Remember Lot's Wife

[Magenta]

how about the vernacular,

'splode ?

You have some 'splainin' to do! .

Sir post, you know I love you as a brother; surely you are dear to me in this place where so much
passes for truth which is not, and I have a great deal of respect for how you conduct yourself as well,
for few hold their own as graciously as you do. But I also know that you are prone to read much into
the text that is not there, whether by inference or sheer fancy, and whether by inference or sheer fancy,
you feel as justified as any other does in how they interpret the Scriptures. I had a dream last night/early
this morning about the beauty, unity, perfection and sanctity of God's revealed written Word and how
His plan for humanity is unfolding. So I am at peace, and glad you do not hold my protestations against me .

 

[Cameron143]

I do believe he was righteous and that sin troubled him. But why stay in a place like that?
He should have left. He stayed because he enjoyed being seen in the city gates and being thought well of.
Remember, he started far in the country with Abraham. He should have given Abraham the preference in the land and sinned in pitching towards Sodom. And the subtlety of sin drew him closer and closer until he dwelt in its midst. So he may have been troubled by sin, but not enough to leave it.
The story highlights the great draw that sin has on the flesh; even the righteous. And also the faithfulness of God to save his people from their sin.

 

[SomeDisciple]

that is very important and pertinent -- not only because it supports my view, and gives an example that i am not the only one to have ever thought these things nor is it simply out of left field or thin air, but because the point of view of seeing these things as deep teachings and theological symbology is as ancient as the church itself is.

Many of the non-canon writings like to go into typology; but taking it too far can and sometimes does lead to very bad conclusions. Epistle of Barnabas goes as far as to say that the ordinances in the Law of Moses were never meant to be taken literally; which is obviously wrong- they had symbolism, of course, but they were also to be followed to the letter as well.

there seems to be a promise of restoration to Sodom here?
and a direct coupling with Samaria?
has Sodom been restored already, if so when?
will Sodom be later restored, if so how?

is it physical Sodom ((bottom of Dead Sea currently)) or is it speaking of a spiritual Sodom?

Ezek 16 is talking about the new covenant; so, not a restoration of the geographical city.

 

[Magenta]

I do believe he was righteous and that sin troubled him. But why stay in a place like that?
He should have left. He stayed because he enjoyed being seen in the city gates and being thought well of.
Remember, he started far in the country with Abraham. He should have given Abraham the preference in the land and sinned in pitching towards Sodom. And the subtlety of sin drew him closer and closer until he dwelt in its midst. So he may have been troubled by sin, but not enough to leave it.
The story highlights the great draw that sin has on the flesh; even the righteous. And also the faithfulness of God to save his people from their sin.

Was Lot's wife from Sodom? We know little of her, including her name, but it is possible
her attachment to Sodom was due to it being her place of origin, and why she looked
back after being told not to. A well justified inference if ever I heard one! .

 

[Magenta]

Mrs. post pointed this out to me this morning, btw:

“Samaria did not commit half of your sins; but you have multiplied your abominations more than they, and have justified your sisters by all the abominations which you have done. You who judged your sisters, bear your own shame also, because the sins which you committed were more abominable than theirs; they are more righteous than you. Yes, be disgraced also, and bear your own shame, because you justified your sisters.​

“When I bring back their captives, the captives of Sodom and her daughters, and the captives of Samaria and her daughters, then I will also bring back the captives of your captivity among them, that you may bear your own shame and be disgraced by all that you did when you comforted them. When your sisters, Sodom and her daughters, return to their former state, and Samaria and her daughters return to their former state, then you and your daughters will return to your former state. For your sister Sodom was not a byword in your mouth in the days of your pride, before your wickedness was uncovered. It was like the time of the reproach of the daughters of Syria and all those around her, and of the daughters of the Philistines, who despise you everywhere. You have paid for your lewdness and your abominations,” says the Lord. For thus says the Lord God: “I will deal with you as you have done, who despised the oath by breaking the covenant."​

(Ezekiel 16:51-59)​

​

there seems to be a promise of restoration to Sodom here?
and a direct coupling with Samaria?
has Sodom been restored already, if so when?
will Sodom be later restored, if so how?

is it physical Sodom ((bottom of Dead Sea currently)) or is it speaking of a spiritual Sodom?

​

"Forever"

 

[Cameron143]

Was Lot's wife from Sodom? We know little of her, including her name, but it is possible
her attachment to Sodom was due to it being her place of origin, and why she looked
back after being told not to. A well justified inference if ever I heard one! .

