"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown."

                                                                  Genesis 6:4;NASB


Righteous Lot, Forgotten Hero


In this article we will specifically focus on a man named Lot, the nephew of the famous patriarch Abraham from the book of Genesis. We will convincingly defend the righteous character of this great man of God and present the reader with an understanding that has been lost or forgotten for many centuries. Our understanding of the events on Lot's doorstep stands in stark contrast to all of the Bible commentaries at our disposal which portray this great hero Lot in an unrighteous light. Yes, virtually all Bible commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and handbooks, promote the same libelous reputation of this great man of God. They offer such abject descriptions of his character as tragic, weak, frail, greedy, self serving, uncaring, accomplice to attempted rape, and many other such slanders. Yet the New Testament at 2Peter 2:7-8 unequivocally states that Lot was a just and righteous man of God. Consequently, the truth, as it becomes unraveled in this article, contains a very far reaching and shocking reality that will not only change your view of the past but may very well affect our future as well.


What you are about to read is not some new understanding. We believe it has been forgotten and confused for many years. The early church fathers knew the truth surrounding righteous Lot. So did the rabbinical teachers previous to the New Testament era. The numerous writers of the Dead Sea scrolls along with the translators of the Septuagint knew. Now you will know. Simply and truthfully said, Lot was a Godly hero and is due respect and high honor!


Besides setting the record straight on Lot's history and reputation, this writing is sure to spark controversy amongst many fundamentalist Christians who preach hatred towards homosexuals. In this article, you will encounter a completely different understanding of the events in Genesis 19 that occured outside Lot's house in Sodom some 4,000 years ago. Homosexual gang rape or any other form of homosexual activity was most assuredly not the sin nearly accomplished that fateful night!


An awareness of the culture in Lot's world is vital to understanding the conclusions that are made along the way in this article. Therefore, we ask the reader to start from the beginning and methodically read through to the end. We also recommend keeping both an open mind and an open Bible handy in order to reference our comments as you read along.



Land of Many Gods

Lot and Abraham’s family made an immense sacrifice by departing from their home in the ancient city known today as Ur. Only by understanding their native culture can one gain a sense of the great hardship they endured and fully comprehend the ideas presented in this article concerning Genesis 18 & 19. First, becoming familiar with the geography and physical landscape of the region is important as it greatly influenced the culture. History has generally offered Mesopotamia as the name of this land situated amidst modern Iraq and the area generally known as the Persian Gulf. More specifically, Lot's homeland in southern Mesopotamia is known as Babylon, where the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers meet. Through many centuries, this land and its culture were shaped by three main groups of people known as Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian. The Holy Bible states that Ur was the city of Lot's residence (Gen. 11:31). Ur was then situated far closer to the gulf than its current remains exhibit, because, due to its location near the highly silting Euphrates river, it has experienced a gradual movement inland over the centuries since circa 2000 B.C.


In its ancient setting, Ur was situated in an ideal location. First, this major capital city had many canals constructed adjoining the Euphrates river basin area and the Persian Gilf waters which enabled great ravel, commerce, communication, and growth. The distribution of the Euphrates through these many canals not only improved travel and trade but also fostered a greatly enhanced ability to sustain agricultural production in the outlying areas of Ur proper. Irrigation from these canals sustained a wide variety of crops. Second, two natural harbors give Ur a strong shipping trade and outside contact with many cultures from around the world. Third, overland trade routes connecting East and West allowed this community to connect with distant inland neighbors. All of these factors resulted in Ur's dominance and mutlicultural commerce and provided it with optimum growth at many levels. Thus, this preeminent city's population of some 25,000+ thrived in this location.


In its hey-day Ur was a community of greater technological advancements than many would guess given its ancient epochal setting. Along side their ingenious canal system, they had a great understanding of construction for both home and business. Many of their buildings had running water, and the city had a municipal sewer system rivaling many modern third world cities' accomplishments of today. Archaeology has shown that many buildings had two stories and were air-conditioned, which offered them comfort and ease in their warm climate. They also built libraries and schools of instruction demonstrating a high esteem towards education. A strong governmental structure also existed. As a result of this high technology and ideal location concerning trade, Ur was not some mere primitive society as many would consider at first glance. The progress and success Lot's Ur achieved remained unrivaled in other cultures for many centuries to come.


Despite the business acumen and technology of Lot's society, family and home were a main focus of the culture and society. The record of their high regard for the family unit and its place in their lives has been uncovered in many archaeological finds. Laws concerning marriage, inheritance and other familial considerations have been discovered. For example, under certain situations the common man was allowed to have more than one wife and/or concubine, especially if the first wife was barren. Larger families were considered a blessing, and most sought to attain a large family. The husband was the master and ruler of the family; therefore, everyone, except for other elder fathers, remained subordinate to the commands of the husband/father. Their system of arranged marriage and its many customs, which kept the wealth in the family, would be greatly frowned upon in our modern world. Normally, males married at about age 20, but their new brides were usually significantly younger, ideally near age 15. All men married. Only a severe disability or hardship kept a man from marriage. Their culture was so wrapped up in the fertility cult mindset of reproduction that marriage was a surety. Today's culture in the West of men still remaining unmarried through their 30's or 40's and beyond would have been very out of place in ancient Babylon. However, forming a large family was vital to Lot's culture and society.


The roles of parents and children in this family oriented society were very different. Most children were weaned from their mother's breast by age 3, and the mother provided the early teaching and training. Once the sons reached age 8 or 9, the father tutored them in the family work and business outside of the home; meanwhile, the mothers and daughters focused on the homemaking duties. Sons were far more favorably prized than daughters were, as is the case still in many modern cultures of the East today. In Babylon, firstborn sons held a higher status than the other siblings did. In this culture (and in most other Biblical settings), special rights and responsibilities were laid on these firstborn sons when a father died. Firstborn surviving sons were given a double portion of inheritance along with the great responsibility of taking over as head of the family. Fathers held much authority and power over their offspring. Daughters were less valued and far less respected than their male counterparts. Women were the property of the men. Historically, Mesopotamian fathers were known to sell daughters into slavery if timely marriage arrangements could not be fostered within a proper family. Ultimately, daughters were considered possessions, as were women in general.


The traditional family was comprised of the primary husband/father and wife/mother core along with their immediate offspring; next, secondary wives/concubines (and their offspring) were considered to be extended family with very little rights or say in matters of the home. Often, multiple generations of sons and their families lived under the same roof (or adjoining buildings) under the subordinate authority of the head father. Strong bonds connected these core families, along with their extended families, to even more ancestry where many brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, and in-laws had grown into large families of their own. These multi-extended families are often referred to as clans and could number up to several hundred members living within a given clan. These clans were protective of each core and extended family within and relied on one another for a greater enhancement of respect and power in a local community. The larger the clan the greater the wealth and influence.


Interwoven through the above-mentioned historical aspects of the common family, business, and governmental society was the underlying thread that bound all these together; their spiritual belief system. Religion played an integral part in their existence relating to all aspects of family life, trade, and government. Their world epitomized the polytheistic system of faith. They had a god for every way and every aspect of their lives. Many have coined the term "land of a thousand gods" in their description of this culture. In Lot's Babylonian system, the gods were the same as its forerunner system under Sumer; they simply had different names appointed to the same deities/gods. For instance, The Sumerian fertility goddess Inanna's equivalent in the Babylonian pantheon was Ishtar, but both served the same function and ritual. Our English equivalent today knows this same goddess as Easter.


Their polytheistic system of many gods was represented by worship of the moon, the rising sun, heaven, mother, the phallus, the womb, eggs, sex, air, fire, wind, light magic, medicine death, rain, thunder, varying wildlife, varying vegetation (especially trees), war, primordial beginnings, the underworld, and etc. Many other unnamed examples existed as well. Icons in the temple, business, and personal homes represented these many gods of worship in the Babylonian system. Their icons came in all shapes and sizes. Some were carried around the neck, some stood erect near the hearth in every home, and some were enshrined in the business altars as the movers and shakers of their day wheeled and dealed around them in the commerce world. Others were toted along on journeys as people hoped for luck during their travels, and yet others were thought to aid in sex and kept near the beds of lovers. Scripture attests to the fact that Lot's family was not only acquainted with these many votive trinkets but very much into this way of life at one time (Josh. 24:2). To have any part or parcel in the local community, it would have been incumbunt on all residents to abide by the worship of these varying false gods. Not honoring these many gods would have been highly disrespectful and ultimately unhealthy for the offender on many fronts. The very existence of their world demanded honor to the gods.


They believed their great advantage in wealth and progress above that of the surrounding nations was due entirely to their worship practices. The essence of their faith system revolved around the fertility cult. The two greatest cultic feasts were observed in the spring at the vernal equinox and the year end celebration during our corresponding month of late December. In honor to fertility gods, female prostitutes attended temples in order to provide sexual service to patrons. In many communities all women served at least once in their lives as temple whores to provide good luck for their country. Even their female royalty served. Each spring season these courtesans would serve by presenting themselves willingly as human sexual devices of sacrifice to their fertility goddess Ishtar. A paying suitor chose one, and, after their wanton devotion accomplished, they presented the proceeds to the temple priest(ess) and were free to depart. The belief was that this temple harlotry by all women would bring about great bountious harvests in their local farming community. In addition, it was thought each female would be blessed with a highly prized and coveted fertile womb as a result. Their winter rites included an all-inclusive drunken orgiastic ritual, which was ignorantly performed to aid in bringing on another growing season of much needed sunlight and longer days. Often during this winter event, the royalty and higher echelon served the lower class in the community through deviant sexual rites. At the end of the ritual, the orders returned back to norm and each lived according to their previous status. There were numerous fertility rites that were regularly performed through the year, but these were the most popular. Their world completely revolved around these celebrations and anyone not engaging in this way of life would have been shunned and considered anathema in the eyes of the local community.


The people of this culture considered their worship practices and rites, such as those listed above, to be responsible for the dominance and great wealth of their society. Any attempt to convince one in their culture that his mother, daughter, or sister need not whore herself out in the temple to a stranger in honor to god, home, and country would have been met with the same incredulity if one would tell the average person in our world that Christmas and Easter are not Christian. Their world was completely wrapped up in paganism with even human sacrifice having its place amongst the many heinous practices essential for survival of both the common man and royalty in their fertility cult. While Lot's world was one of wealth and high technology, it was also very base, immoral, spiritually confused, and at variance in the grossest ways compared to the true worship of the Creator God of Lot.



