Genesis 2:24: A Model for Heteronormative Marriage?
In the last few posts on this blog, we’ve been taking a look at the Bible passages that are commonly used to condemn homosexual relationships. All of the passages that we’ve examined so far fail to actually condemn such relationships, contra the mainstream Christian interpretations.
For one, it’s ridiculous to claim that the Sodom narrative of Genesis 19 condemns male homosexuality as a whole; rather, it’s obviously a condemnation of rape, paralleled by Judges 19-20 which also condemns heterosexual rape. The Leviticus verses (18:22 and 20:13) and the Pauline vice lists (1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10), are actually ambiguous in their original languages and have been mistranslated to support homophobic views. One last passage, Romans 1:26-27, also has many alternate interpretations, each of which seem individually more likely than the traditional interpretation on textual and contextual grounds.
However, there is one last passage to examine, which is perhaps the Bible verse most commonly used by Christian opponents of gay marriage. This is Genesis 2:24, which states, “Therefore a man forsakes his father and mother and clings to his woman, and they become one flesh.” Doesn’t Gen. 2:24 prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that only male-female marriages and relationships are approved by God? In this last post on homosexuality and the Bible, we’ll examine this claim by taking a look at Gen. 2:24 in its larger context.
Prescriptive or descriptive?
The main question surrounding Genesis 2:24 is whether it is meant to be prescriptive or descriptive. If this verse is prescriptive, then it is saying that only men and women can marry, and that anything outside of this design goes against God’s precepts. But if it is descriptive, then it is simply saying “this is why men and women marry,” without passing judgment on any marriages that go outside of this ‘one man + one woman’ layout.
In the immediate context of Genesis 2, the verse seems to be merely descriptive; that is, it is saying that loneliness is what causes men and women to come together and marry. See the following passage:
And Yahweh God said, “It is not good that the man is alone. I will make a corresponding companion [1] for him”... And Yahweh God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and he slept, and He took his side and closed up the flesh in its place. And Yahweh God formed the side which He had taken from the man into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And the man said, “This one is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one will be called ‘woman,’ for this one was taken out of ‘man.’” Therefore a man forsakes his father and mother and clings to his woman, and they become one flesh. (Gen. 2:18, 21-24)
This passage emphasizes romantic loneliness as a problem for humanity, and marriage as the solution. Verse 24, then, is simply stating that “this [loneliness] is why men and women marry,” without saying anything about marriages that don’t fall into this pattern. In fact, this would seem to support the idea of non-heterosexual marriage, since there are people for whom loneliness is not solved by heterosexual relationships, who are attracted to the same sex instead.
However, the issue is somewhat more complex than this. This is because Gen. 2:24 is quoted in the New Testament by Jesus as a prescriptive text, condemning divorce.
And having come to him, the Pharisees were demanding of him if it is lawful for a husband to divorce a wife, testing him. And answering, he said to them, “What did Moses command you?”
And they said, “Moses permitted to write a scroll of divorce, and to send her away.”
Yet Jesus said to them, “He wrote you this commandment because of the hardness of your heart. Yet from the beginning of creation He ‘made them a male and a female.’ [Gen. 1:27] ‘Because of this, a man will forsake his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two will be for one flesh.’ [Gen. 2:24] Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has united, let no man separate.” (Mark 10:2-9)
Here, Jesus interprets Gen. 2:24 as both descriptive and prescriptive. Because this verse says that those who are married have become “one flesh,” Jesus concludes that divorce goes against the will of God. Although the context here is clearly divorce and not gay marriage, this does set a precedent for interpreting Gen. 2:24 as prescriptive, which lends more credence to the anti-gay-marriage interpretation of this verse.
This seems conclusive in favor of the view that Gen. 2:24 is prescriptive, at least in addition to being descriptive. Nevertheless, it is also true that the authors of the New Testament often took liberties with the Old Testament texts, interpreting them in ways that don’t make sense within the original context. [2] For this reason, let’s take a deeper look at Genesis 2:24 in its context, to determine what the original author may have meant.
A closer look at Gen. 2:24
At the beginning of this passage, Yahweh declares, “It is not good that ha-adam is alone. I will make a corresponding companion for him” (v. 18). God then creates the birds and land animals and brings each of them to Adam for him to determine whether they are suitable for him. Nevertheless, “for ha-adam no corresponding companion was found“ (vv. 19-20). Because of this, God created a companion (the woman) out of Adam himself (vv. 21-22). When the woman is brought to Adam, he joyfully cries, “This one at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh” (v. 23). “Therefore,” the author concludes, “a man forsakes his father and mother and clings to his woman, and they become one flesh.” To understand the author’s intent in writing this verse, we must take a look at the original Hebrew text of Gen. 2:24.
