Were Sodom and Gomorrah really torched for Homosexuality?
No.
For a more detailed answer, I'll begin with an overview of the fable: Two messengers, or angels (Hebrew ma 'alak, Greek angelos), arrive at the gates of Sodom. There, Lot, Abraham's nephew, greets them and invites them to his home for the night, where a meal has been prepared. Soon, a mob gathers outside Lot's door and demands that he serve up his guests for a gang rape, which appears to be something of a local tradition. Lot, a relative newcomer to Sodom, goes out and asks that they leave his guests alone, and offers his two virgin daughters in their place. But the mob, incensed by the new guy's uppity attitude, decides it'll just start with him. As the crowd surges forward, the messengers open the door, grab Lot, and pull him in. Outside, an intense light leaves the crowd temporarily blind. Inside, the messengers tell Lot to gather up his family and get out of town immediately because they plan to destroy it. Sure enough, just after dawn, the whole valley explodes.
Back to motive. "Those were vile people in both those cities, as is well known," says Kurt Vonnegut's Billy Pilgrim. "The world was better off without them." No argument there. But, exactly what about them was vile? Was it that they were homosexuals? The text itself makes no such claim. In fact, James Kugel, Starr Professor Emeritus of Classical and Modern Hebrew Literature at Harvard, and currently chair of the Institute for the History of the Jewish Bible at Bar Ilan University, Tel Aviv, writes that the early interpreters were "perplexed about the city of Sodom. God destroyed it because of the terrible things that were being done there -- but what exactly were those things? Strangely, the Genesis narrative does not say."
In other words, what homosexuality? Richard Elliot Friedman, professor of Hebrew and Comparative Literature at the University of California, San Diego, tells us that there is "no basis for this whatever. The text says that two people come to Sodom, and that all of the people of Sodom come and say, 'Let's know them.' The homosexuality interpretation apparently comes from misunderstanding the Hebrew word 'anasim to mean 'men,' instead of people."
This is an ancient story, created for an audience in a time when few could read and write, when a people's knowledge and culture were passed between generations through the medium of storytelling. The author(s) of this story assumed an audience versed in the nuances of the language and culture of their time and place, not ours. What if the author(s) of this fable intended the mob's behavior to point beyond itself, to be understood as symptomatic of something far more ominous -- that is, a breach in the social contract that, if allowed to stand, could threaten the fabric of desert culture? Kugel points to a tradition claiming that the flaw in Sodom's character was its failure of hospitality. While life in the Jordan valley was easier than that of the desert, its culture was nevertheless shaped by the experience of the desert, one of the harshest and deadliest climates on earth. The tradition of hospitality -- the obligation to welcome both friend and stranger with an offering of food, water, shelter, and protection -- was among the highest of virtues, without which life would have become untenable. So rooted was this obligation that one theory explains Lot's bizarre offering of his daughters as the demands of hospitality trumping the host family's well-being.
About the origin of the story, Kugel writes that it "looks like an etiological narrative, that is, the recounting of some incident from the distant past that serves to explain the way things are 'now,' at the time of the story's composition, when Sodom was a ghost town." Because ancient cities were located where water was sufficient and the land fertile, a new settlement would often be built atop the ruins of previous civilizations. People in the Jordan Valley of biblical times would have seen in the ruins of ancient cities the scars of some unexplained, fiery catastrophe that seemed to have engulfed a huge area. Being story tellers, they'd have created stories about these mysterious, long dead places, about how and why they were destroyed, and why new cities were never built atop their ruins.
As for what may have been the actual cause of the catastrophe, Gerhard von Rad, writing some 40 years before Kugel, speculated that "Perhaps a tectonic earthquake released gases (hydrogen sulfide)," which, ignited, would have made it seem that the air itself was ablaze. This story, then, may have been born in the wake of some bizarre geological event. Survivors and witnesses, like all ancient people, would have assumed the causal force to be the same divine energies behind all the mysteries pervading their world, and that the divine motive would have been punishment for something done or not done. As the memory of the event was passed on to new generations, the story as it appears in Genesis may have evolved.