Lot, the Elder

Serious thought and consideration must be given to understanding the familial relationship between Abraham and Lot. Sensing the correct bond between these two brethren and men of God is essential in comprehending our alternative reality concerning Lot, his reputation, and the oft given explanation of Sodom's sin. Although seemingly scant information is available, we must thrust ourselves into the mix and extract whatever information is possible. For instance, familiarizing ourselves with the patterns in which the Old Testament generally works, especially regarding its many stated genealogies, provides an effective starting place. In general, good rules of Bible study, a little open-mindedness, common sense, and prayer will allow us to go far toward enhancing our understanding of Lot.


Now, Lot was the nephew of Abraham (Gen. 12:5). That fact is not debateable. However, what most have not considered in the past is that nephews are not always younger than their uncles. After much consideration, it is our conclusion that Lot was very likely the elder nephew of his younger uncle Abraham. That's right. Lot was Abraham's elder! Furthermore, Abraham was the youngest of his brothers, not the elder as many have erroneously assumed. This understanding of Lot's and Abraham's relationship will later play a prominant role in supporting Lot's righteous reputation. While some of our conclusions may initially seem disjointed due to the reader's prior teachings, we merely request that you remain flexible and logically consider the evidence to be provided. Ultimately, there will be many other new concepts to contemplate in considering our more accurate view of Abraham and Lot's family, which has been either lost or forgotten in time.


Many have assumed that since Abram/Abraham's name is posted first at Gen. 11:26 that he was the firstborn. Following this logic through, Nahor would be the middle child, and, lastly, Haran would be the youngest. Yet, the alternative view is that the order given in Gen. 11:26 is inverted resulting in Haran being the eldest, Nahor remaining in the middle, and accordingly Abraham being the youngest. We are not claiming that the writer of Genesis was mistaken or confused somehow in offering the wrong order of birth here. Instead, the writer was reinforcing the fact that Abraham was merely the main focus of this particular passage at verse 26. As will become apparent in the following paragraphs, the writer was not trying to delineate any exact birth order in Gen. 11:26. The genealogy surrounding Noah and his three sons illustrates an interesting and relevant pattern for presenting genealogy in Scripture. In Gen. 5:32, Noah's three named sons were posted in the order of Shem, Ham, and Japeth. Nearly all scholars agree that Shem was the youngest son in this family and that the order given at Gen. 5:32 was intentionally inverted in order to signify the honor and high esteem in which Shem is held above his brothers. (Scripture is clear in showing the ancestry of our Savior through Noah was accomplished directly through Shem, not his brothers. As a result, the writer of Genesis offers Shem's name ahead of his elder brothers--Gen. 5:32.) Later, when proper birth order is the focus of the passage the names appear in a different order. The genealogical order of Noah's three mentioned sons are stated in Gen. 10: firstborn, being Japeth at Gen. 10:2-5; the middle, Ham at Gen. 10:6-20; and lastly, they youngest being Shem at Gen. 10:21-31. This listing is widely understood (and taught correctly we believe) as indicating the proper birth order. These patterns, exemplified with Noah's genealogy, are a general pattern in the Bible and should be considered when analyzing other passages.


Additionally, a direct line of descent can be seen in Scripture from Shem to Abraham's father Terah, and ultimately, to the birth of Jesus Christ. An abundance of Scripture clearly establishes that Abraham continued on as the progenitor of this same Messianic line, not his named brothers. Thus, we profess that Abraham's name, like Shem's, was listed first at Gen. 11:26 in order to signify both honor and high esteem, not to indicate birth order. Abraham is frequently the major focus over his brothers; consequently, in this context, listing his name first is not surprising.


Another pattern exemplified with Noah is the practice of Scripture only naming certain children. Consider the fact that Noah doesn't have any named children accounted for until age 500. It is highly unlikely that Noah lived five hundred years before having any children or starting a family. Noah probably had many more children than the three named in Genesis: Japeth, Ham, and Shem. The best explanation is that it wasn't until about 500 years of age that he began to sire these three sons (one after the other) who ended up playing a central role in the Flood narrative. Their major role in the Flood story caused them to be mentioned when other probable male offspring aren't named. In addition, a common practice in Scripture is to name only those who were believers in the faith. Thus, a son's role in Biblical history and their individual faith can be important factors in whether or not they are named in Scripture.


This method for naming and listing sons can be applied to Terah and his three sons Haran, Nahor, and Abraham. It's indicated in Gen. 11:26 that Terah lived 70 years and then began to sire the three named sons. These three aren't supposed to be considered triplets; logically, the same goes for Noah's sons. The writer is simply stating at what age Terah began to have three sons that collectively play a major role in the storyline of Gen. 11:26. Again, as with Noah's situation, Terah probably didn't wait until age 70 to sire his first offspring. It is very logical and follows established patterns that there were numerous other children sired by Terah than are mentioned in this passage.


Specific information concerning exact birth dates varies in the Bible. In Noah's case, most scholars teach that his three named sons were born close together in subsquent years. In Terah's case however, we are given much more information regarding some exact birth years. This specific information further helps to establish that Lot very likely was the elder to Abraham. Terah, at age 70, fathered his firstborn son (Gen. 11:26), which could not have been Abraham, as will be proven. It was after leaving Ur that Terah dies, in Haran, at age 205 as specified at Gen. 11:32. Soon after his father's death, Abraham departs the scene at age 75 (Gen. 12:4). Now, if Abraham was near age 75 when his father dies at age 205 as Scripture indicates, then logical reasoning (along with simple math) demands that Terah was close to 130 years of age when Abraham was born; not 70. The passage merely indicates that one of Terah's three boys was born when he was 70 years of age.


One should also consider God's pattern in sometimes choosing the first to be the last and the last to be the first (Matt. 19:30). In reference to Terah's sons, Haran is the logical choice as firstborn and is properly understood by many scholars to be the eldest. As firstborn, Gen. 11:28 declares that Haran dies before his father, which means either before the passing of his father and/or merely before his eyes. Our stated position is that Haran would have been the firstborn named son when Terah was age 70. This would place Haran about 60 years the elder of his much younger brother Abraham. The reader must then ask at what age did Haran sire Lot? If, for instance, Haran had not sired Lot until age 40, then Lot would have been some 20 years the elder of Abraham. Clearly, Haran had plenty of time (60 years) in which to have Lot before Abraham was ever born! Granted, we are never given the exact date of Lot's birth, but we shouldn't just arbitrarily follow some popular or traditional teaching that assumes Abraham being the elder to Lot. When the numbers are computed, a great possibility exists that Lot was the elder to a younger Abraham.


Other evidence further supports the claim that Lot was the elder nephew to famous Abraham. Lot is the only named son of Haran so we should consider him to be the rightful heir as firstborn son to his father's estate. Many are familiar with the Biblical custom wherein firstborn sons are given rights and responsibilities over other family members when their father dies. First, they are given special rights of inheritance; yet, they also take on the responsibility for the remaining family members. The many responsibilities that a father had to his family, business, and community before his passing were automatically assumed as a duty on the part of the surviving firstborn son. In this case, Lot carried on his father's responsibilities and commitments. Based on the false assumption that Lot was Abraham's younger nephew, many have wrongly assumed that Lot was some poor waif in need of Abraham's tutelage for survival. According to Scripture, the actual account of the situation is far different. Again, it is clear in our mind that Lot was the elder senior nephew to his younger subordinate uncle Abraham. (We aren't given any reference point for Terah's middle son's exact age, i.e. Nahor. Lot could have easily been older than that uncle as well.)


Firstborn son Lot, likely a grown man and already a father himself, took on the many responsibilities of head of household when his father Haran died. Taking care of his grandfather Terah would have been one of the many responsibilities righteous Lot fulfilled in honor of his family. It was the natural custom of the firstborn son to also provide for and support any other elderly or disabled members in a given family. Lot would have surely taken on this honorable role very eagerly. The responsibility would have not passed to Abraham as many have erroneously postulated in the past, since Lot was the firstborn son. If Lot had not been there or was incapable of serving, then the responsibility would have likely rested on the shoulders of the middle brother Nahor before going to Abraham. However, that wasn't the case. Lot was responsible. Lot served. Remember, Lot was a righteous man according to God's written word (2Pet. 2:7-8).


The position Lot's inheritance demanded as head of the immediate family certainly would have put him in a role of possessing higher authority in certain respects than Abraham. Given a healthy mind, Terah in his aged condition would have still retained certain rights as eldest member of the immediate family, but the general day to day managerial duties in their home and business would have been on the shoulders of Lot. Remember, the simple math shows that Terah was some 200+ years of age when they departed Ur. Before the Flood, men lived many hundreds of years as many Bible students realize. Only after the Flood did men quickly begin to live much shorter lives. At 200, Terah was a very old man. As Scripture shows, not long after their departure and subsequent arrival in the northerly city of Haran, Terah died. Even more responsibility was then on Lot's shoulders.


The fact that Lot was an adult when his father died means he probably already had a family of his own. Remember, custom dictated that all men by age 20 or soon after were married and started families on their own. Many have previously thought that Lot found his wife in Sodom. The alternative view is that she was already wed to Lot and was a member of the family long before they departed Ur. The fact that her name is not listed at Gen. 11:31 with the group that depart from Ur is no proof that she was not present on that journey. One likely explanation which many scholars offer is that she was merely a nonbeliever in the God of Lot and Abraham. As a consequence of the pattern in Scripture of frequently only naming believers (unless they played a major role in a given storyline), her name has been left out. Furthermore, had she played any notable role, she would have been mentioned as she later was (Gen. 19:26), but still then never by name. Did she leave begrudgingly from her homeland in Ur in submission to her husband Lot? More will be discussed later indicating the likelihood of Lot possessing a core family of his own before departing Ur.


This exact family situation where the eldest son (Haran) dies before his father (Terah) having a grown son in line (Lot) and also having younger brothers (Nahor and, then Abraham) makes for a complex situation. The most common and predominantly understood historical paradigm is that firstborn males took on the rights and responsibilities in the leading of the family whenever the untimely death of a father occurred. Lot was ideally that person. He would have been due his father's double portion of inheritance upon the death of Terah as well. One should remember that this pattern still exists today. The current line of succession with England's royal family is an ideal example to consider. After Queen Elizabeth II's stay on the throne is completed, her firstborn son, Prince Charles, is the first in line to reign as King. His younger brother, Prince Andrew, would not be next in line after Charles. If anything happens causing Prince Charles' inability to reign, the throne would first go directly to his eldest son, Prince William. Charles' younger brother, Prince Andrew, still wouldn't be next after William either. It would be Prince George of Cambridge, William's first-born child, who would be next in line before Andrew. This ancient pattern remains a norm even to our modern era.



Leaving Home

According to Acts 7:2-3, Abraham was unquestionably the initial person that God had chosen to call from Ur. Additionally, it appears from Josh. 24: 2 that Terah and all his family were originally idolatrous followers of the fertility cults. Abraham heeded the call of God and trusted Him. He was a converted believer and must have witnessed his faith to his family members. At first, this must have caused much disdain. His call to worship and obedience to God would have been most disrespectful to not only the immediate and extended clan family but also the entire community at large. Nevertheless, God's Spirit is most powerful in moving men when His will is directed towards a person's heart, and they follow accordingly. In this case, it started with Abraham.


