“Sodomy” – a Biblical Word Study that Might Surprise You

Contemporary Biblical scholarship is clearly demonstrating that some of the Church’s understanding of specific aspects of human sexuality have been built on the gradual adoption of highly inaccurate cultural interpretations of specific Biblical narratives. We owe it to ourselves, as Anglicans and as Christians, to set before ourselves – and before the world – the clearest and most accurate understandings of the Biblical text. Such understandings go a long way to removing the unhelpful dichotomies of ‘biblically orthodox’ and ‘revisionist’ that have grown up around the human sexuality debate and which are so glibly thrown around – dichotomies that are not only ultimately facetious, but seriously wrong.

One such Biblical narrative that has been seriously abused over the centuries is the Genesis 19 account of ‘the sin of Sodom’, which has become a touchstone in the Anglican ‘sex wars’.

Roman Catholic scholar, Mark Jordan in his book The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology (1997) shows that the term “sodomy” originated in the eleventh century as a new classification of certain ‘clerical sins’. While early church fathers such as St. Ambrose and Origen clearly associate sodomy with inhospitality, by the time of St. Augustine, cultural associations around the word, communicated through secular poetry and legend shifted both its denotative and connotative meanings.

In fact, says Jordan, this evolved definition has permanently colored how we conceive of sexuality and indeed created the hitherto unknown sexual categories of “homosexual” and “heterosexual”. In terms of the Sodom story, says Jordan,

“The bible never links the story of Sodom with homosexuality. To use the Sodom story as evidence that the Bible condemns homosexuality is totally inaccurate. It is an anachronism, projecting later Church interpretation onto the biblical text, which is essentially about hospitality….”

“Even if the story were about lust, it is about rape, not homosexuality. The Sodomites were not “gay”. They were rapists. This is why Lot could offer his daughters in replacement, why the Judges version of the tale actually has a female substitute, and why those few Biblical references to Sodom as being sexually-related speak in general terms rather than specific ones.”

As Jay Michaelson, currently as PhD student in Jewish thought at Hebrew University points out, “The Bible condemns many things in the story of Sodom (lack of hospitality, humiliation of fellow human beings, brutality and violence toward others, pride, decadence, serious breech of human ethical obligations), but homosexuality is not one of them.”

Indeed, as Michaelson explains, the story of Sodom is in a biblical section where hospitality and ethics are central themes – Abraham welcoming three strangers to his tent; Abraham and king Abimelech. “Reading the story of Sodom as being about homosexuality is like reading the story of an axe-murderer and saying it’s about an axe,” concludes Michaelson.

Ezekiel’s condemnation of Sodom (Ezekial 16: 49-50) bears this out: “Behold,” the prophet says in God’s voice, “this was the iniquity of your 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. And they were haughty and did abominations before me, and I took them away as I saw fit.” (note: “toevah” or “abominations” is used 39 times in Ezekial – 29 times referring to idolatry, five times to female prostitution and idolatry, twice to heterosexual adultery, once to violence, and once to usury). To read “homosexuality” into this context has absolutely no basis in the text.

Again, in his reference to Sodom, the prophet Amos links Sodom with oppression of the poor, crushing the needy, and ethical wickedness:

“Hear this word, children of Bashan, that are in the mountain of Samaria, which oppress the poor, which crush the needy, which say to their masters, bring and let us drink. I have overthrown some of you, as God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.” (Amos 4). In his ministry, Jesus similarly refers to Sodom as an example of divine punishment for social injustice (Matt. 10:15, Matt. 11:23-24, Luke 10:12). In this context, the Book of Jude’s reference to “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns (gave) themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion” refers to brutal sexual violation, not to same sex relationships.

“And since Jude’s homiletical purpose is to preach against contemporary antinomians, he obviously is not talking about homosexuality, but rather the view of some heretics that the coming of Christ had obviated the need to obey the law in general. To twist this sole linkage of Sodom and immorality into some blanket condemnation of homosexuality is, at best, facetious” (Jay Michaelson).

This kind of careful exegisis that makes use of careful word study as well as cultural, historical and spiritual context when discerning the Word of God to us in Holy Scripture needs to be acknowledged, and certainly helps us to put the writings of Augustine and Aquinas, among others, who equate “sodomy” with homosexuality, or at least homosexual behaviour, into a meaningful context.

