Scripture Analysis: Sodom and Gamorrah Have Nothing to do With Sexuality

We have all heard the claim that God destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah because their inhabitants practiced homosexuality but where is this actually said? I am going to give an analysis of the scripture, because I can’t seem to find any mention of it in the story. What do these people know that I don’t? In another book does God say, “Remember that Sodom and Gamorrah incident, it was because they were homosexuals.”

This is not a debate about homosexuality, I don’t really want to go there, all I will say is that I do not hold a view found in the traditional mindset of either ‘side’ on the issue, my beliefs instead are driven by an acknowledgement of the historical unfolding of the social construct of human sexuality plus a little Kinsey Report but that really is for another article. This does not mean however, that people should be mistreated because someone hundreds of years ago interpreted Genesis a certain way. Have you ever seen those images of Saints before they had the Halo? They have these rays of light coming out of their head instead. Well that is what the Hebrew word Keren means, and some monk in the middle ages thought it meant ‘horns’, and to this day there are people out there who still believe Jews have horns. That’s not cool, so neither is pretending that Sodom and Gamorrah is about homosexuals.

I am not claiming to be an expert in Biblical Hebrew, I did take it as a child, then conversational through high school and one semester of Biblical Hebrew in college where I also took a year of 5th century attic Greek. All quotes presented in this article are from Genesis, using the Mechon-Mamre project which has the Hebrew right next to the English:

The first time Sodom appears is in 10:19

19 And the border of the Canaanite was from Zidon, as thou goest toward Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim, unto Lasha.

This just tells us where cities were geographically. Not very important for our needs. This whole chapter is an ancient version of racial theory, Noah had three sons that each represent a different race or rather distinct type of person probably due to phenotype, obvious physical features. This is explaining how Noah’s sons will settle the world and who will become great kings (Nimrod, Tower of Babel), and what cities will go up where and the basic landscape of the world between the time of Noah and Abraham.

Next appearance of the infamous cities comes two chapters later in Genesis 13:10-13

10 And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of the Jordan, that it was well watered every where, before the LORD destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of the LORD, like the land of Egypt, as thou goest unto Zoar.

11 So Lot chose him all the plain of the Jordan; and Lot journeyed east; and they separated themselves the one from the other.

12 Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelt in the cities of the Plain, and moved his tent as far as Sodom.

13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners against the LORD exceedingly.

While it does say that these people were wicked it does not speak to the nature of their wickedness. We will have to move on to Chapter 14 to get any insight into what it could possibly be.

This chapter discusses a war that occurred between nine Kings, in 14:2 Bera, King of Sodom is mentioned as being involved in one of the alliances. The battle finally happens in 14:8-12:

8 And there went out the king of Sodom, and the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Admah, and the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela--the same is Zoar; and they set the battle in array against them in the vale of Siddim (the ‘salt sea’);

9 against Chedorlaomer king of Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim, and Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar; four kings against the five.

10 Now the vale of Siddim was full of slime pits; and the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, and they fell there, and they that remained fled to the mountain.

11 And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way.

12 And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.

Then in 14:13-16 Abraham learns that Lot has been captured, so Abraham rallies his allies to save his kin. They raise a group of 318 trained fighters and not only save Lot but rescue Sodom and Gammorah’s people that were taken into slavery as well as their possessions. Then in 14:17-20, King Melchizedek who was also rescued, thanks Abraham, blesses him and gives him one tenth of the possessions he saved. Bera, the King of Sodom is less tact when thanking Abraham:

21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram: 'Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.'

22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom: 'I have lifted up my hand unto the LORD, God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth,

23 that I will not take a thread nor a shoe-latchet nor aught that is thine, lest thou shouldest say: I have made Abram rich;

24 save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, let them take their portion.'

This tells us that the King of Sodom is not someone that Abraham wants to be indebted to. Maybe this is because he knows how wicked they are, and if they ask a favor of him it would most likely be something that was contradictory to his morals. I believe that Sodom is a city of slavers, in 14:21 when Bera says, “Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself” he is valueing people with objects. Plus the goods do not really belong to the King alone but to his people, so if he is indeed a slaver then it would make sense that he does not have a problem stripping his people of all their possessions. Maybe it was this dehuminzation that he practiced which turned Abraham off so much.