Scripture doesn't provide full insight into how God revealed Himself to Abraham. Regardless, some direct revelation from the Lord occurred. Was he taught somewhat as Paul had been at Gal. 1:11-12? It's a mystery for now. Nevertheless, his love and respect for the Eternal must have been far reaching. His rejection of the many gods of his homeland and countrymen stand as the first of many actions that signified a profound faithfulness to God. How did Abraham's numerous conversations unfold as he initially witnessed this new faith to his family? Their reaction to his discriminate opposition against their practice of idolatry would have been blasphemous to say the least. How many arguments arose? The unavoidable conflict concerning the family's mothers, sisters, and daughters in service as common whores in their pagan temples would have surely been shocking. Abraham's God would have claimed this practice was evil and demanded it be discontinued. They all doubtless must have struggled through many arguments, debates, and strife in the process of allowing the Holy Spirit to guide their hearts. Could Abraham's family have shown more patience with him in the beginning of his rebellious attitude due to his being the runt in their litter? Often it's the last-born in a family that is allowed more freedoms as they mature. Whatever the case, Abraham clearly must have passionately and convincingly witnessed his new faith to his immediate family.


Although leaving Ur initially began with Abraham, he did not go alone. In Gen. 11:31, Terah's name is listed among those leading them from Ur. Leaving their homeland may not have been easy considering that many archealogical remains support the fact that Ur provided a wealthy, comfortable lifestyle as well as an obsession with the fertility cult. For Terah to lead his family out of that pagan world would show great faith and high regard toward Abraham's God. However, the reference to Terah in leading them from Ur is most likely an honorary mention as eldest father of the group. According to the Biblical account, Terah was very aged and the trip leaving Ur must have taken a toll on him. Lot would have certainly been a hard worker and leader in this endeavor as they all would have been.


Prior to leaving Ur, once the immediate family had ceased in their community cult worship, the extended clan and neighbors would have begun to murmur. Rumor and gossip would have run wild. Next, must have come glares of contempt which would have been quickly followed by a shunning attitude. The extended family and larger clan must have played a paramount role in denouncing the totally reprobate alternative lifestyle that Abraham, Terah, and Lot were now undertaking. How long did it take for the severe persecution to begin against this small cadre of believers? How long could they remain safe from violence as a result? Lot, being the leader in the family, would have suffered the brunt of many hateful situations. He stood his ground, protected his family, and followed God in faith.


This small band of faithful believed the strong witness of their youngest Abraham. They made a stance to obey the call to worship and live right regardless of what the majority around them demanded. God said they would have to leave and go to a land He had reserved for them. They must have sold their home and business interests, converting much to ready cash and essential traveling needs. Now they would dwell in tents. Their life until now in Ur had been blessed by a wealthy and ideal situation for life in that age. The community must have thought them insane as they sold everything and prepared to leave. Their extended clan would have had the first offer at buying out their business and personal interests and would have probably offered a quick settlement to get them out of the way and lessen the certain embarrassment caused by their sacrilege. Together the believers prepared to leave.


It's highly likely that more than the mere four named believers departed from Ur. Possibly not all of those present on the journey would have been eager to make the trip. Foremost in desiring to remain in Ur would have been those female subordinates who were forced to make the journey. It's interesting to note that no mention is ever made concerning Lot's mother in the Scriptural narrative. Similarly, Abraham's mother, Terah's wife, is never mentioned. In their culture, if a husband died (as Haran) with grown sons, the surviving wife could choose whether or not to remain in the immediate family without remarrying. She would have received a portion of her husband's inheritance and may or may not remain in the same immediate family home. A young widow without sons would often remarry one of their deceased husband's brothers if available. In our case though, all parties are somewhat older and imbued with adequate offsrping. Lot may have provided for his mother's independence soon after Haran's passing, or she may have (through rancor) refused to follow their newfound God and stayed with other family in Ur. Then too, as previously conjectured, Lot may have already fathered several children who although not mentioned by name may have set out on this journey. Consequently, the exact number of individuals who left Ur remains unknown, but logic indicates that it was certainly more than the four that are named; Terah, Abraham, Sarah, and Lot.


Eldest in age, Terah is listed as leading them out of Ur. However, the much younger and probably more physically able Lot, being next in line and responsible for aged Terah, would have done much of the work in planning and implementing a departure. The majority has focused on Abraham as the assumed elder and familial leader (before their departure) when that is simply not supported by close study of the Scriptural account. This does not suggest in any way that Abraham was less the man than what God and Scripture has clearly determined; instead, it merely defends and supports Lot's reputation. This extremely viable alternative reality of Lot having greater authority over Abraham in their original familial setting stands as a testament to the veracity of Peter's statements, and other Scripture, regarding the just and righteous character of Lot. He was not by any means the tragic figure so many have promoted. It is our belief that Lot greatly assisted Abraham in fulfilling his task and calling in God's plan. Lot also helped God by supporting Abraham in this calling to preserve and pave the way for Messiah's offering Salvation to the world. Lot defended Abraham and God.


Unlike the modern traveler, their journey was not planned out before departure with a major focus regarding final destination (Heb. 11:8). This further illustrates the depth of the faith of Lot, Abraham, and the others had exhibited. Lot, as family leader, would have engendered a high level of righteous faith in undertaking such a trek of unknown origins. Their resting-place in Haran (curiously named the same as Lot's father), some 600 miles northerly, may have taken several months to accomplish, as traveling with an elderly family member, Terah, would have slowed their progress. Traveling northward along the beautiful foliage rich Euphrates river bottomland in the heart of the Fertile Crescent would have been an ideal tour for the eyes. Several reasons could have caused the temporary stopover in Haran where we see from Gen. 11:32 that Terah died. Had he become ill along the trip? Was old age the cause of his death? We don't know for sure. Haran's culture would have exhibited many religious similarities to Ur far behind them now. The search for decent shelter for ailing Terah may have been the catalyst for stopping at this city. The exact length of stay in Haran is never stated.


According to Gen. 12:4, Abraham was 75 years of age when departing Haran along with his listed brethren. Here he received another special invitation by God to seek out the promised land after his father's death. As already discussed, his first calling came from God while in Ur. In Gen. 12:3, the only named companion to accompany Abraham from Haran is Lot. The language in this verse strongly implies a mutual involvement in their departure. This claim is supported by the fact that in Gen. 11:31 Scripture states Terah "took" the others. The author of Genesis recognized Terah's patriarchal role as eldest father of Abraham's family and honored him with that language of officially leading the family out from Ur. However, clearly in Gen. 12:4, the language does not show Abraham leading Lot from Ur in any subordinate manner. The text merely states they went together. Lot and Abraham shared a close and loving relationship. Their newfound faith and subsequent departure probably brought them closer together than they had ever been previously. Thus, it stands to reason that they were so much more than one a leader and the other a follower.


Our earlier position that Lot was the elder of Abraham still stands strong. Certainly, Scripture never states that Lot was the elder who took Abraham from Ur, yet this shouldn't be taken as any proof that Lot wasn't the elder. The focus of the writer in this passage was purely on Abraham, not an indication of who was subordinate to whom. In reality, the lack of language showing Abraham as taking Lot further supports our position that Lot was the elder. Had Abraham been the elder to Lot, it would seem proper for Scripture to state that Abraham took Lot. The absence of this language speaks much. The next verse (Gen. 12:5) would seem to indicate to some that Abraham in fact took Lot as a familial subordinate; however, we disagree. It is our contention that the focus here was merely on Abraham taking Sarah, and not any indication that Lot was subordinate. The previous verse which contends that Lot merely went with Abraham, along with the many points which have already been presented, and more to follow throughout this writing all lead to the conclusion that Lot was the elder to Abraham.


Thrust into an extreme situation, Abraham and Lot must have forged a unique relationship. After their many life experiences in Ur and abroad, these two friends and comrades wouldn't have been very concerned with the pecking order. Historically, their culture was rife with normal families following a set structure on who would lead in many given situations. They had been led from their pagan surroundings by God and had rejected the religion of their homeland. In more ways than one, they were in completely new territory. Their new ways of life, proper laws, and cultural existence had not ye been fully determined. However, due to Abraham's high character and cultural background, he was probably willing to accept Lot's natural authority as family head. Numerous indicators imply that Lot was made the familial authority figure, but as times progressed Abraham's spiritual character assuredly became more pronounced as well. It is our view that they both were subordinate to each other in differing roles. Lot had begun as the elder and natural leader of the family. Abraham had become the spiritual leader of this small flock that they collectively comprised (Matt. 18:20). They were family. They were brethren. They were friends. They were a team.



Entering Canaan

The journey from Haran towards Canaan would have been ensued soon after the passing of Terah. The journey totaled nearly 1,000 miles from their beginnings in Ur to the land where God planned for them to call home: Canaan. Prior to departing from Haran, they likely purchased more supplies, herds, and servants to accompany them (Gen. 12:5). A cloud of controversy swirled around their initial undertaking out of Ur; yet, at Haran they were nomadic strangers and therefore much freer to take advantage of the market for needed items. The Holy Spirit had surely been with their hearts and minds on this lengthy journey. Along the way, God undoubtedly would have had many opportunities to directly contact Abraham. Specifically, Gen. 12:7 identifies at least one occassion where direct contact was made as they headed south from Haran. By now they knew that they were precisely where they were supposed to be according to God's will.


Due to drought, their first experience with the promised land proved very trying. Being responsible for family, servants, herds, and cattle would have forced them to continue to travel until they found a proper habitation for their immediate needs. They soon found themselves far southerly within Egypt (Gen. 12:10). 


Abraham was not completely honest concerning his and Sarah's relationship with the Egyptians as he presented her as his sister, not his wife. Sarah must have been quite attractive as the Egyptians found her most favorable in appearance (Gen. 12:11-20). Impressed with her beauty, they informed the Pharoah of her presence. Used to having what he wanted, the Pharoah brought her into his own palace with the idea of having her as a wife/concubine. Only after blessing Abraham greatly with many servants and all sorts of valuable cattle did the Pharoah learn the truth and discover the awkwardness of the situation. Upon learning of the sin that was brought into his life, the Pharoah ordered them out but allowed them to keep their gifts.