First, what did the author mean when he said that a man “forsakes” (azab) his parents? Although azab is often translated here as simply “leave,” it typically conveys the more severe concept of complete abandonment. God often warns Israel not to “forsake” (azab) Him and follow other gods (e.g., Deut. 29:25; Josh. 24:20; Judg. 10:6). God also comforts Israel by saying that He will not “abandon” (azab) them despite their constant backsliding (Deut. 31:6; 1 Kgs. 6:13). In fact, in the KJV, azab is translated as “forsake” 129 times as opposed to simply “leave” only 72 times. [3] Genesis 2:24 is not merely conveying the straightforward idea of leaving one’s parents’ home, but is saying that this reason (loneliness) is why men abandon or forsake their parents to follow women.
What did the author mean by saying that a man “clings to” (dabaq) a woman? Again, this isn’t as straightforward as it might seem. Dabaq has the meaning of “cling to” or “cleave to,” and like azab, it is often used in a religious context to refer to Israel’s clinging to Yahweh (Deut 4:4; 10:20; 11:22; 13:4; 30:20; Josh. 22:5; 23:8; 2 Kgs. 18:6; Jer. 13:11; Psa. 119:31). However, dabaq is only used to refer to marriage four other times in the Old Testament, and in each instance it describes intermarriage (marriage between Israelites and other groups) rather than simply marriage (Gen. 34:3; Josh. 23:12; 1 Kgs. 11:1-2; Dan. 2:43). [4] Thus, the author of Gen. 2:24 was alluding to intermarriage — not all types of marriage — when writing this passage.
The historical context of this passage helps to explain why it alludes to intermarriage. Most scholars agree that the entire pericope of Genesis 1 through 11 was written during the Exilic or post-Exilic periods of Israelite history, due to dozens of anachronisms within these chapters. [5] Based on the other biblical books written during this period, [6] we know that intermarriage was a major issue during this period, with different authors taking various stances (Ruth 1; Ezra 9-10; Neh. 13; Mal. 2:10-12). Therefore, it is likely that the author of Gen. 2:24 was taking a stand in favor of intermarriage by tying it back to the very beginning of creation.
Thus, in its original context, Genesis 2:24 was not creating a normative definition of marriage. On the contrary, the author seems to have been making the point that people can marry in spite of cultural norms — “forsaking their father and mother” and marrying the woman they love, even if that woman is not an Israelite. Although this certainly is no argument in favor of gay marriage (since gay marriage was not an issue at the time that Gen. 2:24 was written), neither does it support the case against gay marriage.
Genesis and Ruth
Interestingly, the strongest parallel with Genesis 2:24 in the Old Testament is found in the book of Ruth, where it refers not to marriage between a man and a woman, but to the strong bond that was formed between the Moabite woman Ruth and her mother-in-law Naomi.
Naomi said, “Turn back, my daughters! Why would you go with me? Are there still sons in my womb that they may be your husbands?”... but Ruth clung to [dabaq] her... Boaz said to her, “It has been fully told to me, all that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband, and that you forsook [azab] your father and mother and your native land and have come to a people that you did not know before.” (Ruth 1:11, 14; 2:11)
The author of Ruth states that Ruth “forsook [her] father and mother,” and uses the verb daqab to describe Ruth’s relationship with her mother-in-law. The parallel with Genesis 2:24 is so strong that it seems that the author of Ruth must have been alluding to Gen. 2:24, or vice versa. However, this does not refer to a relationship between a man and a woman, but between two women.
To be sure, Ruth and Naomi were not lesbian lovers. Both of them had been married to a husband previously (Ruth 1:2, 4), and the statement that Ruth “clung to” Naomi does not imply marriage, merely a strong bond between the two women. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Genesis 2:24 — which is used by many Christians to condemn same-sex relationships — finds its strongest parallel within the Hebrew Bible in a passage that describes a relationship between two women. Truly ironic.
“Marriage” is “One Man + One Woman”?
In response to the legalization of gay marriage in the United States, many Christians have pushed back by claiming that the Bible defines marriage as “one man and one woman.” In support of this, they almost invariably quote Genesis 2:24, even though (as we saw above) this verse in its original context was addressing the issue of intermarriage, not gay marriage. However, is there anything else in the Bible to support a normative definition of marriage as “one man + one woman”?
