The Sin of Sodom

SODOM: A SIN TO REMEMBER

Throughout the years, one city has been the by-word for evil and perversion.  She does not exist in present day, nor do her ruins.  If ruins do exist somehow, they do so only under hundreds of feet of salt-saturated water in the aptly named “Dead Sea.”  Once a fruitful city on the plains of Jordan, this city and her sisters were leveled in a day.  One day, the city was alive with life as normal, and the next – fire and sulphur rained from God Himself and blasted the city into the annals of time.  But why was this city destroyed?  It was for wickedness.  But what wickedness exactly?  What was Sodom’s sin?

Overview of the Text at Hand

The account of Genesis 19 records the destruction of the city Sodom, which has long been held as the key passage in the Bible for teaching against homosexuality.  Many look back to this passage as conclusive proof that the homosexual lifestyle is condemned.  From the name of this city itself even comes a name for the practitioners of the said “sin” – sodomy.  But to fully understand whether or not homosexuality is truly condemned in this passage, one must understand the passage as a whole.

Three major views of the sin of Sodom

Throughout history, there have been three major views of the sin of Sodom.  The Bible has various and sundry supports for the views, and the fact that the Bible includes many other sins, such as pride, gluttony, and fornication, to the list of the sins of Sodom, it is fair to investigate what it was that damned the people of Sodom.

The first major view is that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality, whether in a practice or in a “gang-rape” fashion.  This is supported through the use of the word yada’, which has traditionally been held to mean “to know carnally.”  In this form it has been actually translated in some new versions of the Bible.  There are many proponents of this theory, who believe that Jude’s reference to the “strange flesh” of Sodom is their homosexual lifestyle.  For this, many believe, Sodom was destroyed.

The second major view can be considered a revisionist view.  This view gained much ground because of Bailey’s work, in which he stated that because Lot was a sojourner, the people of Sodom wished to know the men he had inside his house – but know them on a personal level.  In short, the people of Sodom were considered horribly wicked because they did not follow the social norms of the day that demanded hospitality at the risk of one’s own life.  This is supported by a reference in Ezekiel that the city of Sodom did not help the needy, and is also seemingly based in the logic that the word yada’ is only used in a sexual connotation about 10-15 times in the Old Testament, whereas many more times it is used in the literal “to be acquainted with” meaning. 

There is a third major opinion, which could be a combination view.  While revisionists like Bailey would try to use such passages to weaken the Bible’s stand against homosexuality, and while other revisionists take other passages forbidding homosexuality to mean “temple prostitution,” a third camp believes that homosexuality was one of the sins of Sodom, but not the only one.  This is a broader scope, widening the sin to include pride, lust, selfishness, and a menagerie of other vile acts, of which homosexuality was but one.  In the author’s view, this is the most feasible, as it seems to have the most biblical and extrabiblical support.

Contextual analysis of overall passage in question

The context of this passage is intriguing when accounting for the overall flow of the book of Genesis.  In the previous chapters, Abraham has parted with his nephew Lot, and apparently his nephew, who in 13:12 had “pitched his tent toward Sodom,” now had become a member of the city.

Many commentators note the parallel between Abraham’s actions in chapter 18 and those of Lot in chapter 19.  They also use this as a contention point against the Sodomites. In their mind, God is using this to contrast Sodom’s inhospitality with Abraham’s great hospitality.^[1]

There is also the righteousness aspect.  Abraham in chapter 18 pleads for the lives of the

righteous in the city, asking God to spare it for but fifty righteous persons.  He eventually lowers his number to ten, then stops.  Why did Abraham stop at ten?  As J. Vernon McGee notes, “at this point he is afraid that Lot is lost, and this disturbs him a great deal; so he is not going to come down any further.”  He continues the theoretical questioning of the Lord by Abraham, in which Abraham asks the Lord what He would do if there were just one righteous man in the city.  To this, McGee answers that the Lord would probably reply “‘If there is one who is righteous in that city, I am going to get him out of that city, because I would not destroy a righteous man with the city.’”^[2] Indeed, while there is no record in Scripture of this dialogue, it seems indeed to be the mindset of God, for as recounted in Genesis 19, God does not destroy the righteous man Lot with the wicked of Sodom.

Another reason that Abraham stopped at ten is that he may have assumed the Lot had won at least ten Sodomites to the Lord.  After all, Lot was there, with his wife, at least two daughters, perhaps two sons-in-law (whether they were married to other of Lot’s children or betrothed to Lot’s virgin daughters is unclear, according to the number of interpretations).  Surely, according to Abraham’s mindset, Lot, a “righteous man” must have converted at least that many.  Why Lot was not able to able to convert many could be for many reasons – perhaps he was tainted with the world (many would say such), or perhaps he was unable to because of the wickedness of it.^[3]

The city Sodom should be addressed as well.  According to Josephus, a famous historian of ancient times, the city of Sodom was a very wealthy city that had become very proud of themselves through the years.  The people of the city were proud and inhospitable.^[4]  Ezekiel as well speaks of their pride, and even mentions that their destruction was partly due to that and their cruel treatment of others.  In short, the prosperous city of Sodom was a wicked, proudful, prosperous place (Ezekiel 16:49ff).

