Genesis 19:33

Gen 19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

Ver. 33. Nor when she arose.] There is a tittle extraordinary in the Hebrew, to note that this is a thing incredible, {a} Coire quempiam nescientem . Cajetan and Pererius conclude it possible, and give reasons for it. Calvin saith best, that it was not so much his wine, as a spirit of slumber sent upon him from God, for a scourge of his intemperance. Luther adds, Ne nos abeamus in securitatem , that we may watch against security.

{a} Appungunt desuper quasi incredibile . - Quaest. in Genes.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

'ותשקין וגו AND THEY MADE THEIR FATHER DRINK [WINE] etc. — Wine was at hand for them in the cave out of a set purpose that they might bring forth two nations (Midrash Tanchuma, Beshalach 12).

ותשכב את אביה AND SHE LAY WITH HER FATHER — In the case of the younger daughter it is written (Genesis 19:35) “and she lay with him”, and it does not state “she lay with her father”. But because the younger did not originate this unchaste conduct but her sister taught it to her, Scripture glosses over her sin and does not explicitly make mention of her shame; but since the elder originated this unchaste conduct Scripture exposes her fully (Numbers Rabbah 20:23).

ובקומה NOR WHEN SHE AROSE — This word where it occurs with reference to the elder sister (Genesis 19:33) has dots above it (as though it is not written at all), implying that when she arose, he (Lot) was aware of it, and yet he did not take care on the second night to abstain from wine. (Horayot 10b.) R. Levi said, Whoever is inflamed by sexual desire will, in the end, be made to eat his own flesh (Genesis Rabbah 51:9).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

Verse 33. And he perceived not when she lay down, nor when, c.] That is, he did not perceive the time she came to his bed, nor the time she quitted it consequently did not know who it was that had lain with him. In this transaction Lot appears to me to be in many respects excusable.

1. He had no accurate knowledge of what took place either on the first or second night, therefore he cannot be supposed to have been drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. That he must have been sensible that some person had been in his bed, it would be ridiculous to deny; but he might have judged it to have been some of his female domestics, which it is reasonable to suppose he might have brought from Zoar.

2. It is very likely that he was deceived in the wine, as well as in the consequences; either he knew not the strength of the wine, or wine of a superior power had been given to him on this occasion. As he had in general followed the simple pastoral life, it is not to be wondered at if he did not know the intoxicating power of wine, and being an old man, and unused to it, a small portion would be sufficient to overcome him; sound sleep would soon, at his time of life, be the effect of taking the liquor to which he was unaccustomed, and cause him to forget the effects of his intoxication.

Except in this case, his moral conduct stands unblemished in the sacred writings; and as the whole transaction, especially as it relates to him, is capable of an interpretation not wholly injurious to his piety, both reason and religion conjoin to recommend that explanation. As to his daughters, let their ignorance of the real state of the case plead for them, as far as that can go; and let it be remembered that their sin was of that very peculiar nature as never to be capable of becoming a precedent. For it is scarcely possible that any should ever be able to plead similar circumstances in vindication of a similar line of conduct.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

33. And he perceived not. Though Lot not sinned knowingly, yet, because his drunkenness was the cause of his sin, his guilt is diminished, but not annulled. Without doubt the Lord has chastised his dissatisfaction in this manner. This is something rare and strange, that his senses are so under influence of the wine, that he, like a dead man pours out his lust. Therefore I assume that he not so much is fuddled through the wine, but that his excessiveness is beat by God through the spirit of ignorance. And when God has not spared the holy Patriarch, how can we then think to be unpunished, when we do the same excessiveness? Let we therefore realize through this example, that the law of modesty is prescribed us, in order that we eat modestly and moderately. Yet, there are some unholy people, who consider Lot as the protector of their wickedness.

