A Study of the Genesis 19

Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

undefined

Leviticus
Judges
Romans
Corinthians
Timothy
Home
Pantheism
Scriptural Essays
My Thoughts
Site Updates
Theater Resume
Email Me

Genesis 19:1—11

   ⁽¹⁾The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. ⁽²⁾"My Lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
   "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
   ⁽³⁾But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. ⁽⁴⁾Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. ⁽⁵⁾They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
   ⁽⁶⁾Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him ⁽⁷⁾and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. ⁽⁸⁾Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
   ⁽⁹⁾"Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.
   ⁽¹⁰⁾But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door.
⁽¹¹⁾Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.
   (Jude 6 & 7; 2 Peter 2: 4 & 6—8)

The first thing I noticed about this story that didn't quite fit the interpretation I had been given was that nowhere in the passage does it say that Sodom was condemned because of this incident. That is because the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not in any way central to the overall theme of the entire story of Abraham and the beginnings of the nation of Israel. The story actually starts back in chapter 18 where three angels — one of them was likely God, or Christ himself — visit Abraham. In verse 32, after a little negotiating by Abraham on behalf of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Lord says to him, "For the sake of 10, I will not destroy it."
It is quite clear that God had already decided to destroy the two cities before this incident. Admittedly, however, this episode didn't help their cause. And, from Lot's insistence that the two visitors spend the night at his house, as well as from the story in Judges, these kinds of things must have been fairly commonplace. If that is true, I can certainly see why God would judge the place so harshly.

Leviticus
Judges
Romans
Corinthians
Timothy
Home
Pantheism
Scriptural Essays
My Thoughts
Site Updates
Theater Resume
Email Me

     But nowhere in the story are the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah spelled out... As in Jack Webb's Dragnet, we get "just the facts, Ma'am." We need to go elsewhere in Scripture to find more specific information about Sodom's sin. In Ezekiel 16:49 & 50 it says, "⁽⁴⁹⁾Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom (Ezekiel was speaking to Jerusalem): She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. ⁽⁴⁹⁾They were haughty and did destestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." Now "detestable things" certainly leaves room for situations like the one in Genesis 19. I wonder why it isn't spelled out more clearly. Probably just because that wasn't the point Ezekiel was trying to get across to Jerusalem nor was the sin in Genesis 19 the most abhorent to God.
     In Luke 10:10 — 12 Jesus says there are a lot of sins that will be punished more severely than were the sins of Sodom. If you know the story or if you continue on from where I left off you will see this punishment was quite severe. The point is that Sodom's sins were not only sexual. And from the evidence of the rest of Scripture, the sexual sins were not the worst of their sins.
     The second thing that bothered me about the traditional interpretation was the idea that the sexual orientation of the men of the town was the cause of their destruction. What that said to me was that if the two angels had come to Lot in female form, then God would not have judged their behavior so harshly; or that if the men of the town had taken Lot up on the offer of his daughters, God would not have minded nearly so much.
     Considering the fact that the sexual behavior of the town was indeed at least part of their sin, what part did God truly find offensive? If you reverse the sexual orientation in the story, isn't the behavior just as detestable? Reason demands that violent rape is a grevious sin regardless of the sex or sexual orientation of the perpetrators or their victims.
     There is another school of thought on the interpretation of the word 'know' (translated in the NIV as "have sex with"). Some feel that the word means nothing more than to "get to know" someone and therefore Sodom was condemned for inhospitality. Personally, considering the context of the story, I think that is foolish. Granted, this behavior was certainly inhospitable, but honestly now...
     The reason given for this interpretation is that the verb "to know" (vadha) is used 943 times throughout the Old Testament and that it refers to sexual activity only 10 times (and each of those in a heterosexual context). I would say 11 times with how it is used here.
     A sub-set of this argument is also being taught in some circles. It is that it wasn't just the 'men' of Sodom that showed up, but men, women and children. The argument goes something like this: Since women and children were treated as nothing more than property in those days there would be no need to mention them but every reason to believe they were included.