In brief, the prosperous city of Sodom was caught up in their own wealth.  They were, as many cities of the day, self-centered, caring not about others, and as a result, “all the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.” (Gen. 13:13)  Genesis 18:20 states that “the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah” was “great, and. . . their sin [was] very grievous.”

Analysis of Major Topics in Question

The first two major views of the sin of Sodom ([1] that the sin was homosexuality, and [2] that the sin was inhospitality) in question mainly hang on the proper understanding of the statements involved in the major passage.  The key word in question is “know.”

As stated, the major controversy of this narrative hinges on an understanding of the Hebrew word translated “know” in Genesis 19:5.  As translated in the Authorized Version, “And [the men of Sodom] called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.”

The word “know” here is the Hebrew word ‘yada.  John Gill, in his commentary on Genesis 4:1, states of “And Adam knew his wife...,” “[Know, in this sense,] is an euphamism, or modest expression of the act of coition.”^[5]  This is a point of contention on which the whole argument rests.  Many use passages such as this to prove that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality.^[6]   Others, however, contend that this word is simply implying an interrogatory knowledge of the people [angels] within Lot’s house.

Furthermore, there is some importance in knowing how “know them” is used, assuming it does imply a sexual connotation.  Does the Scripture state that the men of Sodom wished only to rape the men within the house, or does it state that they were actually practitioners of steady intercourse-related activities?  A proper understanding of both “know” and the particular condemnation is essential to an understanding of this passage.

And finally, to what was Lot referring when he said “do not so wickedly?”  Was he confronting the men of the city for their desire to “know” the men in a sexual sense, or was it simply that the men of the city wished to know the angels’ credentials.  Furthermore, was that the sin for which Sodom was destroyed, or was it but a fruit of a deeper, more corrupt root?

The Revisionist View – Hospitality

In the Ancient Near East, as well as many other civilizations in the area, hospitality was of utmost importance.  By ancient standards, one would put his own life in jeopardy before allowing harm to come on his guest.  Such is seen in the story of Gibeah as well as in the tale of Sodom.  Proponents of the hospitality theory stand by the parallel style of writing of Genesis 18 and 19.

Doubtless, while not the most popular view through the years, the view that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality does have some basis.  Though the majority of its supporters would seen to be the “revisionists,” or those who wish to see any condemnation of homosexuality in the Scripture as simply a cultural prohibition, rather than a moral prohibition, there is nonetheless some logical support for this stand.

As noted in the contextual analysis of the passage, Lot was an outsider.  He was not of Sodom, yet had come into the city and, by most commentator’s beliefs, had become a judge or some sort of ruler.  Having taken in these strangers, he may have aroused suspicion from the townspeople, as they could have thought of the angelic visitors as spies.  They approached the house and demanded to “know” these men.  They wanted to know their purpose, and were suspicious now even of Lot for taking them in without being interrogated.  This, being a staunch violation of the cultural taboo against inhospitality, is believed to be the sin of Sodom.

Ukleja has written an interesting work on the subject, in which he quotes an Anglican scholar named Bailey.  Bailey believes that the sin of Sodom was their inhospitableness toward the two men (angels) that came into Lot’s house.  According to Bailey, the misinterpretation of the word “know” has caused much of the problem today that Christian’s have with homosexuality.  In his view, the word “to know” truly does mean “to be acquainted with.”^[7]

Following in turn, and contending that the sin of Sodom was indeed just inhospitably, Blair continues Bailey’s mindset by referencing Ezekiel 16:49, which contends that the sin of Sodom was “pride” and other sins, one of which was “did not aid the poor and needy. [sic]” He continues to state that only 12 times does “know” mean “to have intercourse with” in the Old Testament.  Finally, Blair states that Lot, being a foreigner, was suspicious in that he accepted the two men without inspecting their credentials.  Therefore, the people of Sodom wished to know whether Lot was housing spies or not.^[8]

The theory that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality is sound.  It is logical that a city could be considered wicked for such brutal treatment of its guests, yet there are some weaknesses with the logic that states that the sin had nothing to do with sodomy, or that “know” simply means “to become acquainted with.”

