What was the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?
by Greg Koukl
People find what they want in the Bible. If one
looks hard enough, he can find "biblical" support for reincarnation,
Eastern religions, Jesus as a guru, divorce for any reason, and flying saucers.
Every cult of Christianity uses the Bible to validate its claims and so does
some of the occult.
It's not surprising, then, that a recent trend in
biblical scholarship holds that a careful reading of Genesis in its historical
context offers no solid basis to conclude that the destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah had anything to do with homosexuality.
This view may seem far-fetched to biblical
conservatives, but it is taken very seriously in academic circles. It
represents a significant challenge to the rank-and-file Christian who finds in
the Genesis account a straight-forward condemnation of homosexual behavior.
My goal is to answer that challenge. I have no
interest to malign, name-call, offend, attack, bash, belittle, or in any way
demean a group of people. I want to determine one thing only: Why did God
destroy these two cities? Did it have anything to do with homosexuality itself?
In short, what was the sin—or sins—of Sodom and Gomorrah?
Genesis 18:16-19:29
Though the context of the account in question
begins in Genesis 18:16 during God's conversation with Abraham by the Oaks of
Mamre, the details of the encounter at Sodom itself are found in Genesis
19:4-13:
Before they lay down, the men of
the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the
people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where
are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have
relations with them."
But Lot went out to them at the
doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brothers, do
not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations
with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you
like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the
shelter of my roof."
But they said, "Stand
aside." Furthermore, they said, "This one came in as an alien, and
already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them."
So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door.
But the men reached out their
hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they
struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small
and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway.
Then the men said to Lot,
"Whom else have you here? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters,
and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place; for we are
about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before
the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it."
What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? Why did God
destroy the two cities? The traditional view is that homosexuality was the
principle offense ("Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly").
Yale historian John Boswell offers four possible
reasons for the destruction of Sodom:
(1) The Sodomites were destroyed
for the general wickedness which had prompted the Lord to send angels to the
city to investigate in the first place; (2) the city was destroyed because the
people of Sodom had tried to rape the angels; (3) the city was destroyed
because the men of Sodom had tried to engage in homosexual intercourse with the
angels...; (4) the city was destroyed for inhospitable treatment of visitors
sent from the Lord.{1}
John Boswell thinks that explanation (2) "is
the most obvious of the four," though it's been "largely ignored by
biblical scholars."{2} Boswell expands on explanation (4), the one he
seems to favor as most consistent with "modern scholarship" since
1955:
Lot was violating the custom of
Sodom...by entertaining unknown guests within the city walls at night without
obtaining the permission of the elders of the city. When the men of Sodom
gathered around to demand that the strangers be brought out to them, "that
they might know them," they meant no more than to "know" who
they were, and the city was consequently destroyed not for sexual immorality,
but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers.{3}
Englishman D. Sherwin Bailey also argues this way
in Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (1955). The men of Sodom
wanted to interrogate Lot's guests to see if they were spies. The sin of gang
rape was also in view, not homosexuality. In a broader sense, the men of Sodom
were inhospitable to Lot's guests.
Apparently, it did not occur to Boswell that
possibilities (2) and (4) seem to be at odds. If "to know" the angels
means merely to interrogate them, then there is no attempted rape, only an
attempted interrogation. If, on the other hand, the men meant to have sexual
relations with the visitors (the traditional view) and are guilty of attempted
rape, then the interrogation explanation must be abandoned (rendering Boswell’s
above summary of the views of modern scholarship somewhat incoherent).
Some of these explanations, however, are not
mutually exclusive and may have been factors in their own way. For example, the
general wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah (1) could have included rape (2)
and/or inhospitality (4).
My principle concern here is to determine if the
biblical record indicates that (4) homosexuality factored in at all.
Clues from the Text
Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? We can find
clues not just from the Genesis account, but also from the Prophets and the New
Testament books 2 Peter and Jude. These give a sense of how ancient Jewish
thinkers steeped in Jewish culture understood these texts.
First, Sodom and Gomorrah were judged because of
grave sin. Genesis 18:20 says, "And the Lord said, 'The outcry of Sodom
and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.'"
Indeed, not even ten righteous people could be found in the city.
Second, it seems the judgment of these cities was
to serve as a lesson to Abraham and to others that wickedness would be
punished. In 2 Peter 2:6 we learn that God condemned and destroyed the cities
as "an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter."
Third, peculiar qualities of the sin are described
by Jude and Peter. Jude 7 depicts the activity as "gross immorality"
and going after "strange flesh."{4} Peter wrote that Lot was
"oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men," and "by
what he saw and heard...felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with
their lawless deeds." These people were "those who indulged the flesh
in its corrupt desires and despised authority" (2 Peter 2:7-10).
Fourth, there are 27 references outside of Genesis
where Sodom is mentioned. It is emblematic of gross immorality, deepest
depravity, and ultimate judgment.