After leaving Egypt, Abraham and Lot returned northerly into Canaan where they had stayed earlier. Their circumstances were greatly improved due to the Pharoah's gifts (Gen. 12:8; 13:1). Both these men now possessed great wealth with many servants, cattle, and goods to better survive in a new home. Specifically, Gen. 13:2 speaks of the great wealth of Abraham. Only later in Gen. 13:5 is Lot also mentioned as having great wealth. The fact that Abraham is mentioned first as being very rich has no bearing on him being wealthier than Lot. Throughout the entirety of the Abraham and Lot accounts the writer's focus is on Abraham. The fact that Scripture does not utilize the same exact description of Lot being very rich as it does with Abraham is little indication there would have been some major difference in wealth between these two. One point to be made here is that Gen. 13:2 does not mention Abraham possessing "tents" as it does concerning Lot at Gen. 13:5. Are we to assume that Abraham had many cattle and a lot of money but no tents to sleep in? Hardly. The same would apply to the descriptions of Lot. Since there is not a specific mention of Lot with any silver and gold as stated for Abraham, are we to assume that Lot had no money? Absurd. No, they both had become very blessed and are to be considered wealthy.


These two were a team. Against a hateful backdrop, they had left Ur together. Many unstated events must have surely happened along the long journey that had brought them all the way to Egypt and back northward. These experiences must have forged a strong bond between the men. How often had they protected their lives and property from wild animals during any given night? They mourned together as their aged father Terah died. They sacrificed together as brethren towards their great God. They had each other's back all the way through their many experiences and travels.


Before moving on, an issue should be considered here for a moment concerning where Scripture states that Lot had tents. Why would he have needed tents? Certainly tents are for people to rest and reside within. However, what people? Could Lot have needed the tents as living quarters for his numerous servants? Or, is it possible that Lot had his own family as well by now? As we progress, it will become more apparent that Lot very likely had more than just servants in need of tents. We assert that Lot already had a core family of his own.



Quarreling Herdsmen

Many are aware of the quarrel that ensues with the competing herdsmen of these two men of God (Gen. 13:6-9). Let's make it very clear there is absolutely no quarrel ever mentioned between Abraham and Lot. On the other hand, their servants were not as amiable or loving as these two men of God were. One must also take into account the different places from which all these servants had been acquired. Some may have come all the way from Ur with them. We know already that some came from Haran and later some from Egypt (Gen. 12:5, 16, 20). Naturally, cultural and geographical differences would have resulted in some stress between these divergent people who were all living together. In addition, a study of the territory in question where these people resided shows that they were high up in mountainous terrain. Consequently, there would have been far less grazing land for their large herds and water would have been scarce in this dry land. All of these factors would have contributed to the ensuing conflict.


The Bible clearly indicates that God wanted to have mankind spread out (Gen. 1:28; 2:24; 9:1; etc.). While God does not admire strife, His hand was clearly involved in their residential separation. He used the strife amongst their herdsmen to His advantage. Each of these faithful men of God had a different calling in the Creator's great plan. They had both been led to this placed called the promised land by the Eternal. In just a short time, these two men had left the only home they'd ever known and traveled to a land far away. Their great wealth and blessing beyond any expectation must have increased their faith. Now, a conflict had arisen which would cause yet other sweeping changes for each man and his family.


When Abraham offers Lot the choice of land in Gen. 13:8-9, the language is not so cut and dried the way many scholars have previously assumed. They interpret and portray some unstated unselfishness on Abraham's part as he magnanimously offered Lot the choice of the land to call home. While we agree Abraham does demonstrate high character by offering Lot first choice of land, we simply disagree on the complete attitude and motive inherent in Abraham's actions. One must take into account their ages. Even in their era close to 4,000 years ago, Abraham was hardly a young man at 75+ years of age. Many logical points have already been presented showing Lot could have easily been 20-40 years older making him anywhere from 95-115 years old. Therefore, the alternative view is Abraham was merely showing a high respect to Lot's eldership. We have repeatedly attempted to show the evolving relationship between these two great men of God. Lot had started off as the family leader and elder. Through time, Abraham became the spiritual leader of the family. In Gen. 13:8-9, Abraham acted in accordance with the well-understood reality that Lot was and always would be the familial elder. His statements were in keeping with his great respect for Lot and his high degree of character in being quick to offer that respect.


Now, some may attempt to slight Lot because he didn't turn around and treat Abraham in the same magnanimous way some are so quick to label as Abraham's virtuous character. Before any are too quick to lash out at Lot, please consider our earier position that he very likely had family present with him by this point. Logically, Lot chose the lower valley area and the cities of the plain around Sodom as home in order to rear his sons and daughters. The fact that no other immediate family for Lot is stated, other than Abraham and Sarah up to this point, does not mean there was not any present. For instance, Adam and Eve are stated in Scripture to have had three boys by name: Cain, Abel, and Seth. Does any scholar or student actually think there were never any daughters born to our first parents? Logic dictates that there must have been. In addition, Noah had only three sons named Japeth, Ham, and Shem. These sons hadn't even begun to be sired until Noah was 500 years old. Does anyone really think that Noah and wife waited until that age to start a family? Of course, not. Archealogical discoveries, their historical culture, and accepted patterns in Scripture all lend credence to the claim that Lot already had a family of his own.


Lot would have logically chosen these cities of the plain with his family in mind. Many have portrayed Lot as being greedy by choosing the supposedly better land; yet, Scripture never states that the land he chose was actually better. This false assumption should not be taken for granted as Scripture never states the herdsmen disputed over bad land and good land. There simply was not enough land for all their herds to remain together. Once either party departed, the land in dispute would then be suitable for whichever remained.


Did God have a hand in exactly when this dispute arose that caused Lot to choose the land he did? The majority try to state that Abraham graciously took Lot's leavings; yet, Abraham didn't even keep the remaining land himself for long (Gen. 13:12-18). By all indication, God wanted Lot in Sodom. He had a special calling for Lot to accomplish. He also wanted Abraham at Mamre, which is where he ended up. No communication warned Lot about his choice to reside in Sodom. On the other hand, evidence from Scripture strongly indicates that God had a special calling and purpose in leading Lot towards Sodom. Regardless of what others may argue, when push came to shove with their herdsmen, Abraham respected his elder brother Lot, and they parted as friends and brethren. Their separation placed them exactly where God wanted them.


Over the next 20 years, the precise relationship between these two men of God remains unclear. We do know, at some point, Abraham resuced Lot from invading alien forces that had conquered the inhabitants of Sodom. Lot had been taken prisoner along with his household and all of the neighboring residents (Gen. 14). With a small army of his own servants Abraham rescued Lot and his neighbors. In general, many events transpired for Abraham and his wife Sarah during those following years; however, after his rescue and return to Sodom, Lot's story remains quiet. That is it remains quiet until Genesis 18 & 19, the focus of this writing.



Special Guests

These two chapters, Genesis 18 & 19, should be considered an unbroken storyline. This mindset will help the reader grasp a most profound insight that modern theologians have missed. Most scholars claim that the men demanding access to Lot's visitors outside his house that night planned on committing gang rape with homosexual lust in their hearts. (The English word "sodomy" in a mistaken sense is derived from these supposed events.) In order to grasp the alternative concept delineated in this writing, one must view Gen. 18 & 19 as one unbroken story.


The events began during the heat of the day (Gen. 18:1). Customarily in this culture, people spent this early afternoon period of 2-3 hours resting. Abraham, his wife, and their servants (for the most part) would have rested at this time each day during the summer season. Their usually dark colored goatskin tents were fashioned to allow circulation of air with lifted flaps. This provided welcome relief on hot days and shelter from the blazing sun. Ideally, the tents would have normally been positioned amongst groves of moderate sized shade trees and preferably near water. Large tree stands close to water provided optimum shelter for nomadic herdsmen and their community. Just after refreshment of their midday meal, they would have relaxed and rested under their coverings. This practice of afternoon inactivity is not as familiar in the U.S. but is still very common in many other cultures around the world today.


During this normal time of rest, Abraham's visitors suddenly and surprisingly appeared (Gen. 18:1-3). He immediately recognized one of the visitors to be the Lord. Having had previous contact with God numeorus times from long ago in Ur, Abraham boldly ran and threw himself prostrate. To most of the onlooking camp, his actions were probably shocking. They wouldn't have been used to witnessing their great leader so eagerly and reverently thrust himself down in honor to a stranger. All eyes would have been closely on the scene as the event unfolded. Abraham begged these supernatural visitors indulgence in allowing him the hospitable act of foot washing normally performed only for honored guests arriving from afar. He also offered these special guests the choicest seats underneath a pleasant shade tree, and he pleaded additional indulgence hoping they would accept his offer to provide a banquet/feast (Gen. 18:4-5). Abraham would have lived for these moments of direct contact and service to the God who had called him out of that pagan world of Babylon some 25 years earlier.


From the moment they arrived, events moved very quickly. First, permission was granted, and Abraham's supernatural visitors announced their intention to stay. Then Abraham quickly ran into the tent and ordered Sarah to hurriedly make three cakes of unleavened bread (Gen. 18:6). He then swiftly raced to his nearest herd and pulled out a prime calf and ordered his servant to dress it for immediate roasting as fast as possible (Gen. 18:7). Abraham's haste in this passage is important to note. In fact, a quick read through the entire passage clearly indicates a repeated attitude of haste on Abraham's part.


In their culture, eating meat was often reserved for special occasions. They also normally consumed meat quickly once it was cooked as preservation was not easy in their climate, especially in the warmer summer season. Any meat offered to a normal visiting guest would have generally been a less valued lamb or goat. Abraham's indulgence of culling out an ideal and choice beef calf would have been a costly sacrifice; thus, this action signified honor of the highest degree. The very substantial feast of grilled calf meat accompanied with bread and many other special treats was prepared. Soon a feast for a visiting King took shape.


Although a feast was prepared, many have supposed that Abraham's supernatural visitors did not actually need this food for bodily sustenance. Why did they eat then? Numerous scholars have grappled with this question and fewer yet have given sufficient answer. It couldn't have been due to a need of physical food for their bodies to survive could it? Apparently, even in their normal spirit realm, angels may have some food intake needs (Ps. 78:25). Possibly, even supernatural angelic beings, having entered into this physical dimension, were subject to the same physical laws that God has created and placed in order here on Earth. Maybe the food they ate would greatly improve their physical stamina as they traveled along the walking path set before them. Perhaps, the student is to merely consider that supernatural beings occasionally eat food. Whatever the case, Abraham clearly prepared food for them.


At the end of this feast fit for a King, Abraham and his three guests rose up and walked to a view looking down towards Sodom in the far distant plain beneath them (Gen. 18:16). Located just south of modern day Hebron, Israel, Mamre stood as one of the highest points in all of populated Canaan. The view from their vantagepoint must have been magnificent as it ecompassed the entire lower territory and stretched out before them. Genesis 18:16 clearly indicates that Abraham accompanied these special visitors towards a path leading to Sodom. Immediately following in Gen. 18:17-21 is a set of very short statements made by God as they near the path. Finally, in Gen. 18:22, the angels depart on foot walking towards Sodom.


