Sodom’s Sin was Sodomy, not Inhospitality
Perhaps the most common Scripture-twisting done by the homosexualist movement is pretending that the sin of Sodom was inhospitality, rather than homosexuality. Even a cursory review of the text of Genesis 19 and related texts, however, reveals clearly that Sodom’s principal sin had to be aberrosexual in nature. Genesis 19, ironically, provides perhaps the most exuberantly over-the-top illustration of hospitality in all of literature. Nobody was a better host than Lot.
The disinformation floating around about Sodom is almost comical. One BarbWire reader contended in a note to me that nobody even thought Sodom’s sin was homosexuality until 1946. I sent him links to writers decrying Sodom’s sodomy as far back as the year 400, and replied, “it’s far more accurate to say nobody doubted Sodom’s sin was homosexuality until 1946.”
Let’s start with an example of the pro-inhospitality view. In its article, “Inhospitality or Homosexuality What Was The Sin of Sodom?,” the website GayChristian101 begins by asserting:
“Inhospitality or lack of hospitality is always the reason for the destruction of Sodom, if we accept what the Bible says in context. If we go by what the Bible actually says, there were no homosexuals in Sodom. Homosexuality is never the scriptural reason why God destroyed Sodom.”
A bold statement, considering that the words “hospitality” and “inhospitality” never appear in Genesis 19, nor in any of the verses cited by the website to support the “inhospitality” argument. The concept of inhospitality, which arguably does appear in Genesis 19, is clearly overshadowed by homosexual rape. How can anybody say “there were no homosexuals in Sodom” when the subject of Genesis 19 is attempted homosexual rape? Has some psychologist declared that man-raping is a brand new sexual orientation?
GayChristian101 claims that Lot “cites hospitality as the primary reason the men of Sodom should not rape his visitors.” The website underscores the point by inserting the word “hospitality” into the second half of Genesis 19:8:
“for therefore [for hospitality] came they
under the shadow of my roof” -Gen 19:8.
Are we seriously to believe that violating hospitality protocol was foremost in Lot’s mind? Lot’s reference to hospitality was merely incidental. In Gen. 19:7, Lot said “No, friends. Do not do this wicked thing.” It’s important to observe that the men had already committed inhospitality by surrounding Lot’s house, but Lot still thought he could stop them before they committed the supreme wicked act. Then in the first half of 19:8, he suggests an alternative to the “wicked thing.” Does he tell them to go home and weave Welcome Wagon baskets? No, the wicked thing was sexual: Lot offers the men intent on raping his guests his own daughters as sexual substitutes.
After dwelling for a while on the importance of hospitality in Scripture, and ignoring that Scripture has quite a bit more to say about the immorality of homosexual behavior, GayChristian101 moves to its second relevant point: that Ezekiel 16 is “crystal clear about the sin of Sodom.” According to GayChristian101, “The prophet Ezekiel, writing under inspiration of God, precisely describes the sin of Sodom, listing six huge transgressions committed by the people of Sodom. Don’t you find it interesting that homosexuality is not among these sins but inhospitality definitely is?”
But GayChristian101 gets it exactly wrong. Sodomy is there, inhospitality is not.
Here is how GayChristian101 quotes Ezekiel 16:48-50:
As I live, saith the LORD GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom,
2. fulness of bread, and
3. abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters,
4. [Inhospitality] neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were
5. haughty, and
6. committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.” -Ezekiel 16:48-50
Again, GayChristian101 finds it necessary to insert the word “inhospitality” where it isn’t found in the text, but this time, the concept is absent. It’s quite a stretch to contend that neglecting to care for the “poor and needy” means inhospitality at all, much less that it “definitely” does and proves conclusively that Sodom’s sin is inhospitality. Furthermore, GayChristian101 simply ignores the word “abomination,” which unquestionably appears in the text.
