To many anti-gay Christians, I'm nothing more than a "sodomite" who is damned for all eternity. It doesn't matter that I've spent the last decade immersed in the Bible, ancient biblical languages, and the Christian theological tradition. It doesn't matter that I've dedicated my life to preaching, teaching, and ministering to all people, including the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. The simple fact that I'm an openly gay man makes all of that irrelevant. To anti-gay Christians, God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapter 19 of the Book of Genesis is a warning to people like me.
Ironically, I believe that these anti-gay Christians actually have it backwards. 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 far greater sins: for attempted gang rape, for mob violence, and for turning their backs on strangers and the needy who were in their midst. In other words, the real sin of Sodom was radical inhospitality. And, ironically, it is often anti-gay Christians who are most guilty of this sin today.
The biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah begins when two angels, disguised as travelers, arrive at the gates of Sodom. They meet Lot, a relative newcomer to the city, who insists that they spend the night in his house. The other men of Sodom learn about the two strangers in their midst. In contrast to Lot's gracious hospitality, which includes preparing a feast for his guests, the men surround Lot's house and demand that he turn over his guests so that they may "yada" them (Genesis 19:5). Anti-gay Christians have interpreted this Hebrew word narrowly to mean "to have sex with" and thus have interpreted the sin of Sodom as nothing more than engaging in same-sex acts, as opposed to "rape" or "molestation."
Interestingly, most people don't realize that Biblical translators do not agree on how to translate yada into English. Of the 983 times that yada appears in the Hebrew Bible, it literally means "to know" at least 973 (that is, 98.9 percent) of those times. Indeed, the King James Version (KJV), the English Standard Version (ESV), and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) all use the more literal word "know" in Genesis 19:5. By contrast, the New International Version (NIV) uses the phrase "have sex," the New American Standard Bible (NASB) uses "have relations with," and the New American Bible (NAB) uses "have intimacies with."
I am not criticizing the NIV, NASB, and NAB for making explicit the sexual meaning of the word yada. After all, the same word is used by Lot a few verses later when he offers up his daughters to the men of Sodom. What I am saying, however, is that translation is not simply a matter of reading a Hebrew word and plugging in a corresponding English word from the dictionary. If that were the case, there would be no need to love God with our minds in addition to our hearts and souls. In my view, a much more accurate -- and responsible -- translation for yada in the NIV, NASB, and NAB would be "to rape" or "to molest," since the acts described in Genesis 19:5 have nothing to do with consensual or loving sex.
To continue the story, Lot offers up his virgin daughters to appease the angry mob (which, by the way, is highly problematic and is rarely addressed by anti-gay Christians), but the men of Sodom turn down Lot's offer and try to storm Lot's house. At this point, the angelic visitors blind the men of Sodom so that they are unable to find the door. The next morning, the visitors whisk away Lot, his wife, and his two daughters right before God destroys Sodom and its neighboring town Gomorrah with sulfur and fire from the heavens. Despite being warned not to look back, Lot's wife cannot help herself and is therefore turned into a pillar of salt.
To me, it is clear that the real sin of Sodom is radical inhospitality, or turning one's back upon the strangers and the neediest in our midst. Rather than welcoming traveling sojourners into their homes and feeding them, the men of Sodom wanted to gang rape them and exert their power over them. (In fact, gang rape is precisely what happens to the unnamed concubine in Judges 19, which is the parallel story to Sodom and Gomorrah in the Hebrew Bible.)
In fact, the Bible itself expressly describes the sin of Sodom elsewhere as radical inhospitality. According to the prophet Ezekiel, the real "guilt" of the Sodomites was the fact that, although they had "pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease," they "did not aid the poor and needy" and were "haughty" (Ezekiel 16:49-50). Similarly, the Letter to the Hebrews warns Christians by alluding to the true sin of the Sodomites as inhospitality: "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it" (Hebrews 13:2).