The Lord alone, remained behind with Abraham. They then engaged in a dialogue that many preachers and scholars have popularized. This conversation is one of the most famous passages in the entire Bible (Gen. 18:23-32). Some have erred in the past thinking Abraham's discourse with God was for the sake of unfamiliar peoples in all the cities of the plain around Sodom. This is an incorrect assumption. Abraham was surely pleading the most for only one man and that man's immediate family. That man was Abraham's close and beloved elder/nephew Lot who resided in Sodom. Aware that the surrounding peoples were all pagan and still driven by very similar fertility cults that had plagued them before in Ur, Abraham likely believed that Lot and his family were the only righteous people in all these cities. Abraham focused on this fact in the discussion with God. He was pleading for the preservance of his familial elder and brother Lot. Because Abraham does not beg for grace towards any fewer than ten, logically Lot's immediate family numbered close to ten, or less (Gen. 18:32). During the entire conversation, the only city mentioned by name in Abraham's pleas for mercy was Sodom, where Lot was situated (Gen. 18:22-33). The fact that none of the other cities facing certain destruction were ever mentioned is no accident and lends support to the fact that Abraham attempted to save Lot.


After this brief conversation between God and Abraham, the Lord departed walking towards Sodom along the same path the two angels had begun walking. Abraham also left and walked back to his home, but with great heaviness of heart as he knew the Lord intended to follow through with destroying the city of Sodom. Abraham's mind must have been filled with thoughts of Lot and concern for his welfare. After all, Lot was a righteous man that had faithfully followed the Lord's calling in leaving Ur as Abraham had done. Close to 25 years had gone by since the death of their patriarchal father, Terah, and subsequent departure from Haran. Furthermore, they had lived as family many years before Abraham ever received the initial call to depart. The Holy Spirit had worked on Lot's heart and Abraham's heart long ago; they had become more than just family members. They were brothers in the faith. Naturally, Abraham would have been concerned for Lot.


These two men of God experienced many good times and overcome many trials. How long had it been since Abraham had last seen Lot? Had they been planning a family get together and just not found the time to make the connection? Given that they were probably the only two countrymen with like minds in their faith supports the argument that they had a very close and loving relationship. Surely, the gathering of their families would have always been the most exceptional and joyous of occasions. Yet, their gatherings and ability to fellowship together were probably rare due to business and family concerns. They would have missed each other and been ready to help when hard times threatened either of them. In fact, as previously mentioned, Abraham had rescued Lot from imprisonment from an invading army years earlier. They would have had many memories and stories to reflect on and share with their families at their gatherings.


Despite all this, Abraham was now faced with the stark realization that Lot and his family stood in mortal danger. We are unable to ascertain exactly what was said between Abraham and God as the entire conversation was not recorded in Scripture. However, logic dictates that God knew all the thoughts and emotions of Abraham as he reasoned down to ten souls. The Lord knew that Abraham loved Lot and was deeply concerned for him and his family. That would be one good reason why God gave Abraham the opportunity to warn Lot.


By the time God left, the two angels had already begun their walk down the path towards Sodom. Since the conversation between God and Abraham was short, God probably quickly caught up to the angels along the path. Abraham's concern must have continued to build. Abraham must have been worried about getting word to Lot in time. He must have reasoned that a faster messenger could make it on beast much quicker than the walking visitors could. He would have tried.


We must ask why God and His angels did not just merely stand and wait until the conclusion of the conversation with Abraham and then suddenly vanish to reappear in Sodom and start the destruction. Indeed, upon initially arriving in front of Abraham, they seemed to suddenly appear from thin air. His first reaction to these supernatural visitors in Gen. 18 is complete surprise as they suddenly appear. Many commentaries agree their appearance was sudden and that Abraham didn't see them walk up as he later saw them walking away. Yet, upon departing, Scripture is very clear in showing the two angels left on foot a short time prior to the discourse concerning Lot's possible rescue in Sodom (Gen. 18:16, 18). The ensuing conversation, regarding Lot's survival, would have only taken a few brief moments. Then, too, the Lord followed on foot by all reasonable consideration. A logical explanation for their travel by foot is that the Lord gave Abraham an opportunity to warn Lot. God always warns just before destruction. Similarly, Abraham must have attempted to warn Lot. Now, some might ask why God didn't just show up to Lot to warn him personally, since he was a righteous man as well. Our easy answer is that God chose to do it this way for us today. The way it played out then and was recorded in Scripture will help us in these latter days before the destruction to come. The passage contains some very important things that may help us all to better understand the process by which our adversary will attempt to take over this planet and deceive even some of God's children.


Traveling to Sodom on foot would have taken two days and we have concluded that these supernatural beings probably walked all the way. While it can't be proven one way or the other whether these beings walked all the way or not, we ask that the reader merely consider the possibility. After all, Scripture indicates very clearly that Abraham did not see them suddenly vanish. No, they walked away down the path that he had led them to following their banquet.


After the Lord's departure, Abraham would have focused on how to warn Lot. Considering his great wealth with many servants and herds, Abraham would have simply sent word to Lot with the message that supernatural beings were enroute to destroy the entire area. As soon as he was back at camp, he would have ordered his fastest animal(s) to be ridden hastily by messenger(s) towards his beloved brother Lot. Anyone riding on some animal transport would very easily arrive sooner than the visitors could if they left in a timely manner. Did these messengers pass directly by the visiting angels as they traveled along the path? A study of the region will reveal more than one possible route to Sodom. Regardless, Abraham would have instructed the messenger to take the fastest possible route. Warning Lot would have been the only priority!



Waiting Lot

When the visiting angels arrived in Sodom, Lot was waiting for them. In Gen. 19:1, Scripture states that the angels arrived on foot at the entry gate of Sodom. Scripture says they walked, and so we believe they did exactly that. Normal travel time from Mamre to Sodom would have been nearly two days by foot, and notice how Lot was sitting at the entry gate of Sodom "at even". The term at even means a time late in the sunlight hours of a given day when the sun was setting evenly with the horizon. In modern vernacular, many in the world loosely consider a several hour period each day as evening time. Scripture portrays this even period more specifically as sunset. Lot's position at the gate and the time of day are important considerations.


The very fact that Lot was sitting at the gate lends support to the argument that Abraham's message likely made it to Lot ahead of the visiting angels. Indeed, why would Lot be sitting at the outskirts of Sodom near its entry gate at such an hour? Many commentaries indicate how it was customary for inhabitants to gather near the outer gates of a city during regular daytime business hours. However, they often neglect to mention that Lot's waiting there at dusk would have been after nearly everyone else had gone home for the day. While the entry gate to most cities may have been busy during its daytime business hours, it makes little sense for people to gather at the outskirts during the evening and nighttime hours. Families gathered together for their late meal by sunset/evening and began to rest each night at that time. Sunset provided a normal period of time for family and relaxation. Furthermore, the outer entry gate to most communities normally stood far removed from the residential areas for security purposes. Thus, hanging out at the gate of the city far away from family, home, and the supper table does not make much sense unless Lot was waiting at this gate for a specific purpose. He was waiting for special visitors!


Stepping backwards for a moment, remember that Abraham's experience with his supernatural visitors (Gen. 18:1-2) was sudden as he never saw them walking up to his camp. Causing great surprise, they appeared suddenly, and Abraham hurriedly tried to prepare a feast for them. After reading both accounts closely, a distinct difference between Lot and Abraham's reaction stands out (Gen. 18:1-7; 19:1-3). In no way did Lot hurry or act surprised. Waiting for these visitors, Lot merely rose to meet them as they came into view. How did he recognize them? Had the message Lot received from Abraham indicate what these visitors would be wearing? Somehow he knew these were the visitors he was expecting. In addition, he knew they were special supernatural visitors. Lot respectfully bowed down with his face to the ground indicating a higher respect and honor than any mere nomadic traveling visitors were due. Lot was eager to invite them into his house but never shows any indication of haste or surprise. His respectful and calm reaction validates the argument that Lot knew they were coming.


In Scripture, Lot's banquet for these visitors was already prepared and waiting. Abraham had to first run and find a calf. Then he ran to get a servant to dress it speedily. In contrast, Lot made them a feast, but no mention of haste occurs. The word choice in Scripture also supports that Lot had been expecting them. The word for "made" in Gen. 19:3 is also translated as "served" in the Old Testament. Served may have been the more accurate word, as Scripture does not indicate at all how Lot may have cooked a feast after their arrival. The word "feast" here in the Hebrew means a special meal, not some regular meal that would be eaten every other normal day. Indeed, there is another word commonly used for regular meals in Hewbrew, but this is not the same word for feast. The word choice implies that Lot had already prepared a special feast for these visitors with meat and all the trimmings fit for special guests of the highest caliber. His actions are that of a subordinate to high-ranking visitors of the greatest honor. As with Abraham, the angels ate and shared their news. Were they tired? Can angelic beings while in our dimension get tired as we do when they walk for nearly 2 days? Do they get hungry when in this dimentsion for any extended period of time? Did they stay at anyone else's house along their journey and eat there as well? Scripture says that men have entertained angels unknowingly (Heb. 13:2).


Lot's neighbors must have been aware that something extraordinary was happening. They certainly would have noticed his servants preparing a feast with calf meat being roasted. A thick slab of beefsteak grilling over a bed of hot coals wouldn't have easily been ignored. The aroma alone would have sparked interest in the community. Was this a special time for a banquet they would have inquired? Special interest would have quickly spread amongst the surrounding community like wildfire. Maybe Lot's wife passed word along to local allies that special supernatural visitors were to be attending their home that evening? Maybe Abaraham's messengers let it slip in town that special visitors were due to arrive? One way or another, the community of Sodom knew something special was happening on this night. The cities of the plain had entertained and been visited by supernatural visitors previously. However, there was a big difference. Lot's guests were sent from the Lord, while previous supernatural intruders into their community were demonic.


As the evening's feast and conversation wound down, most would have been thinking about their soft, cozy bed. A special feast of flesh, wine, bread, and other foods after a long day would tend to invite rest and relaxation. Imagine angels being tired and wanting rest! As they neared their slumber, a commotion began to take shape outside Lot's home. Men's voices were heard shouting. Lot wondered what was happening. All of the inhabitants of Sodom had surrounded Lot's house (Gen. 19:4). Yes, every man, woman, and child were present outside his home. Lot knew immediately what they wanted. What could it be they all so vehemently wanted? The traditional explanation is that the surrounding community was consenting to an old fashioned homosexual gang rape! Is this correct? Could it actually be possible, especially with literally all of the inhabitants outside the house that night? We believe fornication was on the community's mind all right, but it was most assuredly not homosexual in nature.