On the contrary, rather than supporting this view of marriage, the Bible repeatedly undermines it. Many of the heroes and patriarchs of the Old Testament had multiple wives, including Abraham (Gen. 16:3; 25:1), Jacob (Gen. 29:21-30:13), Esau (Gen. 26:34; 28:9), Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:1-2), and David (1 Sam. 25:42-44; 2 Sam. 3:2-5; 5:13). In none of these instances were the marriages condemned. Similarly, in the Mosaic Law, allowances are made for multiple wives, with regulations for how wives and heirs are to be treated in polygamous marriages (Exod. 21:10-11; Deut. 21:15-17). In fact, it was required for a man to marry his brother’s wife if his brother died (Deut. 25:5-10). Presumably, this would apply even if the brother was already married, in which case polygamy would not only be permitted but commanded.
There are a few passages that are often considered to condemn polygamy, but these do not stand up under examination. First, Genesis 2:24 is often appealed to, as it states that “two” shall become “one flesh.” However, as we saw above, Gen. 2:24 was not originally written to provide a normative definition of marriage, but to refute those who condemned intermarriage. Furthermore, even if Gen. 2:24 were defining marriage, there is no indication that a man cannot become “one flesh” with multiple women.
Another passage that is sometimes considered to condemn polygamy is 1 Kings 11:1-10, in which God punishes Solomon for his marriages with 1000 foreign women. However, the point of this passage is not to show that polygamy is wrong, as it was permitted in the case of Solomon’s father David. Rather, it is clear that “Yahweh was angry with Solomon because he shifted his allegiance away from Yahweh“ (1 Kgs. 11:9). By marrying hundreds of foreign women, Solomon had been drawn away to worship other gods above Yahweh. Therefore, this passage does not condemn polygamy, either.
Finally, three passages from Paul’s letters are often appealed to, as these passages state that leaders in the church must be “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6). However, these passages use an unusual Greek phrase (mias gunaikos andra) which could be translated either as “one wife man” (prohibiting polygyny) or “a wife man” (requiring that a leader be married). Even if it is correctly translated as “the husband of one wife,” this requirement is only made of leaders in the church, not of all people everywhere.
Therefore, the concept of marriage being "one man + one woman" is certainly foreign to the Bible, as the Bible repeatedly condones polygamy, and possibly even commands it under special circumstances. I'm not suggesting that polygamy should be made legal, but this shows that there is no single normative definition of marriage throughout the Bible. As such, it's ridiculous to claim that "God's definition of marriage" precludes same-sex marriages.
______________________________
[1] The Hebrew word ‘ezer is often translated here as “helper” or “helpmeet.” However, this conveys the idea that the woman was originally created in a position of lower authority than the man, which is incorrect. ‘Ezer does not imply a position of lower authority, as God is often referred to as our “help” (‘ezer): see Exod. 18:4; Deut. 33:7; Psa. 33:20; 70:5; 115:9-11; Hos. 13:9. “Companion” better conveys the idea of what is meant by ‘ezer in this verse.
[2] One of the most well-known examples is the Immanu’el prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, which originally applied to a child that was born in the time of Isaiah (7:13-17), but was applied to Jesus by Matthew (1:23). There are many other examples as well, of which the following are only a sample: Matt. 4:14-16 cf. Isa. 8:1-10:19; Rom. 9:24-25 cf. Hos. 1:10-11; Rom. 9:26 cf. Hos. 2:21-23; 1 Cor. 9:9-10 cf. Deut. 25:4; 2 Cor. 6:2 cf. Isa. 49:8-18; Gal. 3:16 cf. Gen. 12:7; Gal. 4:22-31; Eph. 5:29-32 cf. Gen. 2:24.
[3] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5800/kjv/wlc/0-1/
[4] Megan Warner, “‘Therefore a Man Leaves His Father and His Mother and Clings to His Wife’: Marriage and Intermarriage in Genesis 2:24,” Journal of Biblical Literature 136, no. 2 (2017), 277.