Playing the devil’s advocate, Schmidt, a thoroughly researched author on the topic of homosexuality, supports the sexual connotation of “know.”  He says “the Hebrew word yada’, translated in Genesis 19:5 as ‘know’ and in Judges 19:22^[9] as ‘have intercourse with,’ is used in a coital sense only ten times out of hundreds of instances in the Old Testament.”^[10]  He continues with the mindset of Blair and Bailey, stating that in both the instances of Sodom and the later passage of Gibeah, both men were strangers or foreigners (Lot actually “sat in the gate,” and owned a house, yet he was still not native-born).  These men, according to this logic, were therefore suspected of harboring spies, and therefore were requested to send out the newcomers.  In both instances, the host offered another person in the house, rather than violate the ancient oriental customs governing hospitality, which were very sacred.  Summing up his logic, Schmidt states that following this line of reasoning, the sin of Sodom was “inhospitality.”^[11]  Schmidt then continues, each time using the logic of what he terms to be “revisionist” and treats each passage supposedly condemning the practice of homosexuality.  Therefore, using the irrefuted (but not irrefutable) logic, one can try to claim the sin of Sodom was inhospitality, or at worst, general wickedness.^[12]

In regards to the fact that there was no homosexuality involved, Schmidt and Ukleja contend that this is not the proper interpretation of those passages.  Ukleja rebuts both Blair and Bailey by quoting Kidner’s rebuttal to Bailey.  In this, Kidner refutes Bailey on three points.  The first is that context must be appealed to in order to understand the meaning.  He states that it seems odd that Lot would reply by offering his daughters to men who simply wanted to view foreigner’s credentials.^[13]  (This was also addressed according to revisionist theory in Schmidt, where he stated that the low view of women and the high view of hospitality caused the men in both Sodom and Gibeah to offer women to the men^[14]).  This is illogical to Kidner, and he continues, although errantly, by saying “No one suggests that in Judges 19:25 the men of Gibeah were gaining ‘knowledge’ of their victim in the sense of a personal relationship, yet ‘know’ is used of them.”^[15]  This is only errant in that revisionists, as cited by Schmidt, actually do believe that the men of Gibeah wish to interrogate the newcomers.  Finally, Kidner states that the response of the angels, in that they stepped out and blinded the men of the city, was overly harsh in regards to the crime.  He attempts to put the final “nail in the coffin,” as it were, by citing Jude 7, which Bailey had ignored on grounds of being in a “late stage of interpretation.”^[16]

Other proponents of this theory cite the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old testament, claiming that “these early translators saw no homosexuality in the text and rendered the Hebrew by Greek terms void of homosexual meaning.”^[17]  Young debunks this theory by investigating the claims (such as “homosexuality was rare in those days” and “the Greek has no homosexual connotation”) and, through a long discourse on the history of the time and etymology/use of the words, shows that the LXX actually supports the homosexual connotations of the Hebrew word presented in not only the Genesis passage, but also passages in the Levitical laws.^[18]

Thus, through an investigation into the word “know,” one can see that it clearly has a sexual context, at least in this case.  The men of Sodom were wicked sinners, who desired to have sexual relations (whether rape or otherwise will be discussed in the next section) with the newcomers.  This may have been a manifestation of their inhospitable mindset, but the fact that they were sexually perverted is evident not only here, but elsewhere in Scripture.  There is clear logical and Biblical support that Sodom had homosexual perversions, and that yada’ did not simply mean “to be acquainted with.”

The Traditional View – Homosexuality 

Throughout history, the most traditionally accepted view of the sin of Sodom has been that it the men were guilty of the apparent gross perversion of homosexuality.  In fact, as stated before, the usage of the word “know” can be a great indication as to whether or not the men of the city were condemned for this atrocity.  Were the men of Sodom guilty of Sodomite practices or just inhospitable action?

There is much support for yada’ to mean “have intercourse with.”  There seems to be no doubt that what the men of Sodom wished to do was to have more than casual communicatory relations with the angels (whom they thought were men^[19]) that came into the city.

Ukleja states his view following his citation of Kidner, contending that grammatically, “know” must indeed suggest “intercourse.”  He states that of the twelve times this word occurs in the book of Genesis, it means “intercourse” ten^[20] times, which adds credence to the possibility of it meaning “intercourse,” if only given it’s nearness to the majority of other times the word means such in the Old Testament.  Also, the revisionist view that modern society lacks a concern for hospitality (and therefore does not understand the taboo against hospitality as found in ancient days) is also refuted while the traditional translation of “know” is furthered by a grammatical evidence.  Many have noted that the two uses of the word “know” in Genesis 19:5, 8 further hint that they both have the same connotation.  In Genesis 19:8, the word know is used in a doubtless sexual relation, as Lot states that his daughters have not “known” a man.  This use, so close to the one in verse 5, where the men of Sodom wish to “know” the people of the house, is the same.  Ukleja pleads his case by stating “In narrative literature of this sort it would be very unlikely to use one verb with two different meanings so close together unless the author made the difference quite obvious.  In both verses 5 and 8 [yada’] should be translated ‘to have sexual intercourse with.’  The context does not lend itself to any other credible interpretation.”^[21]  Given Lot’s choice to appease the horde that wanted to “interrogate” his guests, he knew their “interrogation” was indeed far more than that.  Therefore, the combination of Lot’s drastic action as well as the divine choice of words found in the text (as well as the reference in Jude 7 to this event), the “know” of Genesis 19:5 must truly be that of a sexual connotation, stating that the sin of Sodom was indeed homosexuality.^[22]