Many scholars have erred greatly by attempting to represent Sodom as a culture which had grown so evil that it didn't flinch at homosexual gang rape. We say modern scholars, because long ago all believers understood as we do. Modern day scholars, preachers, and teachers expect everyone to believe mothers were taking their young children out to witness the gang rape of grown men (Gen. 19:4-5). This doesn't make any sense. In addition, absolutely no record of this culture practicing such behavior exists. In general, homosexuality may have been known to some degree as it has been known throughout history in many cultures; however, there is no historical support for commuity wide acceptance of homosexual gang rape.


Scripture is very short on citing any common practice of homosexuality, let alone homosexual gang rape, ever being performed as widely as the clergy would have us believe in this setting. History, however, does tell us somewhat about ancient homosexuality. For instance, similar to the infamous fertility cult, some evidence of male prostitution in pagan temples of worship with different groups of people and cultures did historically occur. Yet, some accounts of male prostitutes are reported to have actually been castrated eunuchs who were made up to appear as women while performing their cultic ritual. This would hardly compare to anything remotely close to what our modern world calls homosexuality. In addition, some mention in world history of males in war accosting their enemy prisoners with forced rape as a token of humiliation is recorded. Our research reveals only the most isolated accounts of this type of battlefield rape, which was exclusive to Greco/Roman homosexual warriors, occurred. To retroactively apply these acts of war to a dissimilar culture nearly 2,000 years removed is not sound reasoning. There is no link whatsoever. Furthermore, virtually all scholars readily admit to the widespread practice of the fertility cult by nearly all known ancient cultures. This being the case, it undermines the position of the Biblical scholar, who wants to promote some undocumented belief of a widespread homosexual community in ancient times, because homosexuality produces no profit of physical offspring that the fertility cult relied upon for survival. However, had homosexuality been as prevalent as many would want us to believe, then it would seem that God would be quick to more readily address this practice clearly and early on in His word. According to God's command, living a gay lifestyle is wrong, but His word from Scripture does not indicate that homosexuality brought down the world before the Flood or at Sodom either. The belief that homosexuality played a major role in deteriorating these cultures is pure fiction perpetuated and created by many who are preoccupied and focused on gay sex. The sin at Sodom that night was most assuredly not homosexual in nature. Perverted sex was intended that night, but not homosexual sex.



Strange Sex

What type of sex did almost take place outside Lot's house that night if it wasn't homosexual gang rape? Believe it or not, it was far closer to heterosexual contact than homosexual. Yet, it wasn't exactly heterosexual either. Now, scholars are correct when they claim the phrase in Gen. 19:5 "that we may know them" refers to sexual contact. Sexual activity between angelic beings and humans was the intended meaning here though. However, political hatred for homosexuals has caused modern scholars to be too quick to make the false assumption that homosexual gang rape was the intent. Caught up in their false teachings, they erred in not considering that these sexual unions were to be consummated for something other than mere sexual gratification or humiliation of rape. The real goal was to cause human women to birth mutated superhuman offspring in hopes of derailing God's plan of the Savior later coming through a clean bloodline. The men outside Lot's house that night demanded the angelic visitors come out and impregnate their daughters. This demand was far from homosexual. Yes, as far out as all this may sound, we believe unequivocally that there was absolutely no chance of homoexual gang rape or any other form of homosexuality about to happen that night outside Lot's house.


As we later draw this writing to a close, we will come back to Lot's actions and cover the rest of what happened that fateful night. Yet, we will first discuss the Scriptural and historical evidence supporting our position that angel and human reproduction was/is possible and had happened in the past. You will soon discover that a mountain of evidence supports our position.


First, one of the most hotly debated topics of all time in Biblical discussions centers on whether Gen. 6:1-4 is talking about human/human sexual unions or angelic/human copulation. The vast majority of doubting teachers and preachers quickly seize on the passage at Matt. 22:30 with language clearly indicating the angels in Heaven are not given to marriage. This is their evidence against angelic/human copulation. Yet, we would quickly retort that the angels in Gen. 6 are not angels in good standing with God in Heaven, but rather fallen beings that had left Heaven. Thus, Matt. 22:30 would not apply to them. These angels sinned and followed Satan when he left Heaven coming to this world where they were subject to the same physical laws that apply to all created beings in this physical environment. These created beings (the fallen angels) are subject to the same laws as we physical humans are in many respects; nonetheless, there is very likely a differing amount of physical strength and power when comparing one angelic being to another. For instance, Satan would be stronger than any other fallen angel and be able to do more law bending than other fallen angels. Finally, God can bend His own laws of creating physics for purposes He chooses to accomplish anytime He desires. As a consequence, Matt. 22:30 does not sufficiently disprove angelic/human copulation.


The idea that Gen. 6 refers specifically to human to human contact for reproductive purposes is a more modern thinking. The famous early New Testament church fathers and later historians Josephus, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Philo of Alexandria, Julian, Tertullian, Gesenius, and others collectively thought Gen. 6 spoke directly about the fallen agels having sexual unions with the daughters of mankind and, thus, producing supernatural humanoid giants for offspring. All known pre-Christian scholars of record claim this passage refers to angel/human reproduction. Moreover, numerous historical fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran clearly support angel/human unions producing live offspring. Also, the famous pseudepigraphal work known as the Book of Enoch from circa 200 B.C., which extensively covers the topic in great detail, lends support to the angel/human unions. Utlimately, many ancient sources refer to angel/human copulation producing offspring.


Contained within another well known intertestamental writing, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is, The Testament of Naphtali (c. 500-200 B.C.) which overwhelmingly supports our angelic/human interpretation of events in Sodom and before the Flood as well. Specifically, it states, "...become not as Sodom, which changed the order of its nature, in like manner also the Watchers changed the order of their nature, who also the Lord cursed at the Flood, and for their sakes made desolate the earth, that it should be uninhabited and fruitless." (Used also in the Book of Enoch, and numerous other ancient writings, the term Watchers exclusively means fallen angels; virtually all scholars concur.) The author of the above passage supports our position that fallen angels had sex with human women before the Flood, and again at Sodom during the time of Lot. Clearly, that author comments on the sin of the Watchers/fallen angels' change and states that the same type of sin was committed at Sodom. The Watchers sinned in changing their natural order by leaving their spiritual state and entering into the physical realm. The people of Sodom were willing to offer their daughters/wives in an attempt to change their natural order from normal flesh to a supernatural order. If the author had thought that Sodom's sin was homosexual, then logic dictates they would have thought that the Watchers committed some sexual act on each other. If this had been the case, then how could angel to angel sex have ever caused God's condemnation of mankind at the Flood? Ultimately, numerous historians and Bible commentators, long before us, understood the sin of Sodom to be something other than homosexuality.


The preeminent Septuagint also supports the fallen angel/human copulation interpretation. The Septuagint is a Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament. The Septuagint was began to be translated around 300 years before the birth of Jesus Christ, when the Greek empire had just taken control of all Judea along with northern Africa including Egypt. In a short period of time, the Grecial empire required its subjugates to deal with the governmental and business affairs through the Greek language. As a consequence, the many Jews of the day would have been forced to learn Greek and speak it fluently. History shows several million Greek speaking Jews (living outside of Judea mainly) needed a Greek translation of their Holy Bible. That translation is called the Septuagint. The Septuagint is universally accepted by all scholars and clearly indicates that "the sons of God" at Gen. 6 were fallen angels from Heaven, not human/human marriages.


An ancient belief in the practice of humans and supernatural beings copulating is as well established as the great Flood of Noah's time. Nearly all teachers and preachers of the Holy Bible promote their belief of a catastrophic flood during Noah's time with a variety of evidence. Worldwide historical evidence from many differing cultures indicates such an event actually happened. In virtually all cultures and their histories, it is well known and documented how long ago a world-ending period flood prevailed with few souls being saved. While many of these accounts differ in the details, nearly every culture known to man has in its ancient history a worldwide flood epoch. The same is true for heavenly beings copulating with mortal women and producing giant supernatural offsrping. Historically, a large variety of diverse ancient cultures believe heavenly beings came to reproduce with mortal women: Sumer, Assyria, Egyptian, Greco-Roman, Polynesia, India, Inca/Mayan, Native American, etc. This is not some recent space age belief system that has emerged. Many ancient cultures claim that giant superhuman offspring were introduced into our world through sex between supernatural beings and human women. As history and archaeology have proven, truth often resides in myth.


It is difficult to document a single source in the early New Testament church that taught Gen. 6:1-4 was something other than an extremely odd, supernatural event. With such complete agreement, one wonders why Jesus Christ never straightened anyone out in the matter if they were wrong. There is no record of any such attempt by Jesus. If the entire world was wrong in believing the angel/human sexual unions produced offspring, He would have likely addressed the situation, and afterwards, Paul would have as well. The fact that there is no mention anywhere of Him attempting to correct this belief supports the truth and legitimacy of angelic and human copulation.


The exact date when Jewish teachers began to alter their original teachings surrounding Sodom's sin from that fallen angel/human sex to some form of human/human homosexuality between men is somewhat obscure. The political climate in Palestine during the 1st century B.C. provides a clear motivation for the change. The Greco-Roman empire, which had already dominated Israel for a couple of centuries, was greatly despised in all Judea. Homosexuality was a known and commonly accepted part of their culture that would not have been easily accepted as a legitimate lifestyle by the Jews. A change in dogma probably came about through some errant teachers' attempts to use whatever means possible to demonize their oppressors. Certainly this wasn't the first time in history that a preacher knowingly and incorrectly perpetuated a false teaching merely to please his audience. The simple answer is that Jewish teachers used homosexuals as easy targets for political reasons. Once this change and wrong interpreptation of Lots' story was promoted, it merely became the popular understanding. Yet, popularity does not determine correctness.


Those who scoff at our understanding generally argue that the phrase "sons of God" in Genesis 6 refers to a line of men from Seth's lineage whom they consider to be godly men. They continue their falsehood by offering the "daughters of men" as applying to a lineage from Cain's posterity, being considered rebellious non-believers.


There are only four passages of Scripture where the exact phrase sons of God occurs in the Old Testament. Obviously, the phrase is used twice in Gen. 6:2, 4. The other three are in the book of Job (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). In the Job passages, all Biblical scholars universally accept the phrase as referring to angelic beings only. Logically, the two times sons of God is offered at Genesis 6 should be considered angelic as well. Many scholars concur.


If sons of God was supposed to mean sons of Seth, then why aren't they plainly called by Seth's name in Scripture? Essentially, numerous errant teachers say that Seth means God. Seth's name does not mean God. Seth is not God. (Seth's name means, appointed, substituted, put, etc.)


