WHAT WAS SODOM'S SIN? (GENESIS 9)

There is a huge controversy regarding this subject, but first let us see what passages outside of Genesis have to say on the subject. Sprinkle notes, “Elsewhere when the sins of Sodom are listed, injustice, adultery, pride, indifference to the poor and general wickedness are mentioned, but not homosexuality (Is. 1:10; 3:9; Jer 23:14; Ezek 16:46-48)...Boswell claims that Jesus, who mentions Sodom in conjunction with the failure of cities to receive his disciples (Mt 10:14-15; Lk 10:10-12), also interpreted this narrative as a lack of hospitality and that this story is at most tangentially related to sexuality.” More on this view below.

To the above list, one could easily add that the inhabitants of the town were xenophobic to a high degree. Just look at Genesis 19:9a where the men mock Lot for being an “alien” even though he had been living in Sodom for some time. I witnessed this phenomenon when I lived in upstate New York. My technician had lived in a small nearby town all of his life, and he would tell the story of a friend he knew whose family had lived there for many decades. He said that the townspeople continued to refer to that family as “those people from X.” I won't name the neighboring village from which they originated, but the clear implication was that they could be dismissed since “they are not really one of us.”

Blenkinsopp adds to this list the following passages: Isaiah 13:19; Amos 4:11; Jeremiah 49:18; 50:40; and Zephaniah 2:9. He states, “Sodom and Gomorrah became bywords for spectacular divine judgment on immoral conduct, though no mention of sexual immorality occurs before the Hellenistic period.” That fact alone should give pause to those, such as a friend of mine, who recently wrote me, “Seems pretty clear what was going on and how God feels about homosexuality.”

At this point, some clarification in terminology is in order. We need to carefully distinguish between homosexuality (same-sex attraction), homosexual acts, and homosexual rape. To say that the first is being condemned by God here is a gross overstatement and appears nowhere else in the Bible as far as I am aware. The second category is indeed condemned as sin elsewhere in the Bible, but probably not in this story. But there is no doubt that at least one of Sodom's many sins was a desire for homosexual rape. And in this respect, even the other cultures of the time in that area would agree that this is totally unacceptable behavior, as is heterosexual rape.

Wenham states, “All homosexual practice is regarded by Old Testament law as a capital offense (Lev 18:22; 20:13; cf. Rom 1:26-27), but the attitude of Israel's neighbors is less clear...It seems likely that they allowed homosexual acts between consenting adults, but here homosexual gang rape is being proposed...” Elsewhere, he writes, “Homosexual acts between consenting adults though condemned in the Old Testament as incompatible with the creator's plan, were tolerated in most other societies in the ancient Orient. But homosexual rape was not.”

Before going much further, there is one school of interpretation regarding Sodom that should be mentioned and then discarded. D.A. Carson, for one, heavily critiques Morschauser's contention that the men of Sodom suspect the two men of being spies and merely want to question them more carefully: “Morschauser's reconstruction sounds too neat, not to say naïve.” Hamilton treats this scenario “as wild and fanciful.” And Sprinkle says, “Such a reconstruction is hardly sufficient, however. What the men of Sodom wanted to do to the angels was, to be sure, an act of inhospitality, but the homosexual element cannot easily be eliminated.”

It is impossible to discuss the story of Sodom without also considering the similar event occurring later in Gibeah (Judges 19:22-30). D.R. Davis notes that “the similarity between Genesis 19:1-11 and Judges 19:22-26 is unmistakable. And deliberate.” Webb agrees: “The extensive verbal parallels between the present scene [Judges 19] and that in Genesis 19:4-9 are obvious, and serve to emphasize this moment as one of particularly gross depravity.” And Gray points out some “of the significant close parallels between the story of Sodom and one variant of the story of the outrage at Gibeah.”There is some scholarly discussion as to which story came first, and Hamilton concludes, “The literary relationship between these stories is not clear.” Just look at the following (comments on Judges given in italics):

Two strangers come to Sodom late in the evening. 

    Three strangers – A Levite, his concubine, and a servant – arrive in Gibeah at night.

Lot, who is not from Sodom, invites them to spend the night at his house. They first announce their intention to spend the night in the city square, but Lot insists and they accept his offer. Wenham says: “Whatever the angelic motives [for at first refusing his hospitality], Lot is scared of what may happen if they do not spend the night with himj. So scared that 'he pressed them' to come in.”