Now I may be reading too much into this, but at least I am actually reading the text instead of just making it up. If you have another interpretation I would love to hear it, there is no right answer to scripture only arguments for why you believe it means one thing and not another and a desire to continue this process of analysis and interpretation.

Chapter 15 is where Abraham renegotiates his covenant with God, not much going on there for our purposes. He is not actually Abraham yet but still Avram, so the covenant is not complete. Then in Chapter 16 we have the famous story of Hagar and Ishmael. Chapter 17 is where he becomes Abraham and the covenenant is completed when Abraham does that thing San Francisco is trying to ban. Chapter 18 is one of my favorite chapters, it is about the conception of Isaac, and Sarah laughs at the idea that she could bear child in her years, but does anyway, so she names him Yitzach after her laughter. Sodom is mentioned a couple times in this chapter, because the same angels (Matt Damon and Ben Afleck in Dogma) that tell Sarah she is going to be pregnant are the ones sent to destroy Sodom and Gamorrah. In 18:20-21 as the Angels leave to investigate the city:

20 And the LORD said: 'Verily, the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and, verily, their sin is exceeding grievous.

21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto Me; and if not, I will know.'

Which still fails to mention sexuality at all.

For the remainder of the chapter, Abraham argues with God not to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because there might be innocent people there.

This is where it all happens, the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah. I could have started here, but I wanted to go give the backstory and account for each time Sodom is mentioned. We have not seen sexuality of any kind so far, but I think I have identified the problem line, *rolls up sleeves* lets get started:

19: 1-3 details Lot’s greetings of the angels and the hospitality he gives them and just when they are ready for bed:

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter.

“all the people” is in the masculine, but as I am sure many of you are familiar with in a lot of non-english languages masculine plural groups may be comprised of both men and women. So this could very well be a mixed group, which doesn’t sound very homosexual to me…

5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him: 'Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.'

This is it, the problem line we’ve been waiting for. So the mob wants Lot to turn over the two Angels (angel just means messenger by the way) and that seems pretty straightforward right? That is what this line is saying?

Ever wonder why people say ‘yada yada’? Well yada (yud, daled ayin) is the root of the word for the phrase “that we may know them” Here it appears something like V’nehda (that we may know) Otem (them). One of the possible interpretations for this word is “had relations” or “have relations”, which is what people mean when they say they ‘know’ someone in a biblical sense. Well there is no contextual reason to interpret the sexual connotation in Genesis 19:5. Let me show you a few places in some books of Prophets that the word appears so you can see how ludicrous it is to use the sexual connotation:

Jonah 1:7 And they said every one to his fellow: 'Come, and let us cast lots, that we may know for whose cause this evil is upon us.' So they cast lots, and the lot fell upon Jonah.

Isaiah 41:23 Declare the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods; yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.

Hosea 6:3 And let us know, eagerly strive to know the LORD, His going forth is sure as the morning; and He shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter rain that watereth the earth.'

Taken out of context; Jonah was chosen as a prophet after a gay orgy, Isaiah can see the future after having sex with gods, and Hosea wants to have sex, eagerly strive to have sex with the LORD. Yada appears in the exact same formulation in these passages as it does in Genesis 19:5.

Obviously it makes no sense to substitute “that we may know” as “that we may have sex” in the context of the Sodom and Gamorrah story. The defining characteristic of the Angels from the perspective of the Sodomites is that they are strangers. They don’t want to have sex with them, they want to know who these strangers are, so they can throw them in the slag pits, gamble on their fight in the arena, or strip them naked and hunt them like animals for sport. Really the sin of Sodom is not homosexuality but xenophobic, dehumanizing, slavery. Yes the Israelites had slaves too but they had a weekend (Sabbath), and only needed to work for seven years, which is a deal slaves wouldn’t be able to find anywhere else. They were still treated as human beings unlike the slaves of Sodom.

I have heard many a drosh (Jewish way to say sermon) that warns against becoming xenophobic like the city of Sodom. Our society at large has crippling immigration problems, we never look homeless people in the eyes, and are in the midst of developing a culture of isolation (probably due to technology) and we don’t look to judge ourselves because someone (a medieval clergyman perhaps?) decided that it was much easier to attack homosexuals than weigh our own xenophobia.

6 And Lot went out unto them to the door, and shut the door after him.

7 And he said: 'I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly.

8 Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.'

