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:

1. 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).
   
   
2. The visitors meet their host at that meeting place (Judg. 19:16-19 cf. Gen. 19:1).
   
   
3. The host is not originally from that city (Judg. 19:16 cf. Gen. 13:12-13).
   
   
4. The host invites them to spend the night in his house (Judg. 19:20 cf. Gen. 19:2).
   
   
5. 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).
   
   
6. The host nevertheless takes them into his house (Judg. 19:21 cf. Gen. 19:3).
   
   
7. The host feeds the visitors (Judg. 19:21 cf. Gen. 19:3).
   
   
8. The men of the city encircle the house (Judg. 19:22 cf. Gen. 19:4).
   
   
9. 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).
   
   
10. The host comes out and says, “My brothers, do not act wickedly” (Judg. 19:23 cf. Gen. 19:6-7).
    
    
11. 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).
    
    
12. The host says, “Please let me bring them out... do to them whatever you like” (Judg. 19:24 cf. Gen. 19:8).
    
    
13. The crowd rejects the offer (Judg. 19:25 cf. Gen. 19:9).
    
    
14. 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).

Virtually the only difference between the two accounts is that, at the end, rather than the men of the city being struck with blindness, they rape the (female) concubine of the Levite guest. Yet this is considered just as much an abomination - if not more so - than the attempted rape of the male angels in the city of Sodom. In fact, after news of the event spreads through Israel, the people of Israel say, “No deed like this has been done or seen, from the day that the sons of Israel came up from the land of Egypt until this day! Consider this, make a plan, and speak up” (Judg. 19:30). The people of Israel decide to punish the rapists by killing the people of Gibeah, and God affirms this action (Judg. 20:18, 23, 28, 35).

    Now, many Christians see the condemnation of the city of Sodom as evidence that all homosexuality is sinful. But virtually the exact same thing happened to the city of Gibeah, when a heterosexual (rather than homosexual) rape occurred. If the Sodom narrative proves that all homosexuality is sinful, applying a consistent hermeneutic would mean that the Gibeah narrative proves that all heterosexuality is sinful. Of course, this is a ludicrous conclusion. In both cases, it is the rape or attempted rape which is rightfully condemned; the sexual orientation of the people involved has nothing to do with it. Homosexuality was no more the sin of Sodom than heterosexuality was the sin of Gibeah.

    The sin of Sodom according to the Prophets

However, fortunately, we don’t have to guess what the sin of Sodom was, since it is explicitly stated elsewhere in the Bible. According to the prophet Ezekiel, the attempted rape of Lot’s angelic guests was merely a symptom of a larger problem [3] - one which had nothing to do with homosexuality. No, instead, we are told that their problem was general inhospitality and a failure to care for the poor among them. This is what Ezekiel said:

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:

1. The men of Sodom attempted to rape a guest of Lot, a male angel, after being condemned to destruction.
   
   
2. 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.
   
   
3. The sin of Sodom was explicitly said by the prophets of the Old Testament to be inhospitality, pride, and other abominable acts, not homosexuality.
   
   
4. In addition, Jude wrote that another sin of Sodom was trying to have sex with angels.

Is it logical, at all, to conclude from these passages that (1) all homosexuality is sin, both male and female, and that (2) the reason Sodom was destroyed is because they were homosexuals? No, of course not, how ridiculous! But this is the interpretation that has been accepted for the vast majority of church history.

    Why is that? I can see no other reason than simple homophobia. The modern interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah was first introduced by John Chrysostom in the fourth century [6], who was one of the most infamously homophobic of all the early church writers. I won’t reproduce his entire commentary on Romans 1:26-27 here, because it is so horrifyingly awful. But here are some of the (more tame) excerpts:

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. 

    Just as the Bible was misinterpreted in the past to support slavery and other things which are now recognized to be wrong, so also it has been misinterpreted - and is currently being misinterpreted - to support the false narrative that homosexuality is inherently sinful. The Sodom account is probably the clearest example of this unintentionally malicious misinterpretation. Even though the Bible is absolutely clear that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality and a failure to care for the poor and needy, one symptom of which was the attempted rape of Lot’s angelic guests, many modern Christians erroneously believe that their primary sin was simply homosexuality and nothing more. Unfortunately, as with so many other issues, Christian conservatives are simply ignoring the biblical truth.

______________________________

[1] Although there are certainly those who have simply always been taught this interpretation, and don’t interpret it this way because of their own prejudice, the interpretation originally arose from a place of homophobia.

[2] “Clobber passages” is the name given by the LGBT+ community to those passages which have been traditionally misinterpreted to “clobber” non-heterosexual or trans individuals.

[3] Remember, Sodom and the other cities of the plain were marked for destruction long prior to the attempted rape incident (even as early as Genesis 13:10-13), so the attempted rape incident was not what directly resulted in their destruction.

[4] Ironically, those who claim that homosexuality is a sin are often also against federal welfare programs, thus making them guilty of the sin of Sodom. Those who bemoan the rise of “sodomy” are, themselves, technically “sodomites” by the biblical definition. But let’s not get into politics here.

[5] There are, however, two passages in Leviticus which are often used to argue that homosexuality is an abomination. See my forthcoming post on these passages.

[6] Prior to John Chrysostom, the general consensus by church fathers like Origen, St. Ambrose, and John Cassian was that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality to strangers. See Boswell, John. 1980. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.