A Tale of Two Cities

or
“Sodomy Revisited”
Background of the writing:

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah occurs at the beginning of the patriarchal period, about
1900 BCE. Abram (Abraham) and Lot, his nephew, have traveled to the valley of the Jordan,
and, since they need to split their flocks, Lot has chosen the rich, fertile valley, and Abraham
has chosen to stay in the less fertile hills overlooking the valley. Lot settles in the City of
Sodom, one of the five “Cities of the Plain” with his family.

No confirming record of any of the patriarchs have been identified in the writings of other
contemporary cultures. However, the remains of five cities have been identified to the East
and South of what is now the Dead Sea. These cities were well populated, and suffered from
catastrophic destruction sometime between 2200 BCE and 1700 BCE. The ruins show
significant evidence of fire. Some believe these were the Cities of the plain, and they are in
approximately the correct place and time.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah may very well be based on an actual event, although the
details may be a bit “fuzzy”. Not surprising, since it has been passed down as an oral
tradition for at least 1000 years before being committed to writing by the “J” source in the
Torah in about 950 BCE. It is among the earliest writings in the Old Testament.

Cultural Background:

This was the Bronze age, with tools largely made of copper and bronze. The economy was
based on nomadic herdsman, although City-States (consisting of a central city or village, and
surrounding land that was used by the inhabitants for raising crops or grazing livestock) had
formed. Each City-State had their own set of customs and laws, probably largely in unwritten
form, although the process of committing the laws to paper had begun in this era. Some
customs were shared. Justice was erratic and harsh, with an “eye for an eye” being typical
punishment. City-States had frequent conflict with one another, with the victor taking the
spoils. Plundering by the victor was common, and rape (of both males and females) and
murder of the losers as a way of expressing domination was not unusual.

The social order was patriarchal, with the elder male exerting control over his family
members. Women and children were property, and could be sold or given into slavery at the
patriarch's whim. Marriage and family customs were, by today's standards, unusual.
Polygamy was accepted. In the event the wife could not bear children, she could give her
maid servant to the husband in order to do so and preserve the family. In the event the
husband died, his brother was expected to assume the “husbandly duties” to insure offspring.

Religion was typically polytheistic, with multiple gods and goddesses. Religious ceremony
sometimes included ritual sex, animal sacrifice was common, and human sacrifice and
cannibalism were also likely practiced. Abraham was just in the first stages of forging the
covenant with God, the very beginnings of monotheism.
Travel from place to place was not unusual, although it was difficult. Both bandits and
dangerous wild animals (lions, bears, wolves) frequented the area. Environmental conditions
could be challenging. There were no tow trucks or highway patrol to call for help, nor were
there any Holiday Inns Express!

Because of the difficulties involved in traveling, one of the shared (at least in most places)
customs was the custom of hospitality. What the custom of hospitality required was that
when a traveler visited, and was accepted by the host, the host was obligated to care for and
protect his guest, even at the peril of his and his family's live.

In short, it was a very different sort of lifestyle than we live today.

The story:

The story appears at Genesis, chapters 18 and 19

The Lord and two angels visit Abraham. He, of course, treats them well, providing food and
drink, and washing their feet (as required by the custom of hospitality). The Lord then tells
Abraham that he will have a son, in spite of Sarah's advanced age.

The next morning, as the guests are leaving, the Lord explains to Abraham that they are
going to Sodom to see if their sins are as grievous as they have heard, and that they are
planning on destroying the City. He says nothng to indicate what the sins might be.

Thus, their destruction was not solely the result of the treatment of Lot's guests, although the
Sodomites did fail to save themselves.

The angels (now only two in number) travel to Sodom, meet Lot “at the City Gates”. The New
Student Bible indicates that being at the City gates implies that Lot was a leader, a person of
importance within the community whom helped make decisions, even though he came to the
City from the “outside”.

It is reasonable to presume that the visit was unexpected, as the Angels were planning to
spend the night in the square. Only after Lot insists do they agree to be his guests. (Note the
insistence on hospitality, Lot feeds them, and gives them shelter)

All of the men (this could also be translated “all of the people, but typically is not) of Sodom
gather in the street outside of Lot's abode and demands that he produce the guests. The
nature of that demand depends on how the original Hebrew “Yah-da” is translated.

In the New International version, the English rendition of the request is that the men demand
that Lot bring the strangers out “so that we can have sex with them'”.

Lot then attempts to bargain with the group, offering his virgin daughters to the group to “do
with what they like”; to please not bother the guests who have come under the protection of
his roof (there is that pesky hospitality custom again; Lot was actually willing to subject his
young daughters to a gang rape in order to protect his guests)
The guests then rescue Lot, by blinding the crowd, and then escort Lot, his daughter's, and
his wife out of the City to safety. And, as we all know, Lot's wife looks back, and is turned into
a pillar of salt, and Lot then impregnates both of his daughters, and disappears from the bible.

This passage is sometimes used by the Christian community to support their assertion that
homosexuality is a grievous sin, and that Sodom was condemned and destroyed for that
reason. Lot, however, is judged to be righteous in the eyes of the Lord, despite attempting to
give his daughters away to be gang raped, and later impregnating them both. A most curious
definition of righteousness, don't you think!

That interpretation is clearly not correct. With just a little bit of cursory thought, it just does not
make any sense, for a number of reasons, even if we presume the translation of “Yah Da” is
correct (and it is not, but bear with me).

First, we can, I think, safely presume that the angels of God did not consent to homosexual
relations with the men of Sodom. It certainly doesn't sound that way from the scriptures! This
then would be homosexual rape. Why and how can a condemnation of rape, which is a
violent and demeaning act, be used as a basis for condemning a consensual and loving
relationship between two men or two women. Why would we not then use Deuteronomy
22:25-29, which finds the rape of a woman to be a sin as a justification for declaring all
heterosexual sex a sin, and outlawing heterosexual marriage?

