Sodom and Gomorrah
The purpose of the Genesis narrative was to show that God was justified in destroying the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by highlighting the worst of their sins (in Ch 19). They were certainly guilty of other sins1. Not only did the men want to have sex with the male visitors, but they wanted to rape them and unknowingly have sex with angels2. The account is interesting because Abraham had already had dealings with the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah so they were aware of the God that Abraham served (Gen 14). Lot a righteous man lived there (Gen 13:10, 2 Pet 2:7). Secondly the angels would have spared the city if only ten righteous people were found within it (Gen 18:32). Abraham bargained with the Lord for the city, he did not want it to be destroyed along with the righteous (Lot was his brothers son).
There were less than ten righteous people in the city. In that situation the angels had to rescue the righteous Lot before they destroyed the city (2 Pet 2:7-9), they could not destroy the city until Lot was safe (Gen 19:22). The story highlights the sin of the people by piling sin upon sin, not only did the men want sex with the visiting men, they wanted to rape them and unknowingly they wanted to rape angels. The narrative serves to show that God was indeed just in destroying the city. But first God had to rescue the righteous before his judgement could fall. Gordon J Wenham notes9 "It is often noted by commentators that the destruction of Sodom parallels the destruction of the world by Noah's flood. In both cases we have a complete population being obliterated and only one family escaping thanks to divine intervention. There are many verbal parallels between the stories too. It may also be noted that the motive for divine judgment is similar in both cases. The flood was sent because of the great wickedness of man demonstrated by the illicit union of women with supernatural beings, 'the sons of God'. In the case of Sodom another type of illicit sexual intercourse is at least contributory in showing it deserves its destruction" Sodom was destroyed because of its inhospitality to visitors. The pro-gay theologian has to resort to the excuse that Sodom was destroyed because of the inhospitality of its citizens10, not because of homosexuality. The argument is maintained by looking to Jesus comments on Sodom, when he sent the disciples to the surrounding towns and they did not welcome them (were inhospitible) then he says "it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town" (Mat 10:15, Luke 10:12). In a sense the pro-gay theologian is right; they were inhospitable because the men of the city (both young and old) wanted to rape the male visitors, who were actually angels. It is, of course, clear that the men of the city wanted to have sex with the strangers, because Lot offered them his daughters instead (Gen 19:5)3. However, the people of Sodom were already wicked before the angels arrived there. Lot pleaded with the men surrounding the house not to act so wickedly, they clearly did not want to say "hello and shake hands" with the visitors, they had wicked intentions. It is obvious that the men of the city (both old and young) wanted to know (yada) these visitors sexually. This is made clear from Lot's response to the pleas of the men. Firstly he says "do not act so wickedly", then he offered them his two daughters instead, who had not known a man (yada), he was certainly well aware of what they wanted, but they still insisted on knowing these men instead.
The men refused the offer of his daughters. From this it is clear that they preferred intercourse (rape) with the men rather than the daughters of Lot. Even when struck blind by the angels, the men wore themselves out trying to find the door (Gen 19:8), such was the depravity of these people. This was not a one off event; these cities were wicked in the sight of the Lord long before that. 2Pet 2:8 indicates that their lawless deeds were a daily occurrence: "(for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard);" What is perhaps more tragic is that the daughters of Lot, having been abandoned by their husbands (and their father), resorted to incest in order to continue the name of their father. They had given up hope of finding a man to continue their family lineage. The consequences of incest are seen in the two sons they bore Moab and Ammon4. These would prove to be a thorn in the side for God?s people for many centuries to come. These daughters of Lots had also been abandoned by their father, because he offered them to be raped by the men of the city. The argument given by the pro-gay theologians that the sin of the city is its inhospitality to visitors is so ludicrous that they lose all credibility. It would be more honest to say that the men of Sodom wanted to rape the male visitors and that Christian gays would not even contemplate that. Even so, if attempted rape was not mentioned, it would still not legitimise same sex intercourse, the lack of a coercive element does not legitimise the act11. Both Jude and 2 Peter refer to some kind of sexual immorality in Sodom and Gomorrah5. It is male-male intercourse, with attempted rape then added, plus attempted rape with angels (unknowingly) added to that. It serves to show that God was justified in destroying the city. The whole narrative serves to show us that God could not even find ten righteous people within the city. He therefore rescues Lot so that he and his family would not be destroyed and it shows us an extreme example of the great wickedness of the people of the city and that God was right and just in destroying it. Not only did the men want to have sex with other men, they wanted to rape the male visitors, but visitors were also angels, it is sin piled up on sin and demonstrates that God was justified in destroying the city. It is the opposite to Heb 13:2 in which we are encouraged to show hospitality to strangers because in doing so some have entertained angels without knowing it.