However, some would use the very use of the word yada’ so close to another use of it to mean the opposite.  Some have taken that “Verse 8 cannot be used to interpret v. 5 in a sexual sense, for the connection with v. 5 is ‘purely imaginary.’  Lot spoke ‘on the spur of the moment’ to offer this ‘tempting bribe.’”^[23] Young also notes that Bailey believes that yada’, when used sexually, “always refers to heterosexual coitus.”  However, Young refutes this by stating that the Greek language and the Hebrew, Egyptian, and Aramaic cultures all speak that yada’ can indeed, and does indeed mean “sexual” and can mean in a “homosexual” manner.  For this, he references BDB citations for the word yada’ which can mean “know a person carnally” and under this cites Genesis 19:5 and Judges 19:22.^[24]

Note, however, that the BDB uses the references in question.  It would seem that the very proof is paralyzed because of circular reasoning.  However, from a logical standpoint, the Judges passage can be proven, or at least strongly assumed.  The men of Gibeah wished to “know” the man who had come into the house.  However, the man’s concubine is given instead.  Why would not the men of the city rape the woman and then continue their concern, if indeed they wished to know his business, as they feared him a spy.  Why not take advantage of their situation, rape the woman, and then continue to seek after the man’s business?  Surely they would not have forgotten their purpose, unless their purpose was accomplished by obtaining at least one of the people inside the house. 

One further note concerning the homosexual interpretation for the sin of Sodom.  Assuming that yada’ does mean homosexual relations, the question is posed, does the sin of Sodom then refer to “rape” or “relations”?  Taking this discussion to task, Hamilton raises four weaknesses with the idea that the men of Sodom were only interested in rape.  First, he cites that the Old Testament never uses the word in a way to mean “abuse” or “violate.”  He also notes that the Old Testament uses specific wording such as “seized,” “humbled,” “lay with,” “forced,” etc. when discussing such types of conduct.  Both the narratives and the laws discussed the topic of rape using this language.  Hamilton also appeals to Ukleja’s line of reasoning that “know” in verse five is seemingly in the same sense as that in verse eight, therefore since Lot’s daughters having never known a man is not implying, as Hamilton states “‘I have two daughters who have never been abused,’”^[25] one can naturally assume through the perceived wordplay that the men of Sodom did not intend the same meaning, either.  Finally, Hamilton follows his train of logic by appealing to the statement Lot did not say.  He did not tell the men of the city to rape his daughters, but rather to take them and have relations with them.  To the common comparison used to equate the “know” in Genesis 19 with that in Judges 19, as they share similar structure, Hamilton shows evidences that such a similarity is not valid, at least in the “rape” category.  While in the Judges passage the house-keeper offers the women to the men with verbs that imply the idea of sexual mistreatment, no such words, according to Hamilton, are found in the Genesis pattern.^[26]

Therefore, through the use of grammar, logic, and comparison, it is evident that the men of Sodom meant more than to just “get acquainted with” their guests.  It is clear that the men of the city were interested in homosexual relations with the men in Lot’s house.  However, whether truly they wanted to rape them or not is not totally clear, as it does seem impractical that the men would take the newcomers back to their home before violating them.  Most commentators that take the homosexual view of yada’ would contend that they Sodomites did intend rape.

The Combination View – Exceedingly Sinful 

After a careful examination of the text at hand, one must wonder what indeed was the sin of Sodom?  Some contend that it was merely a lack of hospitality, which the ancient Near Eastern people held so dear.  Others, however, contend that it was their homosexual perversions, and that this unnatural addiction was the reason God would send His angelic agents to destroy the city.  What was the sin of Sodom?

Ezekiel 16:49 does discuss it as being a city whose iniquity was “pride, fullness of bread. . . abundance of idleness,” as well as the part that hints at inhospitableness, “neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.”  However, though this is so, context proves again to be the key, and the continuing verse states “and they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.”  The Bible discusses abominations in the Scripture.  Among the lists of things that shall be an abomination are certain foods, animals, and such, but perhaps the most poignant and one such as would logically fit in the narrative is found in Leviticus 18:22, which condemns lying with “mankind, as with womankind;” and also in Leviticus 20:13, which provides the death penalty for a man does “lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman,” and states that “both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; and their blood shall be upon them.”  Therefore, the abomination of Sodom could have been that they violated certain laws God had set up for the Jews^[27].  This is most likely a case of Ezekiel (under the inspiration of Scripture) using terms that were familiar with his audience to describe the gross violations of which the people of Sodom were guilty.