Even St. Jerome, the distinguished fourth-century Doctor of the Church, biblical translator, and author of the Vulgate Bible, described the primary sin of Sodom as "pride, bloatedness, the abundance of all things, leisure and delicacies." (See "Commentaria in Hiezechielem" 5.16.48-51, as translated by Mark D. Jordan in The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997], at 33 n.11.)
(I recognize that some readers may point to the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah in Jude 7 as a counterargument to my reading of Genesis 19. However, the Greek text in that passage, "sarkos heteras," literally means "strange" or "other" flesh, which I believe refers to the divine, or other-worldly, nature of the angelic visitors. In other words, the Sodomites' desire to rape God's angels is akin to the transgressions of the mysterious "sons of God" in Genesis 6 who copulated with human females and thus led to the Great Flood in Genesis 7.)
It should be no surprise that radical inhospitality was a sin of the first-order magnitude in the Ancient Near East. Taking care of the sojourner or traveler in the midst of a hostile desert environment often meant the difference between life and death. According to ancient Jewish texts, such as the Babylonian Talmud and the Genesis Rabba, the inhabitants of Sodom were infamous for their cruelty and their failure to support the poor and the needy in their midst, as well as their failure to practice charity and justice. Extra-biblical stories included the Sodomites' physical torture of travelers as well as their burning of a young woman who had dared to share food with a family that was starving of hunger. This is in stark contrast to Lot's radical hospitality, or the radical hospitality of Abraham and Sarah to the three disguised angels who visit them in Genesis 18, the chapter that immediately precedes the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative.
So, who are the real Sodomites today? Who are the people who turn their backs on the strangers and the least among us? Ironically, I believe that anti-gay Christians are often the ones who are most guilty of committing the true sin of Sodom. These include the Roman Catholic cardinals and bishops who are trying to scapegoat LGBT people for the horrific crimes of child rape that were committed by their brother priests. These also include the Mormon leaders who are secretly funding campaigns to fight marriage equality for LGBT people, despite the fact that their founders practiced polygamy. Finally, these include anti-gay politicians and self-appointed "family values" advocates who insist that LGBT people are categorically unfit to serve as parents or judges (because they are sinners and morally flawed), but are too blind to see their own sins and moral flaws.
The bottom line is that nowhere in the Bible does Jesus Christ ever condemn LGBT people. However, Jesus does expressly condemn people who turn their backs on strangers and on those who are the neediest among us. In the Gospel according to Matthew, Jesus says that whoever fails to welcome such people has failed to welcome Jesus himself (Matthew 25:43). In my view, the anti-gay religious leaders, politicians, and "family values" advocates who turn their backs on LGBT people should spend far less time obsessing about LGBT people and far more time thinking about the true sin of Sodom: radical inhospitality.
Follow Rev. Patrick S. Cheng, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/patrickscheng
Loading comments… 
This article proports that the sin of Sodom was something other than homosexual
[Rev. Dr. Cheng wrote:] "In fact, the Bible itself expressly describes the sin of Sodom elsewhere as radical inhospital
Trouble is- Dr. Cheng ommitted the most revealing part of Ezekiel's text. Here it is in it's entirety;
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
And they were haughty, and committed abominatio
From the stranded "haughty", God continued that these men of Sodom "committed abominatio
Don't be fooled, Homosexual
But hey, keep on hating for your man-made god. Don't small things like logic, compassion or reason stop you.
As unsearchab
Isaiah 1:18-20 KJV
(18) Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
(19) If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:
(20) But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.
Thus I was taught in the path to my M.P.S.
In these paragraphs the suggestion is made by the article's author that those men of Sodom,
who surrounded the house of Lot demanding that the two Angels who had come there be brought
out that they might "know" them... means something *other than bringing them out to have homosexual intercours
The above notion is not only wrong, but it is *irrespons
The context of *any Biblical scripture is important in determinin
A) what these men intended on doing was a "wicked" act, and
B) Lot offered these men his two virgin daughters for sex (indicated also by the Hebrew word
"yada") in lieu of their demand for the men visiting his home.
C) These same men *rejected Lot's daughters.
proving homosexual intent.
