Genesis

What has Sodom got to do with homosexuality?

This video explains why Sodom has nothing to do with the debate about the Bible and homosexuality. Sodom is an account of attempted gang rape – and, like the similar account of a gang rape of a woman in Judges 19, it has nothing to do with committed, faithful, loving relationships of any kind.

Transcript

The sin of Sodom was homosexuality. You’ve heard this? It’s wrong. Keep watching to find out why.

Some people argue that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible shows that God condemns all homosexuality. Here’s a quick recap of that story – it comes from Genesis 18 and 19.

The story of Sodom

Two angels are sent by God to the city of Sodom, known for its wickedness. Lot, Abraham’s nephew, lives there. He welcomes the angels, and offers them hospitality, persuading them to stay for the night. They accept, and he lays on a lavish feast for them.

But word gets out, and all the men of the town surround the house, and demand that the visitors be brought out so that they can rape them (translations often translate the Hebrew literally – ‘so that we may know them’ – that’s just a euphemism for intercourse).

[Note – Scott Morschauser (amongst others) has argued against this interpretation, proposing that the sin of Sodom was abandonment of the rule of law, and that the men of Sodom wanted to ascertain the reason for the strangers coming to the city (and so nothing to do with sexual aggression). This approach remains a minority view amongst scholarship.
Morschauser, Scott. “‘Hospitality’, Hostiles and Hostages: On the Legal Background to Genesis 19.1-9.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27, no. 4 (2003): 461-85.]

Now, Lot tries to protect his visitors, even offering his own daughters in their place – that is problematic for other reasons – but the mob become enraged and they try to attack.

The angels blind the mob, and then drag Lot and his family away from the city, and God destroys the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire. Lot’s wife looks back and is turned into a pillar of salt. Only Lot and his daughters escape with their lives.

It’s a dramatic account, and Sodom becomes a by-word for an evil city. But what, in the Bible, is Sodom remembered for?

How does the Bible talk about Sodom?

Well, Isaiah compares the nation of Judah to Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that Judah needs to learn to do good; to seek justice, to rescue the oppressed, to defend the orphan, to plead for the widow. And elsewhere there is judgment upon Judah for being like Sodom – why? – because they are ‘grinding the faces of the poor’.

Ezekiel says: 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 the needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

Elsewhere, it’s the fate of Sodom which is emphasised – watch out, or you’ll end up worse than Sodom and Gomorrah!

So a range of accusations, centring around:

  • injustice,
  • oppressing the poor, and
  • doing abominable things.

Analysing the story

Let’s go back to the account. At the heart of it is a grotesque evil – abominable. It’s the attempted gang rape by an enraged mob. Is it same-sex? Yes. But rape isn’t to do with sex or gender – it’s to do with power and attempted control and humiliation.

In Britain, Jimmy Savile left a trail of both male and female survivors of his abuse. In Iraq, the Abu Ghraib prison became notorious for the assaults inflicted upon both female and male prisoners – assaults including rape. This was an attempted gang rape. What has that got to do with committed, loving relationships?

Parallels with Judges 19

But if you think the gender matters, there’s a similar account in Judges 19. A man and his concubine enter a city and are offered hospitality. The men of the city come at night demanding that he be thrown out to them to be raped. The concubine is offered instead – and she is raped and killed.

[For a harrowing exegesis of this episode, see in particular:
Phyllis Trible, Texts of Terror, new ed. (London: SCM Press, 2002), 45-66.]

Same-sex rape; heterosexual rape; rape is rape. It’s about violence, and it has nothing to do with any kind of loving relationships.

Conclusion

In an earlier video, I argued that we need to consider whether, when the Bible talks about same-sex activities, these are similar to or different from committed, faithful, loving same-sex relationships.

Venn diagram showing Bible and homosexuality as similar Venn diagram showing Bible and homosexuality as different

What happened in Sodom was a million miles away from any type of loving relationship, whether same-sex or not.

Sodom has got nothing to offer in the debate about the Bible and homosexuality.

This is part of a series of videos looking at the Bible and homosexuality. If that interests you, subscribe to the channel. And if you want to find out a bit more, you can go to the companion website, bibleandhomosexuality.org.

The next passages that usually come up are the verses in Leviticus 18 & 20 – you can read more about them here.


Found this helpful? You can now get the material from this website and more in a book. Affirmative: Why You Can Say Yes to the Bible and Yes to LGBTQI+ People is available at Amazon and other major retailers. You can find out some more about the book here.