[6] There is a general consensus, based on multiple textual considerations, that the book of Ruth was written between the time of Josiah and Ezra-Nehemiah, although there is debate about when exactly. See https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/who-wrote-ruth
Leviticus and Paul on Homosexuality
You shall not sleep with a male as one sleeps with a female; it is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22 NASB)
If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. They have brought their own deaths upon themselves. (Lev. 20:13 NASB)
When these verses are considered in isolation, it seems at first glance to be fairly obviously stating that male homosexuality is an abomination and deserving of death. However, some scholars have noted that, in context, these passages appear to be part of a larger discourse condemning the cultic activities of the pagan Canaanites, and therefore they may be condemning specifically male cult prostitution. This is clearest from the context of Lev. 18:22:
You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am Yahweh. You shall not sleep with a male as one sleeps with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have sexual intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion. Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these things the nations which I am driving out from you have become defiled. (Lev. 18:21-24 NASB)
Thus, because these actions are explicitly connected to cultic activity, and Lev. 18:22 is encompassed by condemnations of other pagan atrocities like infant sacrifice and bestiality, some have argued that the sin being referred to in Lev. 18:22 is specifically male cult prostitution, and “as one sleeps with a female” refers to the act of female cult prostitution. The second passage is likewise encompassed by condemnation of cultic activities like the sacrifice of infants to Molech (Lev. 20:2-5), mediums and spiritualism (vv. 6-8), sex with both a woman and her mother (v. 14), and bestiality (vv. 15-16), all of which are said to be the practices of the pagan Canaanites (vv. 22-23). For this reason, it is entirely possible (even probable) that Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 are condemning male cult prostitution specifically, and not all homosexuality in general.
However, there is another interpretation of these two passages which I, personally, find even more likely than the “male cult prostitution” interpretation. To understand this interpretation, we need to take a look at the original Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Just for reference, here is the usual translation of these passages:
You shall not sleep with a male as one sleeps with a female; it is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22 NASB)
If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. They have brought their own deaths upon themselves. (Lev. 20:13 NASB)
You may be surprised to learn this, but the parts of those two verses that I bolded are entirely an interpolation of the translator. The word “as” is not present in either the Hebrew or Greek (LXX) text at all. An entirely literal translation would, instead, look like this:
And you shall not lie with a male lyings of a female; it is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22)
The word which I translated “lyings of” above is mishkebe in the Hebrew, which is the masculine plural construct of the word shakab (meaning “to lie with”). The fact is, no one is entirely sure what this word actually means in this context. This specific form of the word is only found three places in the Old Testament; apart from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, it is only found in Genesis 49:4. Here is that verse:
“Uncontrolled as the waters, you [Reuben] shall not excel, because you went up lyings of your father, then you defiled it. He went up to my bed.”
Here, Israel curses his firstborn son Reuben because he previously had sex with his father’s concubine Bilhah (see Gen. 35:22). In this context, “lyings of your father” refers to one who had lain with his father: Bilhah, his father’s concubine. Thus, the word mishkebe must mean “one who sleeps with”, not “as one sleeps with.” If this word were translated consistently “as one sleeps with”, as it is translated in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13 in most Bible versions, we would have to conclude that Reuben “went up as one sleeps with your father,” then “defiled it.” But this is clearly a meaningless and ridiculous translation.
If we use Genesis 49:4 - the only other place where the word mishkebe is used - to translate Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, we would end up with the following translations:
And you shall not lie with a male, one who sleeps with a female; it is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22)
And if a man lies with a male, one who sleeps with a female, the two of them have committed an abomination. Surely they shall be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Lev. 20:13)
Thus, these verses are not condemning all male homosexuality indiscriminately. Rather, they are condemning the very specific action of a man having sex with another man who “sleeps with a female,” possibly referring to a heterosexual man having sex with another man, or else referring to adulterous homosexual sex [1]. This may have had some cultic significance at the time, explaining its inclusion in the condemnation of Canaanite paganism.
Paul’s “Sin Lists” and Homosexuality
Two more passages which are often used to support the condemnation of homosexuality are from Paul’s epistles, in his “sin lists” from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. Here are the passages in question:
Or do you not know that [the] unrighteous will not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither male prostitutes, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor malakoi, nor arsenokoitai, nor theives, nor greedy, nor drunkards, nor abusers, nor swindlers will inherit [the] kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10)
...knowing this, that [the] Law is not set forth for righteous, yet for lawless, and unruly, for impious and sinful, for father-killers and mother-killers, for murderers, for male prostitutes, arsenokoitais, for enslavers, for liars, for perjurers, and if anything else is opposed to sound teaching. (1 Tim. 1:9-10)
I purposely left two words untranslated in the above passages: malakoi (the plural of Greek malakos) and arsenokoitai (the plural of greek arsenokoites). The word malakos literally means “soft,” and was often used in the ancient world to describe those who were “weak/soft in morals” or even “womanly,” and sometimes referred to men who had too much sex with women (the ancient equivalent of the word “womanizer”). It was also sometimes used to describe young male prostitutes who participated in the practice of pederasty. Overall, this word had a wide semantic range and we cannot be entirely sure of what it meant to Paul [2].