Needless to day, careful study of Scripture that ‘rightly divides the word of truth’ is incumbent on all Christians, and might have gone a long way to stop the horror surrounding the death and burial of David Kato.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to “Sodomy” – a Biblical Word Study that Might Surprise You

  1. Steve Schuh says:

    When we we read this text more closely we also notice, from the very start, that the visitors to Sodom are directly identified as angels, not human males. In the vocabulary used to describe them, in their conversation, in the respect offered them by Abraham and Lot, and in their display of supernatural powers, the figures are clearly other-worldly. It is the first thing the writer tells us (18:1, 19:1). Their celestial identity also drew the attention of later Biblical writers (Jude 5-10; 2 Peter 2:4-12; Hebrews 13:2 NIV) and became the subject of Jewish legend.

    Sexual intercourse with angels, whatever their gendered appearance, violates the orders of creations, but it is not homosexuality. It is not same-flesh but, in the words of Jude, “different flesh” sexuality.

    As you’ve shown, there is no biblical evidence for describing the sin of Sodom as homosexuality. Indeed, the Bible does not tell us whether the people of Sodom EVER engaged in homosexual acts. A close, conservative reading of the text undermines its traditional interpretation.

  2. Janet says:

    I feel compelled to comment on a larger issue that came to mind as I read this article. You make it clear that you’ve drawn your conclusions about the ‘sin of Sodom’ based on your reading of the scripture and disturbingly, your logical conclusions.

    It is biblically reiterated again and again that the mind of man cannot discern the mind and ways of God. As such, the desire of all Christians should be to seek such answers from God Himself by praying for revelation through the Holy Spirit. The New Testament makes it clear that the Holy Spirit was sent to be our guide; to reveal the heart of God to His children, because we cannot fathom the heart of God on our own.

    The bible does not exhaustively discuss everything that God considers sin. As you noted, the sin of Sodom is discussed in broad rather than specific terms. “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns (gave) themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion”. When you explain the meaning of this phrase, you do so based purely on your logical interpretation of context. And that is extremely dangerous, because you risk misleading God’s people. By stating the conclusions of your own flawed, human logic, rather than asking God to reveal the truth of what was meant to you, you’re endangering the spiritual development of everyone who reads your article.

    I don’t know if you prayed for God to reveal His truth to you as you considered this question. But from your article, it is safe to assume not because you make no mention of having prayed for God to speak His truth through you.

    God alone is the final authority on the truth. God alone, having spoken through the writers of the bible, is the ONLY one who can conclusively state the meaning of ANY passage of scripture. I urge anyone who reads your article, to ALWAYS pray that God reveal the true meaning of His word so that we His children do not stumble (as we inevitably will) by relying solely on the conclusions we draw through our human logic. I pray that God makes His truth known to you and teaches you to always depend on Him for understanding of His word.

    • Nicole. says:

      Janet: It seems to me that you are doing the very thing that you are accusing the author of this article of doing: “drawing your own conclusion based on a lack of knowledge as to what was done prior to the writing of said article.” You can’t ASSUME there was NO PRAYING involved simply because it wasn’t mentioned. That just ludicrous.

    • I agree with Nicole. I sincerely doubt most–if any–Christians have gone to God and asked him to reveal his truth to them when they’ve killed people identified as homosexual because those people were “abominable.” I sincerely doubt most Christians see themselves as being affected by the judgment of the Bible on the topic of homosexuality, so it’s really easy to say that group is wrong and should be judged by mankind (whether through legal punishment or deprivation of rights or isolation from society).

      I, however, have. I prayed nightly for 20 years to understand the path to salvation from my sinful ways–thus adopted because of Church decrees and discussions. Nothing. Still gay. Then I decided to read the Bible and ask questions and do research, and I feel at peace with what I am finding out. What I am seeing is stuff that lines up more to what the writer of this article is saying more so than what modern Christians think.

      It’s always easy to say “the Holy spirit said X” when making decisions. How do you know it’s not Satan influencing you towards intolerance and hatred? At some point, we all have to rely on faith to decide how we interpret the world around us. Jesus said nothing about the gays. Cultures of the world have (so far as I’ve researched) never even had a word “gay.” Yet here we are thousands of years later saying they did by incorporating the word homosexual into the Bible. That word doesn’t even mean what we think it means. We’ve changed its meaning to match modern assumptions roughly around the 1950’s.

