Chapter 1 (Text Only)

Sodom And Gomorrah

The traditional explanation of the supernatural destruction of the ancient cities of the plains, Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, has been God's displeasure and wrath against the sin of homosexuality. The tradition points to the "men of the city" who surrounded the house where two visitors had come to stay with Lot, Abraham's nephew. These visitors being supposedly men were actually angels sent by God to guide Lot and his family safely out of the city. By this traditional view, the men surrounding the house had come to have "sexual relations" with the visitors. For this, God poured out fire and brimstone to destroy this repulsive and contemptible sin. Even now, the understood sin of Sodom, handed down to us through this traditional teaching, has taken the name "sodomy."

Until recent archeological discoveries were made, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was viewed by the scientific community with some skepticism. The area of their location was evidently fertile and the people who lived there enjoyed a prosperity not shared by the surrounding areas which evidently was primarily desert waste. Under these circumstances, it would be easy to understand how the people of the cities of the plain could become greedy isolationists, suspicious of strangers. The world community of man had been one community until the division of languages at the tower of Babel. Travel between cities was very treacherous and often inns were not available. A strong tradition of hospitality had been developed in the community of man, but the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, with all their abundance and wealth showed inhospitality toward others less fortunate. There is strong biblical evidence that this is why God destroyed them.

Biblical Evidence

     If homosexuality is the clear reason for God's judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah, why doesn't the writer of Genesis state it clearly as such. The prophet Ezekiel indicates a clear reason in the sixteen chapter, verses 49-50:

49 "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

     This passage says nothing about sexual acts of any kind, but does specifically mention arrogance and a lack of concern for the needs of others. This passage clearly teaches that inhospitality was a key reason for God's judgment.

     Many would say that the "detestable" things included the sin of homosexuality which is an abomination to God. Proverbs 6:16-19 lists seven things that are particularly detestable to God:

16 There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, 19 a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

     Nowhere do we see a condemnation of sexual sin of any kind, much less homosexuality. this is not to say that homosexual acts were not occurring in Sodom or that they were acceptable to God. The incident outside Lot's house (Genesis 19:1-10) does show that the intentions of those gathered around the house were to have sexual relations with the angels supposed to be men. A loving act was not however intended, but in this case rape. This kind of treatment was not uncommon in ancient civilizations as a demonstrative way of showing power over other people. By itself, this was not the reason for the destruction of Sodom since the Lord had already determined to destroy the city prior to the angel's visitation (Genesis 18)

     In Jude 7, the writer says that the people of Sodom had gone after "strange flesh". Some have interpreted this to be a reference to homosexuality. But the words heteros sarx (#2087 and #4561) meaning "different flesh" is used. Had Jude wanted to refer to homosexuality, it would have made better sense to use the terms homo sarx (#3676 and #4571) meaning "same flesh" The Old Testament Pseudopigrapha suggests that an alternative rendering of this verse might be that Jude was stating that just like the wicked angels, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah left their first grace and gave themselves to idolatrous prostitution and the violent treatment of other people, so they have become an example by suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

     Jesus commented on the sin of Sodom indirectly (Matthew 10: 14-15) when he gave his disciples instructions concerning their response to inhospitable acts. He stated that if anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust of your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for the town. Though it is not stated directly, the inference by contrast from Jesus is that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of inhospitable acts.

     The traditional interpretation of this story largely stems from the unfortunate translation of the word eons (#582) in Genesis 19:4. Most versions say "men"...Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house. The Hebrew word eons is not gender specific but indicates mortals or people. The word "esh" would have been used to mean "man" or "eshal" (#802) to mean "woman" if gender specific terminology was meant. This mistranslating gives the impression that just the men of the city had surrounded Lot's house and the further impression that they were all homosexuals out to have sex with the angels. The word "enose" is used in Genesis 17:23 with the word "zachar" (#2145) meaning "male" demonstrates this point. The King James Version states it this way: Abraham took Ishmael and...every male among the men of Abraham's house.... The question arises, what other kind of men are there but males? Abraham was selecting the males from among all the "people" in his household for circumcision. The more modern translations corrected Genesis 17:23 to indicate people or in this case household, but left the word "men" in Genesis 19:6

     The intentions of the people surrounding Lot's house were to rape the visitors which most consider an act of violence rather than a sexual act. As it would be illogical to condemn all heterosexual acts because some people acted abusively, it is also illogical to bring condemnation for all homosexual acts when some act irresponsibly.

     Women in the culture of the Old Testament were treated as property; to be used as their owners saw fit. Men on the other hand were given respect. Sexual violence against men was all too common as a demonstration of dominance of one man over another. The objective was to humiliate the man through forced anal intercourse. This was carried out by men who were not necessarily homosexual themselves. Compare with Judges 19.

16 That evening an old man from the hill country of Ephraim, who was living in Gibeah (the men of the place were Benjamites), came in from his work in the fields.

17 When he looked and saw the traveler in the city square, the old man asked, "Where are you going? Where did you come from?"

18 He answered, "We are on our way from Bethlehem in Judah to a remote area in the hill country of Ephraim where I live. I have been to Bethlehem in Judah and now I am going to the house of the LORD. No one has taken me into his house.

19 We have both straw and fodder for our donkeys and bread and wine for ourselves your servants--me, your maidservant, and the young man with us. We don't need anything."

20 "You are welcome at my house," the old man said. "Let me supply whatever you need. Only don't spend the night in the square."

21 So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink.

22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing.

24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go.

26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold.

     Prostitutes were a common part of the religious fertility rituals in ancient times and no doubt were prevalent in Sodom and Gomorrah. A word used by many today to condemn homosexuals is the word Sodomite. Many have used this term as a reference to those who lived in Sodom and supposing them to be homosexuals, have used the word synonymously with homosexuals as a negative slam. The word, however, does not appear in the story of the destruction of Sodom and it is used only four times in the entire Bible. It is the word "kawdashe" (#6945) and refers to male temple cult prostitutes. Usually as In Deuteronomy 23:17 their counter parts, "kedayshaw" (#6948), the female temple cult prostitutes are also mentioned.

     These are not homosexuals, but prostitutes active in the worship of the fertility gods and goddesses of ancient Palestine, according to Dake's Annotated Reference Bible. The word sodomite originated in the King James version, but only in reference to these temple cult prostitutes. Later versions must have picked up the homosexual connotation from the traditional understanding and interpretation of what the sin of Sodom was, and has since been used to condemn homosexuality.

     These misinterpretations and the refusal by some biblical scholars to denounce obvious mistranslations appear to be an attempt to keep homosexuality under control. When faced with the evidence, some have chosen to turn a deaf ear due to the very powerful traditional view on this subject. This tradition is strong, those having a different interpretation are often ostracized. Standing for the truth on this issue could mean professional suicide for clerics looking for recognition and acceptance and those in the spotlight already fearful of losing face will not speak out either.