The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah–was it homosexuality?

What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? The Sodomite has become a synonym for homosexual, because the traditional thought is that God destroyed these ancient cities on account of their homosexuality. But is that fair?

The answer is yes. But how do we know? The following is taken from An Inevitable Collision: How to Prepare Your Church for the Clash of Morality and a Gender-Confused Culture.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah appears in Genesis 19. As the chapter begins, we find Abraham’s nephew, Lot, living in Sodom. The fact that he was sitting at the gate of the city indicates that he had become a respected citizen, as people would commonly come to the gates to hold court or to conduct business transactions. One evening, two men showed up and Lot convinced them to stay in his house for the night. The biblical account indicates that they were angels, but the men of Sodom seemed to neither know nor care. Before Lot and his company could retire for the night, the men of the city converged at his door, urging him to send the visitors out so they could “know them.” By this time Lot must have suspected the identity of his guests, because he refused. When the mob persisted, Lot eventually offered two of his daughters in their place. Before they could accept or reject this proposition, however, the angels struck them with blindness. As soon as possible, the visitors forced Lot, his wife, and two of his daughters to abandon the city just as God rained down fire and brimstone on Sodom, Gomorrah, and several other cities in the area. Lot’s wife, unable to forsake the allure of her beloved lifestyle in Sodom, looked back, and instantly transformed into a pillar of salt.

What had the citizens of these cities done to deserve such catastrophic judgment? The traditional understanding has been that they were guilty of homosexuality, indicated by the desire of the men to “know” the two men who showed up at the city gates. Is that, however, a fair assessment? Many scholars think it is not. Morschauser, for example, suggests that the demand of the men of Sodom to “know” the two visiting angels was not at all sexual, but rather a desire to interrogate the strangers to determine if they were spies. He claims that because of the political instability in the region, Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom that fateful evening because he was on official duty as the last line of defense for anyone wanting to infiltrate the city.[i] Therefore, it was his responsibility to act as the official host for the visitors. After he convinced them to spend the night in his house, the men of Sodom approached his house not to engage in homosexual behavior, but to simply interrogate the visitors to determine whether or not they were spies. According to Morschauser, Lot’s offer to the men of Sodom to accept his unmarried daughters in exchange for leaving the prisoners alone was, then, not actually a sacrifice of his children. They would merely serve as collateral until the strangers left the city.[ii] Is Morschauser’s view, however, correct? Several reasons suggest that it is not.

First, the Hebrew term yada, translated as “know,” can refer to a sexual relationship. Lot used the same word three verses after it was spoken by the men of Sodom when he offered his daughters, thinking that they would be an acceptable trade because they have never “known” men—an obvious reference to a sexual relationship. This is also the meaning of the word in Genesis 4:1 when “Adam knew (yada) Eve his wife, and she conceived . . .” While this does not conclusively prove that yada is used sexually in Genesis 19:5, it demonstrates that it is linguistically possible.

The word yada also appears in another Old Testament passage that bears a striking resemblance to that of Sodom. In the nineteenth chapter of Judges, the account is told of a Levite who set out in search of his runaway concubine. After locating her and starting home, the pair stopped in Gibeah where an old man invited them into his house for the night. Soon after, the men of the town began beating on the old man’s door, demanding that he release the traveler. Rather than allowing the Levite to be hurt, the host offered his daughter and his guest’s concubine instead. All night, the men “knew” (yada) and abused the two women. In the morning, the men found the Levite’s lifeless concubine sprawled on the doorstep. Obviously, the “knowing” that took place all night was much more than simple interrogation. Although yada technically means “to know,” there is no question that it often serves as a euphemism for sex.

Second, the context of the passage indicates the sexual nature of the demand. The fact that Lot offered his daughters in place of the angels, explicitly stating their virginity, indicates that the mob intended sexual violence. Lot perceived the maliciousness of their intentions, so he begged them to “not do so wickedly” (Genesis 19:7).

Third, the Bible elsewhere hints that homosexuality was one of the sins of Sodom. Ezekiel proclaimed that those in Sodom, among other atrocities, “committed abomination” (Ezekiel 16:50) before God. He may have linked this phrase to Leviticus 18:22, which employs the same word to describe homosexuality. Another of the sins of Sodom that Ezekiel lists is pride (Ezekiel 16:49). While this could simply refer to the arrogance of the Sodomites, it could also describe their deviant sexual nature. According to White and Neill, the pride in the men of Sodom is “closely related to a willingness to twist even the most basic and fundamental aspect of our being, our sexuality, and to flaunt this in the face of God.”[iii] The men of Sodom, then, carried the same guilt as those described by Paul in Romans 1. They arrogantly decided that their personal desires superseded God’s design in nature.

 A final reason to reject Morschauser’s view is that the translators of several major Bible versions understand yada to be used sexually in this verse. The New International Version and the New Living Translation claim that the men of Sodom wanted to “have sex with” the male visitors. The New King James Version uses the word know but adds “carnally” in brackets. The New American Standard Bible translates yada as “have relations.” Additionally, the Septuagint’s rendering of the word denotes sexual intercourse.[iv]     

The rejection of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle invites the same response today as in ancient Sodom. When Lot refused to subject his visitors to the licentious desires of his neighbors, they informed him that he had no right to question the morality of their culture. They derided him for swooping into town as an outsider and “acting as a judge” and threatened that “now we will deal worse with you than with them” (Genesis 19:9). Today, as in ancient Sodom, to refuse to celebrate homosexuality is to invite similar personal attacks. When we declare what the Bible says about the subject, we are called “anti-gay” and accused of homophobia and discrimination. The use of such negative terms cannot be coincidental—the message they desire to send is that homosexuality is normal and those who stand against it are judgmental and out of touch with reality. It’s the same tactic used against Lot thousands of years ago in a wicked city that God catastrophically replaced with the Dead Sea.

[i].     Scott Morschauser, “‘Hospitality,’ Hostiles and Hostages: On the Legal Background to Genesis 19.1-9,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27, no. 4 (June 2003): 467.

[ii].    Ibid., 472–477.

[iii].    James White and Jefferey Niell, The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message about Homosexuality (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2002), 42.

[iv].   Ibid., 33.