Gen 19:1 The two angels came to Sodom in the evening while Lot was sitting in the city’s gateway. When Lot saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face toward the ground.
19:2 He said, “Here, my lords, please turn aside to your servant’s house. Stay the night and wash your feet. Then you can be on your way early in the morning.” “No,” they replied, “we’ll spend the night in the town square.”
19:3 But he urged them persistently, so they turned aside with him and entered his house. He prepared a feast for them, including bread baked without yeast, and they ate. 19:4 Before they could lie down to sleep, all the men—both young and old, from every part of the city of Sodom—surrounded the house. 19:5 They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!”

What was the sin of the Sodomites, as recorded in Genesis 19?  And of what relevance (if any) is this to the subject of homosexual relations?

Four main views have been taken.

1. (In)hospitality

In 1955 Sherwin Bailey published Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition, in which he argued that the phrase in question refers to a desire on the part of the Sodomites to ‘get to know’ the strangers.  In other words, it is to do with the issue of hospitality.  This view is also taken by J. Boswell in Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.

Hays (The Moral Vision of the New Testament) judges that this account is ‘irrelevant’ to the topic of homosexuality:

‘The gang-rape scenario exemplifies the wickedness of the city, but there is nothing in the passage pertinent to a judgment about the morality of consensual homosexual intercourse. Indeed, there is nothing in the rest of the biblical tradition, save an obscure reference in Jude 7, to suggest that the sin of Sodom was particularly identified with sexual misconduct of any kind. In fact, the clearest statement about the sin of Sodom is to be found in an oracle of the prophet Ezekiel: “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 needy” (Ezek. 16:49).’

But Hays’ case is (slightly) weakened by his failure to cite the very next verse in the Ezekiel passage:

‘They were haughty and practiced abominable deeds before me. Therefore when I saw it I removed them.’

In support of this view:

(a) it is pointed out that of the 943 occurrences of the word translated ‘to know’ in the OT, only ten refer to sexual intercourse.  But we must respond by insisting that the meaning of the word must be determined by its context, and the context here (with the word definitely having a sexual connotation in v8) requires that we understand this a sexual sin: Lot’s ensuing offer of his daughters shows that they were consumed, not by a wish to provide hospitality, but by sexual passion.

(b) It is further argued that other biblical references to the sin of Sodom (Isa 1:10ff; Jer 23:14; Eze 16:49ff; Mt 10:15; 11:24; Lk 10:12) do not refer to sexual sin.  But then they do not mention inhospitality either!  Moreover, Gen 13:13 has already defined Sodom as a generally wicked city, and it is perfectly reasonable to see the sin described in Gen 19 as one (and perhaps the most heinous) of its evils.  Moreover, ‘the adjectives “wicked”, “vile” and disgraceful” (Gen 19:7; cf. Judges 19:23) do not seem appropriate to describe a breach of hospitality’ (Stott, Issues Facing Christians Today, 4th ed., 448ff).  Additionally, we have the very definite reference to ‘sexual immorality and perversion’ in Jude v7.

Sprinkle notes:

‘In Judges 19:22–26, a narrative clearly modeled after Genesis 19, the Benjaminites of Gibeah who want to “know” a Levite guest, accepted as substitute his concubine whom they proceeded to rape and abuse all night.’

‘According to Ezekiel 16:47–50, the richness of Sodom (“like a garden of the LORD,” Gen 13:10) led to pride and callousness in committing “abominations” (tôʿēbâ; probably an allusion to the “abomination” of homosexual sex in Lev 18:22 and 20:13) and injustice to the poor.’ (in DOP:P, art. ‘Sexuality, sexual ethics’)

As Kostenberger remarks:

‘Lot’s offering of his two daughters to the men of Sodom makes absolutely no sense if the men knocking at his door were merely asking to be introduced to his houseguests. Why not just introduce the angels to the inquisitive townspeople if that was all that was requested of him?’