So here for “have not known a man” we have Lo (negative) Yadu (known) Eesh (man). Here the word appears differently, and given the context it is safe to interpret Yadu as ‘had relations’. So you are probably thinking that since Lot is offering his daughters in this way, then that must mean their intentions were to have sex with God’s two messengers (Matt Damon and Ben Afleck in Dogma), well not if you consider that a virgin girl fetches a much higher price on the market than a deflowered girl, Lot included their maiden status in order to increase their product value. In Lot’s culture doing evil to a guest or allowing evil to be done to a guest breaks the foundation of civilization’s morality so this is why he is willing to go to such dire straights to protect those ‘under the shadow of his roof’.

9 And they said: 'Stand back.' And they said: 'This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs play the judge; now will we deal worse with thee, than with them.' And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and drew near to break the door.

They are saying that Lot himself is a stranger, alien, illegal immigrant, and that he has no right to judge who they enslave and since he questioned them he too will be dealt with. “And they pressed sore upon the man”, don’t tell me this is another reference to homosexuality… this just means they lunged at Lot and the door.

So the rest of Chapter 19 doesn’t hint at the people of Sodom being homosexuals, the angels stop them from getting in the door with ‘blindness’ and then they tell Lot that they will annihilate the city and that he should take his family and get outta dodge. His sons in law scoff at him and refuse to leave. Notice that he has sons in law that are Sodom natives, as in Sodom men who sleep with women. Then they run away, Lot’s wife looks back and is turned into a pillar of salt, Lot and his daughters hole up in a cave and witness the aftermath of the destruction. His daughters then proceed to get him drunk and sleep with him. This is the first time a sexual act is directly mentioned in the story of Sodom and Gamorrah and each time the more standard verbage (19:32-35) of ‘lie with’ is used. Apparently people who think Sodom and Gamorrah is about homosexuality would have been in for a real treat if they kept reading to the end of the chapter with the juicy incest!

Recap: The group of people surrounding Lot and his two strangers may be a group of mixed sexes. This seems to be likely as it mentions “men” young and old, and then mentions “the people”. If there were no women in the mob then descriptions of different kinds of men would have sufficed without the addition of “all the people”. Next is that the mob asks ‘to know’ who the strangers are, which fits the context instead of demanding to ‘have sexual relations’ with the strangers. Lot’s daughters were married to men of Sodom, so we have examples of Sodom men who weren’t homosexual. When sex is actually referred to later in the chapter it is ‘to lie’. I can’t find any other place where ‘to know’ is used as sexual relations without a woman being involved, so keep your eyes out for one!

Therefore the story of Sodom and Gamorrah has nothing to do with sexuality and never directly mentions homosexuality. If it did, then at least one of the times that the cities are described as evil or wicked, you would think typical phrases about homosexuality “men lie with other men” would have been included to describe them. If you can find a place where Yada (to know) is elsewhere used to refer to ‘men having sexual relations with men’ then the argument might have more weight. If you can find any supporting evidence from the scripture please let me know, or if you believe I misrepresented anything in this article.

So in conclusion, the Bible does mention that male homosexuality is an abomination, but the same word for abomination is used in reference to eating shellfish or wearing clothes with different kinds of threads in them, so we are all going to burn in hell. Luckily as a Jew I don’t believe in Hell or that scripture should be used to suit my needs. Torah is a font of wisdom and learning and should be continually questioned.

Lastly, I don’t think Guttenberg invented the printing press and reformists translated the Bible into the common tongues so that people would never read it but know for sure (this could mean: have sex for sure) what it says and how their version is the only possible answer and must be the infallible word of God. What is that line about giving up childish ways? Why don’t you figure out that Sodom was really about xenophobia and reflect on that issue before this great nation repeats some of the same mistakes.

I have already had a few comments which are non-productive and unacceptable. Please actually read the article, if you reply with:

“Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.” (Genesis 19:4-5)

IT OBVIOUSLY SAYS THEY ARE GAY!

Your comment will not be accepted.

So if you want to comment, first read the article. I do not only take comments that agree with me; you can provide reasons through scriptural analysis that add evidence to the reading that Sodom is comprised of homosexuals or at the very least that their crimes were of a sexual nature. You could also argue that the conjugation of 'yada' used in 19:5 should be read as "to have intercourse with", but have some reasons for why it should be read that way from the Torah, Prophets or Writings. These kind of responses are constructive feedback to analysis of the scripture given here, I would love to have comments of this nature!