Posted on 08/09/2013 12:22:24 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Was the most extensive judgment found anywhere in the Bible outside of the book of Revelation actually for the sin of inhospitality, not homosexuality?
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.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] 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.
[7] “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.
[8] Curiously, this last sentence was overlooked in Boswell’s citation of the text.
[9] "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).
[10] Strong’s #8441.
[11] Boswell, 100.
[12] 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.
[13] Dennis Prager, "Homosexuality, Judaism and Gay Rabbis," The Prager Perspective, 3/1/97.
“Self restraint checklist. Do not:
1 Step on Superman’s cape
2 Take the mask off the lone ranger
3 Mess around with Jim
4 Rape Angels”
Right on, chess!
“There is a story in Judges 19 which has some interesting parallels to the story of Sodom. A traveling Levite stops for the night in the town of Gibeah and the “sons of Belial” beat on the door of the man who offers him hospitality, wanting the stranger sent out “that we may know him.” Instead the Levite sends out his concubine and they gang rape her until she dies. This leads to a war which almost wipes out the tribe of Benjamin.”
Yes, I remember reading this story and feeling sick.
Horrible!
“It was offensive to me that Lot would sacrifice his daughters lives in place of the angels. He did not have to offer to give daughters to rapers. Females can also be sodomized...it still ticks me off at the reading of Sodom. Men that do that today are truly sick individuals and even in prison are looked down on... He did not have to make that offer, unless he though less of his own blood females than of stangers. He could have said NO to both..”
Goes to show how far Lot’s moral principles and godliness (if he ever was that godly to begin with) had fallen.
...el bumpo....
Ummm, you are kidding right?
The sin of SODOM is called sodomy. No great mystery as to the etymology of the word--as the Western world and her languages have been influenced by Christianity and the Bible for 2,000 years now....
Legally though, in English law, "sodomy" was considered any un-natural sex (which was anything other than vaginal intercourse), whether it was between 2 men or a man and a woman.
Since the Supreme Court though, 10 years ago, declared homosexual sodomy a constitutional right....the legal definition of sodomy is moot.
That story is at the end of the book of Judges...proving the downward spiral of the tribal Israelites, who without a righteous king, “every man did what was right in his own eyes.”
Judges is an interesting book, as it follows a continual downward trend of blessing, disobedience, judgement (in the form of pagan tribes waring with them), repentance, outcry-to-God for help, salvation (in the form of a Judge who defeats their pagan enemies), blessing...then disobedience...
The fact that at the end of Judges, Israel was repeating the sins of Sodom...shows how low-down they had gotten.
The fact that the USA through our government, media and entertainment.... now hails the sins of Sodom, as wonderful and a human “right” shows how low down we have gotten...
Don't forget also that soon after this--after Lot's wife was killed, Lot's daughters got him drunk so as to get pregnant by him.
This isn't as culturally weird as we may think...in that pagan Canaanites routinely practiced incest. Even Baal and Ashteroth, Canaanite fertility gods--were brother & sister AND husband & wife...it's gross, but true. It really does show how corrupted Lot and family got, just by living with the pagan Sodomites.
It's also worth noting that when Moses recorded this, somewhere around 1400 BC, two of Israel's big pagan enemy tribes in Palestine--were their relatives descended from Lot's incest with his daughters, the Ammonites, and the Moabites.
By Moses' day, these cousin tribes were thoroughly pagan--worshipping idols, and routinely practicing child sacrifice.
I understand your objection. It would not be fatherly/manly behavior in today's society. A difficult passage to view through today's eyes. My retired Southern Baptist pastor neighbor told me 1 time that women, even in the ancient Hebrew days just didn't have many rights. Of course, I suppose Lott may have been terrified of the angels, too.
I always thought it was voting for Obama.....
Getting someone so drunk they don’t know who is around them and then having intercourse is several thousand fathoms deeper than seduction. The sin of the daughters is pretty much in line with what they learned in Sodom
Rom 1:24-28 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
Sin begets sin. Sodom probably started out nice enough but they grew cold to God's commands. Unlike Abimelech king of Gerar who responded to God, they refused to respond to the commandments of God. They committed adultery. Then they lied to one another. Then they encouraged other to do the same. Deeper and deeper they slipped into sinfulness. Their hearts grew harder in time until there is nothing left of that spark of humanity God gives us. And so God gave them up to the passion of the flesh and a debased mind.