Kostenberger finds further problems with this theory:

1. If Lot was the one who sinned by breaking the local hospitality codes, then why was his life spared by the angelic visitors while the law-abiding townspeople were destroyed by the divine judgment?
2. Considering that Lot was a resident of Sodom, why were the inhabitants of Gomorrah killed for a sin in which they had no part?
3. If the residents of Sodom were so peaceable and honest that they came to Lot’s house late at night to enact the local hospitality codes, then why could God not find ten righteous people in the whole city (Gen. 18:23)?
4. Why does Lot seem to have felt threatened by the appearance of the townspeople (Gen. 19:6) or why the mob declared their intent to harm both Lot and his visitors without provocation (Gen. 19:9).
5. This interpretation is at odds with every interpretation of this passage prior to the middle of the twentieth century, as well as with. Jude 7 (cf. Luke 17:26-29; 2 Pet. 2:6-7, 10). (Numbering added and very slightly abbreviated)

Hamilton regards the theory that this passage focuses on the issue of hospitality as ‘wild and fanciful’.  And Davis wryly remarks, ‘We’re not talking about handshakes and introductions and smiles all round here.’

Referring specifically to the work of Bailey, Stott finds a number of weaknesses:

• • The adjectives “wicked”, “vile” and “disgraceful” (Genesis 19:7; Judges 19:23) do not seem appropriate to describe a breach of hospitality.
  • The offer of women instead “does look as if there is some sexual connotation to the episode”.
  • Although the verb yada‘ is used only ten times of sexual intercourse, Bailey omits to mention that six of these occurrences are in Genesis and one in the Sodom story itself (about Lot’s daughters, who had not “known” a man, v. 8).
  • For those of us who take the New Testament documents seriously, Jude’s unequivocal reference to the “sexual immorality and perversion” of Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7) cannot be dismissed as merely an error copied from Jewish pseudepigrapha.

Davie (Studies on the Bible and same-sex relationships since 2003) notes the following pieces of evidence that make it clear that this account includes a sexual element:

• • The use of yada, ‘know,’ in an unambiguously sexual sense in Genesis 19: 8 and the fact that Lot offers his daughters to the crowd indicates that ‘know’ in Genesis 19: 5 also has to be understood in a sexual way. In the literary context of Genesis 19 it does not make sense to read Genesis 19: 5 any other way.
  • …Genesis 19 fits into a wider section of Genesis running from Genesis 18-20 which consists of a series of stories to do with sexual sin and its punishment. A sexual reading of the Sodom story fits best into this structure.
  • The literary similarities between Genesis 19 and Judges 19 show that the latter is clearly intended to echo the story of Sodom and Judges 19 is unambiguously concerned with sexual wrongdoing. The earliest biblical commentary on Genesis 19 thus understands it as having to do with sex.
  • Ezekiel 16: 49-50 in the Old Testament and Jude 7 and 2 Peter 1: 6-8 interpret the story in sexual terms.

We conclude that although the issue of hospitality is relevant within this account, the issue of sexual behaviour is inescapable.

2. Intended homosexual rape

Brownson (cited by Davie) maintains that:

‘The Bible narration presents both stories as evidence of extreme degradation and corruption, Both stories regard a man being raped by other men as an expression of violence and extreme degradation; both assume that the rape of female members of the household would be preferable to the rape of male visitors, which underscores the deep violation of male honor that is assumed in both stories to be attached to the rape of a male by another male.’

Matthew Vines claims that

‘the men of Sodom threaten to gang rape Lot’s angel visitors, who have come in the form of men, and so this behavior would at least ostensibly be same-sex. But that is the only connection that can be drawn between this passage and homosexuality in general, and there is a world of difference between violent and coercive practices like gang rape and consensual, monogamous, and loving relationships.’

Stott (Issues Facing Christians Today, 4th ed.) cites the work of Gagnon:

‘Robert Gagnon, in what must be the most comprehensive and encyclopaedic treatise on the Bible and homosexuality, entitled The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, comments that though hospitality may be part of the story, the focus of it is on the demeaning and dehumanizing act of homosexual rape. Commenting on the sins of Sodom, he says of homosexual intercourse itself that it treated a man “as though his masculine identity counted for nothing, as though he were not a man but a woman. To penetrate another man was to treat him like an assinnu, like someone whose ‘masculinity had been transformed into femininity’. Thus three elements (attempted penetration of males, attempted rape, inhospitality) and perhaps a fourth (unwitting, attempted sex with angels) combined to make this a particularly egregious example of human depravity that justifies God’s act of total destruction.”’