Piecing together the biblical evidence gives us a
picture of Sodom's offense. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was some kind of
activity—a grave, ongoing, lawless, sensuous activity—that Lot saw and heard
and that tormented him as he witnessed it day after day. It was an activity in
which the inhabitants indulged the flesh in corrupt desires by going after
strange flesh, ultimately bringing upon them the most extensive judgment
anywhere in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation.
What do we know about the conduct of the men of
Sodom and Gomorrah that fits this description?
Just a Couple of Questions
Was the city destroyed because the men of Sodom
tried to rape the angels (option (2) above)? The answer is obviously no. God's
judgment could not have been for the rapacious attempt itself because His
decision to destroy the cities was made days before the encounter (see Genesis
18:20). Further, Peter makes it clear that the wicked activity was ongoing
("day after day"), not a one-time incident. The outcry had already
been going up to God for some time.{5}
Was this a mere interrogation? Though the Hebrew
word yada ("to know"){6} has a variety of nuances, it is properly
translated in the NASB as "have [sexual] relations with."{7} Though
the word does not always have sexual connotations, it frequently does, and this
translation is most consistent with the context of Genesis 9:5. There is no
evidence that what the townsmen had in mind was a harmless interview. Lot's
response—“Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly"—makes it clear they
had other intentions.
In addition, the same verb is used in the immediate
context to describe the daughters who had not "known" a man and who
were offered to the mob instead. Are we to understand Lot to be saying,
"Please don't question my guests. Here, talk to my daughters, instead.
They've never been interviewed"?
Did God judge Sodom and Gomorrah for inhospitality?
Is it true that God's judgment was not for homosexuality per se, but because
the people of the town were discourteous to the visitors, violating sacred
sanctuary customs by attempting to rape them? A couple of observations raise
serious doubt.
First, the suggestion itself is an odd one. To say
that the men of Sodom were inhospitable because of the attempted rape is much
like saying a husband who's just beaten his wife is an insensitive spouse. It
may be true, but it's hardly a meaningful observation given the greater crime.
Second—and more to the textual evidence—it doesn't
fit the collective biblical description of the conduct that earned God's wrath:
a corrupt, lawless, sensuous activity that Lot saw and heard day after day, in
which the men went after strange flesh.
Third, are we to believe that God annihilated two
whole cities because they had bad manners, even granting that such manners were
much more important then than now? There's no textual evidence that
inhospitality was a capital crime. However, homosexuality was punishable by
death in Israel (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). Does God ignore the capital crime, yet
level two entire cities for a wrong that is not listed anywhere as a serious
offense?
The Only One That Fits
The prevailing modern view of the sin of Sodom and
Gomorrah is that the attempted rape of Lot's visitors violated the Mid-East's
high code of hospitality (19:9). This inhospitality, however, is an inference,
not a specific point made in the text itself.
Further, the inhospitality charge is dependent
upon—and eclipsed by—the greater crime of rape, yet neither could be the sin of
Sodom and Gomorrah because God planned to judge the cities long before either
had been committed. What possibility is left? Only one.
We know the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were
homosexual, "both young and old, all the people from every quarter"
(19:6), to the point of disregarding available women (19:5-8). After they were
struck sightless they still persisted (19:11). These men were totally given
over to an overwhelming passion that did not abate even when they were
supernaturally blinded by angels.
Homosexuality fits the biblical details. It was the
sin that epitomized the gross wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah—the
"grave," "ungodly," "lawless," "sensual
conduct of unprincipled men" that tormented Lot as he "saw and heard"
it "day after day," the "corrupt desire" of those that went
after "strange flesh."
In their defense, some will cite Ezekiel 16:49-50:
"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters
had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor
and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me.{8}
Therefore I removed them when I saw it." No mention of homosexuality here.
Clearly, the general wickedness of Sodom and
Gomorrah was great. That's not in question. Our concern here is whether
homosexuality was part of that wickedness. Our analysis of Genesis shows that
homosexuality was the principle behavior at issue in that passage. Ezekiel
simply enumerates additional sins. The prophet doesn't contradict Moses, but
rather gives more detail.
Stinginess and arrogance alone did not draw God's
wrath. Ezekiel anchored the list of crimes with the word
"abominations." This word takes us right back to homosexuality. The
conduct Moses refers to in Genesis 18 he later describes in Leviticus as an "abomination"
in God’s eyes.
Leviticus
The Mosaic Law has two explicit citations on
homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a male as one
lies with a female.{9} It is an abomination [toebah]{10}." Leviticus 20:13
says, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a
woman, both of them have committed a detestable act [toebah]. They shall surely
be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them."