Resources

First of all, here is a list of occurrences of Sodom in the Bible (including deuterocanonical books) after its destruction in Gen. 19:

Deut 29:23; Deut 32:32
Isa 1:9; Isa 1:10; Isa 3:9; Isa 13:19
Jer 23:14; Jer 49:18; Jer 50:40
Lam 4:6
Ezek 16:46; Ezek 16:48; Ezek 16:49; Ezek 16:53; Ezek 16:55; Ezek 16:56
Amos 4:11
Zeph 2:9
3 Macc 2:5
2 Esd 2:8; 2 Esd 7:106
Matt 10:15; Matt 11:23; Matt 11:24
Luke 10:12; Luke 17:29
Rom 9:29
2 Pet 2:6
Jude 7
Rev 11:8

A note on Jude 7

The text of Jude 6-7 says (NRSV translation):

And the angels who did not keep their own position, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains in deepest darkness for the judgment of the great Day. Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual immorality [ekporneusasai] and pursued unnatural lust [sarkos heteras], serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Sarkos heteras is more literally translated as ‘other flesh’. What might this mean?

First, note that it is a strange construction if the primary referent is homosexuality – that is not pursuing other flesh.

Secondly, note that Sodom and Gomorrah sinned ‘in the same manner’ as angels who did not keep their own station.

Jude appears to be referring to the sin of humans and angels (who could be described as being of other flesh from humans) having (or attempting to have) intercourse together. Both Gen. 6:1-4 and Gen. 19 can be understood this way.

What makes this interpretation the most plausible is that Jude is working with the same ideas as the Jewish apocryphal book of Enoch, which includes an account of the fall from heaven of 200 angels who take human wives – an elaboration of Gen. 6:1-4 (Enoch 6).

As the angels fell because of their lust for women, so the Sodomites desired sexual relations with angels. sarkos heteras, “strange flesh”, cannot… refer to homosexual practice… it must mean the flesh of angels.
Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary vol. 50. (Waco, Texas: Word, Incorporated, 1983), 54

The author’s point here is not that the male inhabitants of Sodom sought to have sex with male visitors, but that they sought relations with angelic beings of an entirely different order.
Kraftchick, Steven J. Jude 2 Peter, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 39.

To summarise: Jude 7 condemns Sodom and Gomorrah for attempting to have intercourse with angels, just as angels were condemned for having intercourse with humans.

A note on hospitality

One dimension I have not raised in the video is that Sodom’s sin is a violation of hospitality. Hospitality was a key virtue in the Ancient Near East culture to an extent often unrecognised in the West.

Sodom should have welcomed Lot, and in turn welcomed his visitors. Instead they tried to gang-rape both the visitors and Lot (note in particular Gen. 19:9 – Lot is singled out as an alien).

This failure of hospitality may lie behind passages such as Luke 10:12 – it is in the context of a town’s inhospitality to the seventy that Jesus sends out that a comparison with Sodom is made.

Support helplines and websites (UK)

NHS Choices – Help after rape and sexual assault

Help after rape and sexual assault

Rape Crisis

Helpline: 0808 802 9999 (12-2:30 and 7-9:30)

rapecrisis.org.uk

National organisation offering support and counselling for those affected (female and male) by rape and sexual abuse.

Sexual Abuse Referral Centres – Find a SARC

Find a SARC

SARCs are specialist medical and forensic services for anyone who has been raped or sexually assaulted. They aim to be one-stop service, providing the following under one roof: medical care and forensic examination following assault/rape and, in some locations, sexual health services. Medical Services are free of charge and provided to women, men, young people and children.

Posted by admin in Old Testament

Does Genesis rule out Adam and Steve?

This video explains why the creation accounts in Genesis do not rule out same-sex marriages. God blesses the union of men and women, but that doesn’t mean that God can’t or won’t bless other patterns of life, whether that’s gay or lesbian couples, being married without children, or singleness.

Transcript

It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! Have you heard Genesis used this way to rule out homosexuality? Keep watching to find out why I think that’s misguided.

People argue that the creation accounts in Genesis only allow a man and a woman to be married. Let’s have a look at them.

Extracts from Gen 1 & 2

The broad picture is clear. God creates humankind, and blesses them. In particular, he blesses the union of a man and a woman. Notice that we haven’t got clear commands or prohibitions here. We have an account, a narrative. It’s the story of creation, not commands to create.

Is Genesis prescribing or describing?

So here’s the question.

Is it prescriptive – it has to be this way, and only this way – or is it descriptive – it describes what God blesses?

I think it’s descriptive – it describes what’s broadly true for most people, most of the time. Men and women fall in love, and marry and have children, and God blesses that.

But it’s not prescriptive, because if you try and understand Genesis in this way you run into all sorts of problems.

Be fruitful…

Let’s look at ‘be fruitful’ – is it necessary? Is it prescribed? Is having children an essential part of marriage? What about couples who can’t have children – can they still marry? Or if you do marry and then discover you can’t have children, do you have to get divorced?

You never hear this argued in Church. But it’s not a theoretical question – parts of ancient Judaism interpreted Genesis and other parts of the Bible precisely this way.