She definitely had some attachment there. I see Sodom as a picture of sin and thus her turning back as her desire for sin being stronger than her desire for God.

 

[Magenta]

She definitely had some attachment there. I see Sodom as a picture of sin and
thus her turning back as her desire for sin being stronger than her desire for God.

Luke 17:29-33 On the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.
It will be just like that on the day the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, let no one on the housetop come
down to retrieve his possessions. Likewise, let no one in the field return for anything he has left behind.
Remember Lot’s wife! Whoever tries to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it.

you are missing the point that of the 14 times Christ says to remember something literally every
one of them is given as a positive encouragement; not one of them is a threat of damnation.

Sure looks like a warning to me...

 

[posthuman]

Luke 17:29-33 On the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.
It will be just like that on the day the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, let no one on the housetop come
down to retrieve his possessions. Likewise, let no one in the field return for anything he has left behind.
Remember Lot’s wife! Whoever tries to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it.



Sure looks like a warning to me...

it is encouraging to know that if i lose my life, i will preserve it

a matter of perspective eh

and i think it is established without doubt that Lot's wife was not trying to save her life by turning towards a city she knew full well was about to be 'sploded & is full of men who have not at all expressed good will towards her household, to say the least. so she is not an example of 'trying to save her life' -- i don't see that as being defensible at all.

there is also no hint in the text at all about her motive for turning having anything to do with possessions: it's pure inference.
if we have no choice but to make inference here, as we've been discussing, i am of the mind that this inference should treat her as a capable, intelligent woman most likely of good character ((owing to Peter's estimation of Lot and the general acceptance that a patriarch and his wife are of similar mein)).

in that light, just to restate again, it makes way more sense that she is returning to try to save her remaining children in the city than it does to presume she wants to get a leek panini from her fav deli while the world burns.

 

[Magenta]

it is encouraging to know that if i lose my life, i will preserve it

a matter of perspective eh

and i think it is established without doubt that Lot's wife was not trying to save her life by turning towards a city she knew full well was about to be 'sploded & is full of men who have not at all expressed good will towards her household, to say the least. so she is not an example of 'trying to save her life' -- i don't see that as being defensible at all.

there is also no hint in the text at all about her motive for turning having anything to do with possessions: it's pure inference.
if we have no choice but to make inference here, as we've been discussing, i am of the mind that this inference should treat her as a capable, intelligent woman most likely of good character ((owing to Peter's estimation of Lot and the general acceptance that a patriarch and his wife are of similar mein)).

in that light, just to restate again, it makes way more sense that she is returning to try to save her remaining children in the city than it does to presume she wants to get a leek panini from her fav deli while the world burns.

I dunno where this sandwich idea came from... .. But I don't need to know, either .

Assuming any have good character seems a bit off considering there are none righteous.

You said yourself God saved them out of compassion and for Abraham's sake, because of mercy.

 

[posthuman]

I dunno where this sandwich idea came from... .. But I don't need to know, either .

Assuming any have good character seems a bit off considering there are none righteous.

You said yourself God saved them out of compassion and for Abraham's sake, because of mercy.

there has been a running theme of presumption that Mrs. Lot desired, quote, "the garlic & leeks of Egypt," end quote.
the particular author of that presumption has abandoned the topic, tho the general presumption is still seen in various of our neighbors here.
i have been wryly playing that up.
tee-hee.



you understand of course, what i mean, is that given the apostle considers Lot to be of ((relatively)) good character ((knowing no one is truly good)) in the absence of any other information specifically condemning her ((see Irenaeus's comments in the first section of previous post)) i should not take the stance of presumptively accusing her but instead if any fault be evident give thanks for her forgiveness and presume that her character is more-or-less of the same kind as her husbands, which, per Peter, is explicitly ((relatively speaking)) 'righteous' -- in the sense that any human being could be considered of good/righteous character ((in a relative sense of course because no one is righteous or good but God alone, truly))

to wit, i don't see why Mrs. Lot should be presumed to be a wicked old hag since the Bible says Lot was a pretty nice fella.
instead i prolly' ought to presume she was decent folk and make inferences with that assumption.