The Ezekiel passage:
The Ezekiel passage (16:49-50) mentions other sins of Sodom besides homosexual rape, like arrogance, overfed, unconcerned and they did not help the poor and needy, but this just adds to the charge against Sodom, and makes Sodom sound even more like today's society in the West. But what is usually omitted by the pro-gay apologist is that they "did an abomination (to'ebah) before me". to'ebah is the same word used when describing male-male intercourse in the Levitical prohibitions, it is an abomination (to'ebah). Not only is the West overfed and arrogant, it ignores the poor in other countries and above all that it enacts laws that promote homosexual practise. If it were not for the presence of righteous people then God would be just in destroying the West just as he did Sodom and Gomorrah. Sodom and Gomorrah are also used as examples in the NT. First, Jesus says that any town who does not receive the disciples or their word will receive a worse punishment than Sodom and Gomorrah.
Then Jesus denounces the cities where he had done miracles because they did not repent. If Sodom had seen Jesus miracles they would have repented and not been destroyed.
The Luke version has been used to show that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality. Those towns that did not receive the disciples (were not hospitable to them) would receive a worse judgement than Sodom.
Sodom and Gomorrah are also used in 2 Peter and Jude as an example of what will happen to the ungodly, especially false teachers within the church. However it is clear that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah pursued sensual conduct (2 Pet 2:7) and indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire (Jude 1:7). They serve as an example by undergoing the punishment of eternal fire, it is unlikely that this punishment is simply for inhospitality.
It is interesting that 2 Peter 2:4-10 refers to angelic sin when it comes to the flood, when angels had sex with human woman (2 Pe 2:4, see Gen 6:2). When it comes to Sodom and Gomorrah and its destruction, humans wanted to have sex with the angels, and they were also destroyed. The unnatural desire (strange flesh6) mentioned in Jude could refer either to same-sex intercourse or more likely sex with angels. The rape of the concubine at Gibeah This is very similar to the Sodom and Gomorrah story.
In the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative the angels wanted to stay the night in the town square (Gen 19:2), but Lot pressed them strongly so that they would spend the night in his house (Gen 19:3), Lot offered them his daughters so they would not violate the visitors. In the Judges narrative a visitor was also in the town square, and an old man brought him into his house, the man offers them his visitor's concubine, so that they would not violate the visitor. The parallels with Sodom and Gomorrah are often striking.
In a similar way to Sodom and Gomorrah the visitors wanted to stay in the town square, but clearly the host knew that it was unsafe there as the account shows. Both the man and Lot pleaded with the men surrounding the house not to do such a wicked thing, they clearly did not want to say "hello" to the visitor, they had wicked intentions. The men of the city wanted to know the stranger, they wanted to know the visitor in a sexual sense, this is made clear because the man gave them his visitor's concubine instead, so they raped her rather than the visitor. They both offered their virgin daughter(s) instead, so that the men of the town would not violate the male visitors. In both cases male rape was intended, and in both cases the solution was also wicked. It can be argued that the men of Gibeah were heterosexuals since they actually raped the woman, against that we could also argue that they were bisexual. The same can be said of Sodom and Gomorrah since Lot's daughters had men who they were about to marry them7. However the Levitical Laws and the Pauline prohibitions on male-male intercourse apply as much to gay men as to bisexual men. The fact that Paul does not use a specific term8 to specify a homosexual man means that he is indicting both gays and bisexual men. We can argue that the charge against male-female rape is the coercive element, in that it was without consent. The bible clearly allows for consensual male-female sex within marriage. The case against the Gibeanites was not just male-male rape, because the Levitical laws had already prohibited male-male intercourse. It was a case of male-male intercourse plus the coercive element of rape, but the bible does not allow for consensual male-male intercourse. In the case of Sodom it was a case of male-male intercourse, plus coercive rape, plus the rape of angels. As in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah the Benjaminites were almost destroyed because of this incident. The book of Judges ends with these words. "Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." It sounds just like our day. Footnotes 1 Possibly Eze 16:49 ESV Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. But see what the NT authors say Jud 1:7 ESV just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. 2 A reversal of Gen 6:1-2 when the angels had sex with men. 3 Compare with the Gibeah account. Jdg 19:24 ESV Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine. Let me bring them out now. Violate them and do with them what seems good to you, but against this man do not do this outrageous thing." 4 Gen 19:31-38 5 Jude 1:7, 2 Pet 2:6. 6 Greek heteros sarx (literally different or strange flesh) 7 Gen 19:14 ESV So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, "Up! Get out of this place, for the LORD is about to destroy the city." But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting. 8 Paul uses the Greek term arsenokoites which simply refers to men having sex with men, and is based on the Levitical prohibition that men should not lie with a man as they would with a woman (from the Septuagint (LXX) Greek version of the OT). Paul is not really concerned that they be homosexual or bisexual, it makes no difference to him, he is not aware of our modern distinction. Paul could have used other Greek terms for people who had a homosexual disposition or orientation (tribades and kinaidoi), but he did not, because it would be too restrictive. 9. The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality Gordon J Wenham * Expository Times 102 (1991): 259-363 10. The inhospitality argument was popularised by John Boswell Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century by John Boswell (1980). Chicago. But was first mentioned by Derrick Sherwin Bailey (1955) in Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. 11. Neither the Levitical prohibitions or Paul's teaching, deal with coersive, exploitative same-sex intercourse. Neither done in association with idolatry or prostitution. They both condemn same-sex intercourse per se. Links:
|