William Sloane Coffin once wrote that "[i]n reality, there are no biblical literalists, only selective literalists." The truth of that is found in simple observation. Its denial begs the asking: what of those who labor on the Sabbath (Numbers 32-36)? And the idolaters (Deuteronomy 13:7-11, 17:1-6)? The defiant sons (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)? Adulterers (Deuteronomy 22:22, Leviticus 20:10)? The young women found not to be virgins when married (Deuteronomy 20:21)? Unlike the effort required in attempting to make a case for Sodom's fate, each of these violations is quite specifically written into the biblical text. As is the mandatory punishment of death by stoning -- that is, execution by members of the community who, having surrounded the condemned, hurl rocks until the man, woman, or child is dead. For anyone to claim Sodom's fate as evidence of divine punishment for homosexuality while remaining silent on these and other matters in the Bible assumes a position wholly without integrity -- and a rather convenient one, given the bloodbath that would be required. Yes, required. None of the texts referenced above allow for promises not to do it again, only for the execution of the guilty, and by the method specified.
Try wiggling out of any part of that and the whole structure of literalism evaporates. Moreover, if the fate of Sodom is to be the expected fate of all human settlements in which wicked things occur -- these being violations of divine commands either implied (supposedly) or written into the biblical text -- and if Hurricane Katrina was God's judgment on New Orleans for its sins of corruption, drugs, and general immorality, then what city, town, or village on the planet would not long since have been reduced to cinders, or laid waste by natural disaster?
Follow John R. Coats on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnrcoats
According to Christian theology, God reveals Godself most fully in the person of Jesus Christ. As such, it follows that sin is the closet, or the resistance to revealing ourselves fully to God and to others.
Rev. Patrick S. Cheng, Ph.D.: What Was the Real Sin of Sodom?
The true sin of the Sodomites as described in the Bible has nothing to do with same-sex acts per se. Rather, the ancient Sodomites were punished by God for a far greater sins: radical inhospitality.
George Lakoff: A Good Week for Science (Or, What Eating Worms Reveals About Politics)
In one experiment, the strength of blink reflexes to unexpected noises was measured and correlated with degrees of reactions to external threats. Conservatives reacted considerably more strongly than liberals.
Jeff Schweitzer: In Defense of Marriage, and Other Hopeless Causes
Given the dismal job heterosexuals have done with marriage, the idea that allowing gays to marry would destroy the institution is nothing less than absurd. What, the divorce rate would soar to sixty percent?
Sodom and Gomorrah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?
Is there any evidence for the Biblical story of Sodom and ...
Wonderful information and now I want to read your book :)
Thanks!
The first two were when I was trying to understand the unchristian hypocracy I had seen in the church. I had witnessed the racism and rewarding of evil that characterizes Baptist churches in Macon, Georgia, even today.
The third time was after I had discarded the beliefs of the more dominant (in my world view) Christian churches - the Roman Catholic and Baptist churches.
With that view, it was clear that the Old Testament is a blend of myths about the history of the world mixed with bragging about various prophets successful attempts to control the Jews and rules they established to ensure the power of their faith.
The New Testament was a mainly futile attempt to change the harsh commands of the Old Testament into a kinder, more humane belief. It failed because churches like the RCC, the Baptists, and the evangelicals found that they could control their believers better with fear, terror and threats of divine retribution than with love.
Read from that perspective, it is very easy to see just how far many of our modern "Christian" churches have willingly and maliciously transformed themselves into bastions of theological slavery.
If you doubt what I say, simply look at just how deep mullahs of the Islamic faith have enslaved their women.
If you do not wish to be bit, tread carefully, and carry a fly swatter. lol
It's ironic that Christians condemn gays because Christians are behaving in the exact way that irked their god - unwelcoming and unkind.
The destruction of these cities had nothing to do with sex. It had everything to do with unkindness.
Genesis 6:5 And GOD 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.
Is there ANYTHING else we cleave to from the Bronze Age, folks?
Why cling, or cleve yourself to a falsehood, why take on the lie, or more then Solomon could handle? lol
Yes it is based on fact and reality. The only thing is you like the author dont know what fact it is based upon. There is nothing in the old testement that is not borrowed (or stolen if you will) from the first people. The black headed people.
Take for instance the flood story, here is the first.
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.7.4&display=Crit&charenc=&lineid=t174.p1#t174.p1
As an interesting aside, download the picture top right side and look at it.
The Mount and the plain, in the heart of the Fourth Region, Ninurta from the skies surveyed. With a squeezing in his heart, to Nergal a sign he gave: Keep off to him he signaled. Then the first terror weapon from the skies Ninurta let loose; The top of Mount Mashu with a flash it sliced off, the mount’s innards in an instant it melted.