In discussing the Ezekiel passage, Taylor observes an interesting idea, which will be developed later.  He states “The sin of Sodom. . . described here [Ez. 16:49], very different from traditional interpretation, has much to say to the affluent Western world of today.”^[28]

The third view of the sin of Sodom is that homosexuality was but one of the many sins that came to the surface, at that the sin which caused so great an outcry was but a deeper root of which homosexuality and cruelty was the fruit.  The ancient historian Josephus described them as people who “hated strangers and abused themselves with sodomitical practices.”^[29]  They were a people of evil repute, so much so that even Abraham had heard the reputation, and did not think it strange that God would want to destroy them.^[30]  They were a wicked people, and perhaps the most convincing statement of their sin would be Niditch’s description that they practiced an “active, aggressive form of inhospitality.”^[31]  Sodom’s sin was inhospitality, but one that seemed to have been so inseparable from their gross violation of each other and those who entered the city that it became inseparable.

While he holds that only the “test”^[32] of Sodom was their hospitality, Janzen proposes an intriguing theory as to an alternate interpretation of the “offering another” motif present in both stories.  According to Janzen, Lot perhaps offered his daughters as if to shock the moral sensibilities of his neighbors.  “Lot’s apparent offer would aim to show up the city dwellers’ intentions against the visitors as even worse than the ‘altogether’ morally unthinkable act of the gang rape of a neighbor’s daughter.”^[33]  He notes to support this the Gibeah story, in which only the guest, who acts coldly throughout the entire sequence, is the one who actually throws anyone out to the men of the city, whereas it was the other man who made the offer.  Janzen proposes that both Lot and the house-owner of Gibeah offered the women for the same reasons.

Whether or not Lot actually offered his daughters for the moral shock value, the cold depravity of the men of Sodom is evidenced when they attack Lot himself, stating that they would do worse to him if he did not get out of their way.  It is this cruelty and violence that seems to push the angelic visitors over the edge, causing them to strike blind the intruders.  The people of Sodom were violent, inhospitable, and perverted morally.  Many Scriptures discuss their reprobation.  One is Ezekiel 16:49-50.

The verses in question in Ezekiel reference several sins as those of Sodom.  The first, however, is a reference that Sodom’s sin is that of pride.  In another place in the Bible (Proverbs 6:17) God lists the several sins He hates, and on the top of the list is “a proud look.”  It takes little time in the Bible for a man to realize that God hates pride.

In the Apocrypha, there is a book known as Ecclesiasticus, which has been used to say that God detested the people of Sodom because of their pride (16:8).  This verse has been used by supporters of the homosexual viewpoint as that Sodom was simply proud, and not abominably wicked in a sexual sense at all.  According to Young, “it is clear that the author of Ecclesiasticus was interpreting when he assigned pride as the cause of the overthrow.  Yet he was not inccorrect to do so.”^[34]  Continuing his discussion, Young states that looking at the context of this book, and that according to Ecclesiasticus, pride was “anything that violates both wisdom and fear of the Lord.”  Furthermore, the many sins attributed to Sodom in this passage are “pride,” “obstinancy,” and being “stiff-necked,” and it is Young’s belief that the deeds expressed here are “expressions of its pride.”^[35]

Furthermore, pride is at the root of many sins.  The Greek word can mean “be proud, haughty,” and also “treat arrogantly and disdainfully.”^[36]  In 10:13-18, Young notes the conclusion on pride that the author of Ecclesiasticus stated.  “For pride begins with sin, and the man who clings to it will rain down abominations.  For this reason, the Lord brings unheard-of calamities upon them, and overturns them utterly.”^[37]  Though attempting to prove that the sin of Sodom included homosexuality (against the revisionist view), Young also helped further the understanding that pride was one of the major reasons God destroyed Sodom.  Since the Apocrypha is noncanonical, it cannot be trusted fully, but as the saying goes “even a broken clock is right twice a day,” perhaps what this book has to say about pride and God’s reaction to pride is true.  Besides, the Bible backs up the ideas of Ecclesiasticus.

On the topic of pride, the book of Genesis was written to the Jewish people as a warning.  And if indeed pride is at the root of the Sodomites’ sins, then indeed this narrative would serve as a warning.  Truly, other applications can be drawn, but God detests pride.  In the beginning of Ezekiel 16, God says “Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations,” and between vs. 2 and the address in 49-50, God discusses through the prophet Ezekiel the blessings He gave to Israel, and briefly her history.  He then comes to comparing the sin found in her to that in Sodom, saying that even Sodom had not done what Jerusalem had done.

Again, it comes back to the verses of 49-50.  “Pride,” “fullness of bread,” “abundance of idleness,” and more – the sin list is continuous.  Block, in describing this passage, states that Ezekiel, with this strange list of sins (strange in that it may only reference the perceived sodomy as “behaved abominably”) may have accounted for this in two ways.  One way was through alternative tradition, and the second way is, as Block states, “he [may have been] exbounding on the significance of zeaqa/seaqa, which occurs twice in the Genesis narrative (18:20; 19:30). . . [they] ‘connote the anguished cry of the oppressed, the agonized plea of the victime for help in the face of some great injustice.’”^[38] An interesting note in addition to this that Block makes is that Ezekiel in the passage is stating Sodom’s sins as ‘moral rather than cultic.’^[39]  Again, since Genesis was written to the Jews, and since God knows all from eternity past, He knew that Israel would become corrupt.  Placing this warning about the dangers of selfish pride that cares not for the needs of others allows God to be fair in judging, for Israel was responsible for their deeds.