Leviticus
Judges
Romans
Corinthians
Timothy
Home
Pantheism
Scriptural Essays
My Thoughts
Site Updates
Theater Resume
Email Me

     While the story itself lends credence to the idea that women and children were nothing more than property (Lot offered his daughters? Also see the study in Judges.), Scripture lends no other direct support for this idea. It is generally put forth simply to make the 'hospitality' issue seem more reasonable and to dilute the sexual aspect of the incident.
     Scripture does, however, give some indirect support for some of this interpretation. The word translated as "men" is rarely used to denote either specific people or gender in Scripture. Elsewhere it is translated as 'inhabitants'... meaning ALL the inhabitants (men, women and children). It would be highly unusual (but not impossible) for Scripture to have singled out the male gender here using the word it uses.
     There are a couple of other questions I've heard asked about this passage. I don't find them to be completely relevant, but they are interesting. I'll ask them and let everyone judge for themselves.

If the men of Sodom were all homosexual, how could there be young and old present? Someone must have been having heterosexual relations on the side or there wouldn't be young men present.
If the men of Sodom were homosexual, why would Lot offer his two daughters? Wouldn't it have made more sense to offer his two future sons-in-law?

     These two questions, although not terribly important in and of themselves, do raise another interesting question.
     If the men of the town were not all gay (Scripture never indicates they were and from a social and historical point of view it is hard to believe they could have all been gay.), why would they have attempted to do this kind of thing? The Bible offers no clues as to the motive. However, there are two possible motives that may be construed from history and Scripture. These are my own thoughts and so need to be viewed in that light. I claim no special revelation or insight.
     In Genesis 14 we find a war taking place. To make a long story short, the bad cities attacked the good cities and defeated them. They plundered the good cities and carried off the people. Now, included among the good cities (at that time), was Sodom. Sodom's people, including Lot, were kidnapped. Abram (soon to be known as Abraham) went after the bad guys, defeated them and rescued the people. Sodom should have been grateful... and was for a time.
     In Genesis 14:21—23 we find the following exchange:

⁽²¹⁾The king of Sodom said to Abram, "Give me the people and keep the goods for yourself."
⁽²²⁾But Abram said to the king of Sodom, "I have raised my hand to the Lord, God Most High, Creator of heaven and

Leviticus
Judges
Romans
Corinthians
Timothy
Home
Pantheism
Scriptural Essays
My Thoughts
Site Updates
Theater Resume
Email Me

earth, and have taken an oath ⁽²³⁾that I will accept nothing belonging to you, not even a thread or the thong of a sandal, so that you will never be able to say, 'I made Abram rich.'

     As I understand it, this refusal to accept anything from the king of Sodom would have been the equivalent of the mideval throwing down the gauntlet. It could have been taken as a very severe insult... one which may well need to be revenged.
    In Genesis 18:16 we read, "When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way." If Abraham lived where he could see Sodom (it seems as if he did) it isn't a very big step to figure passers-by who were on their way to Sodom could see Abraham and his guests also. Would they have reported this to the king or town council? Very possibly.
     So, it is a possibility (and nothing more) that the men of the town were engaging in the ancient ritual of raping captured enemies in order to humiliate them and prove their superior strength. It was common practice in those times. It certainly would have been a way to save some face from Abraham's insult.
     Is that what happened? I have no idea. But I believe the possibilty exists.
     The other possibility is that the men were performing some religious ritual. (See the Study on Leviticus) We do know that many regions around Caanan at the time employed sexual rituals within the worship of their gods. We know it was not uncommon for the priests to be given young boys or men and that these would then be pressed into sexual service at the temples. We know they would often be castrated (Scripture calls them Eunuchs). It is presumed that these temple prostitutes would likely have serviced both men and women. Maybe the men of the town were carrying their worship one step further... or looking for new temple prostitutes.
     Is that what happened? I have no idea. But I believe the possibilty exists.
     Regardless of why it happened, it did happen. It was evil and stands condemned. It was another nail in Sodom's coffin. One nail among many.
     In conclusion... the sexual sin found in the Genesis 19 story of Sodom was not homosexuality, but forcible rape. And the sexual sin was only one sin among many that merited the destruction of the city. It is a story of rape, not of sexual orientation.