© Aslan Creation  | All rights reserved |  Legal Stuff

Facebook

Twitter

Revisiting Sodom

Genesis 19:1-29

 

 

Traditional viewpoint: God destroyed the city of Sodom because the men of the city wanted to have sexual relations with the angels who were staying in Lot’s home.  In other words, the conclusion being that God judged and ultimately destroyed the city because of rampant homosexuality.   This viewpoint is so prominent that homosexuality has become known as the “sin of Sodom” and the male homosexual act is called “sodomy.”

 

This is based primarily on the Hebrew word “yadah” (“to know”) in verse five.  The men of Sodom came to Lot’s house and demanded the guests (angels of God) be brought out for the purpose of “yahad-ing.”   In the King James version, it’s translated “that we may know them.” The NASV has it as “that we may have relations with them” and the NIV is more succinct with “that we can have sex with them.” (Love the “Message” translation: “so we can have our sport with them!”)

 

Obviously there’s little doubt about the meaning of the word “yadah” as used in the passage, nor the intended meaning.  It’s the same word used in the early section of Genesis to describe the physical relationship of Adam with his wife Eve. (“Adam knew Eve”)  It is commonly used to mean intimate, physical knowledge (i.e., sexual intercourse).  

 

Granted, the men of Sodom were requesting to have sexual relations with Lot’s guests…but to make this story a condemnation of homosexuality is a bit shortsighted and violates the traditional rules of biblical interpretation.  

 

So, I would like to offer six reasons why this interpretation of the “sin of Sodom” is not very…reasonable:

 

  1. If homosexuality was the primary issue in this story, and we take it literally, that would mean the ENTIRE city was gay, since the text plainly says “all the people” came to the house, “both young and old.” (cf: v. 4) We are told that “all the men from every part of the city of Sodom” were part of this threat. Wouldn’t it be a stretch of any statistical probability to think this city contained a 100 percent homosexual population? (San Francisco would be so jealous!)
     
  2. Undoubtedly some kind of mob action was involved. (cf: v. 5) So while they said they intended to “have sex with them” (NASV), anytime a gang of people seek to impose their physical will over an individual by force, we can be sure the intent is not pleasure.
     
  3. Lot, who had been a long-time resident of the city (most even see him as a leader of the city, since he was sitting at the gate in the first part of the story), certainly didn’t see the action as homosexual, because he offered his daughters as a alternative “solution” to the mob’s request. (cf: v. 8) He knew the people of this city and he knew this custom. Think about it: if a gay man desires sexual relations, would offering a woman be a logical option?
     
  4. From the details of the story, it was apparent that the ultimate intent of the mob was violence. (cf: v. 9) Homosexuality is about same-sex attraction and same-sex affection; it is not about violence any more than heterosexuality is about abuse or rape.

NOTE: As any rape counselor or rape victim will confirm: the act of rape has nothing to do with affection or attraction.  By its very definition, rape is an act of violence against another person; it’s asserting control and imposing physical domination over someone.  It is not associated with a loving, supportive and intimate physical/sexual act.
 

  1. From similar passages of Scripture and parallel stories, this was apparently a common practice in that culture. (cf: Genesis 34:1-31; Judges 19:20-30) Much like the practice in prisons today, these events…and the actions of the mob…wasn’t about sexual activity, sexual expression or sexual orientation; it was about control, domination, violence and power. The leaders of a city wanted to rape the foreigners to make sure they were clear about who was in charge! In other words, it was social and cultural dominance, not an expression of physical need and certainly not an outpouring of welcomed affection.
     
  2. Using one of the traditional method of Biblical Interpretation—which says whenever possible, allow Scripture to interpret Scripture—we also see that this explanation is not supported by other passages:


Conclusions: At best, what could be deduced about homosexuality from this story would involve a prohibition of homosexual rape (and the corresponding violence). And though I don't really think that was the intent of this story, I would concur with that prohibition. However, this passage is definitely not a commentary on sexual orientation or the physical expression of same-sex love. It does not condemn loving, committed same-sex relationships.

So while it’s apparent that Sodom was truly an evil city, their transgressions are clearly defined for us as oppression, injustice, failure to help the poor, greed and lack of hospitality to strangers. To use this story of Lot, the angels and the city of Sodom as indictment against same-sex orientation is a disservice to the passage, a break in traditionally accepted methods of Biblical interpretation, a misrepresentation of facts and (too often) a willful attempt to oppress the homosexual, which ironically, is the “sin of Sodom.”

Old Testament Passages