Why did Lot offer the angry mob his daughter?


In the part of the bible describing the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, God sent angels to look in the city for five good people (God told Abraham he would spare the two sinful cities IF he could find at least five good people there). While the three angels were there, they stayed with Lot. An angry mob gathered outside Lot’s house, and demanded that he hand the angels over.

Lot refused, and instead offered his virgin daughters.

May someone please explain why?


Most likely because in the time of Lot a guest in the house was afforded the protection of the head of the household, up to and including the head of the household incurring personal injury, loss of property, etc…

There is also some speculation, and also my personal opinion, that in Gen19:2 that Lot recognized them as being Angels of God (in Gen19:1 it points out that these two are Angels - IMHO to make a point that there would be something special about these individuals); hence a further desire to protect them from harm. NB: Gen19:3 the Angels intended to stay in the open square, only staying in Lots house due to his insistence (IMHO adding to the notion that he either knew or suspected their status) so he most likely expected that they would come to some great harm; thus, the cities most likely would incur the full wrath of God (Once again, this is my interpretation… it could be slightly off the mark).


I’m not an apologist but would like offer this from the notes in the NAB regarding this event. Lot was fulfilling his duties as a host and exercising his authority as the head of his household.

While it may seem extremely odd to us in modern day America; this passage may not have seemed out of the ordinary when read by men in the OT time especially if they were fathers themselves.

Also, recall that Abraham took his only son and was willing to sacrifice Isaac; his sign to God that Abraham believed and obeyed God without reservation. And this during a time when people depended on their heirs to pray for them in the after world. Sacrificing his only child would be catastrophic to Abraham when he dies yet his faith is unyielding.

So the question we may ask ourselves today: what would you sacrifice for Our Lord?


It was wrong for Lot to do it but he was a simple man and couldn’t think of anything else to protect his guests. Note----God did not tell Lot to do that and by the way the men didn’t want his daughters so nothing came of it. No one tells that part of the story.


I once read the commentary that Lot knew the mob outside his home were homosexuals. He offered his daughters knowing full well his daughters would be rejected. It was also to express the importance of Lot’s guests not to be harmed that he would offer his daughters in their place.


I agree with this 100%. Lot was, in essence, insulting their sexual preference. I think he was saying, ‘‘I have two virgin daughters here. Why would you want the men?’’ (IMHO). The response to Lot’s offering them his daughters, is that they got very, very angry.

I think we need to look towards the New Testament for an affirmation. 2 Peter 2:7 describes Lot as a righteous man who was vexed by the conduct of those around him. I think we need to start from there in trying to determine the motive behind Lot’s actions.


What I am about to say isn’t an expert opinion at all and is purely my own thoughts, not specific beliefs, but to me it is obvious that Lot offers his daughters to sodomites who the Scripture depicts as lusting for his guests, who are male. This is perversion. It is abominable. It is unthinkable. Lot has daughters. They are virgins. He offers them to homosexuals knowing they will decline because they want the men in the house, not the gals. The horrendous evil they are demanding from him is a reflection of his beliefs. Lot knew God and that God didn’t approve of the sins these neighbors of Lots were asking him to participate in by consent to the ill done. Lot knew in his heart they were evil. He could’ve said “Sure, take 'em” and closed the door, but it would’ve been the same thing as turning his back on his belief in God. If he had acted against the guests, it would have said he only gives lip service to what he believes because when push came to shove, he closed the door to acting as if he believed. He couldn’t possibly do this. He offered his daughters knowing the offer would be turned down. He gambled and BTW, won. He and his daughters left that place of sin behind along with his wife who didn’t fare so well in the end of the tale.

Oh well. I’ve said too much again and these are just my opinions and shouldn’t be mistaken for true scholarship as I’m no expert on anything except doughnuts and coffee.



While Lot is called “righteous” by Peter in the NT and said to be “greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked” he isn’t called perfect. So he is still able to have done much wrong. He may have been righteous only in the sense that he still found something, anything at all, objectionable whereas the rest in the city found nothing objectionable.

I don’t see what he did in this situation as being “right” at all, and so find no need to defend his action or to find a way to rationalize it. It was a bad thing he did there, completely bad. I see it as the response of a confused and sinful man to something else he found sinful. Attempting to do good but failing completely.

