One of the strangest characters in the book of Genesis is Abraham’s nephew Lot. His story is not central to the plot of Genesis as he wasn’t in the direct line of the patriarchs from Abraham to Joseph, and while his story includes the origins of two of Israel’s neighbours – Moab and Ammon – it seems that an inordinate amount of space has been given to these details given the relative importance (or unimportance) of these two nations. This article will be in two parts, looking first at the story in Genesis 19 about Lot and his daughters in the city of Sodom, and then looking in the second part at how the story continues with the births of Moab and Ammon.
The story begins in Genesis 18 with three “men” (one of whom, apparently, is God) visiting Abraham, who is the perfect host. After revealing to Sarah, Abraham’s wife, that by the time they return the following year she will have had a son (who turns out to be Isaac), the men leave and set out for Sodom, where Lot is living. As Abraham is seeing them off, one of them (God) remains to reveal to Abraham that they are about to visit Sodom to see if the outrage they have heard about the city is true and if their sin (whatever it is, it is never detailed) really is grave. Knowing that his nephew Lot is living there, there is an almost comical scene where Abraham haggles with God in an effort to spare the city.1
When two of these men (who are now revealed to the reader to be מַלְאָכִים malakim, which simply means “messengers” but is also the normal biblical word for angels) reach Sodom, Lot demonstrates a similar kind of hospitality as his uncle Abraham and persuades them to spend the night at his house. Already, it has become evident that hospitality is an important theme in this story, so evident in fact that many scholars argue that it is the whole point.2 This point, however, often gets lost in the debate which focusses on the incident which follows, “when the townspeople, the men of Sodom, young and old—all the people to the last man—gathered about the house. And they shouted to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them'” (Genesis 19:4-5). It seems so evident to many commentators and translators that the phrase “that we may know them” is using a biblical euphemism for having sex, that some translations have “that we may be intimate with them” (NJPS), “so we can take carnal knowledge of them!” (NET) or “that we may have sex with them” (WEB), or similar. It’s true that “to know” can sometimes be a euphemism meaning “to have sex with them” (as in one of the early uses of the verb ידע “to know” in Genesis 4:1 – “Adam knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain”). A more common euphemism for sexual intercourse in the Bible (and used regularly in the laws about sexual prohibitions in Leviticus and Deuteronomy) would be שכב “to lie with” (similar to the English euphemism “sleep with” which implies activity other than sleeping).
But ידע “to know” definitely doesn’t have to be euphemistic, and the verb can (and usually does) simply mean to know factually. It seems to me that this is the best way to understand the phrase in this context. Like many cities and towns in the ancient levant, Sodom was a walled city with a gate, and they exercised control over who could come and go. We simply don’t know why Lot was so eager to have these strangers stay at his house for the night. It seems clear enough that the writer wants to portray him as being hospitable, like Abraham, who also entertained strangers. But in Lot’s case his enthusiasm may have had something to do with his own experiences being an “alien” in Sodom (19:9), and he was watching out for people in similar situations. After witnessing what Lot had done, the people of Sodom came to him and said “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.” This is very similar to the story of the Israelite spies who went to the house of Rahab in Jericho:
Then the king of Jericho sent orders to Rahab, “Bring out the men who have come to you, who entered your house, for they have come only to search out the whole land.” But the woman took the two men and hid them. Then she said, “True, the men came to me, but I did not know where they came from. And when it was time to close the gate at dark, the men went out. Where the men went I do not know.”
Joshua 23-5
It would not be unusual for the authorities to investigate anyone who entered the city during the day but had not left before nightfall when the gates were closed, but this was even more likely to be the case in the historical context given that Sodom had recently been invaded (Genesis 14) and the authorities may have been especially sensitive to watch out for spies. Interestingly, in both stories their demand begins with “Bring out the men …” and the Rahab story twice uses the same verb “to know” with the perfectly innocent and usual meaning. It seems to me that the most natural reading of the Sodom story would be to read it in the same way: “Bring them out to us, so that we may investigate and find out about them, who they are, where they are from, what they are doing here, and what are their intentions.”