In the Mishnah, a collection of ancient Jewish oral tradition, one saying suggested that if a couple had no children after ten years, the husband was obliged to divorce his wife.

Philo, a Jewish writer living in Egypt about the time of Jesus, argued that marrying someone you knew to be infertile made you an enemy of God.

And also, what about those people who would like to marry but haven’t found the right person?

Churches are full of single people – most of them don’t feel called to lifelong celibacy. Are they somehow inferior to those who are married with children? Are they not properly in the image of God?

And what about those do choose lifelong celibacy? Where do they figure in this interpretation of Genesis?

Again, this is not just a theoretical question. Parts of ancient Judaism condemned those who voluntarily chose celibacy as being contrary to God’s commandments. It was the duty of every Jewish male to marry and to have children.

Twin babies

But Christianity has never interpreted the Bible this way. The command ‘be fruitful’ applies not to every individual, but to the human race as a whole, as Aquinas argued a thousand years ago.

And If you emphasise procreation, having children, as being essential, frankly you’re in danger of turning Christianity into a fertility cult.

…leaves his father and mother…

And anyway, how prescriptive are we going to take the account in Genesis? It says in scripture, ‘therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife…’ or in the more traditional language, ‘cleaves unto his wife’.

Does that mean that once you’re married you can’t stay with the husband’s parents?

‘I’m sorry son, I know you’re newly married and you’ve nowhere to go, but you’ll have to leave. That’s what it says in Genesis’.

Genesis describes, not prescribes

This is why it makes more sense to see Genesis as being descriptive rather than prescriptive.

Sure, God blesses those who marry and move out from their parents and have children, but God can also bless those who don’t fit that particular pattern.

Companionship

And once we see this, we can begin to see other features in the account as well. Notice how it says it wasn’t good for the human to be alone.

In Genesis 2, the reason for Eve’s creation isn’t to have children, it’s to be a partner – and God sees that as a good thing. Companionship is important. But what about those who find a companion of the same sex?

But some may say, in Genesis the partners are male and female, not male and male or female and female. Well, yes.

Because for most people, throughout human history, that’s what happens. Most men are attracted to women. Most women are attracted to men. Most couples have children.

We’re dealing here with an exception to the majority, and the creation accounts don’t deal with exceptions, whether that’s same-sex couples, or those who are choose celibacy, or those who marry but can’t have children.

Conclusion

So, is simply saying that Genesis is about Adam and Eve a knock-down argument against homosexuality? No – no more than it’s an argument against singleness.

God blessing Adam and Eve doesn’t mean condemnation for Adam and Steve.

Holding hands

This is part of a series of videos looking at the Bible and homosexuality. If that interests you, subscribe to the channel. And if you want to find out more about ancient Jewish and Christian interpretations of Genesis, you can go to the companion website, bibleandhomosexuality.org.

The next passage that usually comes up is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18 & 19 – here’s my explanation of the passage.


Found this helpful? You can now get the material from this website and more in a book. Affirmative: Why You Can Say Yes to the Bible and Yes to LGBTQI+ People is available at Amazon and other major retailers. You can find out some more about the book here.


Resources

In the transcript I refer to the Mishnah. This is a collection of oral laws that dates from around AD200 (though it includes traditions far older). There are debates both about how much these were observed by ordinary Jews, and also how far these applied in the time of Jesus and Paul (the Jewish rebellion of AD66 and the Roman reaction are significant in shaping Judaism). I use the extracts from the Mishnah (m.Yevamot 6.6) to show how it is possible to take Genesis as prescriptive, and where the logic of that leads. The critical edition is:

Penka, Gabriele, Die Mischna:‎ textkritische Ausgabe mit deutscher Übersetzung und Kommentar, Jevamot (Schwägerinnen), Jerusalem, 2009.

However, you can also find editions online with English translations. Here are a couple of examples of m.Yevamot 6.6:

http://www.emishnah.com/Nashim_Vol_1/Yev6.pdf

Or:

https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Yevamot.6.6?lang=bi

I also refer to Thomas Aquinas’ argument that the command to be fruitful applied to the whole of humankind rather than every individual. The reference is:

Aquinas, Summa Theologicae 2.152.2.

In the video I rounded up when I said that he argued this ‘a thousand years ago’ – a more precise figure would be about 750 years.

Aquinas is part of the long Christian tradition that has never seen marriage and procreation as obligatory (a tradition that, of course, goes back to Paul and Christ).

The Genesis creation accounts appear to have become more prominent in arguments recently. Generally, I have found that some commentators make extremely strong statements about the interpretation of these narratives on extremely shaky ground. This applies not only to the use of Genesis 1-3 in statements and arguments about homosexuality, but to a wide variety of issues on gender and sexuality, including transgender.

Posted by admin in Old Testament