As for history’s view of Sodom, perhaps Josephus, the famous historian, reveals it best.  Josephus, in describing the people of Sodom, says this: 

About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, insomuch that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitic practices.”^[40] 

This description hearkens to memory the description of the unsaved person’s fall into a reprobate mind as seen in Romans 1.  Having received the goodness of the Lord, the pagan man does not recognize God as the Sovereign ruler that He is.  The man’s heart is then darkened because he is unthankful.  Similarly, the people of Sodom must have at some points in their history known of God (even before Lot had arrived), and since they had Lot in their midst, poor testimony though he may have been^[41], they were responsible.  The Sodomites also had the testimony (according to Genesis 14's events) of Abraham when their goods were returned.  No doubt between the testimony of Abraham and his condemnation against them that he did not want them to be able to say they made him rich, they had some knowledge of God.  They did not acknowledge or thank this God for what He had done for them, and the cycle of moral corruption began.

Romans^[42] traces this point all the way to where God eventually gives up man to his own devices.  God literally takes his hands off of them and lets them go their own way.  Man, after seeing God’s witness, and refusing it, is turned over to his own reprobate mind.  The list of sins catalogued as the seemingly bottomless extent of man’s depravity, and it seems, after referencing passages such as Jeremiah 23:14 and several passages in Genesis which associate those who commit abominations and fornication to Sodomites that the sin was wicked and perhaps very sexually oriented. 

Lovelace, in addressing the sin of Sodom, after making a brief catalogue of the different sins credited to Sodom, states “Sodom was not destroyed because it specialized in homosexuality, but because it was a plague center of every kind of depravity, including pride, sensuality, and injustice.”  He further states that the Jewish reader would have understood that one of those sins would have been homosexuality.^[43]

In conclusion to this section, it indeed seems through an examination of several passages that discuss Sodom that the sin was strongly homosexual, but that that was not the extent of Sodom’s fall.  God hates pride, and pride was doubtless one of the major faults of the Sodomites.  Furthermore, Sodom seems also to be a picture of the culture that is so focused on itself that it mistreats or abandons the needy.  It becomes corrupt to the point that God finally says “that is enough” and judges it.

Application: Why Should Christians Care about Sodom’s Sin and Punishment?

Knowledge is vain without application.  Without a proposed change, knowledge merely “puffs up.”  What can this story and the truth behind the sin of Sodom do to aid the Christian?  In today’s world, materialism is rampant.  Atheism and godlessness is becoming the norm.  In light of the Romans passage referenced earlier, it is easy to see that many men have been “let go.”  God has grown weary of their striving, and as in the days of Noah, man’s heart seems to be nothing but “wicked continually.”  Jesus did not compare the days of Noah, the days of Lot, and the end days of the earth for no reason.  Very well could judgment be upon the threshold.

Even the church is caught up in the wickedness of the day.  Christians, called ones, who are to be “holy,” are tainted and inundated with the world, so much so that many of the sins that were once “abominable” are no longer problems at all.  Pride, lying, envy, gluttony – some view them as small secret sins, yet several were mentioned by name in Ezekiel as the sins of Sodom.  Sodom was caught up in the worlds’ philosophy of “me first.”  It was bent on reveling in its own prosperity – and too often that is the case in the church today.  Jude 5-7 tells the tragic tale of God destroying whoever violates the law and does wickedly – and He is the immortal unchanging God.  He did it once, He can (and will) do it again.

A bit of hope for the Christian, though, comes from this passage.  Also from the Jude passage, it can be seen that God will spare the righteous.  He did it for Noah, He did it for Lot, and He will do it for His children that remain, particularly at the time of the Rapture.  But even in the world of today, God will deliver His people.  They are His for a reason, and He cares for them as children.  This should bring hope to the believers who are living right – God will deliver.

Conclusion: A City of Remembrance

Sodom is a tale of remembrance – a tale that should be a somber warning.  God has

chosen to show His power through the destruction of a vile city and her sisters upon a very fruitful plain.  It is clear that homosexuality was one of the many sins of Sodom, and that most likely God leveled the cities because they had chosen to ignore and turn from Him.  God will not long chide with unbelievers, and there comes a day when their vileness and abominations merit death.  Such is the story of Sodom – a sober reminder of the world, its influences, and its coming punishment.

---

^[1]Janzen, J Gerald Abraham and All the Families of the Earth (Grand Rapids, Mich: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993), 61.  Note: Janzen’s case is highly convincing.  He builds on the hospitality motif in 18, and states that God perhaps would have spared Sodom had they been hospitable.  After a lengthy discussion (59) about foreknowledge and predestination, Janzen concludes that Sodom failed the test God prepared for them, securing their doom.