      Yes, we absolutely should review cultures and context to decide what the Bible is saying. Otherwise, you end up with the problems surrounding the world prior to the 1500’s. The fact that we’re having this conversation, and that you’re most likely not Catholic are both indicators that you’re as much a heretic as anyone saying the Bible didn’t single out gays. Just ask the Catholics.

      Humans are incapable of being true advocates and diplomats to God. We are too biased and self-interested. Dare I say that I trust someone who has struggled with this “affliction” their whole lives and has researched it extensively and prayed about it almost their entire life than I do some judgmental trendy Christian jumping on the hot topics of heresy in modern society. Let’s talk about lust. Let’s talk about divorce. Let’s talk about all the things that keep all the people pinned down in sin. Yet if two gay people get married, they’re going to hell because they are flagrant sinners?

      Please. Give us a break.

  3. In the story of Sodom it says in genesis 19;4-8 it says in nkjv 4-now before they lay down,the men of the city,the men of Sodom,both old and young,all the people from every quarter,surrounded the house. 5-and they called to lot and said to him “Where are the men who came to you tonight?bring them out to us that we may know them carnally” 6-so lot went out to them through the doorway,shut the door behind him. 7- and said “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! “See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”
    now lets look at verse 5 the men say “bring them out to us that we may know them carnally” ok now look up the definition for carnally Definition of CARNAL
    a : relating to or given to crude bodily pleasures and appetites b : marked by sexuality
    : bodily, corporeal
    i believe god was referring to homosexuality there

    • The New English translation of the Septuagint, (the Bible translation I’m currently studying), translates the nkjv “carnal” as “have relations with them”. The purpose of this described ‘carnal relation’ is clearly to dishonour and disgrace those who are the ‘object’ of the insult and intended violence. The word ‘object’ is important, because the powerful sin against humanity here is the objectification of people. It’s a denial of their humanity, a rape. The passage has nothing to do with what we identify as ‘same sex attraction’ or ‘same sex relationships’ today. The contexts – both historical and cultural – are clear – and quite different from our societal or spiritual contexts.

    • Drizzle says:

      I say you are wrong. Because you skipped over one piece of evidence. ALLLLLLL THE PEOPLE FROM EVERY QUARTER came and surrounded the house. Therefore everybody came to try and have sex with these men. Also the original bible does not use carnally. The King James version said we would like to get to know them. So point is rejected.

  4. Lemonte says:

    Thank you for shàring your thoughts in this article. While I welcome you reflection on Biblical teaching, I believe it is inaccurate. I agree that the historical, literary and Biblical account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah iwas based on much more than sexual perversion (to include homosexuality). They were destroyed as an example of God’s wrath because of their pride, greed, neglecting the poor and needy, idolatry and more. However, you claim in your article that the Bible does not link the destruction of Sodom to homosexuality. That is a very inaccurate statement. Simply read the account of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction. Or, read Jude 1:7 or many of the other references. My friend, as a Christian, we must be very careful what we teach others. God will hold us accountable for every word that comes from our mouth and will judge those that teach even more harshly. Ask God to reveal His true intent, purpose and Truth to you and not simply what you wish to believe. I have been guilty of that myself, but we must renounce that kind of thinking and desire God’s truth, not what makes us comfortable based on the culure and times we live in. Thanks again for sharing.

  5. Gary P. V. says:

    Look I dont know how I feel about homosexuality I would say that it worng based on what the law in Exodus and what is said in the first chapter of Romans. However I believe that what you are saying concerning Sodom is correct. Now I have a question if someone cares to answer. What is the term used in the story of the angels visiting Sodom when the men come to have sex with them? ( chapter 19 verse 5 NIV : They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have SEX with them.”) I have read that it was refering to anal and oral as well as or instead of intercourse is this true?

    • James Benson says:

      The original Hebrew word is yādaʿ, which generally means “to know.” It can refer to any sexual “knowledge” of another individual, and tt has many uses in the Hebrew language:

      1. To know.
      A. (Qal).
      a. To know.
      a. To know, learn to know.
      b. To perceive.
      c. To perceive and see, find out and discern.
      d. To discriminate, distinguish.
      e. To know by experience.
      f. To recognize, admit, acknowledge, confess.
      g. To consider.
      b. To know, be acquainted with.
      c. To know (a person carnally).
      d. To know how, be skillful in.
      e. To have knowledge, be wise.
      B. (Niphal).
      a. To be made known, be or become known, be revealed.
      b. To make oneself known.
      c. To be perceived.
      d. To be instructed.
      C. (Piel) to cause to know.
      D. (Poal) to cause to know.
      E. (Pual).
      a. To be known.
      b. Known, one known, acquaintance (participle).
      F. (Hiphil) to make known, declare.
      G. (Hophal) to be made known.
      H. (Hithpael) to make oneself known, reveal oneself.

