Show Bible Commentary For A Bible Verse

Click here to show/hide instructions.

Selected Verse: Genesis 19:12 - Strong Concordance

Verse	Translation	Text
Ge 19:12	Strong Concordance	And the men [0582] said [0559] unto Lot [03876], Hast thou here [06311] any [04310] besides? son in law [02860], and thy sons [01121], and thy daughters [01323], and whatsoever [0834] thou hast in the city [05892], bring them out [03318] of this place [04725]:
	King James	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, bring them out of this place:

Summary Of Commentaries Associated With The Selected Verse

Open All | Close All Open All | Close All

A Commentary, Critical, Practical, and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments, by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset and David Brown [1882]
Hast thou here any besides? . . . we will destroy this place--Apostolic authority has declared Lot was "a righteous man" (Pe2 2:8), at bottom good, though he contented himself with lamenting the sins that he saw, instead of acting on his own convictions, and withdrawing himself and family from such a sink of corruption. But favor was shown him: and even his bad relatives had, for his sake, an offer of deliverance, which was ridiculed and spurned (Pe2 3:4).

A Commentary, Critical, Practical, and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments, by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset and David Brown [1882]

Hast thou here any besides? . . . we will destroy this place--Apostolic authority has declared Lot was "a righteous man" (Pe2 2:8), at bottom good, though he contented himself with lamenting the sins that he saw, instead of acting on his own convictions, and withdrawing himself and family from such a sink of corruption. But favor was shown him: and even his bad relatives had, for his sake, an offer of deliverance, which was ridiculed and spurned (Pe2 3:4).

Commentary on the Old Testament, by Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch [1857-78]
The sin of Sodom had now become manifest. The men, Lot's guests, made themselves known to him as the messengers of judgment sent by Jehovah, and ordered him to remove any one that belonged to him out of the city. "Son-in-law (the singular without the article, because it is only assumed as a possible circumstance that he may have sons-in-law), and thy sons, and thy daughters, and all that belongs to thee" (sc., of persons, not of things). Sons Lot does not appear to have had, as we read nothing more about them, but only "sons-in-law (בנתיו לקחי) who were about to take his daughters," as Josephus, the Vulgate, Ewald, and many others correctly render it. The lxx, Targums, Knobel, and Delitzsch adopt the rendering "who had taken his daughters," in proof of which the last two adduce הנּמצאת in Gen 19:15 as decisive. But without reason; for this refers not to the daughters who were still in the father's house, as distinguished form those who were married, but to his wife and two daughters who were to be found with him in the house, in distinction from the bridegrooms, who also belonged to him, but were not yet living with him, and who had received his summons in scorn, because in their carnal security they did not believe in any judgment of God (Luk 17:28-29). If Lot had had married daughters, he would undoubtedly have called upon them to escape along with their husbands, his sons-in-law.

Commentary on the Old Testament, by Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch [1857-78]

The sin of Sodom had now become manifest. The men, Lot's guests, made themselves known to him as the messengers of judgment sent by Jehovah, and ordered him to remove any one that belonged to him out of the city. "Son-in-law (the singular without the article, because it is only assumed as a possible circumstance that he may have sons-in-law), and thy sons, and thy daughters, and all that belongs to thee" (sc., of persons, not of things). Sons Lot does not appear to have had, as we read nothing more about them, but only "sons-in-law (בנתיו לקחי) who were about to take his daughters," as Josephus, the Vulgate, Ewald, and many others correctly render it. The lxx, Targums, Knobel, and Delitzsch adopt the rendering "who had taken his daughters," in proof of which the last two adduce הנּמצאת in Gen 19:15 as decisive. But without reason; for this refers not to the daughters who were still in the father's house, as distinguished form those who were married, but to his wife and two daughters who were to be found with him in the house, in distinction from the bridegrooms, who also belonged to him, but were not yet living with him, and who had received his summons in scorn, because in their carnal security they did not believe in any judgment of God (Luk 17:28-29). If Lot had had married daughters, he would undoubtedly have called upon them to escape along with their husbands, his sons-in-law.

Adam Clarke Commentary on the Whole Bible - Published 1810-1826
Hast thou here any besides? son-in-law - Here there appears to be but one meant, as the word חתן chathan is in the singular number; but in Gen 19:14 the word is plural, חתיו chathanaiv, his sons-in-law. There were only two in number; as we do not hear that Lot had more than two daughters: and these seem not to have been actually married to those daughters, but only betrothed, as is evident from what Lot says, Gen 19:8; for they had not known man, but were the spouses elect of those who are here called his sons-in-law. But though these might be reputed as a part of Lot's family, and entitled on this account to God's protection, yet it is sufficiently plain that they did not escape the perdition of these wicked men; and the reason is given, Gen 19:14, they received the solemn warning as a ridiculous tale, the creature of Lot's invention, or the offspring of his fear. Therefore they made no provision for their escape, and doubtless perished, notwithstanding the sincerely offered grace, in the perdition that fell on this ungodly city.

Adam Clarke Commentary on the Whole Bible - Published 1810-1826

Hast thou here any besides? son-in-law - Here there appears to be but one meant, as the word חתן chathan is in the singular number; but in Gen 19:14 the word is plural, חתיו chathanaiv, his sons-in-law. There were only two in number; as we do not hear that Lot had more than two daughters: and these seem not to have been actually married to those daughters, but only betrothed, as is evident from what Lot says, Gen 19:8; for they had not known man, but were the spouses elect of those who are here called his sons-in-law. But though these might be reputed as a part of Lot's family, and entitled on this account to God's protection, yet it is sufficiently plain that they did not escape the perdition of these wicked men; and the reason is given, Gen 19:14, they received the solemn warning as a ridiculous tale, the creature of Lot's invention, or the offspring of his fear. Therefore they made no provision for their escape, and doubtless perished, notwithstanding the sincerely offered grace, in the perdition that fell on this ungodly city.

Top