 

[Magenta]

there has been a running theme of presumption that Mrs. Lot desired, quote, "the garlic & leeks of Egypt," end quote.
the particular author of that presumption has abandoned the topic, tho the general presumption is still seen in various of our neighbors here.
i have been wryly playing that up.
tee-hee.



you understand of course, what i mean, is that given the apostle considers Lot to be of ((relatively)) good character ((knowing no one is truly good)) in the absence of any other information specifically condemning her ((see Irenaeus's comments in the first section of previous post)) i should not take the stance of presumptively accusing her but instead if any fault be evident give thanks for her forgiveness and presume that her character is of the same kind as her husbands, which, per Peter, is explicitly ((relatively speaking)) 'good' -- in the sense that any human being could be considered of good character.

to wit, i don't see why Mrs. Lot she be presumed to be a wicked old hag since the Bible says Lot was a pretty nice fella.
instead i probably ought to presume she was decent folk and make inferences with that assumption.

And yet Jesus used Lot's wife as an example of what not to do...

 

[posthuman]

And yet Jesus used Lot's wife as an example of what not to do...

did He?

that's really the core here. He didn't say "don't be like Mrs. Lot" after all.
He said remember her.
and He conjoined that with a double admonition: that the one seeking to save their life will lose it, while the one who loses their life will save it.

whether she is an example of what to do or what not to do is based on what presumption you make about her intentions, whether she is acting out of a will to save her life or whether she acts without regard to preserving her own life.
i think the facts of the narrative make it clear she is definitely not looking to preserve her physical life. if that were the case the clear and obvious way to optimize your physical safety in the situation would be flee to the mountains. she does exactly the opposite.

 

[Magenta]

did He?

that's really the core here. He didn't say "don't be like Mrs. Lot" after all.
He said remember her.
and He conjoined that with a double admonition: that the one seeking to save their life will lose it, while the one who loses their life will save it.

whether she is an example of what to do or what not to do is based on what presumption you make about her intentions, whether she is acting out of a will to save her life or whether she acts without regard to preserving her own life.
i think the facts of the narrative make it clear she is definitely not looking to preserve her physical life. if that were the case the clear and obvious way to optimize your physical safety in the situation would be flee to the mountains. she does exactly the opposite.

I do understand what you are saying and realize you believe it fervently... and yet the text to me, and Jesus' words,
suggest we are not to be like Lot's wife for the very reason of having your life destroyed if you seek to preserve it.

And as mentioned previously, what looking back means... as in, the person who looks back is not worthy/fit.

You seem to not want to take this into consideration while you will give all the uses for salt .

Luke 9:62
Jesus declared, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and then looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

*************

NIV (?)
Jesus replied, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”

New Living Translation
But Jesus told him, “Anyone who puts a hand to the plow and then looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God.”

English Standard Version
Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Berean Standard Bible
Then Jesus declared, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and then looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Berean Literal Bible
And Jesus said to him, "No one having laid the hand upon the plow, and looking on the things behind, is fit for the kingdom of God."

King James Bible
And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

New King James Version
But Jesus said to him, “No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

New American Standard Bible
But Jesus said to him, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

NASB 1995
But Jesus said to him, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

NASB 1977
But Jesus said to him, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Legacy Standard Bible
But Jesus said to him, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Amplified Bible
But Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back [to the things left behind] is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Christian Standard Bible
But Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Holman Christian Standard Bible
But Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

American Standard Version
But Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Yeshua said to him, “No man lays his hands to plow and gazes behind him and is fit for the Kingdom of God.”

Contemporary English Version
Jesus answered, "Anyone who starts plowing and keeps looking back isn't worth a thing to God's kingdom!"

Douay-Rheims Bible
Jesus said to him: No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

English Revised Version
But Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Jesus said to him, "Whoever starts to plow and looks back is not fit for the kingdom of God."

Good News Translation
Jesus said to him, "Anyone who starts to plow and then keeps looking back is of no use for the Kingdom of God."

International Standard Version
Jesus told him, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."

Literal Standard Version
and Jesus said to him, “No one having put his hand on a plow, and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God.”

Majority Standard Bible
Then Jesus declared, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and then looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

New American Bible
[To him] Jesus said, “No one who sets a hand to the plow and looks to what was left behind is fit for the kingdom of God.”

NET Bible
Jesus said to him, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."

New Revised Standard Version
Jesus said to him, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

New Heart English Bible
But Jesus said to him, "No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God."

Webster's Bible Translation
And Jesus said to him, No man having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Weymouth New Testament
Jesus answered him, "No one who has put his hand to the plough, and then looks behind him, is fit for the Kingdom of God.

World English Bible
But Jesus said to him, “No one, having put his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for God’s Kingdom.”

Young's Literal Translation
and Jesus said unto him, 'No one having put his hand on a plough, and looking back, is fit for the reign of God.'