Davie agrees that rape may be implied in the text, but that the main point is that the men of Sodom wanted to have sexual relations with Lot’s visitors.  The Heb. language has a vocabulary for rape, but it is not used here:

‘The fact that the text leaves it at that and that it says nothing about the motivation of the crowd, or about whether they were homosexual or bisexual, is theologically significant. In order to make it clear that Sodom was a gravely sinful place all the text has to say is that its inhabitants wanted to have sex with men. That in itself constitutes a wicked act (Genesis 19: 6) which illustrates the more general wickedness for which Sodom, Gomorrah, and two neighboring cities are going to be destroyed.’

3. Intended homosexual relations

But were the Sodomites only intent on homosexual rape?  Hamilton sees four problems with this interpretation:

(a) the text does not use the language of violence or abuse;

(b) the OT uses unmistakable language when rape is referred to (e.g. Gen 34:2);

(c) this interpretation forces one meaning (‘abuse’) on the word ‘know’ in v5, and another (‘have intercourse with’) just three verses later;

(d) it draws incredible words from Lot’s mouth – ‘Don’t rape these men – rape my daughters instead!’

Hamilton concludes that the issue here is homosexual relations, not homosexual rape.

Jude 7 has been cited to indicate that

‘it was the homosexual nature of their desires, and not just the violent expression of them, that is highlighted in the New Testament.’

I do not find these arguments entirely convincing, because of (a) the number of men involved (‘all the men’), and (b) the violence that is indicated in the text (‘they shouted’; they demanded sex without any hint of seeking consent from the strangers).  Hamilton find’s Lot’s offer of his daughters in place of the strangers does indeed seem incredible, but that is part of the point of the story – Lot lacks the strength of character to find a moral solution to a moral problem.

Calvin distinguishes between the stated intention of these people and their actual intention.  He thinks that the word ‘know’ is used in an ordinary (non-sexual) way here: the men of the city are asking to be introduced to the visitors.  But, suggests Calvin, this request was only an attempt to hide their true intention, which was to sexually abuse the strangers.

The contributor to Harper’s Bible Commentary regards this passage as relevant to the discussion about homosexual behaviour generally:

‘Homosexual acts, which threaten proper family relationships and boundaries (Lev 18:22; 20:13; 1 Cor 6:9–10; Rom 1:26–27), run counter to the divine command to procreate (Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7), a command that is part of the order of creation.’

I am not convinced of the relevance of this passage to discussions on homosexual behaviour between consenting adults.  Whereas other biblical passages do uniformly condemn such practices, this particular account is about intended sexual violence.

4. General wickedness, with intended sexual violence as one aspect.

Walter Barnett maintained that

‘the sin of Sodom does not necessarily lie in homosexuality or homosexual behavior. Rather, this wicked thing that Lot enjoins the townspeople not to do is rape, pure and simple, and gang rape at that.’ (Homosexuality and the Bible: an Interpretation)

See also this, by Amy-Jill Levine, who argues that both here and in Judges 19 the issues are ‘inhospitality, threat, and finally, attempted rape’.  She thinks that v4 refers to ‘all the people’ (rather than ‘all the men’), and therefore takes the concern beyond male-male relations (she agrees that the verb ‘to know’ refers to sexual relations).

But we should not exclude the homosexual element from the sin.  If we are to follow Jude 6-8, then

‘the offenders at Sodom and Gomorrah did not just have uncontrollable sexual desires, but unnatural sexual desires.’ (Kostenberger, God, Marriage, and Family, 2nd Edition)

(Be it noted, however, that Jude 7 speaks (literally) of ‘lusting after different flesh’, which would be an odd way of referring to same-sex lust.  See this, by Michael Pahl).

Moreover, this incident is symptomatic of general wickedness in Sodom, including but not limited to the threat of sexual violence.  Note: the threatened violence never took place, making it that much more important that we should take into account these more general features of Sodom’s wickedness.  Gen 13:13 says that ‘the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord.’  We may infer from the present passage that ancient standards of hospitality were being flouted.  According to Isa 1:10ff  and Eze 16:49 sins of pride, greed, laziness, and ignoring the needs of the poor were included.  Jer 23:14 includes adultery, dishonesty and general immorality.  2 Pet 2:6-8 speaks of the ‘filthy lives of lawless men’, and Jude 7 of ‘sexual immorality and perversion’.  (T

It will be clear from the above discussion that this last interpretation best reflects the biblical data.