Why do we not rather think to which horrible scandal he has decayed, because he excessively used wine? We must, as I already have said, not simply consider what the drunkenness drags along with it, and with which other vices it is connected, but we must consider the punishment of God. Therefore he willed openly spread this tragic crime, in order that the drunkenness will be abhorred. Daily the Lord testifies by heavy punishments, how much this vice displeases Him. When we see that Abraham’s nephew, the host of Angels, a man adored with extraordinary fame of holiness, is defiled by unchaste intercourse, because he has drunk too much, what will then happen to the guzzlers and the whores, who daily drink themselves drunken? But we have at great length spoken about this in the ninth chapter Genesis 9:1, what men can reread. Concerning the words, when Moses says, that Lot did not perceive it, that his daughter lay down and arose — some explain it thus that he saw no difference between a stranger and his own daughter. But when he was not totally blinded, he could in the morning, having slept out his intoxication, know that he has had intercourse with his daughter. Some say, to diminish his guilt, that he not so much is fuddled through much drinking, but that he was depressed through sadness. But I retain this, that he, as he was endowed with more splendid gifts, also deserved the more punishment, and that therefore his reason was taken away from him, so that he, like a unreasonable beast, lost himself in sensual lust.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

And it came to pass on the morrow,.... The day following the night, in which the above was transacted:

that the firstborn said to the younger, behold, I lay yesternight with my father; informed her, that what they had contrived succeeded according to their wish, and therefore, for her encouragement to go on, proposes to take the same method again:

let us make him drink wine this night also, and go thou in and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father; may have children by him, and so our family be kept up, from whence it may be hoped the Messiah will spring; see Gill on Gen 19:32.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

They made their father drink wine, to wit, in excess, so as to deprive him of the use of his reason and grace, which was likely to frustrate their project: this was a great sin, not only in them, but also in Lot himself, not to be excused by ignorance of the virtue of wine, which being known to both the daughters, certainly their father could not be ignorant of it. Thus he who kept his integrity in the midst of all the temptations of Sodom, falls into a grievous sin in a place where he might seem most remote from all temptations; God permitting this, to teach all following ages how weak even the best men are when they are left to themselves, and what absolute need they have of Divine assistance.

He perceived not; wherein there is nothing strange, it being usual with drunken men to do many things in that condition, which, when they come to themselves, they perfectly forget. And so might Lot, when under the power of wine, forget that his wife was turned into a pillar of salt, and might mistake his daughter for his wife.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

33. He perceived not — “These words do not affirm that he was in an unconscious state; they merely mean that in his intoxicated state, though not entirely unconscious, yet he lay with his daughters without clearly knowing what he was doing.… But Lot’s daughters had so little feeling of shame in connexion with their conduct, that they gave names to the sons they bore which have immortalized their paternity.” — Keil.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And they made their father drink wine that night which was sinful both in them and him (vide Isa_5:11; Pro_20:1; Hab_2:15) and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

That it was his own daughter quacum concumberet (Rosenm being so intoxicated that he could not discern who it was to whom he had approached, or even what he was doing (Keil). The reading, "when he lay down and when he arose (LXX) is incorrect, and the explanations that Lot was a mere unconscious instrument in this disgraceful transaction (Kalisch), that he was-entirely ignorant of all that had taken place (Chrysostom, Cajetan), that he was struck on account of his intemperance with a spirit of stupor (Calvin), are not warranted by the text.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

ותשקין...בלילה הוא, the letter ה at the beginning of the word which would have served as the definitive article for the adjective is missing here, as it is also Samuel II 6,2 את העגלה חדשה, [which should have beenהחדשה Ed.] just as it is also missing in Numbers 28,4 את הכבש אחד, instead of האחד.

ולא ידע, even when his daughter broke off the physical contact with her father, Lot remained totally unaware of this. [this is why we speak of “drunk as Lot,” when referring to someone’s drunken stupor. Ed.] The Torah mentions this detail to hint that had he noticed any of this Lot would have resisted the sexual union with his daughter and would have severely remonstrated with her for performing such a despicable act. According to an allegorical approach, (quoted by Rashi,) the dot over the letter ו in this word suggests that Lot did notice when his daughter broke the contact, and therefore he can be faulted for not ensuring that the same did not happen to him on any of the following nights.

Radak on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Eliyahu Munk, HaChut Hameshulash” (CC BY 4.0); “Rabbi Mike Feuer, Jerusalem Anthology” (CC BY 4.0); and “R. David Kimhi on the first book of Psalms, Translated by R.G. Finch, London, 1919” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.