John Calvin Commentary Genesis 19

And there came two angels to Sodom. The question arises, why one of the three angels has suddenly disappeared, and only two came to Sodom? The Jews (with their usual audacity in introducing fables) allege that one came to destroy Sodom, the other to preserve Lot. But from the account of Moses, this appears to be frivolous, because we will see that they both assisted in the liberation of Lot.

What I have previously stated is simpler: namely, that it was granted to Abraham, as a special favor, that God would not only send him two messengers from the angelic host, but that, in a more personal manner, he would manifest himself to him, in his own Son. For (as we have seen) one of the messengers held the primary position, being superior to the others in dignity.

Now, although Christ was always the Mediator, yet, because he manifested himself more obscurely to Lot than he did to Abraham, only the two angels came to Sodom. Since Moses relates that Lot sat in the gate of the city in the evening, many argue that he did so according to his daily custom, for the purpose of receiving guests into his house; yet, as Moses is silent about the cause, it would be rash to affirm this as certain.

I grant, indeed, that he did not sit as idle persons usually do; but the conjecture is no less probable that he had come out to meet his shepherds, in order to be present when his sheep were folded. His courteous invitation, mentioned by Moses, clearly demonstrates that he was hospitable; yet, why he then remained in the gate of the city is uncertain, unless he was unwilling to miss any opportunity of doing an act of kindness when strangers appeared to whom he might offer his services. Further discussion on this point can be found in the preceding chapter, regarding Genesis 17:1.

Nay, but we will abide in the street. The angels do not immediately consent, so that they might more fully investigate the character of the holy man. For he was about to bring them to his own house, not merely to supply them with a supper, but also to defend them from the violence and harm of the citizens.

Therefore, the angels act as if it were safe to sleep in the public street, and thus they conceal their knowledge of the utter wickedness of the whole people. For if the gates of cities are shut to prevent the attacks of wild beasts and enemies, how wrong and absurd it is that those within should be exposed to even more severe dangers?

Therefore, the angels speak this way to make the wickedness of the people appear even greater. And Lot, by urging the angels to come to him to protect them from the widespread violence of the people, more clearly shows how careful he was of his guests, so that they would not suffer any dishonor or harm.

And he made them a feast. By these words, and others following, Moses shows that the angels were more sumptuously entertained than was customary: for Lot did not act in this way, indiscriminately, with everyone. But, when he perceived from the dignity of their demeanor and dress, that they were not common men, he baked cakes and prepared a plentiful feast. Again, Moses says that the angels ate: not that they had any need to do so; but because the time had not yet come for the manifestation of their celestial nature.

Before they lay down. Here, in a single crime, Moses sets before our eyes a vivid picture of Sodom. For it is therefore obvious how devilish was their agreement in all wickedness, as they all so readily conspired to commit the most abominable crime. The greatness of their iniquity and shamelessness is apparent from the fact that, as a united group, they approach as enemies to besiege Lot's house.

How blind and impulsive is their lust; since, without shame, they rush together like brute animals! How great their fierceness and cruelty; since they insultingly threaten the holy man and proceed to all extremes! Therefore, we also infer that they were not corrupted by only one vice, but were given over to complete boldness in crime, so that they had no sense of shame left.

And Ezekiel (as mentioned earlier) accurately describes from what beginnings of evil they had proceeded to this extreme depravity (Ezekiel 16:49). What Paul says also refers to the same point: that God punished the ungodliness of men when He cast them into such a state of blindness that they gave themselves up to abominable lusts and dishonored their own bodies (Romans 1:18).

But when the sense of shame is overcome and lust is given free rein, a vile and outrageous savagery necessarily follows, and many kinds of sin are mixed together, so that a most confused chaos results. But if this severe vengeance of God fell upon the men of Sodom in such a way that they became blind with rage and prostituted themselves to all kinds of crime, certainly we will hardly be treated more mildly, whose iniquity is less excusable because the truth of God has been more clearly revealed to us.

Both old and young. Moses omits many things which may naturally come to the reader's mind: for instance, he does not mention who had incited the multitude. Yet it is probable that some fanned the flame; nevertheless, from this we perceive how readily they were inclined to commit iniquity, since, as if at a given signal, they immediately assemble. It also shows how completely they were lacking all remaining shame; for neither did any seriousness restrain the old, nor any decency, suitable to their age, restrain the young. Finally, he suggests that all regard for honor was gone and that the order of nature was corrupted, when he says that young and old rushed together from the farthest parts of the city.

Where are the men? Although it was their intention shamefully to abuse the strangers for their outrageous appetite, yet, in words, they pretend that their object is different. For, as if Lot had been guilty of a fault in admitting unknown men into the city, in which he himself was a stranger, they command these men to be brought out before them.

Some interpret the word know in a carnal sense, and thus the Greek interpreters have translated it. But I think the word has a different meaning here, as if the men had said, "We wish to know whom you bring, as guests, into our city." The Scripture truly is accustomed to modestly describe an act of shame by the word know. Therefore, we may infer that the men of Sodom would have spoken in coarser language about such an act. But, for the sake of concealing their wicked design, they here imperiously expostulate with the holy man for having dared to receive unknown persons into his house.

Here, however, a question arises. For if the men of Sodom were in the habit of vexing strangers of all kinds in this manner, how should we suppose they had acted towards others? For Lot was not now for the first time beginning to be hospitable, and they, too, had always been addicted to lust.

Lot was prepared to expose his own daughters to dishonor in order to save his guests. How often, then, might it have been necessary to prostitute them before, if the fury of men of such character could not be otherwise assuaged? Truly, if Lot had known that such danger was impending, he ought rather to have exhorted his guests to withdraw in time.

In my opinion, however, although Lot knew the manners of the city, he had, nevertheless, no suspicion of what really happened: that they would make an assault upon his house. This, indeed, seems to have been quite a new thing. It was, however, fitting, when the angels were sent to investigate the true state of the people, that they should all break out into this detestable crime.

So the wicked, after they have long securely exulted in their iniquity, at last, by furiously rushing onward, accelerate their destruction in a moment. God therefore designed, in calling the men of Sodom to judgment, to exhibit, as it were, the extreme act of their wicked life, and he impelled them, by the spirit of deep infatuation, to a crime, the atrocity of which would not allow the destruction of the place to be any longer deferred.

For as the hospitality of the holy man, Lot, was honored with a signal reward, because he, unknowingly, received angels instead of men and had them as guests in his house, so God avenged with more severe punishment the shameful lust of the others, who, while endeavoring to do violence to angels, were not only injurious towards men but, to the utmost of their power, dishonored the celestial glory of God by their sacrilegious fury.