Second, “all” of the men of the City were outside the door. Now, we don't know how populous
Sodom was, but it was a fertile and successful area (we know from other writings, as well as
from Lot's choice). Now all of them are homosexual, and desire sex with Lot's guests? That
is kind of unusual, considering that perhaps only 3% to 8% of men are gay. They must have
been recruiting gay men from all over the Middle East to get that many gay guys in one place!

Third, if all of the male residents were gay, where did Sodom's children come from? How is it
that Lot's daughters were engaged to men of Sodom?

Fourth, Lot was an established and respected resident. He very probably knew these guys.
Why then would he offer his daughters to a crowd that he knew would not be interested?
Wouldn't he have been more likely to deflect the crowd by offering his son's in law to be (who
were also in the house)?

Fifth, consider that the visitor's were not men, but angels. Angels are arguably a different
species than is man, and the demand for sex would be a request for bestiality, not
homosexuality. Again, this does not match the interpretation that the conservative Christians
would have us unquestionably accept.

Finally, consider Lot's “righteous” behavior. This tale could be used to justify all sorts of
abusive treatment of women, not mention the idea that incest is okay.

It is abundantly clear that this tale, this legend, this fable is not intended as a condemnation of
consensual homosexual relationships. Why then is this included in the Torah? Surely it has a
purpose.

Well, yes it certainly does! And the lesson applies to a much, much broader group of people
than just the rather small percentage with a different sexual orientation.

The lesson, or moral of the story applies to all of us, and it is not what we expect!

True Moral of Genesis 19

The key is in the original (at least the most original that we know) old Hebrew writing. The
original Hebrew word that was used is “ya da” or “ya dah”. Unfortunately, “Ya dah” has
several dissimilar meanings, depending on the context in which it was used.

One meaning of “ya dah” is indeed to have “sexual relations with”. Of course, that does not fit
into the context of the story—it just kind of drops out of the blue..Furthermore, the word, as a
reference to sex, is used about a dozen times in the old testament, and always refers to a
heterosexual relationship. (Ontario Consultants)

The other meaning is “to learn about” or “to acquire knowledge of”. The word, in this sense, is
used in the old testament 943 times. (Ontario Consultants)

The request from the group of men outside Lot's house, using this translation, would be “Give
us the men, that we might question them.” This interpretation makes perfect sense in light of
the cultural practice of hospitality in that era. It would appear to be perfectly reasonable to
question, or interrogate, strangers to determine what their purpose in visiting might be, before
extending “hospitality”.

The Sins of Sodom

But then, Lot (a respected resident, remember)had already extended the protection of his
roof. Why was that not honored by the Sodomites? Why did they threaten Lot with the same
fate? And why was Lot reluctant to allow them to question the visitors? Did he know
something that we do not, and that is not clear from the writing in Genesis? Perhaps there
was a hidden meaning in the question, much as there was in King Herod's request that the
magi return and tell him where Jesus was, so that he might too worship him?

For the answer to those questions, we need to look to other context from within the Biblical
record, as well as to non-biblical references.

There are no specific references from within the story to the exact nature of the sins of the
Sodomites. The Lord simply tells Abraham that “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is
so great that I go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has
reached me”. (Gen 18:20, NIV). There is no reference to homosexual behavior, or any other
sin, except for the wrongly translated line.

Ezekiel 16:49 provides the following insight: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She
and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and
needy. They were haughty, and did detestable things before me.” (NIV) No reference to
homosexual behavior. But, apparently they were wealthy, and did not take care of those who
were not.
Isaiah 1; Judah is repeatedly compared with Sodom and Gomorrah in their evildoing and
depravity. Throughout the chapter, the Prophet lists many sins of the people: rebelling against
God, lacking in knowledge, deserting the Lord, idolatry, engaging in meaningless religious
ritual, being unjust and oppressive to others, being insensitive to the needs of widows and
orphans, committing murder, accepting bribes, etc. There is no reference to homosexuality or
to any other sexual activities at all.

Jeremiah 23:14:"...among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They
commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns
from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like
Gomorrah." Jeremiah compares the actions of the prophets with the adultery, lying and evil of
the people of Sodom. Homosexual activity is not mentioned.

Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:7-16: Jesus implied that the sin of the people of Sodom was
to be inhospitable to strangers.

Extra-biblical sources:

Josephus, Antiquities I: 194-5:

“The Sodomites, overweeningly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed
themselves insolent to men and impious to the Divinity, insomuch that they no more
remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and declined all
intercourse with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them
for their arrogance... “

There are many references in the Babylonian Talmud follow along the same lines, including
the fact that the Sodomites apparently would kill one of their own for helping strangers or the
poor.

The descriptions vary a bit, but have a common theme. These were nasty, hateful people.
They didn't like strangers or travelers. They didn't like those among them who didn't fit the
norm of wealth. They were cruel to, and would kill those among themselves who tried to help
others. They didn't accept those who were different from themselves. In short they were
intolerant and prejudiced. Those were the sins of Sodom!

Kind of ironic, isn't it? The very people who use the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to
engender hatred and discrimination against the LGBT community, are themselves the
Sodomites of today.

Sources:

The New Student Bible, New International Version, Copyright 1986, 1992 Zondervan
Publishing House.

Old Testament Life and Literature, Gerald Larue, found at

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/
“Sodom and Gomorrah and Biblical Archeology”, Rabbi Leibel Reznick, found at
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48931527.html

Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, http://www.religioustolerance.org/aboutus.htm

“Inge's Inklings”, Inge Anderson http://www.glow.cc/isa/index.htm

Rainbow Alliance, http://www.ralliance.org/Sodom_MGGM.html