So what does “abomination” mean in Ezekiel? The word “abomination” is used to describe a number of sins in the Old Testament, including eating forbidden foods, using false weights and measures, idolatry, justifying wicked men and condemning just ones, sorcery, offering children in sacrifice, and sexual sins including adultery, bestiality, cross-dressing and incest. Inhospitality doesn’t make the list. Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, of course, explicitly condemn homosexual sodomy as an “abomination” under all circumstances, inherently evil, with no provision for committed same-sex relationships. The only possible meaning of “abomination,” in the context of the Sodom story in Genesis 19, is homosexual sodomy.
Clearly, Ezekiel 16 points to homosexuality as Sodom’s sin. Inhospitality is questionable at best.
A look at the text of Genesis 19 reinforces the argument that Sodom’s sin was sexual. The following is taken from an exchange with a BarbWire reader, so it’s a bit less formal in tone:
“…so we need to look at Genesis 19, the Sodom story. Two angels bump into Lot at the gates of Sodom, and Lot, who doesn’t know they are angels, but thinks they are men, insists they spend the night at his home, where he prepares a feast for them. Sounds pretty hospitable to me. Then the men of Sodom surround the house and demand that Lot produce the two visitors, “that we may know them.” That’s “know” in the Biblical sense. So Lot steps outside and says “Please, my brothers, do not do so wickedly!” Hmmm. They wanted to do something “wicked.” Then Lot goes way beyond the call of duty in his hospitality: to protect his visitors, and to protect the men of Sodom from committing some particularly heinous sin, he offers the men his two virgin daughters to do with what they will. So we know they wanted to do something sexual that’s worse than heterosexually raping a virgin girl. What do you think that sin could be? The men of Sodom’s response is rich: They say “[Lot] keeps acting like a judge” (don’t you dare judge us, Lot!) and assault him. Lot is rescued by the angels, who reveal their supernatural identity and tell him God has sent them to judge (destroy) the city. Coming full circle, Jude 7 confirms the Sodomites were judged because they had “given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh.” As we know it wasn’t heterosexual sex, what kind of flesh do you think the men of Sodom were pursuing?”
Jude 6-7 is definitive that Sodom’s sin was sexual, in particular aberrosexual. Here is the passage in full:
“And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own habitation, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
Another BarbWire reader contends “strange flesh” means the men of Sodom were judged because they wanted sex with angels rather than human beings. But the men of Sodom had no idea the angels were angels when they surrounded Lot’s house in the first place. They were looking to rape men.
One last point: Genesis 19:13 make it clear that God had already decided to judge (destroy) Sodom before the men of Sodom ever surrounded Lot’s house, so any “inhospitality” shown by the men of Sodom that night could not have been the reason for Sodom’s destruction. Destroying the city was the reason God sent the angels to Sodom in the first place. God decided to judge Sodom for the city’s lengthy history of grave sin, not because of one evening’s incident. Could inhospitality be the cardinal violation in that grave sin? Unlikely. Lot himself shows that Sodom was to some degree hospitable, in spite of its extreme wickedness. Lot was not a native of Sodom, but the city graciously allowed him to settle there.
God judges and destroys cities and civilizations for their sexual sin, not inhospitality, the Canaanites furnishing one example. Immediately after condemning adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality and bestiality in Leviticus 18:20-23, God warned the Israelites, who were about to enter Canaan, the Promised Land, “do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these things the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants” (Lev. 18:24-5). Romans 1:18-32 explains why God judges civilizations, and includes a lengthy list of sins, prominently featuring sexual immorality. Again, neither inhospitality nor lack of charity makes the list, and there is no record in Scripture of God judging a city for inhospitality.
As Jude 7 clearly demonstrates, Sodom is another example of a city judged for its sexual immorality, and the illustration of Sodom’s sin God provides in Genesis 19 is homosexual rape. Ezekiel 16 makes it clear Sodom was guilty of sodomy, but is far from clear about inhospitality. Homosexual sodomy is Sodom’s sin. There’s really no Scriptural way around it.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.