The second word, arsenokoites, is far rarer and most scholars believe that it was a neologism coined by Paul himself. This word literally means “male-bedder” and thus refers to some sort of sexual act which involves a male. One theory is that Paul coined this word from the Greek text of Leviticus 20:13 (LXX), which states “kai hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos.” If this is true, then Paul was probably condemning the same thing that the book of Leviticus condemns: lying with a man “who sleeps with a female” (whatever that may mean).
However, in my opinion, the way that this word is used in post-Pauline literature does not support this idea. The two earliest occurrences of arsenokoites (apart from Paul’s epistles) can be found in the Sybilline Oracles and the Acts of John, both of which link arsenokoites to forms of economic exploitation:
Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed (to generations of generations, to the scattering of life). Do not arsenokoiten, do not betray information, do not murder. Give one who has laboured his wage. Do not oppress a poor man. Take heed of your speech. Keep a secret matter in your heart. (Make provision for orphans and widows and those in need.) Do not be willing to act unjustly, and therefore do not give leave to one who is acting unjustly. (Sybilline Oracles 2.70-77)
So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoites, the thief and all of this band, guided by your deeds you shall come to unquenchable fire... (Acts of John 36)
If we take the context to govern the meaning in these passages, we would have to conclude that arsenokoites refers to some form of sexual exploitation for economic gain. Both of these texts also have lists of sexual sins (in Oracles 2.279-282 and Acts of John 35 respectively) and yet arsenokoites is conspicuously absent from those lists. Another example of arsenokoites as exploitation may be found in Theophilus’ To Autolycus (1.2, 1.14), where it is listed with a number of other forms of economic and violent exploitation.
However, it would be incorrect to say that arsenokoites does not have a primarily sexual aspect. Polycarp, the first-century bishop of Smyrna, lists arsenokoites alongside other sexual sins like “male prostitutes” and “adulterers” in his epistle to the Philippians (5.3). Hippolytus describes a third-century heresy which claimed that the serpent of Eden, named Naas, seduced and raped Eve and Adam, “from whence has arisen adultery and arsenokoites” (Refutation of All Heresies 5.21). Eusebius, the fourth-century church historian, seems to indirectly equate arsenokoites with having a male lover (Preparation for the Gospel 6.10.25).
One of the more interesting uses of arsenokoites in ancient literature can be found in a sixth-century penitential attributed to John the Faster. This text describes arsenokoites as an action which can be performed regardless of gender (possibly anal sex), and is despised in all circumstances, though some more than others:
Likewise one must inquire about arsenokoitia of which there are three varieties. For it is one thing to get it from someone, which is the least serious; another to do it to someone else, which is more serious than having it done to you; another to do it to someone and have it done to you, which is more serious than either of the other two. For to be passive only, or active only, is not so grave as to be both... In fact, many men even commit the sin of arsenokoitia with their wives.
Here, arsenokoitai definitely cannot mean “homosexuality,” because it is something that can be done between a man and his wife. However, this text is probably too late to have any bearing on Paul’s meaning in his epistles.
Finally, one last clue as to the possible meaning of arsenokoites is the fact that, whereas this word was often grouped with “male prostitutes” and “adulterers” in early Christian texts (e.g., Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians 5.3), other texts from the same time period group “male prostitutes” and “adulterers” with “pedophiles/pederasts” [3] (e.g., Epistle of Barnabas 19.4; Didache 2.2). This suggests that arsenokoites was considered to have a meaning similar to “pedophile” or “pederast” in the first century.
So then, what is the meaning of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10? I don’t think we can really know for sure. There is quite a lot of ambiguity due to the fact that this word was first coined by Paul, and only appears in a handful of texts after him. However, the few texts in which it does appear suggest that it was some form of sexual activity connected to economic exploitation, probably related to the ancient practice of pederasty. Perhaps this word was used to refer to those who sold young male prostitutes for economic gain.