 

[reneweddaybyday]

in any case I have not seen any translation anywhere that renders the verse as 'son in law' singular and I expect that actual linguistic experts have reasons for why they translate it as plural sons in law.

The singular "son in law" is in Gen 19:12 while the angels and Lot were in the home of Lot:

Genesis 19:12 And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here [in the home] any besides? son in law [noun, singular], and thy sons [noun, plural], and thy daughters [noun, plural], and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place

interesting that vs 12 does not mention Lot's wife ???

Then we've got the plural "sons in law" in Gen 19:14 when Lot went to gather the whatsoever thou hast in the city of vs 12:

Genesis 19:14 And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law [noun, plural], which married [verb, plural] his daughters [noun, plural], and said, Up, get you [noun, plural] out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law [noun, plural].

So it appears we now have:

2 - Lot and Mrs. Lot
2 - unmarried daughters in the home (vs 12)
1 - son in law in the home (vs 12) is there a married daughter in the home???
? - sons in the home (vs 12) ???
? - sons in law in the city (vs 14)
? - daughters in the city (vs 14)
? - sons in the city ???

I find it interesting that in vs 14, it does not indicate that Lot warned any sons when he went out into the city ... so maybe there were not any sons who lived away from the home ???

I also wonder why Lot's married daughters did not go with Lot when he came to warn them ... they stayed with their husbands ???


I also got to thinking about why there was 1 son in law in the home? Was there a daughter in the home who was married ... 1 of the 2 daughters ... or 2 daughters plus 1 married? ... which then got me to thinking about Mary and Joseph and the angel's words to Joseph:

Matthew 1:18-20 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

so even though Mary and Joseph were espoused, the angel referred to Mary as Joseph's wife ... nevertheless, the son in law who was in the home did not leave with Lot, Mrs. Lot, the 2 daughters.

just some things to think about ...
.

 

[cv5]

did He?

that's really the core here. He didn't say "don't be like Mrs. Lot" after all.
He said remember her.
and He conjoined that with a double admonition: that the one seeking to save their life will lose it, while the one who loses their life will save it.

whether she is an example of what to do or what not to do is based on what presumption you make about her intentions, whether she is acting out of a will to save her life or whether she acts without regard to preserving her own life.
i think the facts of the narrative make it clear she is definitely not looking to preserve her physical life. if that were the case the clear and obvious way to optimize your physical safety in the situation would be flee to the mountains. she does exactly the opposite.

100% bro.

Those here calling out Lot's wife as the worst of depraved backsliders who loved fornication and murder SO MUCH that she simply COULD NOT RESIST running back for one last huzzah of wanton decadence before certain fiery and eternal destruction.....

need to have their heads examined!

 

[reneweddaybyday]

I do believe he was righteous and that sin troubled him. But why stay in a place like that?

He should have left. He stayed because he enjoyed being seen in the city gates and being thought well of.
Remember, he started far in the country with Abraham. He should have given Abraham the preference in the land and sinned in pitching towards Sodom. And the subtlety of sin drew him closer and closer until he dwelt in its midst. So he may have been troubled by sin, but not enough to leave it.
The story highlights the great draw that sin has on the flesh; even the righteous. And also the faithfulness of God to save his people from their sin.

It might be that God was using Lot to shed light in the midst of crooked and perverse Sodom/Gomorrha ... so there would be no excuse for those who were judged by God when judgment came.

As shown in Gen 19:9, it is clear the citizens did not like Lot's faith in his time ... even as we see folks do not like the faith of the believer in our day and time. The angels even sent Lot out into the city just hours before God's judgment rained down (Gen 19:12)

And God knew how to remove Lot when the time came ...

2 Peter 2:

6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds; )

9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished


I also find it interesting that this was not the first time Abraham came to Lot's aid in time of trouble (Gen 14) ... God had Lot brought back to Sodom/Gomorrha for a reason ... it wasn't Lot's time to be removed in Gen 14 when Abraham rescued Lot.
.

 

[posthuman]

I do understand what you are saying and realize you believe it fervently... and yet the text to me, and Jesus' words,
suggest we are not to be like Lot's wife for the very reason of having your life destroyed if you seek to preserve it.

And as mentioned previously, what looking back means... as in, the person who looks back is not worthy/fit.

You seem to not want to take this into consideration while you will give all the uses for salt .

