5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

h

6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,

g Isai. 3. 9. h Judg. 19. 22. i ch. 4. 1. Rom. 1. 24. 27. Jude 7. k Judg. 19. 23.

7 And said, I pray you, breth ren, do not so wickedly.

8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing; m for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

1 Judg. 19. 24. m ch. 18. 5.

not completely sunk in profligate idleness, they could not all have found

deeds of iniquity. But from the peculiar emphasis of the language it would seem that there were no exceptions. Sodom was full of Sodomites. What must have been the extent of its abominations, when the aged, instead of restraining the young, were actually urging them forward in the course of iniquity by their own pernicious example! But every thing tended to illustrate the justice of the judgment which was fast ripening for execution against them.

abandoned Sodomites soon began to betray itself. They beset the house, not for the purpose of robbing or insult-time thus suddenly to rendezvous for ing them in any of the ordinary modes of violence or outrage, which had been bad enough, especially to strangers, but to perpetrate a species of crime too shocking and detestable to be named; a species of crime which indeed has no name given it in the Scriptures, but what is borrowed from this infamous place, Lev. 18. 22. However we might wish, for the honour of human nature, that this shameful vice had perished from the earth together with the cities of the plain, yet the severe prohibitory laws of Moses imply that it was prac tised in his day, and history unblush-voice; ingly records it as prevalent in the best days of Greece and Rome. Rom 1. 24-27. In like manner we have melancholy evidence from the penal codes of modern times that it is not extinct, as the British law makes it punishable with death.- - All the people from every quarter. Heb. p from the extremity, i. e. from every extremity of 6. Went out at the door. The ongthe city; correctly rendered in our ver-inal here, as in v. 11, employs two dission. This circumstance shows in the most impressive light the unparalleled corruption that had infected all orders, ranks, and ages of the inhabitants of Sodom. The signal had but to be given, and the universal mass of the population were ready at once to flock together to any scene of riot and debauchery! Had they had any useful occupations to follow, were they

5. Called. That is, with a loud demanded vociferously; which was virtually proclaiming their own shame. In allusion to the circumstan ces mentioned in this verse, the prophet says of Jerusalem, Is. 3. 9, 'They de clare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not.' Compare the similar instance of enormous wickedness recorded Judg. 19. 22, &c.

tinct words for 'door;' the one nnb pethah signifying the aperture, passage, or doorway, through which ingress and egress were made, the other de leth denoting the leaf of the door, hung upon hinges, by which the aperture was closed. The distinction is very accurately preserved throughout the subsequent narrative, v. 9, 10, 11.

7, 8. And said, I pray you, brethren,

himself up for a judge, who was merely a sojourner among them. Persuasion has no force with men who are under the dominion of their lusts, and nothing is more common than for kind admonitions and faithful rebukes to be attributed to unmannerly and arrogant dictation. So Lot's endeavours to restrain these desperate Sodomites from the commission of iniquity was taken in evil part, their resentment was inflamed against him, they thirsted for revenge, and not content with having the men brought out, they will go in unto them, and break the door open to effect their purpose! For there

&c. The conduct of Lot on this trying occasion was in many respects praiseworthy. He seems to have been struck with horror at the thoughts of the violation of the laws of hospitality, and his shutting the door after him expressed how delicately he felt for his guests. It was saying in effect, Let not their ears be offended with what passes without; whatever is scurrilous, obscene, or abusive, let me hear it but not them.' His gentle and respectful manner of treating this worst of mobs, is also worthy of notice. Though he could have entertained no respect for them on the score of character, yet he forebore the use of opprobrious terms.fore came they under my roof. Gr. Recognising in them his fellow creatures and near neighbours, he calls them brethren, if perchance by such concillatory language he may gain their ear and eventually dissuade them from their wicked purpose. (See 1 Sam. 30. 23. Is. 58. 7. Acts 17. 26.) But when, to turn off their attention from his guests, he proposes to bring out and surrender his daughters to their pleasure, he hints at an expedient which can by no means be justified. It is not for us to have recourse to one evil in the hope of preventing a greater; but rather to consent to no evil. His regard to the rites of hospitality was indeed commendable, but having used all proper means of preserving his guests, he ought to have left the event to God. It is possible indeed that owing to the excessive perturbation of his mind he was scarcely master of his words or actions, and that some excuse may be suggested for him on this score; but in all probability if he had never lived in Sodom nor become familiarized to their profligate manners he would not have made such a proposal. As it was he evidently gained nothing by it, but an increased measure of abuse; and even his gentle remonstrance was perversely construed into obtrusive and officious meddling, as if he had or would set

'Under the covering of my beams or
rafters.' The meaning is, that they
entered his house on the ground of the
understood condition that their persons
should be safe, that the sacredness of
the laws of hospitality should protect
them. Together with this, the words
probably carry an implication that a
special providence had conducted them
to his dwelling, and that any allowed
violence towards his guests would not
only be a most flagrant injury to them,
but an act of gross treachery and dis-
obedience towards God who had, for
the time being, intrusted their persons
to his keeping. As it would seem from
the language of Abraham in the pre-
ceding chapter, v. 5, that the opportuni-
ties afforded for entertaining strangers
were regarded as providential, and as
carrying the force of a direct command
of heaven to that effect, Lot no doubt
suggested as strong an argument as
he could have used, when he said,
'For therefore have they come under
the shadow of my roof.' It was ap-
pealing to their own knowledge of the
awful sanctity with which the laws of
hospitality were invested. But with
that abandoned population this plea,
like every other, was unavailing.