Unfortunately, modern translations do not acknowledge our uncertainty about the meaning of this word, and translate it simply as “homosexuals” [4] or, at best, “men who have sex with men,” without so much as a footnote informing the reader of the ambiguities of this word. This translation is entirely unwarranted — there are known Greek words which refer to male lovers (erastes and eromenos), so Paul would not have used entirely unrelated words like malakos and arsenokoites which have more nuanced meanings. However, ultimately, we simply don’t know exactly what Paul meant here, other than it was a sexual activity related to economic exploitation, and modern translations obfuscate this ambiguity when they translate it simply as “men who have sex with men.” Most modern readers of English translations have no idea of the nuances of this word.
It is also worth noting that, if Paul were condemning all homosexuality in these verses, that would go against one of the central messages of his epistles, which is that we are free from the Mosaic Law and are instead under the law of Christ. Under the law of Christ, the only commandment is to love one another (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14) and any other commandment is merely “the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion” (Col. 2:23). So arbitrarily condemning homosexuality, which does not go against the commandment to love one another, would be entirely contrary to Paul’s message elsewhere. Instead, arsenokoites must describe some form of exploitative sexual activity which is rightly condemned as unloving.
Conclusion
With the Sodom narrative, we saw how modern readers often read their own prejudice against homosexuality into the text, even when there is no indication at all that homosexuality in general is being condemned. Likewise, in these four passages from Leviticus and Paul’s epistles, modern Bible versions translate the ambiguous words mishkebe and arsenokoitai in such a way as to make it appear that the Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality. However, the usage of these ambiguous words from elsewhere in the Bible and other ancient texts indicates that they did not refer to all male homosexuality in general, but instead to specific, exploitative forms of homosexuality (possibly pederasty). This is not at all comparable to consensual, loving homosexual relationships.
______________________________
[1] See this article for more support for this interpretation.
[2] For a more detailed discussion of the meaning of malakos, see here and here.
[3] Παιδοφθορησεις, lit. “child-corrupters”
[4] Translating this word as “homosexual” is certainly incorrect, even if it is taken to refer to homosexual men, since that implies that lesbians are being condemned alongside gay men. But lesbianism is not mentioned even once in the entire Bible.
The Sin of Sodom: A Study in Homophobic Interpretation
In my last post, I explained how the common interpretation of Romans 1:26-27, which sees it as declaring that all homosexuality is inherently sinful, is merely one of several possible interpretations - and not even the most likely one. It is far more likely that this passage, in context, was repudiating pagan temple prostitution specifically (both male and female) and not homosexuality in general. Another possible interpretation is that Paul was taking the specific events of the Watchers’ sin (see Genesis 6:1-2) and Sodom and Gomorrah (see Genesis 19:4-7) and applying them to paganism as a whole. Either way, it is not likely that Paul was declaring all homosexuality to be sinful. The only reason to see the traditional interpretation as necessarily true is because of homophobic bias [1].
Although this Romans passage is certainly one of the most common “clobber passages” [2], it is by far not the only one. Another passage which is just as commonly used (if not more so) to ‘prove’ that homosexuality is a sin is the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative of Genesis 19:1-29. Many Christians believe that the reason that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed is because of rampant homosexuality, and this has even led to male homosexuality being called “sodomy.” But this is far from what the Bible teaches. In this post, we’ll take a look at what scripture actually has to say about the sin of Sodom.
Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis
We first hear of Sodom in Genesis 13:10-13, where we are told that the men of that city were “exceedingly wicked and sinful against Yahweh.” This city does not appear again until five chapters later, when an angel of Yahweh appears to Abraham to tell him that Sodom and Gomorrah will be destroyed, because “the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and their sin is exceedingly grave” (Gen. 18:20). Abraham then barters with God, asking if 50, 45, 40, 30, 20, or even just 10 righteous people are found there, will God still destroy the city? God promises that if even 10 righteous men are found there, the city will not be destroyed. So far, there is no mention of what the sin of Sodom actually is.
Now, we have arrived at the main part of the narrative which is often used to condemn homosexuality. Let’s examine it to see what the Bible actually says:
And two angels came in the evening to Sodom, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. And when Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed with his face to the ground. And he said, “Here now, my lords, please turn in to the house of your servant, and spend the night, and wash your feet. Then you may rise early and go on your way.” And they said, “No, for we will spend the night in the public square.” But he insisted strongly, so they turned in to him and entered into his house, and he baked unleavened bread and made a feast for them, and they ate.
