Sodom and Gomorrah: Not about "the gays"
Making pie out of picked cherries: Part II
Religion is not a rational process
This should come as a surprise to no one. Even so, the intractable conviction that some Christians have (and others, but I’m prepared to take on only so much dogma at once) on the issue of homosexuality is, to my mind at least, beyond irrational. It looks to me as though they want to believe “gay = bad.” They want to believe they can condemn gays with impunity. Maybe they just need a target.
I could go on at great length about the misunderstandings that arise when ancient scripture is viewed through contemporary eyes, and how the misunderstandings lead people astray (and, in fact, I will do exactly this in future posts). But in this post I’m limiting myself to one particularly stubborn belief: that Yahweh destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of “the gays.”
[Warning: This might take a few minutes.]
What Yahweh actually said
“Yahweh said, ‘Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous, I will go down now, and see whether their deeds are as bad as the reports which have come to me. If not, I will know.’” (Gen, 18:20-21) *
This is kind of vague.
What were these sins? These deeds?
Going back through the earlier chapters of Genesis doesn’t help much. I did find that in Gen, 6:5* Yahwah is dreadfully disappointed with mankind. “Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.“ Not long after this is the story of Noah and the total destruction of all earthly life not on the ark.
This would have destroyed anyone who would have been, or would have become, a resident in Sodom or Gomorrah. So I kept looking for references to these cities and these citizens in particular. Here’s all I found:
“Now the men of Sodom were exceedingly wicked and sinners against Yahweh.” (Gen, 13:13) *
Let’s face it: There are a lot of ways to be exceedingly wicked and sinful. Yet nowhere in these verses is there any mention of wickedness or sin relating to sexual behavior of any kind. Were the “men of Sodom” committing adultery? Almost certainly. Were they masturbating? Duh. Were they having sex with each other? Maybe seven to ten percent of them, occasionally. But none of that is mentioned. So, yeah. Vague.
And, I mean, what about the men of Gomorrah?
It would not seem the Great Flood had been a total success.
Why was Lot in Sodom, anyway?
Somewhere around Chapter 13, Lot—Abraham’s nephew—parted ways with his uncle. It seems their respective herdsmen weren’t getting along. Lot went to live in Sodom. It had something to do with how green the place was at that time.
We have to believe that Abraham knew where Lot went. If Yahweh is omniscient (and why worship a god who isn’t?), he must have known Lot’s whereabouts as well. But when Yahweh tells Abraham about his plans to destroy Lot’s new home town, neither of them mentions Lot. Neither of them mentions Gomorrah, either. All that happens in this fireside chat is that Abraham talks Yahweh down from total destruction of Sodom as long as there are enough righteous men there.
The rapists
Yahweh dispatches two angels who look like men to check out Sodom (but not Gomorrah). When they arrive, who is there to greet them but Lot, himself, sitting by the gate. Did he know they were coming? Did he know when they’d arrive? Mysterious.
Anyway, he invites them to his house. They protest; after all, they’re supposed to mingle and count righteous men. But Lot insists, and they allow him to undermine their mission. They go to his house with him.
After the meal, all hell breaks loose.
“But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter.” (Gen, 19:4) *
Let’s pause here, for just a moment. If I’m reading this passage correctly, it’s saying that “all the people from every quarter” is equivalent to “the men of Sodom.” So “people” equals “men.” Interesting. I wonder whether most women today would accept that.
But I digress. So here’s the juicy bit that gets so many Christians’ knickers in a twist: “Bring them out to us, so that we may have sex with them.” (Gen, 19:5)
Sidebar: This crowd is all the men in the city, at a time when the only social infrastructure was family. Everyone had to have as many children as possible, because probably close to half of them would die, either at birth or before they were old enough to care for their aging parents. So a city in which all the men were gay would never have sired enough children for the city to survive a generation. Would they sire some? Sure. Would they sire enough? Dream on.
Another sidebar: During these times, it was not uncommon for a highly-placed man to denigrate a lowly man by treating him as “a mere woman.” This didn’t mean making the guy cook and clean. It meant rape. And it was far from something committed exclusively by gay men.
Different times. Different morals.
I think it’s safe to say that Sunday School teachers everywhere abstain from going into detail about what happens next.
“Lot went out to them to the door, and shut the door after him. He said, ‘Please, my brothers, don’t act so wickedly. See now, I have two virgin daughters. Please let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them what seems good to you.’” (Gen, 19:6-8) *
Wait. What?
The girls are saved when the angels strike the crowd blind and they all run away. But what a close call for those girls! Some biblical scholars believe Lot felt justified, because throwing the girls to a torch-carrying, pitchfork-wielding mob wouldn’t be as bad as going back on his mitzvah of hospitality to the two “men.” Maybe. But if Lot did this today, he’d be keelhauled.