In Hebrew, "daughters of men" means daughters of Adam. The same word used for Adam throughout the Old Testament means mankind in general and is most often translated men or man but is never used as Cain or any possible connection to that name. Cain's name means, acquisition or a possession. It does not mean men.


If some unstated Sethite line was intended for sons of God and intended to represent some supposedly godly men, then wouldn't these same men taking by force some supposed ungodly women for wives make their character as godly men highly suspect? Godly men don't take wives of all they choose amongst a group of women who are supposedly evil themselves. Calling them godly doesn't make sense, and, thus, calls into question that whole interpretation of the phrase.


Numerous major flaws exist in the line of reasoning that argues Genesis 6 is speaking of two separate groups of humans. Instead, we assert that the passage is referring to two separate groups of distinct beings. Scripture declares that the union of fallen angels and humans reproducing giant offspring corrupted the entire Earth, except for Noah and his immediate named family. Very likely some of Noah's unnamed offspring would have fallen prey to this corruption; however, according to Gen. 6:9, he alone preserved his bloodline from these strange flesh unions. His three named sons of Japheth, Ham, and Shem along with their four wives collectively remained untainted by this strange flesh defilement. The entire world had grown so corrupt by this practice that God demanded the entire population be destroyed in the Flood. Noah and the other seven were all that survived according to Scripture. Unequivocally, Gen. 6:1-4 refers to two distinct, separate groups. Had there not been any differentiation intended, then logically the passage would have merely spoken of them collectively as sons and daughters of man. In Gen. 6:5, all of mankind is condemned short of Noah and his immediate family (Gen. 6:9-13). This was a direct result of the whole of mankind following after the practice performed by these two distinct groups of beings. Some have tried to show the language of Gen. 6:5 as proof that all of mankind is the subject in the previous passage of Gen. 6:1-4, not a class of fallen angels and human women. This claim ignores the fact that the subject at hand in Gen. 6 is focused on man's role and subsequent punishment, and not specifically on the bahavior of the fallen angelic beings in the same story. God saved direct comment of these fallen angels for other passages in the Holy Bible. (See--E.W. Bullinger's, The Companion Bible: Appendix 23 & Appendix 25.


Apparently, Satan's aim was to destroy any chance that Jesus Christ could later be born of a virgin through an exceptable bloodline. The Father and the Son had long ago agreed to create man and offer him salvation and eternal life through that Messiah and Savior to be born into the womb of a virgin. If Satan had accomplished physically perverting the blood of all people, then Christ's saving sacrifice couldn't have ever been accomplished. Many people struggle with accepting a God that would allow one such as Satan to do such horrific things. Yet, man gave himself over to Satan and fornication. God didn't make anyone do it. God has allowed mankind to prove how much we need a loving God by our following in the fallen state of our enemy. Until we realize there is help from the Almighty to strengthen us, we will continue to fall prey. God currently works behind the scenes primarily with individuals. He will soon be working in the forefront with many, as at the end He will plead His case and offer help to all that will hear.


While Noah and his family were saved, this type of perverted fornicating activity between angels and humans didn't end at the Flood. Only the defiled humans and their tainted offspring were destroyed, not the fallen angels. They continue to exist right here in our world. At Sodom, God allowed another opportunity to corrupt all of mankind. This occurred at the time leading up to our discussion of Lot in Genesis 19. If this is the correct understanding from Scripture, then logic would dictate that additional passages must exist which support such bizarre events happening, even after the Flood. One clear statement for us to consider is back at Gen. 6:4. Notice, "...There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God..." The time called "after that" was just prior to what was happening at Sodom!


Bullinger and many others believe Satan targeted specific tribes in Canaan. The names of numerous of the targeted tribes are as follows: Canaanites, Philistines, Kenites, Kenizites, Anakim, Emim, Horim, Zanzummim, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perrizites, Rapha, Rephaims, Amorites, Girgashites, and Jebusites. In the case of the Anakim (Nu. 13:22, 28, 32-33; Deut. 9:2), their name meant of long necks which probably describes a physical deformity resulting from the genetics of humans and angels mixing. In addition, the infamous enemy of Israel, Goliath, was a giant most likely descended from these unions. Another giant, evidently a blood brother to Goliath, had a most unusual deformity exhibiting one extra finger on each hand and an extra toe on each foot (2Sam. 21:20-22; 1Chron. 20:6-8).


Interestingly, at Judges 1:6 the armies of Israel punished the Canaanites after encountering them in their land. Their punishment after being conquered was to have a finger on each hand and a toe on each foot removed. There were many accounts of the giants in Canaan according to the Holy Bible (Deut. 2:11, 20; 3:11-13; Jos. 12:4; 13:12; 15:8; 17:15; 18:16; etc.). Satan's efforts to destroy the bloodline through angelic and human copulation is the best explanation for the deformities and giants present in the area of Canaan.


Mutants in nature often exhibit deformities; it is no surprise that these giants did as well. Nature, through the laws of physics that God put in place at creation, makes it difficult for mutant creatures to survive. Ultimately, these giants perished. Common sense indicates that once a giant was born, man would have tried to keep the bloodline of these creatures pure in order to enable them to produce more giant-like supernatural beings. To what length mankind went in attempting to keep these gigantic bloodlines productive is not known. In time though, the blood of these mutants became watered down. Does any proof exist that these giants ran amok within man's genetic past? The genetic markers providing this point may exist within modern technological advances.


Scripture from the New Testament further speaks directly to a corruption happening again at Sodom. In Jude 6-7, Scripture proclaims, "...And the angels that sinned which kept not their first estate, but left their habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengenace of eternal fire..." These fallen ones had left their original estate, meaning their original home in the spiritual realm. Additionally, the word habitation means their bodies. Yes, they left their spiritual bodies and took on a new form here in our physical world. In fact, the only other place in the New Testament where this same word habitation is used above at Jude 6, is rendered house at 2Cor. 5:2. Universally, everyone agrees that the house in 2Cor. 5:2 refers to the spiritual body which the saints will acquire at the resurrection. 


There is another New Testament passage we want to examine before going back to Lot and Genesis 19. This one, as with Jude, clearly and directly connects the sin which occurred before the Flood to that which happened later at Sodom. Notice, "...And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly. And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly..."--2Pet. 2:5-6; KJV. These statements about Noah's flood and Sodom & Gomorrah are prefaced by, "For if God spared not the angels that sinned." Scripture draws a direct connection between the sin of Sodom being the same as that which brought about the Flood, which was the result of fallen angel and human copulation.


Bullinger concurs with our position that fornication between angels and humans continued after the Flood. In The Companion Bible, he offers sound reasoning regarding the repeated occurence of angel and human copulation after the Flood. Specifically, in Appendix 25, he says, "So that 'after that', i.e. after the Flood, there was a second irruption of these fallen angels evidently smaller in number, and more limited in area, for they were for the most part confined to Canaan, and were infact known as 'the nations of Canaan'. It was for the destruction of these, that the sword of Israel was necessary, as the Flood had been before. As to the date of this second irruption, it is evidently soon after it became known that the seed was to come through Abraham." Once God chose Abraham as the direct seedline through which Jesus Christ would later be born, our adversary the Devil targeted his bloodline for destruction.


One final point for now demands attention and an answer before we return to Lot. According to the scholars that deny our claims, they state that sons of God means sons of Seth; supposedly Godly men. Admittedly, a direct lineage from Seth can be traced to Noah and his family. As a result, all of Noah's line would be considered of Sethite stock. However, one essential factor these scholars must have totally confused in their formula is if all of the daughters of men supposedly died off during the Flood, then how could Gen. 6:1-4 ever make sense? Obviously, if only Sethites survived the Flood then there is absolutely no possibility of any sons of God coming into any non-existant daughters of men at some other later date. In other words, after the Flood virtually all of mankind to this day would be considered sons of Seth (i.e.-sons of God) according to their theory. None of the daughters of men were to have survived! Consequently, it would be impossible for the same sin to have occurred ever again. Are we to believe that the sons of God came into the sons of God after the Flood? Certainly not!


Many people will continue to deny any possibility that angels from Heaven could ever come down and physically impregnate human women. They argue that the two cannot mix, because angels are from the spirit world and humans from the physical. We refute this by first giving consideration to a law in nature, created by God, which says life comes from pre-existing life of the same kind. With that in mind, consider that Heb. 2:7 states that mankind was created just a little less than angelic beings, meaning temporarily in power and strength. Furthermore, add to this fact that men have entertained visiting angels unknowingly (Heb. 13:2). The evidence weighs heavily in favor of our position that men and angels are much more similar and closer in nature than different; especially when both are in this dimension.


Lastly, if one is to believe that spirit beings cannot possibly mix with humankind and produce offspring, then they may be denying the physical existence of Jesus Christ. Indeed, if their position is true, then the mother Mary could not have truly been the actual mother of our Savior. For He, Messiah, certainly came from the spirit realm and was somehow impregnated into the womb of His physical and human mother through the activity of God (John 4:24). Please think long on this point. Denial regarding the possibility of spirit and physical ever having the ability to naturally procreate, even under extreme circumstances, may be construed as a (neo-gnostic?) position that forbids Christ having come in the flesh!



Lot, the hero

When we left off with Lot, he was still at home with his special guests while the entire community of Sodom stood outside his home demanding the supernatural angelic guests be brought out. The inhabitants of this community wanted these angelic beings for the purpose of impregnating their waiting daughters, not some homosexual gang rape as has been erroneously taught in the past. These people would have been aware of the gigantic superhuman offspring from such unions in the past. In fact, rumor had it the practice had already begun again in their midst. Had one or more mutant offspring already been born in their community? Or maybe in some other community nearby? Some evidence suggests the defilement by the fallen ones with human women began closer to Gen. 13:13.


These giant offspring would have been considered a great blessing from the fertility gods. Most of mankind's entire spiritual mindset then focused on the many different pagan gods of fertility. These unions would have produced a being that was often larger, stronger, smarter, and far more powerful compared to the regular humans around them. What great armies could have been marshaled with such massive giants. They would have provided a conquering and dominating force over the other empires around them. Remember that this same community had been conquered previously resulting in Abraham coming to the rescue of Lot and others. With armies of giants, the nations around them would not easily consider attack. The inhabitants in the cities of the plain near Lot would have been aware of some not too distant neighbors who already had giant mutants. They would have respected these people and feared them greatly. But even more so, they would have wanted to be like them.


The potential wealth posed by having these giants produced from angel/human marriage proved to be a potent drug of monstrous proportions. While realizing the immediate gratification and seeming benefit of giant mutants, the people had no idea what evil was present. These mutant offspring were not natural to the world that God had created and intended for mankind. God made a world to provide mankind with a way to grow and ultimately qualify to become members of the very family of God. Our adversary, the Devil, had again begun a process by which it might have been possible to wreck the plan of God. Jesus Christ was to eventually lay aside His glory and coming later in the flesh to live and die to save mankind (John 3:16). Lot would not allow the Devil to prevent this from happening.