It shows the effect of living in depravity and the effect an evil culture has on individuals. In one sense he may have viewed the alternative he suggested as better than what was suggested by the mob. He may have had a dreadful view of his daughters and what was permissible. But regardless of his thinking it wasn’t right.. The angels saved them all, and that only because of the intercession of Abraham.

If you read a little farther after the destruction of the cities you see that his daughters were depraved in their thinking and what they deemed as an acceptable course of action.


I, too, agree with this. Lot was commenting on the base and degenerate motives of the mob for wanting the visitors. It was a jibe at them.

He also understood that the visitors were from God and above all doing nothing but allowing the mob to act on their perverted desires would be an act of profaning the sacred as far as Lot was concerned. He owed duty to God above all that he had and regarded the certainty of the mob profaning God’s messengers as a more perverse act than the more remote possibility of his daughters being profaned, given the mob’s propensities.

In some sense, this is not much different than Abraham offering his only son Isaac as a sacrifice. His motives for doing so can be debated, as well, but clearly both men saw duty to God as their highest responsibility, above any interests of their own.

As a moral dilemma, Lot was choosing the lesser of two evils (Principle of Double Effect.) He did not positively will his daughters to be raped, but willed to save the messengers from a certain fate. He had some certainty that his daughters wouldn’t be harmed given the sexual proclivities of the mob.

The offer of his daughters could plausibly have been intended as a moral lesson to the mob to highlight how far their perversion had taken them away from natural sexual appetites.


Some food for thought: take it or leave it, as you wish…

The account in Genesis 19 says that all of the men of Sodom were out there, demanding Lot’s visitors be turned over to them, “that we may have sexual relations with them.” Later, Lot goes to his sons-in-law and tells them that they have to leave the city, since God is about to destroy it, but they laugh at him.

So… in a crowd that includes his sons-in-law, Lot offers their (future) wives to the mob. Hmm… I wonder if Lot was thinking that, if he offered their brides to the crowd, the sons-in-law would finally come to his aid and try to help persuade the crowd to back down? I mean, if your father-in-law offered your fiancee to other men, would you just stand there and say, “yeah, that sounds like a good deal”…? :hmmm:


But then Lot turns around and has sex with his own daughters after they’ve escaped. It seems like Lot is in no way a moral authority.


OK, here’s my take on the passage:

First, it needs to be noted that God never commanded Lot to do anything specifically. So what happened doesn’t necessarily need to have any theological relevance.

My suggestion is this: Lot considered the two men who came to him that night as sons. He then had a choice of offering his sons or his daughters to the mob. Realizing that homosexuality was less preferable than heterosexuality, Lot offered his daughters to the mob to attempt to lessen the sin about to be committed.

Very interesting suggestion!


Actually, he really didn’t have sex with them since they had to drug him with alcohol in order to do so. So that would actually mean that Lot’s daughters raped him.


Here’s my take on the matter…
Unable to dissuade the crowd of townsmen from their intention of raping someone, Lot, by offering his daughters to them, was proposing that they choose the lesser of two very serious sins, that they choose heterosexual rape over homosexual rape. Although heterosexual rape is a very serious sin, homosexual rape is an ever greater sin because homosexual activities, being contrary to God’s design for human nature, are in themselves sinful.


That would basically be my take as well.


The author of Genesis seems pretty clear that Lot was too drunk and/or sleepy to have been the instigator. The line, both times, was “he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.”


Perhaps it was a way to show how sinful homosexual acts are. The people in those days knew what it meant to offer a woman for sex and have it denied without going into describing it. For modern day man it has to be spelled out for us. We can’t say we are smarter than those people in the OT days. I think they knew more about sin than we do. Sigh.

And some today will say Lot’s sin was one of not being a good host. Roll eyes. God destroyed a whole city for not having good manners. :shrug:


It is my understanding that Lot did not think that those men would be interested in his daughters/females.


And yet they were spared because they were so unperverse and unlike the rest of the city. :rolleyes:


Does the Bible not say that drunkeness is also a sin? So if he were drunk and had sex with them, he’s still just as guilty. And Im sorry, I dont buy drunk/sleepy excuse. Being drunk doesn’t make a person do crazy things like have sex with their daughters.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.