But wait. There’s more.
The conflagration
The angels lose patience at this point and announce that everyone in the city will die. Oh, except of course for the one righteous man, Lot, and his nameless wife and nameless daughters. And, oh, except of course for the men who are pledged to marry Lot’s daughters, because the angels suggest to Lot that he go and get them.
Nota bene: “All the men” intent on raping the angels includes the two men engaged to Lot’s daughters. Scary.
No one believes Lot, despite their (presumably) temporary blindness. And Lot himself hesitates when the angels insist that he and his family must flee, and they have to drag him away. Hellfire rains, and (finally) Gomorrah is mentioned again (I bet you nearly forgot about Gomorrah). Lot and his family escape.
Mind you, no one has gone to Gomorrah to see if any righteous men live there. It’s destroyed anyway.
Point Made
I believe I’ve made my point by now: This story has nothing to do with homosexuality. Yahweh’s reasoning is vague and makes no reference to sexual misconduct of any kind, and there’s no way an entire city is populated by gay men. Plus, Gomorrah. This story seems to be really all about Lot. But let’s go on just a tad further.
Different times. Different morals. Again.
Long story a little shorter: Lot and his daughters end up living in caves. I don’t know where they would get water, or food, let alone wine, but it seems they had all these things.
Yet another sidebar: In these times, women (who, remember, are not really people) were essentially chattel. Any woman who didn’t have a man who “owned” her was fair game for miscreants, slave-traders, whatever.
The daughters are concerned that—living in caves as they are—they will not find husbands. Their father will not find another wife (his first wife now stands as a pillar of salt for reasons no one seems able to explain**), so the girls won’t even have a brother to protect them. They are in deep sneakers. But, they reason, they are of childbearing age. Daddy over there has DNA aplenty. Sons would protect their mothers, right? What if they just give Daddy enough wine that he won’t know what he’s doing? (Yeah. Right.) So....
You guessed it. Each of them lies with Lot, once. Each of them gets pregnant (unlikely). Each of them has a son (also unlikely). Each son survives (again, unlikely). One son, Moab, becomes father of the Moabites. The other, Ben Ammi, becomes father of the children of Ammon. This means both these sons become leaders of tribes of Israel.
If a father’s sins are visited upon his sons, we have to conclude that—in Yahweh’s eyes—no sin was committed here. Now, I don’t think this is Yahweh’s way of saying, “Dads, it’s okay to have sex with your daughters.” It’s more like, “Well, this isn’t ideal, but in a pinch....”
Reminder: Lot was the only man Yahweh’s angels considered “righteous” enough to be allowed to escape the conflagration.
Conclusion
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not about sex. It’s sort of about general wickedness and grievous sin. Or maybe it’s about Lot. Whatever it is about, it’s not about homosexuality.
Unconvinced? Then read Judges, 19:14 through 19:29. It lacks the threat of Yahweh, and it lacks a conflagration. But the phenomenon is otherwise the same:
Townsmen gather around a house where travelers have accepted hospitality.
Townsmen want to rape the male traveler.
Instead of giving the crowd his male guest, the homeowner offers women (and in doing so, he says, “Humble them.” [!] ).
The main differences? One woman does get tossed out to the violent, rapacious crowd. She is not only “humbled,” she is killed. No one is punished. No one who wants to condemn gay people likes to tell this story; after all, “the gays” don’t get what’s coming to them.
People who examine scripture closely and still believe the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a condemnation of homosexuality just want to believe that. In other words, it’s irrational. And it’s wrong.
I rest my case.
* All scriptural references are from the World English Bible, a public domain English translation based on the American Standard Version of the Holy Bible first published in 1901, the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartenza Old Testament, and the Greek Majority Text New Testament.
** Just as many Christians believe this story is about punishing “the gays,” they also believe that Lot’s wife became a pillar of salt as punishment for looking back on the city after the angels had said not to do that. But consider that it was her home, that she had friends there, that even children were burned alive. Of course she looked back. And she wept. And wept. And wept. She wept so many salty tears that she turned to salt. This is at least as reasonable an explanation as saying she was punished for looking back and mourning the destruction of her home and the horrifying deaths of men, women, and children. We’ll never know for sure, but let’s give her the benefit of the doubt. It’s the least we can do; she had no name.
As an ordained clergyperson, I have been teaching this lesson for years. I have never able to put it as succinctly as you have, Robin. (That's why you're published, and I'm not!) Thanks for venturing out onto this particular limb!
👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