This context shows that homosexual activity *was the goal of the men who surrounded Lot's
house, and is the only example given of the sin of Sodom.”
--ms
Seek truth with an open, logical mind, not a mind closed by the teachings of flawed men from a flawed book written by flawed men.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolde
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
2. Who is it that loves those engaged in this subject practice more? We who would warn them, caring about the eternal estate of their very souls? ... or those who would coddle this particular lust of the flesh, twisting God's scripture so that the one light they would have to guide them to salvation, is hidden?
--ms
Dr. Cheng asks: "So, who are the real Sodomites today?"
Then he answers his own question:
"...anti-g
"Roman Catholic cardinals and bishops"
"Mormon leaders"
"the anti-gay religious leaders, politician
If this is tolerance as preached by the very Rev. Dr. Cheng, what does intoleranc
— Karl Popper
If the religious will not stop preaching hatred and intoleranc
My point is that the very Rev. Dr. Cheng, and now you, paint with a pretty wide stroke when you condemn anti-gay Christians (can't say I know any, maybe they exist), Roman Catholic cardinals and bishops, Mormon leaders, and anti-gay religious leaders, politician
Principled people can take a stand against the practice and promotion of homosexual
Does it concern you that the Sodomites were apparently simultaneo
The point is, trying to justify one sinful behavior and condemning another is probably not persuasive to the powers of heaven. Whether marital infidelity
I'd be very interested to read what you have to say about the other Biblical references pertaining to homosexual
Also, what is the importance of proscripti
Thanks.
Ironic that it should cause such a fuss!
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitute
Leviticus 18:18-26 (New Internatio
21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [a] to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable
Romans 1:26 (New Internatio
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
Even if the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexual
With that being said, I used to be Christian, but this is one of many reasons I am not anymore. I have come to realize that this is programmed into their genes and it is not a choice. God programmed homosexual
I'm not certain about Romans. I haven't read up on that passage. However both of these are letter from Paul, right? And Paul never met Jesus. He just says he is inspired by Jesus and god. Many modern nutjobs say the same thing.
As for Lev: a more direct translatio
In addition, if you are a fundamenta
Same goes for the Cor 6 citation.
If you're a Christian, the Jewish "holiness codes" from Lev can go in the garbage. We're not trying to be proper Jews 4,000 years ago.
When one thinks about it, "gang rape" is exactly what religion does. It begins when you are a baby, baptized in the blood of Jesus, or other religious nonsense. Your head is filled with the violence of the scriptures
When is the bible telling the truth and when is it not. Is the talking snake real, or a metaphor, allegory?
Is the talking donkey real?
Did a man really get swallowed by a whale only to be spit out on the other side?
When is it metaphor, myth, legend, folk tales and when is it not?
Who gets to decide?
Does Patrick Cheng get to decide because he has studied it, or because he has a few letters attached to his name?
Gang rape is what the modern day religious do to people they don't like; homosexual
Gang rape is poisoning the mind of others against men, women, and children; calling them sinners, despots, sending them to live in hell......
Amid the huge problems in this article that smokescree
[Rev. Dr. Cheng] "It doesn't matter that I've spent the last decade immersed in the Bible, ancient biblical languages, and the Christian theologica
You're right- It *doesn't matter! Jesus warned against justificat
Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
As these attempted justificat
Now the men wanted to "yada" with these two angels which you claim was "to know" them or "rape" them. Then a few passages down after the righteous daughters of righteous Lot get their father drunk with wine and get "to know" dad but here the word used is "to lie" with their father (which led to both daughters to be with child from good ol' dad - these are some real righteous people here).
If the evil men wanted sex with the angels why wasn't the word "to lie" get used rather than "yada"?
Lot offered his daughters to the evil men to do some free "gang yada-ing" but none of the evil men want "to lie" with them.
... and since I have your attention - Was Cain also "yada-ing" with Eve his mother (there were no other women)? I guess that means that Noah's grandchild
Spot on!
Fanned!
Thanks....