^[2]J. Vernon Mcgee, Genesis 16-33 (Pasedena, Calif.: Thru the Bible Books, 1991), 43.

^[3]At this point should be interjected the similarities found between the narratives of the Flood, the destruction of Sodom, and the End Times.  In fact, throughout the Bible, many such illustrations are made, so such deductions are far from original with the author of this work.  Luke 17:26-36 states the comparison, and also gives a warning against the materialistic want or backward-looking longing to the things of the world that doomed Lot’s wife.  The passage, though, compares Lot and Noah, at least in the fact that they were both saved.  The Bible expounds upon Noah’s justice and righteousness, whereas it calls Lot “righteous” and “vexed.” Another interesting note pertaining to the salvation of Sodom is Matthew 11:23, which states an interesting indictment that if what Christ had done in Capernaum had been done in Sodom, they would have repented; however, no matter how great a preacher Lot could have been, he would have never measured up to Christ’s ministry.  Was Lot tainted by the Sodomites?  Most likely.  Did he preach?  Probably.  Why was he uneffective?  Two reasons: perhaps Lot was so tainted he had lost his testimony, or perhaps the people were just that wicked.  There is support for both interpretations.

^[4] Josephus. The New Complete Works of Josephus, trans. William Whinston (Grand

Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999), 64.

^[5]John Gill, Gill’s Expositor: Genesis to Numbers (Streamwood: Primitive Baptist Library, 1979), s.v. Gen. 4:1.

^[6]Michael P. Ukleja, “Homosexuality and the Old Testament,” Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (July 1983): 260-1.

^[7]Ibid., 260.

^[8]Ibid., 261.

^[9]Judges 19 records the story of a Levite and his concubine that pass through the Benjamite city of Gibeah While tarrying there for the night, the Levite is received into the house of one of the locals.  During the evening, evil men of the city, described as “men of Belial” besiege the house, demanding to release the Levite unto them, that they may “know” him.  The owner comes out from his house, pleads with them not to do such wickedness, and offers, as did Lot, his daughters and the Levite’s concubine as exchange for sparing the man.  They refuse, and the man of the house releases the concubine.  She is abused literally to death, and this action results in the mass action of Israel against the men of Gibeah almost resulted in the tribe of Benjamin going extinct.  It is interesting to not the Levite’s comment in Jdg. 20:5, which is the Levite’s words concerning the crime.  “... and beset the house about upon me by night, and thought to have slain me: and my concubine they have forced, that she is dead.”  That “know” is sexual here is implied by the dealings of the men against his concubine, in that she was abused all night.  Could this passage also be implying a combination of the two – inhospitality and homosexuality, in that the men of Gibeah at least had such a blatant disregard for anything but their own physical satisfaction that they would appease it even at the expense of others’ lives?  Was this what was in store for the Levite as well were he to be thrown out to them?  Perhaps there is an element of hospitality here, but the efforts taken to protect the guest, as suggested in Ukleja’s work (p. 261) seem to strongly imply that such drastic alternatives were because of the vile nature of the people of both of these cities, and indeed had nothing to do with simple “interrogation.”

^[10]Thomas E. Schmidt, Straight and Narrow (Downer’s Grove, Ill: Inter-Varsity Press, 1995), 30-31.

^[11]Ibid., 31.

^[12] Ibid., 30.

^[13]Ukleja, 261.

^[14]Schmidt, 31.

^[15]Ukleja, 261.

^[16]Ibid.

^[17]James B. De Young. “The Contributions of the Septuagint to Biblical Sanctions Against Homosexuality,” JETS 34:2 (June 1991): 157.

^[18]While dealt with briefly in the overall context of this paper, Young’s work is a very useful guide to the linguistic tendencies of the LXX.  He delves much into the Greek words used in the Levitical Law, proving that, indeed, the Hebrew translators did view the passages as dealing with the bans on homosexual activities to be intended.  In clarification: many revisionists will look at the forbidding of homosexuality in the Bible as similar to God’s commanding to abstain from various foods or such – they view it as being ceremonially clean.  In their logic, they view the bans as being a result of pagan temple prostitution (which is dealt in Young’s article, as well as Straight and Narrow) and not as for godly living nowadays at all.  See Block’s commentary on Ezekiel, below, for the reason this is not cultic, but rather moral, in nature.