Now before they lay down, the men of the city of Sodom encompassed the house, from young to 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 know them.” So Lot went out through the doorway to them, and shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, do not act wickedly, my brothers. Lo, now I have two daughters who have not known a man, please, let me bring them to you and you may do to them as is good in your eyes. Only do not do anything to these men, for they have come upon the shadow of my roof.”
And they said, “Stand back.” And they said, “This one came in to sojourn, and now he is continually acting as a judge! We will deal worse with you than with them.” So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door. But the men reached out their hands, and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. And they struck the men who were at the door of the house with blindness, from small to great, so that they wearied to find the door.
And the men said to Lot, “Who else do you have here? A son-in-law and your sons and your daughters and whomever you have in the city, take them out of this place. For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of Yahweh, and Yahweh has sent us to destroy it.” (Gen. 19:1-13)
If this is supposed to demonstrate that all homosexuality is sinful, it does a terrible job of doing so. Of course, it shows that the men of Sodom tried to gang-rape Lot’s angelic guests, which is unequivocally wrong and sinful. But how does that show that all homosexuality is sinful? To say that homosexual gang rape being wrong means that all homosexuality is sinful is equivalent to observing that heterosexual rape is also wrong, and concluding that all heterosexuality is wrong and sinful. It should be immediately apparent that this is fallacious reasoning. Any rape is wrong, regardless of who is involved, but this has no bearing on the sinfulness of any type of consensual sex.
Despite this fact which should be obvious, some apologists have still argued that the sin of Sodom was homosexuality in general. One such article is “Sodom and Gomorrah: What Was the Primary Sin?“ by Answers in Genesis, in which they claim that their sin must have been homosexuality, because they did not take up Lot on his offer to rape his daughters instead. Certainly, it is possible that the men of Sodom were homosexual. But regardless of their sexual orientation, it should be clear that the rape is what was wrong here, not the sexual orientation itself.
The Benjaminites of Gibeah
The fact that it was the rape, and not the sexual orientation itself, which God considered sinful can be seen in Judges 19-20. But this time, the passage is not directly about Sodom or any of the other cities on the plain. This narrative is, instead, about a very similar sequence of events which took place in Gibeah of Benjamin during the Judges era of Israel’s history. In this passage, there are many similarities with the story of Sodom. For example:
- The visitors enter the city and go to a meeting place: the town square and the city gate respectively (Judg. 19:15 cf. Gen. 19:1).
- The visitors meet their host at that meeting place (Judg. 19:16-19 cf. Gen. 19:1).
- The host is not originally from that city (Judg. 19:16 cf. Gen. 13:12-13).
- The host invites them to spend the night in his house (Judg. 19:20 cf. Gen. 19:2).
- The visitors object and offer instead to spend the night in the town square, something which should not be done (Judg. 19:20 cf. Gen. 19:2).
- The host nevertheless takes them into his house (Judg. 19:21 cf. Gen. 19:3).
- The host feeds the visitors (Judg. 19:21 cf. Gen. 19:3).
- The men of the city encircle the house (Judg. 19:22 cf. Gen. 19:4).
- The men of the city get the attention of the host and say, “Bring out the men/man that we may know [i.e. rape] them” (Judg. 19:22 cf. Gen. 19:5).
- The host comes out and says, “My brothers, do not act wickedly” (Judg. 19:23 cf. Gen. 19:6-7).
- The host objects that the men/man inside are his guests and offers two women to rape instead (Judg. 19:23-24 cf. Gen. 19:8).
- The host says, “Please let me bring them out... do to them whatever you like” (Judg. 19:24 cf. Gen. 19:8).
- The crowd rejects the offer (Judg. 19:25 cf. Gen. 19:9).
- The guest(s) move someone through the door; at Gibeah, the Levite guest pushes his concubine through the door, whereas at Sodom, the two angels pull Lot through the door (Judg. 19:25 cf. Gen. 19:10).
Look, the iniquity of your sister Sodom was this: she and her daughters had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness, but she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were proud and committed abomination before me, and therefore I took them away as I saw fit. (Ezek. 16:49-50)
The reason that Sodom and her “daughters”, the cities of the plain, were destroyed was not that they had rampant homosexuality, but that they failed to “strengthen the hand” of the poor among them despite being materially wealthy [4].
Now, some people have claimed that the unnamed “abominations” which Ezekiel also cites for the destruction of Sodom might include homosexuality. It’s important to recognize that this is merely circular reasoning, because in order to see homosexuality as a possible “abomination,” one must presuppose that homosexuality is an “abomination.” But fortunately, we have a list of all the things which God considers to be an abomination, so we can test this claim that homosexuality was Sodom’s “abomination”.