9. This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge.

10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the

9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: Now door. will we deal worse with thee 11 And they smote the men than with them. And they press-P that were at the door of the ed sore upon the man, even Lot, house with blindness, both small and came near to break the door. and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

n 2 Pet. 2. 7, 8. o Exod. 2. 14.

Heb. judging he will judge. The point of the reproach lies in charging Lot with the audacity of opposing himself, a single individual, to the will of the majority, the multitude of the citizens, and thus, though no more than a foreigner arrogantly taking it upon him, to act the part of a judge, as if he would hold the whole city at his beck. At the same time, it would perhaps be doing no violence to the words to suppose the charge to have been grounded on the fact of his having formerly officiated as judge among them, and in that character rebuked or punished their flagitious conduct. It admits of a doubt, at any rate, whether the term is predicated of what he said or did on this occasion merely.

p 2 Kings 6. 18. Acts. 13. 11.

the reception of God's messengers, as he had recognised a special providence in their being sent within the sphere of his hospitality, and as he had exposed himself to great perils in their defence, the Most High would not leave him without a witness of his guardian care. By this seasonable interference he reminds us how calmly we may resign ourselves to the custody of an ever watchful providence while engaged in the way of duty, and how intrepidly we may face dangers and enemies while following that 'which right is.'

11. Smote the men-with blindness. Heb. 10 bassanverim, with dazzled blindnesses, pl. Gr. aspacia with a not-seeing. Chal. 'With fatuity of vision.' Syr. With illusions.' The original occurs only here and 2 Kings, 16. 18, where a similar effect appears to have been produced upon the Syr

Elisha. The judgment undoubtedly consisted, not in a total privation of sight, in which case they would of course have desisted from the assault

10. The men put forth their hand, &c. God's people are safe when angels stand sentries at their doors. Moses again calls the heavenly messen-ian army in answer to the prayer of gers by a name indicative not of what they were, but of what they seemed; for although they now began to put forth a superhuman power, they had not yet revealed themselves as minis-on Lot, and endeavoured to make their ters sent from heaven. The incident here related of them teaches us that though God, in his deep wisdom, often sees fit to defer, till his people are brought into the most trying straits, the aid which he purposes to afford, yet he will not fail them in the last extremity. Lot was made to feel his extrem. ity before the needed succour was vouchsafed him, but as he had kindly and generously opened his doors for

way home, but in a confused vision, such as is occasioned by vertigo of the brain, in which objects swim before the eyes, and mock every attempt to approach or seize them. It was an effect upon their vision that prevented their seeing any thing distinctly or steadily, or in its right place. In this utter confusion of the senses they wearied themselves in seeking for what they deemed a door, but which was

12 And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son-in-law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, a bring them out of this place:

q ch. 7. 1. 2 Pet. 2. 7, 9.

14 And Lot went out, and for the LORD will destroy this spake unto his sons-in-law, which city but he seemed as one that married his daughters, and said, mocked unto his sons-in-law Up, get you out of this place;

t Matt. 1. 18. u Num. 16. 21, 45.

x Ex. 9. 21. Luke 17. 28. & 24. 11.

here besides? son-in-law, or thy sons, stances of the visit of the strangers, or thy daughters.'

how he had learnt that they were angels, and the announcement which they had made to him of the object of their coming to Sodom. But the drift of the whole was an immediate escape from the impending wrath; and it would seem that if they had any respect for Lot, or reposed any confi

13. We will destroy this place. Heb. we are corrupting; i. e. about to corrupt or destroy; just upon the eve of destroying-often the force of the present participle. For this sense of the word 'corrupt' see Note on Gen. 6. 13. In the subsequent narrative, v. 24, 25, the destruction of the city is indeed re-dence in his words they could not but ferred more directly to the agency of have been deeply impressed to see him Jehovah himself, but the angels say, coming to their houses at an unwonted 'We will destroy it,' both because they hour of the night and with a countehad been sent to announce it, and benance and manner full of solemnity recause they were to be associated in the work of destruction.

14. Which married his daughters. Heb. p the takers of his daughters, or who were taking; i. e. who were about to take or marry; who were betrothed to his daughters, and upon the point of consummating their nuptials; called therefore 'sons-in-law' by anticipation. Chal 'Who were about to take.' The Greek, however, unlike all the other versions, renders it siλnporas had taken. If this be correct, then some of Lot's daughters perished in the conflagration, for the two who alone escaped were maidens that had not known men. Some countenance is given to this idea by the purport of v. 15, on which see note.¶ Up, get you out of this place, &c. The warning given by Lot was abrupt and pointed, such as implied a peculiar urgency in the case, and one which would admit of no delay. Still it is not necessary to suppose that this was all he said to them. As it would give additional force to his warnings to cite the authority on which they were uttered, we can hardly doubt that he related to them all the circum

lating to them what had happened, and earnestly exhorting them not to be 'disobedient to the heavenly vision!' But alas! he was destined to meet a disheartening reception. A judicial infatuation had seized upon them: they closed their ears against his warnings, and even set them down to the account of a distempered imagination or a dissembled merriment!-T He seemed as one that mocked. As one who was not in earnest; one that was in jest, exciting groundless fears in sport. Heb. pn kematzchak, the same word from which Isaac is derived, and signifying laughter. He warns them like a prophet, and advises them like a father, but both in vain: he seems to them as if he mocked, and they do more than seem to him to mock again.' Bp. Hall. One can almost imagine that he hears them saying, 'What, this entire city to be destroyed. These goodly houses and temples to be overthrown and sink in flames! These active multitudes to perish in a body, and that by such an unheard of judg-' ment as a fire rained down from heaven! Incredible! Impossible! Away!