    An old man, who is not from Gibeah, sees them alone in the city square and takes them into his house for the night after telling them that they shouldn't stay in the city square at night. Webb stresses the fact that the man who takes them in significantly is not a Benjamite. “He was not born in Gibeah, but merely 'resides' (gar) there as a stranger without full citizenship rights.”“As in Gen. 19, the hospitality of the sojourner emphasizes by contrast the churlishness of the natives.” (J. Gray)

He prepares a feast for them to eat.

    He gives them food and drink and takes care of their donkeys.

All the men of the city surround the house and demand that Lot bring out the angels so that they can have sex with them. Hamilton explains, “The expression ['young and old'] does not mean that Lot's house was surrounded by elderly men and children. Rather, it indicates that all, or most, adult males took part in the incident.” Similarly, 'small and great' in v. 11 means “everyone regardless of rank or of age.” This literary technique is called a merism.

    All the men of the city surround the house and demand that the man bring out the Levite so that they can have sex with him. Cundall and Morris note: “As no attempt was made subsequently by the rulers of Gibeah to punish the offenders, or to repudiate their vicious actions, it appears that the men of the city generally were involved, and not just a lewd minority.” Davis comments on their description as 'sons of Beliel:' “This phrase of reproach is frequently used in the Old Testament and means literally 'sons of no profit' or 'sons of worthlessness.' Specifically, it refers to those involved in idolatry, rebellion, and drunkenness. Here the phrase refers to lewd and sensuous men...”

Lot begs them not to act so wickedly.

    The man begs them not to act so wickedly.

He offers to give them his two virgin daughters instead.

    He offers his virgin daughter and the concubine instead.

They refuse and begin to break the door down.

    They refuse the offer.

They enter the house forcibly and are struck blind by the angels.

    The Levite throws his concubine to the crowd, who rape and abuse her all night. Webb says that “the mob, with the concubine actually in their hands now, act as creatures of appetite rather than reason and settle for immediate gratification.”

God saves Lot and his two daughters.

    The concubine dies and the Levite cuts up her body and sends it to the other eleven tribes.

God destroys the whole town.

    The other tribes band together and make war on all the Benjamites until the tribe is almost wiped out completely.

Up to the end of the story, there is practically a perfect correspondence between the two events. The Judges narrative illustrates what probably would have happened if the men of Sodom had not been supernaturally struck blind. It confirms the fact that the men of both cities were not naturally homosexually inclined, as both hosts well knew or they would not have offered female substitutes. They were just naturally inclined to be violent people who preferred to take out their aggressions on anyone, male or female, who was not one of their own group and assert their power over them. It has been asserted time and again that rape is not so much about sex as it is about power.

And another point to add is that for many years now the the best estimates of bisexual and homosexual men in the general population has stayed steady at somewhere between 1% and 10%. Thus, there is no way that all the male population of Sodom or Gibeah just happened to be naturally inclined in that direction. It was a purposeful act of perversion on their part.

The irony of the story in the Book of Judges, which concludes it, is that at this low point in Israelite history God's own chosen people have now stooped to even a lower level morally that the surrounding pagan nations.

So in conclusion:

Was the sin of Sodom an offense against the traditional rules of hospitality? Certainly, but that was only the beginning of it. As Boling says, “...the initial determinative offense is a violation of the law of hospitality.” Carr notes, “Though disapproval of male homosexual rape is assumed here, the primary point of the text is how this threat by the townspeople violates the value of hospitality.”

Was the sin one of wanting to commit homosexual rape? Definitely, but they would have been almost as happy with heterosexual rape as well, as long as they could satisfy their unbridled lust while humiliating and physically abusing a foreigner.

Was the sin that of wanting to commit a homosexual act? Probably, since that was a perversion of their normal heterosexual nature, and they were said to be perverse lot.

Was homosexuality itself the sin that is condemned here? It is highly doubtful since it is nowhere condemned in the Bible. Hamilton feels that the only question is whether the issue is homosexual relations per se or homosexual rape. And in that regard, Sprinkle says, “Read in the light of the Pentateuch's sex laws, the request by the men of Sodom was doubly offensive: not only a homosexual act, but also gang rape.”