Above the Place of the Celestial Chariots the second weapon he unleashed, With a brilliance of seven suns the plain’s rocks into a gushing wound were made, The Earth shook and crumbled, the heavens after the brilliance were darkened; With burnt and crushed stones was the plain of the chariots covered, Of all the forests that the plain had surrounded, only tree stems were left standing.
The control that Marduk and Nabu so coveted, of it they are forever deprived!
Then to emulate Ninurta Nergal desired, to be Erra the Annihilator his heart him urged; Following the King’s Highway, to the verdant valley of the five cities he flew.
Over the five cities, one after the other, Erra upon each from the skies a terror weapon sent, The five cities of the valley he finished off, to desolation they were overturned.
With fire and brimstones were they upheavaled, all that lived there to vapor was turned.
In the S&G story you will notice that he asks:
18:24 ... there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
This is a clear refrence to the number of the sumerian god enlil. They all had a number Anu was 60 his wife 55 enlil 50. This had to do with the fact that they used sexagesimal mathamatics base 60. That is why today there is 60 minutes in an hour and 60 seconds in a minute.
The reason S&G were thought of as sinful was that they were being swayed over to the god enki side enlil's half brother.
Really the sumerian literature is a truly fantastic thing. It is in fact where a lot of what we have today comes from.
And if you start to look at their cylinder seals it will blow your mind.
Enki gives the plow to mankind notice the complete solar system.
http://www.ahura.info/images/lemshay.jpg
I also agree that your allusion to Ezekiel 16:49 makes it clear what Sodom's sins were: “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.”
But...what was the actual motivation for the townspeople wishing to have ascertained the identity of Lot's guests?
I think the primary key to understanding this passage lies in the answer to this question.
What do you think?
Ge 4:17 And Cain knew (yada) his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. {Enoch: Heb. Chanoch}
Ge 4:25 ¶ And Adam knew (yada) his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
When speaking of “know” in your comment, are you referring to Genesis 19:5? If so, the actual verb is not the root “ידע” (yawda), but “וְנֵדְעָ֣ה” (venedea).
That aside, I do agree with you that the connotation here is quite unlike Anna Leonowens’ jolly tune, “Getting to Know You,” in Lehman and Hammerstein’s “The King and I”. It had to do with s*x – but why?
In your opinion, what was the motivation behind the townspeople wanting to “know” Lot’s two guests?
--ez
It also seems strange then that Lot would offer his two virgin daughters - and the same word for "know" is used to describe that they have not "known" anyone. If all the crowd wanted to do was to interview people, why would he mention they were virgins? Again - it makes no sense.
Finally - we are supposed to believe that it was all plate tectonics? Yeah, we have seen a lot of other cities destroyed this way. I mean earthquakes can light fires in cities that have natural gas lines running through them, or gasoline stations, etc, etc, etc. But spontaneously combusting? I think this guy has seen Spinal Tap too many times. There is more "faith" needed to believe this than anything in the actual text.
Perhaps Lot wasn't too thrilled with the message the other two messengers had to offer, and chosing to satisfy the peoples need to know, offered something new, something precious, something valued, to the people of the town regarding themselves, others and God. Did they listen? Did they see the light, and if they did was it too late?
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/but+not+in+the+biblical+sense
Wow.
Can it be said that God is the tornado? The volcano,or the earthquake? Is God then administering justice, if he is, after all, God, the ultimate authority? If God is not bad, did the people of Haiti deserve what happened to them, because they were bad?
Was this a natural event, a man made event? Can natrual events be extrapolated and imposed as man made events, in order to justify man made events, or desires?
Did God favor the Dallas Cowboys today, or the Philadelphia Eagles? Is God capricious?
Don't look back, no thinking allowed?
There are no rabbis in this discussion, where does that leave us? In the dark?
End of discussion?
What if this were turned into a POE (problem of evil) discussion, where would that lead?
If the whole structure of literalism evaporates, as Mr. Coats suggests, then what the heck is the purpose of this story, and why was it cherished enough to be included in the Torah, by the Jewish people? Were they insane or wise? Is there any insanity to this story, and in finding it, is wisdom found?
Jolicoeur1, you say that without the Jewish scholars, the point of the story is often over looked; perhaps you can share that point with us? What is the point of the story?