A Journey Through The Old Testament - Elmer Towns

occurrences of the term in Scripture. While this observation is correct, those places where the
secondary meaning of yara’ is noted are places where the context so demands that interpretation.
Second, they argue that intercourse as a path to personal knowledge depends not on the
physical act but rather sexual differentiation and complementation. Assuming that presupposition
of psychology, it is concluded that it is incorrect to speak of “knowing” one through a
homosexual act as suggested in the usual interpretation of Genesis 19:5 and Judges 19:22. While
that may or may not be the case, the weakness is that it would be denied by most homosexuals.
As the term is attributed to such individuals in both of the above noted passages, the psychology
of knowing has little application to the context.
A third argument of the pro-homosexual interpreters relates to an apparent violation of
the rights of a qer (stranger). This term appears to have had certain technical significance in
identifying what might today be called a landed immigrant of resident alien. The argument is that
Lot failed to have the credentials of the men approved before receiving them as overnight guests
in the city. Accordingly, it is argued the men of the city wanted “to know” the strangers in the
sense of inspecting their credentials. The problem with this alternate interpretation is again found
in the context. It is doubtful Lot would have invited the men to “inspect the credentials” of his
daughters to satisfy their desire (Gen. 19:5, 8). Further, it is questionable that Lot would have
described such an act as wickedness (v. 7). Ultimately, the New testament revelation leaves no
question as to how this passage should be interpreted (Jude 7).
When Lot resisted, the men of the city responded by turning their attack on him. The
angels came to Lot’s defense by blinding his attackers. The Hebrew word bassanewerim, here
translated “with blindness,” is a rare word and probably refers to some sort of confused or
dazzled state (cf. 2 Kings 6:18). The angels told Lot to contact other members of his family so
that the entire family would be preserved. The Hebrew participles of Genesis 19:14 suggest the
sons-in-law were in reality only engaged to marry his daughters and were not yet members of his
family. They mocked and refused to leave the city.
THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CITIES OF THE PLAIN
(Gen. 19:17-29)
When Lot was finally dragged out of the city by the angels, he was warned to escape to
the hills to avoid becoming a victim of the imminent destruction. Some writers have suggested
the reason for this warning was to escape the radiation which may have been a part of the
destruction of Sodom. Others suggest he was to avoid the explosion of molten sulfur which
eventually claimed his wife as a victim. But still Lot was reluctant to obey these messengers of
God completely. Even in the last moments of Sodom, Lot pled for a concession from the angels.
He asked to go to a nearby city. Apparently the thrill of city life was in his blood.
One of the cities apparently scheduled for destruction was Zoar. The Hebrew word tso`ar
literally means “a little one. “ In his appeal to the angels, Lot defended the city as an acceptable
place to live, noting “is it not a little one?” (19:20)
The angels granted Lot sanctuary in the city of Zoar and preserved that city from
destruction for his sake. This demonstrates the commitment of the Judge of all the earth to do
right and not condemn the righteous with the wicked (vv. 21-22; cf. 18:23-25ff). The angels
revealed their motive for constantly hastening Lot when they claimed, “for I cannot do anything
until you arrive there” (19:22). Probably in answer to the real intent of Abraham’s prayer, God
had designated the safe rescue of Lot as a prerequisite to the destruction of Sodom.