Genesis 19: The Sin of Sodom
February 2, 2008

We all know about Sodom. People who’ve never picked up a Bible have used the story of Sodom and its fiery demise as condemnation against homosexuality and here’s just one example from an email I received from someone who had a less than favorable view of homosexuality:
“There is a story in the bible, i would find it if i had the time, but it talks about this really sinful city. I believe it was around Abraham’s time. God talks about how he turned his back on these people because of their wicked sins. One of the sins He talks about is homosexuality.”
“One of the sins He (God) talks about is homosexuality.” Nope. God never talks about homosexuality or same-sex anything in reference to Sodom. The story of Sodom as evidence of the biblical witness against homosexuality has been dismissed by many scholars and theologians, including those who hold a non-affirming stance, as a straw dog, an argument that’s easy to disprove. And yet there are still those who come wielding the story like it’s the smoking gun. This is it. Sodom. Sodomites. Fire and brimstone. Case closed.
And maybe that’s what you’ve heard all your life and after years of having the Sodom-Homosexuality connection repeated over and over it can be really hard to believe any other possibility, but I’m going to ask you to try, try to imagine at least until the end of this page and see if anything you read here makes you wonder about the certainty of it all.
When homosexuality is named as the sin, or one of the sins, of Sodom, that’s a claim that’s staked on something other than what’s actually written in the Bible about the place because throughout both the Testaments there’s an abundance of references to Sodom’s sin and none of them imply or specifically tag homosexuality as one of them. The sin(s) of Sodom provided in the biblical text are:
- Idolatry Deuteronomy 29:17-26; 32:32-38
- Murder, greed, theft, rebellion Isaiah 1:9-23
- Mistreating the poor, arrogance Isaiah 3:8-19
- Adultery, deceit by priests and prophets, pride of the heart, idolatry Jeremiah 23:10-14; 49:16-18; 50:2-40
- Cruelty, failure to care for the young and poor Lamentations 4:3-6
- Pride, greed, laziness, mistreatment of the poor and needy, haughty, abominations Ezekiel 16:49-50
- Oppression and mistreating the poor Amos 4:1-11
- Pride Zephaniah 2:8
- Living after ungodliness 2 Peter 2:6
- Fornication, going after strange flesh Jude 1
There are four other mentions of Sodom in the New Testament by Jesus. Three times Jesus referred to the city within the context of inhospitality (more on this in a minute) and another time Jesus compared the suddenness of the coming of the Kingdom of God with the suddenness of the judgment that befell the time in the time of Noah and the land of Sodom. In all three passages Jesus says nothing about the exact nature of Sodom’s sin.Wouldn’t you think that if the sin, or even one of the sins of Sodom had been homosexuality that it would have appeared somewhere in the Bible. Just a little side mention even?
Let’s go back to the story in Genesis 19 where we have Lot, standing at the gate, welcomes the two strangers, leading them through the defensive walls of the city and into the safe haven of his home. Having not been born in Sodom, Lot is considered an outsider himself so the men of Sodom, wary not only of these two strangers but of Lot, gather outside Lot’s house demanding that the strangers be sent out to them so they could have sex with them. Because the angry mob consisting of every male citizen of Sodom were all queer? With women and children included among the inhabitants, hardly. The crowd wasn’t comprised of gay men or straight men on the low-down. Sex for the sake of sex had nothing to do with what these men intended to do. Their intention was to let these strangers who had come into their city know exactly who was charge and so they sought to perpetrate a violent gang rape on them and put them in their place. This sounds like extreme behavior at first but not really. We hear about the same thing happening in prisons in our contemporary culture. The long-term inmates want to let the new boys know who holds the power. In antiquity the conquering armies frequently raped their defeated opponent as a sign of total supremacy, and rape, whether perpetrated against another man or a woman was then, as it is today, about power, not sex.
So what was Sodom’s sin if not homosexuality? Along with the other sins mentioned, the sin suggested both in Genesis 19 and in Jesus’ references to Sodom would be inhospitality. It’s hard to understand how inhospitality could be viewed with such contempt when in our current context, hospitality means setting out the hand towels that actually match the bathroom decor and putting dinner on the dining room table rather than on folding trays in front of the television. It means saying to a guest, “Our home is your home” and meaning it. It’s a warm welcome. In our world hospitality means being gracious and cordial to a visitor who enters our home but the same was not the case in antiquity. In a country where cities and villages were separated by the harsh desert, hospitality was life-giving to the one on a journey passing through. It was more than good manners; it was a matter of life and death, and to show hospitality to a stranger was considered a sacred obligation.
As was mentioned earlier, when Jesus referred to Sodom it was within the context of inhospitality. In both Luke 10 and Matthew 10 Jesus warns that a worse fate awaits those villages that don’t welcome his disciples than the fate that came to the lands of Sodom and Gomorrah. In a similar manner Matthew 11 tells of an occasion when Jesus compares the judgment that Sodom receives to those who don’t receive his miracles or the words of John the Baptist. When comparisons are made, they’re made between similar things and so it would be like comparing apples to oranges were Jesus to have compared the punishment coming to those who were inhospitable to his followers as to what came to the inhabitants of Sodom as a result of their sexual sin.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!