If it wasn’t for Lot’s somewhat bizarre reaction this would be the most natural way to read the story so far,3 and there would be no debate about sexuality, and homosexuality would never have been labelled as “sodomy.” But Lot’s response certainly does open that door:
Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”
Genesis 19:6-8
There is little doubt that in Lot’s response the phrase “two daughters who have not known a man” means “two daughters who are virgins.” So reading back into the earlier verses it is taken that “let us know them” uses the verb “to know” in the same euphemistic sense and means “let us have sex with them.” If so, then the reader would be shocked that their initial reading (“let us get to know more about these strangers”) turned out to be naively innocent and that the writer really intended a euphemism for sex. Such twists and turns are not uncommon in Biblical Hebrew narratives. However, what then follows is even more shocking: “do to them as you please”! What father would ever offer his daughters for pack rape?! The suggestion is so horrifying and repugnant that it surprises me that some commentators have either glossed over it or tried to justify it.4 So is that what Lot really meant?
George Coats argues that throughout this scene Lot is portrayed as a comic-tragic buffoon and he reminds us that a little later in the narrative even his own sons-in-law took him as a jester whose words had little effect (Genesis 19:14).5 Building on Coats’ suggestion, it is possible that the double-entendre contained in the verb “to know” was introduced by Lot who, in response to a demand to bring out his guests for interrogation, re-used the word in a rather crude and insulting manner giving it a different meaning. He might have thought he was being funny, or sarcastic, or insulting, but his offer of his daughters for sex was probably not meant to be taken seriously.6
George Athas has offered another interesting suggestion, which builds on the idea that biblical narratives often contain surprising turns (what he calls “detail omissions”). He notes that it is not until the reader gets to verse 14 that the narrator reveals an important detail that has been withheld up to this point: Lot’s daughters are, in fact, married and are not virgins! It also seems from the angels’ question in verse 12 about whether Lot has any sons or daughters, and the detail in verse 15 that his daughters had later “been found” (הַנִּמְצָאֹת), that he didn’t even have any daughters in his house at the time! Athas then notes:
Once this key detail about Lot’s daughters is revealed, the narrative suddenly turns on its head. The reader is forced to reassess the entire episode in light of this new information. Lot did not have two virgin daughters to offer to the mob outside his door. So why would he say that he did? … His offer of two virgin daughters is a ruse designed to appeal to the sexual appetite of the mob. It seems Lot hopes they might accept the offer, and while they wait for him to go and bring out his daughters, he might be able to smuggle his guests safely out of town. In other words, Lot’s shocking offer is a decoy to buy time. Even our translators fall for this decoy completely, which shows how skillfully the narrative depicts Lot as a quick thinker. Lot actually has no intention of bringing out two virgin daughters for pack rape, because he does not have two virgin daughters. Rather he is intent on ensuring the safety of his guests.
Athas, George. “Has Lot Lost the Plot? Detail Omission and a Reconsideration of Genesis 19.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 16 (2016).
Athas’ argument is interesting although it is not without its problems (which he acknowledges) – Lot was trying to buy time with this ruse. The answer may very well be in a combination of these proposed solutions. Lot was a buffoon (Coats), who endeavoured to buy time with a ruse (Athas), but the best he could do was to come up with a crude, sarcastic, insulting, clumsy, double-entendre (Cook).
Part 2 coming: Lot and his daughters: After Sodom, the origins of Moab and Ammon
See also my post here on The Sin of Sodom.
1 I say “almost comical” although some scholars argue, and I agree, that this scene is typical of Biblical humour and is definitely comical. For example, see Arthur Quinn, “The Mirth of God: An Essay on Biblical Humor,” in Play, Literature, Religion: Essays in Cultural Intertextuality (eds. Nemoianu and Royal; Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), 46-48.
