. g) Were the other cities, Amorrah, Admah, and Zeboim also done the same way, such that nothing can grow (with a few exceptions that are widely dispersed)? Yes.

29. h) The text states that Lot sat in them. Didn’t Lot only occupy the one city: Sodom? The cities of the plain were considered one group. Lot lived in that group. Therefore, Lot ‘sat’ in that group: in the cities of the plain.

29. i) Why did Elohim remember AvRaham to rescue Lot instead of the text declaring that Elohim remembered Lot? Readers of these texts must gain the hope that they will have during the Tribulation if those readers are among the fearers of Yehovah in Truth. In this text, two righteous persons are featured: AvRaham and Lot. AvRaham has no way of knowing what is becoming of Lot. AvRaham knew that Lot is a righteous person. Yehovah’s wrath is very clearly being exhibited here, as that wrath will be clearly exhibited during the Tribulation. AvRaham loved Lot. Yehovah therefore did a rescue of Lot for the sake of AvRaham. This will occur numbers of times in the Tribulation where two righteous persons know each other, and are located in places where they cannot communicate. If one righteous person sees or hears about the destruction of the location where the other righteous person was located, that can bring anxieties that are very intense even in the Tribulation. The character of God is being shown to readers. If Yehovah remembers AvRaham to save Lot, folks in the Tribulation will be able to set aside the particular anxiety regarding those whom they know and love who ‘sat’ in a location that Yehovah destroyed! That way, they can have hope that they will see their friend or relative in mortal flesh, should they both live and survive to come to Mount Zion.

30. a) The Hebrew word that means to sit also means to dwell. In its most basic definition, it means to sit; it is, again, a childism in the Bible, since where a child sits is where the child dwells, at least for a time. Very young children view their locations as where they sit. Thus, the Hebrew text uses the same word for sit to also mean to dwell.

30. b) Why did Lot ascend from Tzoar? He was afraid to remain in Tzoar. The cultures and the behaviours of the inhabitants were the same as those in Sodom. The only difference was the smallness of the population. Lot had already lost at least two daughters in Sodom; he must have been haunted by the recognition that he could easily lose the other two, and his own life, by remaining in a city that deserved to be scraped off as much as Sodom had.

30. c) To where did Lot walk after exiting from Tzoar? He went to a mountain that had a cave; that mountain was in the midst of the very mountains that he had feared that the bad would cling to him, and he would die!

30. d) Why are his two daughters with him? They walked with their papa for the following reasons:

They also knew that the city of Tzoar was akin to Sodom in immorality.

They desired to stay with their papa, knowing that otherwise he might die alone in those mountains. They loved him, and they had no desire to be apart from him when he was going into danger.

They remembered what the two angels had done to save their lives together. This is no time to split up.

30. e) If he sat in a cave, what did that make him? It made him a caveman!

30. f) When they left from Tzoar, did Lot and his two daughters have a load of provisions from which to survive in the stark mountains to which they fled? The factors that we do not know from the text are the following:

How long they ‘sat’ in Tzoar before determining to leave

Whether they ‘sat’ in Tzoar long enough to gain some provisions

When they left Tzoar, what they found to eat in those stark mountains

Whether they planted grape vines that would take several years to produce enough to make wine

Where they got the skins in which to place the wine

What else they had in the way of crops, and how those crops were planted, or if they were already there (for example, if they were wild crops, or abandoned by someone else)

If they obtained some food from hunting game and capturing birds

Where they obtained materials for clothing

How long a time elapsed in these few verses

The list of unknowns is very long. As the reader will see, they didn’t trade with the locals, once they left Tzoar; they thought that humans weren’t in this area at all, and they were totally alone in a large area of land.

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!

Page 1 of Genesis 19 Questions and Answers

Recent additions or updates to the site

Hanukkah

The Torah was given to the Jews to instruct them so that they will live

Genesis 1:1–31: The Beginning

Fear of Yehovah

Years between Pharaoh’s Dream Interpreted and Years of Plenty

Yehovah Tzidkenu

Gossip

Israel, Gentiles, and the Millennium

And His Name Shall Be Called Wonderful

Original page April 6, 2007 | Updated May 30, 2021