Lot Chose Sodom and God Found David There
Lot's daughters became the grandmothers of Ruth and Naama. God said He found David in Sodom, the city He destroyed to plant the seed of His kingdom.
Table of Contents
The Word Tents Carried Two Women
When Lot separated from Abraham and pitched his tents toward Sodom, the Torah says he had flocks, cattle, and tents. Not tent, singular, as was usual for a man's dwelling. Tents, plural. Bereshit Rabbah, the fifth-century CE Palestinian midrash on Genesis, noticed the oddity and asked what the plural was pointing toward.
Rabbi Toviya bar Yitzhak taught that the word tents referred to two famous tents that would one day descend from Lot: Ruth the Moabitess and Naama the Ammonitess. The connection is not allegorical. It is genealogical. Lot's daughters, stranded in the hills after Sodom's destruction and believing they were the last human beings alive, conceived sons by their father. The older daughter's son was Moab, ancestor of the Moabite people. The younger daughter's son was Ben-Ami, ancestor of the Ammonite people. Centuries later, from the Moabite line, Ruth would walk to Bethlehem and marry into the house of Judah. From the Ammonite line, Naama would become one of Solomon's wives and the mother of Rehoboam, who would reign after Solomon.
The tents that Lot pitched toward a doomed city contained, without his knowledge, the future mothers of Israel's greatest dynasty.
God Said He Found David in Sodom
Bereshit Rabbah preserves a more startling formulation. When Sodom was destroyed -- when brimstone and fire rained down from God, from the heavens, as Genesis 19:24 states with its doubled source -- God did not destroy only wickedness. He destroyed a city that contained, in its potential, the line of David. The midrash quotes God speaking in the first person: I found David my servant -- from where did I find him? From Sodom.
The statement is almost impossible to absorb at first reading. God destroyed Sodom and then says He found David there. The destruction and the discovery are not contradictory. They are the same act seen from opposite angles. Sodom had to burn because Sodom was Sodom -- not just corrupt, but irredeemably structured toward cruelty, a city whose law was the inversion of hospitality, where welcoming a stranger was punished and exploiting him was celebrated. That had to end. But inside the catastrophe was a seed that had to be carried forward, and it was carried forward through Lot's daughters, through Moab and Ammon, through Ruth, through the line that would produce the king God described as a man after His own heart.
What the Midrash Saw in the Rain of Fire
Bereshit Rabbah's close reading of Genesis 19:24 noticed a grammatical peculiarity: "And the Lord rained down brimstone and fire upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah from the Lord, from the heavens." The phrase "from the Lord" appears twice in the same verse -- once as the subject, once as the source. The Midrash read this as a hint at two divine courts acting together, or as an intensification of the destruction's authority. Both readings point in the same direction: what happened to Sodom was not casual. It was deliberate, sourced, authorized from the highest levels of heaven's judgment.
That the Davidic line ran through Sodom was part of the same deliberateness. The destruction was not an interruption of Providence. It was the shape Providence took to remove what had to be removed while preserving what had to be preserved. Lot's daughters survived the fire. Their sons survived the centuries of hostility between Israel and Moab and Ammon. Ruth made the crossing that her descendants could not have made if Lot had not chosen the well-watered plain, if Sodom had not been built there, if the fire had not driven the daughters to the hills where the next generation was conceived.
The Second Tent and Solomon's Son
Naama the Ammonitess is a figure who appears at the edge of the narrative of Solomon and then disappears again. She is named as the mother of Rehoboam in 1 Kings 14:31, identified as an Ammonitess in a text that seems to register the identification as significant. The midrash treats her significance as already embedded in Lot's word: tents, plural, two lines, two women, one kingdom that could not have existed without both.
Lot chose Sodom because it was like the garden of God, well-watered and rich. He chose it for agricultural reasons, for the obvious material advantages of the well-irrigated plain. He did not choose it to plant the seed of the Davidic dynasty. He did not know that he was doing anything except choosing good grazing land. The midrash's point is precisely that. The line of David passed through a choice made for the wrong reasons, survived a catastrophe that would have seemed to end it, and came out the other side in the person of a Moabite woman who chose to follow an old widow back to a foreign town.
← All myths