There are six things which Yahweh hates, and seven are an abomination to Him: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren. (Prov. 6:16-19)
Homosexuality is conspicuously missing from this list. Thus, homosexuality in general cannot have been one of the “abominations” of Sodom, because homosexuality is not an abomination! [5]
The other two major prophets of the Old Testament, Isaiah and Jeremiah, also provide their own commentary on the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. See the following passages:
Unless Yahweh of hosts had left us a small remnant to us, we would have become like Sodom, and we would have been made like Gomorrah. Hear the word of Yahweh, you rulers of Sodom; give ear to the law of our God, you people of Gomorrah... Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes. Cease to do evil, learn to do good, seek justice, rebuke the oppressor, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow. (Isa. 1:9-10, 16-17)
And in the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing. They commit adultery, and walk in lies; they strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns back from his wickedness. All of them are to Me like Sodom, and her inhabitants like Gomorrah. (Jer. 23:14)
Again, conspicuously absent from either of these sin lists is homosexuality. If the primary sin of Sodom was homosexuality, none of these ancient prophets had any knowledge of this. Instead, we are told that their sin was inhospitality and a failure to care for the poor and needy among them, just one symptom of which was their attempt to rape Lot’s angelic guests.
The sin of Sodom in the New Testament
Some, who will still claim that Sodom’s sin was homosexuality - to the exclusion of virtually all the biblical evidence - point to the New Testament instead. Supposedly, the book of Jude demonstrates that Sodom’s sin was homosexuality. Let’s take a look at the passage thought to prove this:
...just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, [in] like manner with them having committed prostitution and having gone away after other flesh, are set [as] an example, undergoing a penalty of age-during fire. (Jude 7)
It is thought by many that “having gone away after other flesh” refers specifically to the homosexuality of the men of Sodom. But if you really think about it, this interpretation arises not from sound exegesis but from unconscious bias. After all, in what other context would “other flesh” possibly mean “males”? Rather, if we remember that the men who were staying at Lot’s house were angels, we can see that the “other flesh” referred to here is specifically angelic beings. This is even more clear when this passage is put into context:
And angels not having kept their dominion, but having left their own habitation [cf. Gen. 6:1-2], He keeps to [the] judgment of [the] great day in imperceptible chains under darkness, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, [in] like manner with them having committed prostitution and having gone away after other flesh, are set [as] an example, undergoing a penalty of age-during fire. (Jude 6-7)
This passage, like its parallel in 2 Peter 2:4-7, compares the sinful actions of the male angels of Genesis 6 who had sex with female humans with the likewise sinful actions of the men of Sodom who attempted to rape the angelic guests of Lot. Both of these groups are said by Jude to have “gone away after other flesh.” Yet the Genesis 6 account involves sinful heterosexual relationships.
Like with the Gibeah narrative, if those who believe that Jude 7 condemns all homosexuality applied a consistent hermeneutic, they would need to conclude from Jude 6 that all heterosexuality is likewise condemned. Of course, this is a ludicrous interpretation. The sin of Sodom highlighted by Jude is not all homosexuality in general, but specifically the act of sex with angels, who are the “other flesh” mentioned here.
Conclusion
So, just to reiterate, according to the Bible:
- The men of Sodom attempted to rape a guest of Lot, a male angel, after being condemned to destruction.
- The same thing occurred hundreds of years later in Gibeon, where a woman was raped instead, and it was considered just as much of an abomination.
- The sin of Sodom was explicitly said by the prophets of the Old Testament to be inhospitality, pride, and other abominable acts, not homosexuality.
- In addition, Jude wrote that another sin of Sodom was trying to have sex with angels.
And name what sin you will, none will you mention equal to this lawlessness [homosexuality]. And if they that suffer such things perceived them, they would accept ten thousand deaths so they might not suffer this evil. For there is not, there surely is not, a more grievous evil than this insolent dealing... You have not made yourself a dog out of a man, but an animal more disgraceful than this... But nothing can there be more worthless than a man who has pandered himself... you that were more senseless than irrational creatures, and more shameless than dogs!
Should we really accept John Chrysostom’s interpretation of the Sodom narrative as sound exegesis, when he was so clearly biased on this issue? No, especially since the biblical commentary on the story itself repudiates this conclusion by explaining that Sodom’s sin was specifically their attempt to gang-rape an angel (along with general inhospitality), not homosexuality in general.