Thu | Mar 28, 2024

Lessons learnt from Lot’s daughters

Published:Sunday | November 24, 2019 | 12:24 AMYasmine Peru - Gleaner Writer

Nineteen chapters into the very first book of the Bible, readers stumble upon an outrageously incredulous drama. Most persons may know the story of the notoriously sinful cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and how they were destroyed because of the wickedness of the inhabitants. But what many might not know is that this story involves the first recorded case of incest, committed against a father by his daughters.

Genesis 19 opens with Lot, the nephew of the patriarch Abraham, inviting two visitors, angels in disguise, to stay with him in Sodom. Wrong move. The debauched men of the city, fuelled by lust, demanded Lot to hand over the male visitors to them for their sexual pleasure. Hell-bent on shielding his guests, Lot makes a disturbing counter-offer. He is willing to give up his two virgin daughters to the mob. Fortunately for the girls, these men have no desire for women.

As the story unfolds, there is the dire warning that destruction is imminent for this richly sinful city and all who want to be saved must flee. The three who escaped the final onslaught were Lot and his two daughters. Lot’s wife could not resist one last, longing look at Sodom, going against the explicit warning of the angels not to look back. The Genesis story records that she turned into a pillar of salt.

So, here are three people, living in a cave. Genesis 19:30 says: “And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.”

The daughters, who believe that they are the last ones in the Earth, conceive a plan to save the planet.

And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the Earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the Earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.”

So, in essence, these two, who have been dubbed “nameless and shameless” for this outrageous plan, take it upon themselves to ply their father with liquor and commit the act of incest. The older one went first and committed the dastardly act. She then tells her younger sister to do the same the following night. The Bible says that Lot “perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose”.

And in Genesis 19:36, it says: “Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.”

PATRIARCHY

Interestingly, Fr Sean C. Major-Campbell, rector of Christ Church in Vineyard Town, is not quick to condemn these two ‘bad’ girls. Instead, he turns the spotlight on Lot himself, and the society at the time. “The text, in true patriarchal tradition, affirms the man as one who follows in God’s ways. Although three women are in the story, they are not even named. One is Lot’s wife, and the other two are Lot’s daughters. It is important for the story writer that the good image of Lot be maintained throughout,” he says.

He notes that Lot’s daughters first enter the story when “the good man Lot” is ready to offer them to wicked men, without any regard for their safety or their thoughts in the matter. “Should we abandon critical thinking when we read this text in 2019?” he asks. Should we continue to quote this in support of Lot’s supposed holiness and love for righteousness?

He continues: “According to the writer of Genesis 19, Lot’s daughters devised a way to have their father impregnate them (of course, in glorious moments of heterosexual intercourse). See if you can get the misogyny at play here. Women are deceitful, and they must accept the blame for such grievous sins as incest and other sexual schemes. Who in the Church today pauses to think that something is rather strange or interesting about the story’s presentation? Imagine a man who was so drunk but still being able to hold an erection and impregnate two women, over two successive nights, while not being aware of it? How convenient.”

He notes that if the story is true, it may be deduced that in contexts where producing sons for the tribe is a matter of life and death, then any decision to be “fruitful and multiply” would be deemed valuable. Would we, however, bring this thinking to a Jamaican family in 2019 where a 40-year-old woman tells her dad that she cannot find a good husband, so he may as well get her pregnant? Why is it necessary to present Lot as innocent of the decision and sexual activity leading to the pregnancies? We may learn from Lot’s daughters, that although they were potential victims of violence and sexual abuse; and although their human dignity was treated with disregard in their father’s offer of them to cruel men, they were women with the capacity to think for themselves. When the time came to decide on how to capitalise on their childbearing years, they agreed to have children with their father.

Even their babies were named, since they were sons (Moab and Benjamin)! These ladies accomplished societal expectations. They produced sons. Accomplishments for a patriarchal society!

Fr Sean, the public theologian, concludes: “Clearly, this family arrangement was not the ideal. Lot’s daughters, however, took control of their sexual and reproductive capacity, and determined that they had to do what they had to do. In Jamaica today, there are women who find themselves in situations where the biological clock is ticking away, while a good partner and potential husband remains at bay. Is she a bad girl if she decides to have a child or children out of wedlock, in the interest of time? What if she feels a stronger need to have a child, rather than to be married? Should she be condemned? Is the Church missing out on an important conversation here?”

familyreligion@gleanerjm.com