Lot knew full well what was about to take place. He knew he had to step up to the plate and make a stand for God. He was aware of how these events could again cause the very destruction of all mankind. Lot was righteous. He could not and would not allow this monstrous evil to happen. Lot must have known what these so called neighbors of his thought. Shouting outside his front door, they would have assumed Lot was somehow influencing these supernatural beings to impregnate his own daughters. They would have assumed Lot was being selfish with these supernaturals and keeping the wealth for himself. Thus, they demanded their own daughters have access to the seeds of the gods. In their minds, Lot had to be extremely selfish to keep this supernatural semen for his daughters alone. Maybe they thought they could force unions with their own daughters if they could work together as a team against these supernatural studs. Their anger with Lot would have built as they considered how he was already probably the richest man in Sodom. He also wasn't originally from these parts, and it was their arrogant opinion that rights to these other-worldly juices were due them, if anyone!


Caught in this predicament, Lot had only one option. He would offer his two virginal daughters to the mob outside as proof that this evil was not happening under his roof as they assumed. He knew he had to act quickly, and this was the only solution he could see. He loved his daughters; in fact, righteous and Godly men tend to be good fathers. Lot had been a good father like few others in the surrounding world. Thus his actions should not in any way be interpreted as giving his daughters up to be raped as many have taught. Lot offered to bring his daughters outside only to outwardly prove to those in Sodom that his daughters were not going to be a part of the sinister activities that they wanted their own daughters to engage in. Those who try and teach that righteous Lot was willing to give his daughters up to be raped are totally off base and wrong. He was merely attempting to show the mob his daughters in order to thwart any violence against God's plan for us all. This action eloquently demonstrates his faith in God and love for all of mankind. Only through faith in his great God, was Lot able to stand against the mob and even offer to bring his daughters outside. Lot was not the weak and tragic figure so many have wrongly promoted. Lot was a righteous man of God with few equals in faith!


The mob didn't want Lot's daughters. They wanted supernatural semen. They were full of pride and arrogance that fueled their goal of riches and dominance over weaker and poorer humans. They didn't care what the consequences would be ultimately. They were determined to take whatever actions needed to accomplish their goal. Against this, Lot stood alone outside his front door that fateful night making a stand for God and mankind. What courage he must have had to stand and defend God against this angry mob ready to go through him. His actions exemplify love and unselfish faith of the highest order. Lot took a chance on his everything for God's sake. Maybe for your sake as well!



Return to Sodom

Lot had a large family living in Sodom. A couple of days prior, Abraham had stopped at the number 10 souls while pleading mercy be granted towards the righteous in Sodom. Clearly Abraham aimed to save Lot and his family. In addition, the language in Gen. 19:12-14 implies that Lot must have had more family than his two daughters and wife. He specifically went out later that night and tried to convince his sons-in-law to get out before Sodom was destroyed. Sadly, they didn't take him seriously. Nevertheless, this proves that he had married daughters, not just two virginal daughters. So while the exact number can't be proven, Lot clearly had several children.


Besides more daughters, Gen. 19:12 seems to indicate Lot could have also had more than one unnamed son residing in Sodom. Lot likely had a large family of many sons and daughters. He easily could have already had a family started before leaving Ur as it had been close to 25 years since their departure. Only one wife is mentioned which seems to indicate she was the one mother of all his many children. Since by the time of Gen. 19:12 the sons weren't living under his roof, they probably were grown men with families of their own living nearby. The Hebrew word used here for "sons" can even mean "grandsons;" there's no way of knowing how many children or family he had present. The regular practice in Scripture is to name any offspring that followed God. Since names were not mentioned, Lot's children were likely unbelieving and would have been upset with Lot's own stance against the fertility cult. How many times over the years had he tried to get them to consider his God? He would have tried to rear them according to the faith he lived; yet they must have reached adulthood and rebelled as so many do today. Only the two virginal daughters who were still under his control departed with him.


A family man and respected community member, Lot would have dearly loved all his family. In many respects, he would have also cared greatly for the community of Sodom. He lived as a local judge of some rank amongst the inhabitants of Sodom (Gen. 19:9). His high moral character must have brought respect from his neighbors; yet, they ultimately would have considered him an outsider. In their eyes, he must have been an odd one. After all, he didn't agree with or practice their fertility cults, yet they allowed him to peacefully reside in Sodom. They would have also been thankful to Lot that his brethren in Abraham had rescued not only Lot, but also other notables of the Sodom community previously. They knew Lot was different, but they also must have seen Godly virtue in his ways. Lot's own high regard for his family and the community of Sodom caused him to dawdle in Sodom. His lingering in Sodom resulted in force being used to lead him and his small, immediate family out of Sodom (Gen. 19:15-16). Since angels have substance in this dimension as mere men do, they grabbed his hand to lead him away from Sodom.


After being told to flee to the mountains for safety, Lot begged indulgence to instead depart to the city of Zoar. While we aren't privy to the entire conversation between Lot and the Lord in Gen. 19:17-22, God did allow Lot to go to Zoar. This further supports the idea that Lot was a very just and righteous man. It is our contention that God was so pleased and impressed with the courageous and self-sacrificing bravery exhibited by Lot through this ordeal, that no correction was warranted in God's eyes for him not blindly obeying this initial command to flee to the mountains. God agreed to allow Lot the opportunity to make a go of it in Zoar. Many are surprised that God did not punish Lot for not immediately following God's instructions to go to the mountains. Lot merely asked for another way and God graciously allowed it. God knew Lot's true character, and God had faith that Lot would see the evil in Zoar (Gen. 19:30).


Fearful of remaining in the corrupted Zoar, Lot and his daughters fled to the mountains. Soon after taking up residence in mountain caves, Lot's two daughters schemed to be impregnated by getting their father Lot drunk and lying with him. What would have caused them to do such a thing? We don't know the exact mental state of these daughters. Nevertheless, Lot could easily have told them of the dire situation of the pre-Flood world and perhaps they expected the same world now existed outside their mountainous caves. This would explain their mindset and how maybe they merely figured there was no other way to continue their family lineage but to resort to drastic measures.


Many wonder why Lot went to the mountains instead of going to Abraham. Surely there would be safety with the very one that had warned him of the impending doom of Sodom. Abraham, with his great love and Godly character, would have taken Lot and his remaining daughters if they had made it to him. The only reasonable explanation for not seeking Abraham for refuge would be their knowledge that there were many additional mutant/giants alive in the surrounding areas, including those other than Zoar. Due to Lot's stance against the mob in Sodom, many must have been after him. Lot would not have wanted to bring grief and threat to Abraham and his family.


News of Lot's resistance in Sodom would have spread like wildfire. This would explain his fear of remaining in Zoar. Satan would have found a way for the community in Zoar to learn of a twisted account of what happened at Sodom. The entire community of Zoar (and any other outlying areas) must have blamed Lot's actions for the destruction of their cities. They probably thought Lot had angered the gods! All of the inhabitants around Zoar would have easily figured the angelic beings in Lot's house that night were no different than the gods (fallen ones) which had been impregnating other daughters over time. As a result, Lot would not have wanted to bring evil of gigantic proportions to the doorstep of his beloved brother Abraham and family. Lot wanted to protect Abraham from the evil which followed him.


In a roundabout way, Abraham must have learned about Lot's righteous stand. Abraham naturally would have wanted to know what the ultimate outcome had been regarding his beloved elder, Lot. From his vantage point in Mamre, he would have seen the smoke rise up from the plains if the destruction was anything like Scripture indicates. He must have ached for news about Lot. Had the angels traveled back to inform Abraham immediately after the destruction of Sodom? Probably not. Instead, Abraham most likely first heard a very slanted version of the events. In short time, Abraham would have heard many dramatic stories from nomadic travelers. Not all of the inhabitants of the cities of the plain had been destroyed. The vast majority had been wiped out, but Zoar and its immediate area had been spared. Word of two supernatural beings visiting Sodom, and more specifically Lot, would have spread quickly. These cities were situated very close to one another according to most sources; consequently, word easily could have spread to Zoar. Angelic fornication with human women would have been big news for all the territory! As a result, Abraham must have heard and been aware of at least some of the details.


Regardless of all the wild rumors and evil reports cast towards the name of righteous Lot, Abraham would have been able to read between the lines. At least one main theme would have been consistent with all of the accounts that he heard. If nothing else, it must have been clear that Lot stood alone against the mob. Great tears must have welled up in his eyes every time he thought of the great sacrifice that righteous Lot had shown. Did any of this affect Abraham to any degree? How could it have not? Later, Abraham himself was expected by God to sacrifice his only son Isaac, and he too, stood to the task. Could it be somehow possible that Lot's actions of faith helped increase the faith of our great father Abraham? Could it be the actions of Lot back then helped us, even today, by inspiring Godly people to stand to the task and have faith? We know so. We are very grateful for the love that Lot had for God and mankind!




While Biblical prophecy is the main focus of this article, we cannot close without briefly addressing the most sensitive and politically controversial topic raised herein: homosexuality. For years, too many have taught that homosexual gang rape was the intended crime outside Lot's house that fateful night in Sodom. Those teachings are wrong and the promoters of such falsehoods will have to answer to God Almighty for leading others into demonizing the lonely and lost sinners who Jesus came to rescue and save. God is not happy with these leaders and unless they repent, their day is coming. History illustrates a concerted effort on the part of many Saturday and Sunday preachers to demonize all homosexuals. Without genuine Christian love for all, they are as tinkling brass. Will they stand with boldness at the return of Jesus Christ? Soon we will know!


It is certain that God's written word clearly portrays homosexuality as a wrong lifestyle choice. However, He still loves homosexuals as much as He loves everyone else. In addition, as we have proven, homosexuality was not an issue in Genesis 18 & 19. As more evidence of this, consider the fact that in Scripture virtually every place that homosexuality is clearly and directly mentioned, Sodom is never specifically connected in the same passage. Go read your Bible. Gays just appear to be an easy target, and the story of Lot has been twisted to push a modern political agenda. However, according to God's written word, many other lifestyle choices besides homosexuality also have damaging results. All humans are sinners, and God wants all sinners to turn from their worldly ways. Regardless of this and what many have taught, homosexuality has nothing to do with Lot and what happened in Sodom. That teaching is pure fantasy as anyone can plainly see for themselves!



"And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him!" Matthew 25:6; KJV


by Jeffrey E. Dugger

Copyright 2003

Selected Bibliography




                                                               Appendix A: Timeline Considerations
                                                               Appendix B: Moses & the Giants
                                                               Appendix C: Feasts of the Lord in Prophecy

                                                               Appendix D: Simple Bible Study Rules