Luke 9:62
Jesus declared, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and then looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

*************

NIV (?)
Jesus replied, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”

New Living Translation
But Jesus told him, “Anyone who puts a hand to the plow and then looks back is not fit for the Kingdom of God.”

English Standard Version
Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Berean Standard Bible
Then Jesus declared, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and then looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Berean Literal Bible
And Jesus said to him, "No one having laid the hand upon the plow, and looking on the things behind, is fit for the kingdom of God."

King James Bible
And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

New King James Version
But Jesus said to him, “No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

New American Standard Bible
But Jesus said to him, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

NASB 1995
But Jesus said to him, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

NASB 1977
But Jesus said to him, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Legacy Standard Bible
But Jesus said to him, “No one, after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Amplified Bible
But Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back [to the things left behind] is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Christian Standard Bible
But Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

Holman Christian Standard Bible
But Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

American Standard Version
But Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Yeshua said to him, “No man lays his hands to plow and gazes behind him and is fit for the Kingdom of God.”

Contemporary English Version
Jesus answered, "Anyone who starts plowing and keeps looking back isn't worth a thing to God's kingdom!"

Douay-Rheims Bible
Jesus said to him: No man putting his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

English Revised Version
But Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Jesus said to him, "Whoever starts to plow and looks back is not fit for the kingdom of God."

Good News Translation
Jesus said to him, "Anyone who starts to plow and then keeps looking back is of no use for the Kingdom of God."

International Standard Version
Jesus told him, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."

Literal Standard Version
and Jesus said to him, “No one having put his hand on a plow, and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God.”

Majority Standard Bible
Then Jesus declared, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and then looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

New American Bible
[To him] Jesus said, “No one who sets a hand to the plow and looks to what was left behind is fit for the kingdom of God.”

NET Bible
Jesus said to him, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."

New Revised Standard Version
Jesus said to him, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

New Heart English Bible
But Jesus said to him, "No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God."

Webster's Bible Translation
And Jesus said to him, No man having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

Weymouth New Testament
Jesus answered him, "No one who has put his hand to the plough, and then looks behind him, is fit for the Kingdom of God.

World English Bible
But Jesus said to him, “No one, having put his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for God’s Kingdom.”

Young's Literal Translation
and Jesus said unto him, 'No one having put his hand on a plough, and looking back, is fit for the reign of God.'

Lot turning back towards Zoar is no different in that respect.
he equally directly disobeyed and equally set off towards one of the 5 wicked cities of the plain. he just asked permission to be disobedient, calling the ability of God to preserve him into question and insinuating that God's plan was foolish.

one key difference is that when Lot disobeyed, he gave the excuse that he wanted expressly to save his own life.
Mrs. Lot on the other hand apparently had no care about her own physical safety.

 

[Magenta]

Lot turning back towards Zoar is no different.

And yet it is, and earlier you gave a reasoned explanation as to why you believed Lot desired not to go to
the mountains. He also said, "But I can’t flee to the mountains; this disaster will overtake me, and I’ll die."

 

[cv5]

I do believe he was righteous and that sin troubled him. But why stay in a place like that?
He should have left. He stayed because he enjoyed being seen in the city gates and being thought well of.
Remember, he started far in the country with Abraham. He should have given Abraham the preference in the land and sinned in pitching towards Sodom. And the subtlety of sin drew him closer and closer until he dwelt in its midst. So he may have been troubled by sin, but not enough to leave it.
The story highlights the great draw that sin has on the flesh; even the righteous. And also the faithfulness of God to save his people from their sin.

How does this sound buddy: Lot realized that his presence was fulfilling a crucial role as missionary to a lost city?
And his wife was undertaking the same ministry?

And his wife, in a desperate last ditch effort, ATTEMPTED to return to warn her family and the residents, and hopefully drag whomever she could out to safety?

You know.......exactly what I was doing today when I preached to that couple at the river? And preached to that other couple at the boat launch? And preached to a man named Fransico at the little fishing bridge? And preached to the old gentleman who was fishing at the other park?

Yea......that's what I was doing all day, and I believe that is what Lot and his family were doing as well. How do I know this?

Gen 19:9
And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

 

[posthuman]

I also wonder why Lot's married daughters did not go with Lot when he came to warn them ... they stayed with their husbands ???

i wonder why he did not appear to speak to them at all, but only to their husbands:

So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who had married his daughters, and said, “Get up, get out of this place; for the Lord will destroy this city!” But to his sons-in-law he seemed to be joking.​

(Genesis 19:12) ​

​

and i think perhaps Mrs. Lot wondered the same.