2 For example, Lasine, Stuart. “Guest and Host in Judges 19: Lot’s Hospitality in an Inverted World.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 9, no. 29 (1984): 37-59; Matthews, Victor H. “Hospitality and Hostility in Genesis 19 and Judges 19.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 22, no. 1 (1992): 3-11; Morschauser, Scott. “‘Hospitality’, Hostiles and Hostages: On the Legal Background to Genesis 19.1-9.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27, no. 4 (2003): 461-485; Southwood, Katherine. “’This Man Has Come into My House’: Hospitality in Genesis 19; 34; and Judges 19.” Biblical Interpretation 26, no. 4-5 (2018): 469-484; Kassa, Friday S. “A home for all: the story of the inversion of hospitality in Genesis 19.” In die skriflig : tydskrif van die Gereformeerde Teologiese Vereniging 53, no. 1 (2019): 1-6.
3 Randall Bailey also reads it as a spy narrative. “Given the military situation, it could be that ‘to know’ has the sense that they want to examine them, so that they could know who these visitors are. If they are discovered to be spies, the leaders of Sodom would then send them on their way, possibly shaving their beards and cutting their clothes like in the story of David’s emissaries in 2 Samuel 10. If they are not spies, they can continue washing their feet and enjoying themselves at Lot’s Lodge.” See Bailey, Randall C. “Why do readers believe Lot? Genesis 19 reconsidered.” Old Testament Essays 23, no. 3 (2010): 519-548, here 541.
4 For example, in his classic commentary on Genesis, Hermann Gunkel argued that hospitality was so sacred in the ancient world that we are meant to think of Lot as honourable for preferring the pack rape of his daughters over his guests being harmed. Several other scholars have followed Gunkel with variations on this interpretation, including Gordon Wenham (Genesis 16-50 in the Word Biblical Commentary) who argued that “Putting their welfare above his daughters’ may have been questionable, but it shows just how committed he was to being a good host”. For an overview of the scholarship on this text see Athas, George. “Has Lot Lost the Plot? Detail Omission and a Reconsideration of Genesis 19.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 16 (2016).
5 Coats, George W., Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature. The Forms of the Old Trestament Literature 1. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1983, 144.
6 George Athas points to two other double-entendres in this scene: when Lot invites the two strangers to his home to “wash your feet” (19:2) and later when they are about “to bed down” (19:4), the narrative includes two expressions which are also used biblically as euphemisms for having sex. He argues that Lot may have been offering them sex in his home and further argues that Lot is unambiguously shown to be every bit as abusive as the men of Sodom “dashing any hope that he might have been a righteous man.” Interestingly (although Athas doesn’t make this connection), in the story of the spies in Jericho, the men go to the home of Rahab the prostitute. If Athas is right about the use of double-entendres in the offer of hospitality, then there appears to be an even stronger connection between the two stories. In the story in Joshua the men seek out and find a brothel (or at least the home of a prostitute), and in the Genesis story the strangers are urged by Lot to go to his home (which turns out to be a place where sex is on offer, a brothel of sorts). Travellers going to a brothel as their first port of call when travelling may be a very old trope. See Athas, “Has Lot Lost the Plot?” (note 4 above).
מִקְרָא Mikra: Biblical studies 
These are all very interesting and ingenuous speculations.
But let’s just accept the text as true and that the men of Sodom want to know the visitors in the “Biblical” sense, how ironic this has become proverbial BTW. And let’s just accept the text that the daughters had not known a man. How can this also be true when the daughters seem to be married to two Sodomite men? In fact it could be very true if the two men were also outside with the Sodomite gang of all the males of Sodom both young and old, all the people together, that tried to molest the visitors, and the daughters were inside the house. It seems that Lot had to go outside to warn the sons in law for what was coming, but they thought he was talking nonsense and they declined to go with Lot’s family to save themselves from imminent destruction of their city. What if the whole story only rightfully confirms how it has become the origin of the understanding of Sodomite sexual preferences. The daughters don’t have children, that much we know because that is one of the critical contentions of the last story about Lot and his daughters. And isn’t it not the very play with the expression used in both instances that makes it more likely that we are right in assuming in both cases it is about having sex? I know my explanation is also speculation but all fits with what we know from the text, so I am confident it is not the very worst explanation around.