John Boswell offers the standard rebuttal to what
appears to be an obvious biblical prohibition of homosexuality:
The Hebrew word
"toebah," here translated "abomination," does not usually
signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft..., but something
which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse
during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters.{11}
Leviticus, the suggestion goes, is not where we
generally go for moral instruction. The sections quoted deal with the cult of
worship: sacrifice, priesthood, ritual bathing, etc. These directives have to
do with ritual purity, not moral purity. An observant Jew could not worship
after ritual contamination until he had been ritually cleansed.
Others have added that many details of the Mosaic
Law are archaic. Who concerns themselves with mixing wool and linen together
(Deuteronomy 22:11)? The death penalty itself doesn't mark homosexuality as
particularly heinous. Disobedience to parents was also a capital crime, as was
picking up sticks on the Sabbath, yet no one suggests these should be
punishable offenses today.{12}
This rejoinder is filled with inconsistencies.
First, even if this prohibition was restricted only to ritual purity and the
cult of worship, then minimally it applies to Jewish clerics. Yet many who use
this approach see no problem with homosexual rabbis and instead champion such
"diversity" as a religious virtue. On the other hand, if the Torah's
proscriptions no longer apply at all, then any distinction between the cultic
and moral aspects of the Mosaic Law is moot; none of it pertains anyway.
Second, it's a serious error in thinking to
conclude that if some of the Torah no longer applies, then none of it applies.
Jewish thinker Dennis Prager observed, "It is one thing not to put a Torah
punishment into practice and quite another to declare that a Torah sin is no
longer a sin."{13} [emphasis in the original]
Third, it's true that much of the Law seems to deal
with religious activity rather than universal morality. That observation in
itself, however, is not enough to summarily dismiss the Torah as a source of
binding moral instruction. Ritual purity and moral purity are not always
distinct.
Context is king here. Note the positioning of the
verses. The toebahof homosexuality is sandwiched between adultery (18:20),
child sacrifice (18:21) and bestiality (18:23). Was Moses saying merely that if
a priest committed adultery, had sex with an animal, or burned his child on
Molech's altar he should be sure to wash up before he came to temple?
More to the point, these sections were not
addressed to the priests, but to all the "sons of Israel" (18:2,
20:2). In addition to the prohibitions on adultery, child sacrifice, and
bestiality just mentioned, Moses also prohibits spiritism (20:6) and incest
(20:12).
The conclusion of Leviticus 18 contains these
words:
But as for you [the "sons
of Israel" (v. 2)], you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and
shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who
sojourns among you for the men of the land who have been before you have done
all these abominations, and the land has become defiled. (18:26-27)
Moses spoke as clearly here as he did in Genesis.
The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of many things, but foremost among
them was the sin of homosexuality. In this section of Leviticus, God gives
directives not just for ritual purity, but commands to be observed by every
Jew, and even by every visitor.
Homosexuality was wrong for the Jews. It was wrong
for gentiles who visited the Jews ("aliens"). It was even an
abomination that defiled the land when practiced by pagans who inhabited Canaan
long before the Jews came.
Homosexuality is a defiling sin, regardless who
practices it. It has no place before God among any people, in any age, then or
now.
References
John Boswell, Christianity,
Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1980), p. 93.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Some have suggested the sin was
seeking sexual union with angels ("strange flesh"). Though this is a
possible interpretation, there's no indication the men knew Lot's visitors were
angels. Jude's point is that the Sodomites, like the angels, "did not keep
to their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode" (v. 6). "Strange
flesh"—the improper domain—wasn't angelic flesh, but homosexual flesh.
The rejoinder that homosexual
rape could still qualify as the ongoing activity fails to convince. Who would
be the ongoing victims? Not the townspeople. Because of their sexual proclivity
they would not likely resist homosexual advances. Visitors would have to be the
target. But if newcomers were molested “day after day,” I’m sure this would put
a crimp in the tourist trade. The steady supply of sexual candidates would
dwindle rapidly once word got around, with most making a wide berth around the
area.
Strong’s #3045.
“Know a person carnally, of
sexual intercourse...man subj. and obj. (of sodomy) Gn 19:5).” Brown, Driver
and Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Hendrickson
Publishers, Peabody ME: 1996), 394. See also Judges 19:22 ff.
Curiously, this last sentence
was overlooked in Boswell’s citation of the text.
"Lie" is the Hebrew
word shakab meaning “lie down” (Strong’s #7901). In this case, it refers to
having sexual relations as in Genesis 19:32: "Come, let us make our father
drink wine, and let us lie with him, that we may preserve our family through
our father" (Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 1012).
Strong’s #8441.
Boswell, 100.
It's curious that some choose to
conclude homosexuality was a minor crime because it was no more offensive to
God than picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Both were capital offenses. If you
want to know how God really felt, look at the punishment He requires.
Dennis Prager,
"Homosexuality, Judaism and Gay Rabbis," The Prager Perspective,
3/1/97.
Greg Koukl is the president and
founder of Stand To Reason, author, and radio show host.