Homosexuality is only a manifestation of more deeper rooted sins. It shows to us that God is in the process of giving us over to our sinfulness. By the time homosexuality occurred in Sodom, people's hearts had already been hardened to such an extent that everyone there was willing to commit debased crimes on visitors and spoke violently against any preaching of God's commandments. There wasn't anything left for our loving God to do but destroy it. He didn't destroy it because they were homosexuals. He did it so that it would preserve His perfect plan.
Yes, I knew that too.
Disgusting!
And if we think it disgusting and vile, how much more so does God? Wow!
The sin of Sodom & Gomorrah was the total, willful rejection of God. Lots of folks today are in a similar state - many of them are named Mohammed.
Just a warning to those Christians that are so sure they will enter the Kingdom. Even Jesus warned about such thinking.
How many freeper fathers would do to their daughters what Lot proposed to do to his. Turning them over to be raped and sodomize, females can also be sodomized...just because he felt the 2 male visitors were of more worth than his daughters...
So what that the daughters got their father drunk and had him commit incest.(He willing complied in his drunkon stupor he no longer had a wife) Through out scripture it seems that God also didn't think anything wrong with giving his daughtes to rapists, If he thought it wrong, the scripture does not state so. But lets turn Lots wife to salt, because she looked back....Was God acting against what he told men to do? He obiviously didn't think it wrong to have 2 females raped, sodomized and perhaps killed..
It the wedding of the bridegroom, he again got P Oed and told his men to go out and force people into the wedding. Was it an embarretment that so few cared about the wedding? I just have lots (not a pun) of questions about do as I say and not as I do situations.
It seems a lot of people come to the defense of such actions when they should be questioning them. just jmho.
King David lusted after another mans wife and had the husband killed so he could sleep with her...his only punishment was he couldn't build the temple cause he had too much blood on his hands, but his son by Bathsheba could...but God loved him, he repented but the husband was still dead and David when on still being Gods favorite.
Just a few questions I have never found a good reason for except, It many ways the Koran treats women the way the men of the old testament did without being chastised by God...His laws called for stoning of women just as Koran does. And has a whole lot of punishments for certain actions, some that make no sense. jmho
Ummm, I don't think you understand the nature of much of the Old Testament. In the narrative passages, in books like Genesis, Exodus, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel & etc., history is given, usually without commentary, and a lot of that history is not pretty.
Incest and rape are CLEARLY FORBIDDEN in the Law of Moses (found mostly in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy), with the most severe penalties commanded for those that committed rape or incest. Moses, being the writer of both these historic narratives AND the law, would of been well aware of this, and his readers would too. When characters in a history commit gross sins--the readers would know it--and it adds to the drama of how terrible the times (and the corruption of Lot--and his wicked descendants) were during that history.
There are ALL KINDS of horrible things recorded in the Bible--without direct comment--and it's up to the morally educated reader to discern right from wrong in the historical characters' actions. Lot was in no way commended for his disgusting offering up of his daughters...but hey, I think possibly--given the terrible legacy of misogeny there--some Middle Easterners (or far Eaterners) today might (cowardly) do the same thing, faced with a similar situation. (or even some in the good ol' USA)
It is very wrong though to conclude that because some Bible figure does something grossly wrong, and the biblical narrative doesn't comment on it (as it often doesn't) that means "God also didn't think anything wrong with..." it.
Historical records in the Bible are often are just that, historical records. For God's standards of ethics, you have to look elsewhere--like in the moral commands in the Bible. And for Christians of course, everything in the Old Testament must be seen through the lens of the New Testament--and the good news of Jesus Christ.
Since Dad was not going to do it voluntarily, getting him drunk was the only available option. I wouldn't be too hard on the daughters here. They were nice enough girls to be saved out of Sodom.
Perhaps it speaks to God’s capacity to love and forgive as opposed to ours.
God also knows the condition of individual hearts and acts accordingly.
Everything you have mentioned is sin in His eyes and by rights should result in death and separation from God forever for all, but in His love and mercy He made a plan to change that.
I used to often question Him, but as time passed I have seen that He is so much higher and greater than I that there is no way I could ever fully comprehend His mind. We see only from our puny human viewpoint...it’s like an ant trying to understand us.
I am sure this is not what you want to hear but it is my take after a 20-year walk. And still I have not begun to scratch the surface...a billion 20-year periods would not be enough.
I agree that it all changed with Jesus and how he taught. But there are lingering things in my mind. That's just my problem to deal with....thanks for your answering....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.