Posted in

April 1st, 2008 at 10:53 am
Very interesting, especially the list of scripture references which clearly tell us how God and the authors of scripture understood the Sodom story. Why don’t conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists believe their own Bible?
Great work and much appreciated!
God bless you and your ministry.
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com
June 1st, 2008 at 2:56 am
So has there been a mistranslation/misinterpritation with the whole
City = Sodom = Sodomy = Anal Sex = Sin?
June 1st, 2008 at 8:17 am
Kurri–> That’s certainly what many would argue, particularly if you limit your reading to what the Scriptures itself says was the sin of Sodom. In that case, sodomy would better be defined as pride, inhospitality, arrogance, cruelty to the poor and orphaned, etc. If you have an interest in this topic Mark Jordan’s book, “The Invention of sodomy in Christian Theology” deals directly with your question.
June 11th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
[...] For a fuller understanding of just what “hospitality” meant in Biblical times, go here. So no, ma’am, that has nothing to do with allowing people in California who love each other [...]
September 7th, 2008 at 3:38 am
I am a Christian gay man who is solidly grounded in my beliefs. I came to your sight not for conformation of what I have come to know on my own (that God loves EVERYONE and homosexuality is definitely NOT wrong) but out of curiosity and to see how unbiased your stance is. It frustrates me that people who believe that homosexuality is not forbidden in the Bible often fall to the same lip-service and name calling that the other side does. I’m impressed with this site; I like what you have here. I think it’s very well put together. But I was curious why the Jude reference wasn’t made available like the others. It just makes it look like you’re hiding something you can’t explain (But I don’t think you are). So I looked it up, (it’s Jude, verse 7; there are no chapters) and in my opinion, Jude is talking about worshiping other gods. He says in vs. 5 that God destroyed people for their unbelief, and goes on is vs. 6 to mention the angels who turned from God to Satan and were condemned. Then he uses Sodom as a further example, for ‘going after strange flesh.’ It does mention fornication, but that is within the wider context of turning to a ’strange’ faith outside of God. And many pagan (demonically inspired?) religions used sexual practices and sexual degradation of many varying kinds in their ceremonies. The temples of Babylon had prostitutes, male and female, who would let their bodies be used for these pagan rituals. My father, a pastor and Biblical historian, believes that Mary Magdalene may have been a temple prostitute, but I don’t know his basis for this claim. Anyway, I think it’s important to include this in the explanation because ‘going after strange flesh’ could easily be misread as referencing homosexuality. Also, as a side note, I want to agree with you in the idea that the entire Scripture is written for us, but not the everything is written TO us. This way of interpreting the Bible is called Dispensationalism. I’ve been studying it, and I think it’s correct. God set rules and limits and made promises and warnings to a certain set of people at a certain point in history. That’s why we don’t need to follow the Rabbinical diet or Leviticus’ restrictions. It’s not a new idea, and it helps to make many things about the comparison between Old Testament and New Testament much clearer.
September 7th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
James–> Thanks so much for checking out SisterFriends and adding a few comments of your own. I actually did make a small mention of Jude in the list of Scriptures that mentioned what the explicitly stated sins of Sodom were however I only mentioned it in passing because in most conversations I’ve had with others the passage in Jude hasn’t been a prominent argument or concern. I appreciate what you added to round out some thoughts on that passage. For me, Jude’s references to Sodom are simply too ambiguous for anyone to build a case on one way or another, though I find the use of “strange” flesh to be interesting since it seems far more logical that the sin of going after strange flesh would be more applicable to the men of Sodom going after the flesh of angels. I don’t think it’s appropriate to use this passage to condemn homosexuality as it would be a stretch to equate “strange” flesh with “same” flesh. Again James, I appreciate your perspective on all this and hope you wander this way again.