K
I've been reading with interest recently the threads in which Sodom and Gomorrha are mentioned and set out to study all the Biblical references to it. In a lot of places, Sodom and Gomorrha are simply used as threats - "you'll be destroyed like they were if you don't repent" - which doesn't shed a lot of light on the particulars of their sins. We begin with the pertinent passage from Genesis 19:
It's clear that all the men of Sodom meant to rape the visitors and that this would have been male-male sex. However, it's worth noting that even the mob sees the sex as a bad thing. They plan on doing worse to Lot, which means they think this is some kind of punishment or torture. This is not merely sex, this is sex with the intent of cruelty. What had the visitors done to deserve this? We most commonly assume that the men of the town tried to have sex with the visitors because they were new and attractive. It seems, however, that we are to understand that the town didn't treat strangers well. By telling Lot that he "came in to stay here," they're reminding him that he's an outsider they still haven't accepted. By merely protecting the strangers, he's going to receive worse than gang rape.
If this instance is meant to characterize the sin of Sodom, the primary conclusion is that they were awful to their passersby and probably left a number of them dead. Perhaps they raped everyone who came through town, but they were still capable of worse. What were they planning on doing to Lot? We look elsewhere for clues. There are two references in the Hebrew scriptures worth noting:
Jeremiah 23:14 says:
Ezekiel 16:48-50 says:
In these two comparisons, we see adultery, living a lie, strengthening the hands of evildoers, unrepentance, pride, gluttony, idleness, failing to strengthen the week and needy, haughtiness, and abominations. If the authors wanted us to understand that the primary sin of Sodom and Gomorrha were homosexuality, they did a poor job. Adultery is primarily understood as a heterosexual sin and abominations, which are listed last, can include: disaster (Daniel 11:31), bad sacrifices (Isaiah 66:3), idolatry (Deut 29:17, Ezekiel 20:7-8, 1 Kings 11:5-7), witchcraft (2 Kings 23:24), sexual sins (Jeremiah 13:27), forbidden foods (Leviticus 11:10-12, 13, 23, 41), other animals (7:21), etc.
Finally, the most important New Testament reference. Jude 1:7 says:
"Fornication" is clear enough, but this in itself does not indicate homosexuality. The key phrase here for those who quote it seems to be "going after strange flesh," which in transliterated Greek is "apelquosai opisw sarkos eteras." Interestingly, the word "strange" here is "eteras," from which we get our word "hetero." It is only used once in Jude. It means, according to Middle Liddell:
It's a pretty common word. For instance, it's used 32 times in Luke. Here are some examples:
In other words, it's not clear why the English translation reads "strange" there. I must preach the kingdom of God to the strange cities also? And they beckoned unto their partners, which were on the gay boat? No, the word here merely means "other." It's one of those cases in which the translators didn't quite know what the author intended, picked a vague English word, and ran with it.
If the author wished to indicate that men went after other men, "eretos" was definitely the wrong word to use. If they were going after their own type of flesh, we would have seen "omo," from which we get the prefix "homo-" as in "homosexual." What did the author intend? Some have suggested that the three men in Genesis were actually angels, so the men were going after angel flesh. Alternatively, the men of Sodom did tend to rape any foreigner who came through - they went after foreigner flesh.
In any case, it seems the word is still as vague today as when the translators first tried to bring it over. Nevertheless, there are some interpretations which are definitely wrong, such as the idea that they were going after the same type of flesh as themselves.
I welcome your comments and corrections.
It's clear that all the men of Sodom meant to rape the visitors and that this would have been male-male sex. However, it's worth noting that even the mob sees the sex as a bad thing. They plan on doing worse to Lot, which means they think this is some kind of punishment or torture. This is not merely sex, this is sex with the intent of cruelty. What had the visitors done to deserve this? We most commonly assume that the men of the town tried to have sex with the visitors because they were new and attractive. It seems, however, that we are to understand that the town didn't treat strangers well. By telling Lot that he "came in to stay here," they're reminding him that he's an outsider they still haven't accepted. By merely protecting the strangers, he's going to receive worse than gang rape.
If this instance is meant to characterize the sin of Sodom, the primary conclusion is that they were awful to their passersby and probably left a number of them dead. Perhaps they raped everyone who came through town, but they were still capable of worse. What were they planning on doing to Lot? We look elsewhere for clues. There are two references in the Hebrew scriptures worth noting:
Jeremiah 23:14 says:
Ezekiel 16:48-50 says:
In these two comparisons, we see adultery, living a lie, strengthening the hands of evildoers, unrepentance, pride, gluttony, idleness, failing to strengthen the week and needy, haughtiness, and abominations. If the authors wanted us to understand that the primary sin of Sodom and Gomorrha were homosexuality, they did a poor job. Adultery is primarily understood as a heterosexual sin and abominations, which are listed last, can include: disaster (Daniel 11:31), bad sacrifices (Isaiah 66:3), idolatry (Deut 29:17, Ezekiel 20:7-8, 1 Kings 11:5-7), witchcraft (2 Kings 23:24), sexual sins (Jeremiah 13:27), forbidden foods (Leviticus 11:10-12, 13, 23, 41), other animals (7:21), etc.
Finally, the most important New Testament reference. Jude 1:7 says:
"Fornication" is clear enough, but this in itself does not indicate homosexuality. The key phrase here for those who quote it seems to be "going after strange flesh," which in transliterated Greek is "apelquosai opisw sarkos eteras." Interestingly, the word "strange" here is "eteras," from which we get our word "hetero." It is only used once in Jude. It means, according to Middle Liddell:
It's a pretty common word. For instance, it's used 32 times in Luke. Here are some examples:
In other words, it's not clear why the English translation reads "strange" there. I must preach the kingdom of God to the strange cities also? And they beckoned unto their partners, which were on the gay boat? No, the word here merely means "other." It's one of those cases in which the translators didn't quite know what the author intended, picked a vague English word, and ran with it.
If the author wished to indicate that men went after other men, "eretos" was definitely the wrong word to use. If they were going after their own type of flesh, we would have seen "omo," from which we get the prefix "homo-" as in "homosexual." What did the author intend? Some have suggested that the three men in Genesis were actually angels, so the men were going after angel flesh. Alternatively, the men of Sodom did tend to rape any foreigner who came through - they went after foreigner flesh.
In any case, it seems the word is still as vague today as when the translators first tried to bring it over. Nevertheless, there are some interpretations which are definitely wrong, such as the idea that they were going after the same type of flesh as themselves.
I welcome your comments and corrections.