^[19]Some view the punishment of Sodom and the condemnation of Jude 7 (“strange flesh”) as a result of their wanting to have sexual relations with angels.  This is not the intent of the passage whatsoever, but most likely stems from a misinterpretation of “Sons of God,” as found in Genesis 6.  A revisionist mindset combined with the belief that the “Sons of God” is a reference to fallen angels produces the interpretation of Jude 6 when discussing that it stresses the sin of having relations with angels who left their first estate, then logically the sin of Sodom and punishment thereof must be akin to that of the Flood (since it was vengeance upon the wicked nephilim, offspring of the “Sons of God” and their human lovers).  Jude 7 is indeed a discussion that sin will be punished, and that even angels will not escape.  Note: the word for strange is indeed the one implying “different.”  The verse from Jude’s point of view was that the men of Sodom went after flesh different from their own – eg angelic.  However, this has nothing to do with God’s punishment, this was just the true “flesh” they were seeking after, though they intended to go after what they thought were humans.

^[20]Note: some sources state that the word “know” is used in a sexual connotation 12 times (Ukleja, 261), other state ten, while the New International Commentary of the Old Testament says it occurs 15 times in the Old Testament (33).  This is most likely caused by the disagreement over the few passages in question in this paper.

^[21]Ukleja, 261-2.

^[22]For more on this discussion, see Schmidt, ch.5 “From Sodom to Sodom.”  In this chapter, Schmidt continues the line of reasoning of Ukleja, hitting even on several points such as the grammatical and logical views that “know” is of it’s traditionally held sense in this passage and the Judges passage as well.  One interesting note in this chapter is his statement that “no scholarly interpreter of Genesis has ever suggested a shift in meaning of yada’ between verses 5 and 8.” (p. 87) It is in this chapter that Schmidt proposes the idea that connects the inhospitality with sexual sin, in that the residents of both the cities were guilty of an inhospitality that was, as Niditch put it, “an active, aggressive form of inhospitality.”

^[23]Young, 158.

^[24]Young, 159.

^[25]Victor P. Hamilton, New International Commentary of the Old Testament: The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50 (Grand Rapids, Mich: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995),

34.

^[26]Ibid., 35.

^[27]It could be noted that the Law had not yet been given to the Jews, and that the people of Sodom would be exempt from such laws in that they were not Jewish.  This is legitimate, of course, yet the glory of God could have been known to them (Romans 1:18-27 describes the downward progression into what can be perceived as sodomy that comes from those who could have known God but refused to acknowledge him as such, and even after being violated, proceeded to the point of not retaining God in their knowledge).  Furthermore, they were also responsible for the natural law, under which morality and proper treatment of others seems to be written into the human conscience, stained by the Fall though it is.  Romans. 4:15 states that there is no transgression without the law, and in the same verse, in contrast thereto, it states “the law worketh wrath.”  Therefore, while the people of Sodom would not have been required to account for the things of the law, the natural law written in their hearts, their natural refusal to acknowledge God as God, was shown through their violation of the dignity that should be present within humans.  Thus, their homosexuality and inhospitable violation of others for their own pleasure fell under what God described to the Jews as “abomination.”  This, combined with their violation of the sacred custom of hospitality of the day caused God to judge them according to what they should have known as being humans in His image, and not for what He held the Jews accountable.

^[28]John B. Taylor, Ezekiel: An Introduction and Commentary (Downer’s Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1969), 141.

^[29]Josephus, 64.

^[30]Hamilton, 32.

^[31]Schmidt, p. 87

^[32]Janzen (Abraham and All the Families of the Earth) would most likely fall under the third major view, that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality, and that Sodom was destroyed for an deeper sin, of which homosexual perversions was one of the many fruits..  As for “test,” it is his theory that the angels went to Sodom, as if to give it one more chance to be hospitable – a test they failed. (61).

^[33]Janzen, 64.

^[34]James B. DeYoung, “A Critique of the Prohomosexual Interpretation of the Apocrypha and Pseudopigrapha,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 147 (Oct-Dec 1990): 439.

^[35]Ibid., 439.

^[36]Ibid., 440.

^[37]Ibid.,441.

^[38]Daniel I. Block.  New International Commentary of the Old Testament: The Book of Ezekiel, chapters 1-24, p. 509.

^[39]Ibid, 509.

^[40]Josephus, p. 64.

^[41]The discussion of Lot as being a righteous man (as Peter describes him) has sparked much discussion through the years.  While such a theme is out of the scope of this paper, some interesting articles and books to read are The Bible as it Was [James Kugel, 1997], 183-186, which defends both positions with a myriad of quotes from both ancient commentators, apocryphal works, and even, interestingly enough, the Qu’ran [37:132-134], [this has an interesting twist from an angel’s point of view – fictional, but interesting nonetheless].  Another good work on the subject is Studies in Genesis: Expository Messages [Candlish, 1979], pages 313-318 – which discusses the meaning of “vexed his spirit, etc.”  See also McGee’s 1982 version of 2 Peter, p. 55, for a discussion of kataponeo, in the discussion of “vexed.”

^[42]Note the underlining: <Rom 1:18>  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness; (19)  Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. (20)  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

(21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (23) And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: (25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. (28)  And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (29)  Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, (30)  Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, (31) Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: (32) Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

^[43]Richard F. Lovelace, Homosexuality and the Church, (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1978), 100-101.