  6. Jennifer says:

    I am SO glad to find a Christian openly exploring Biblical text about homosexuality. I personally struggle with the topic. Im not really sure where I stand just yet but God is leading my heart on the topic. He has written on my heart that my job as a Christian is to love my neighbor in everything I do. I am responsible for my actions and how I treat others. If I condemn others, I condemn myself because I am not perfect. If I hold a positive space, then God can work through me to save more souls.The atheist, the homosexual, the rascist, the christian–we all have souls and everyone one of them is equally important.

    “This kind of careful exegisis that makes use of careful word study as well as cultural, historical and spiritual context when discerning the Word of God to us in Holy Scripture needs to be acknowledged..” I think so many times, Christians see the english words and think that Jesus and the disciples spoke in modern times and in English. We have to remember the cultural, historical, spiritual context and the origins of the word. If you condemn the soul that you are commanded to love you better understand everything there is to know about the subject.

    • Marcia Smith says:

      Jennifer: I’m finding myself on the same Spirit-led search to understand exactly the meaning of the words God has placed in the Bible. I’m open to the possibility that “homosexuality” has replaced the word “rape” in modern translations, which I would sincerely hope my heavenly Father would find abhorrent.
      I’ve also studied the word “head” as in the man is the head of the woman. There are translations in the original Greek that make that meaning “tip of the spear” or first into the fight on her behalf. What a different meaning!
      I’m still open and prayerful that I’ll come to understand God’s Word as he intended.

      • tonyh16 says:

        You need to do more study word studies and also see how the words were used in other biblical text and also extra-biblical texts and once you do that and put them into the context of where they are written the meaning that is wanted makes itself clear

  7. Pingback: My main (and only, really) objection to "gay marriage." - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 15 - City-Data Forum

  8. Trish says:

    Have you ever considered the possibility that the phrase “so we may know them carnally” means exactly what it says…. ” so we may know them in the flesh”…. in other words they want to just meet them in person, in the flesh, bodily with NO SEXUAL purpose whatsoever???? It is a saying that has been used for centuries with no sexual connotations at all. You still hear people to this day saying “I would like to meet them in the flesh” and it means only that they want to meet this person. The word CARNAL (flesh) has been twisted and interpreted over the centuries just as the word SODOMY and countless other words also have deviated from their true pure forms. It does not say they want to conduct carnal sin or have carnal knowledge of them. it is obvious they have ill intentions towards the “angels” (derived from the Greek ANGELOS meaning messengers) Lot is hiding… angry, violent intentions, but not sexual punishment as has been interpreted by many.

    As for his “offering his virgin daughters to be raped by them” I also believe it has been misinterpreted as to the true purpose. To understand the proper context of what was written in the BIBLE (biblos: book) we have to put ourselves in that time and place with their way of life and thinking. We cannot interpret with today’s frame of mind, ethics and morals. He offered his “virgin daughters” (Virgin is Greek, meaning “young, unmarried female. Also, unlike today, girls were not sexually “known” until after marriage for the most part). He is offering his daughters to them with good intentions….for them to “use in a way that they see as good, put them to good use, which doesn’t necessarily mean to rape them!! They could be serving girls or take them as wives if they saw that to be fitting. It was polite, hospitable, and morally correct to treat strangers under your roof with the utmost manners, respect and courtesy and make sure no harm is to come to them while under your care. It is only reasonable in that time frame, and context, to treat the “aliens” in that manner.

    • Thanks for your comment. I’ve found a very helpful way to put this Biblical incident into an over-all context of Biblical teaching. If you can, have a read of Jennifer Wright Knust’s excellent book “Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Contradictions About Sex and Desire” (Harper One Publishing, 2011). Knust is a professor of religion and an ordained American Baptist pastor. She is a gifted Bible scholar.

      • tonyh16 says:

        If there are contradictions in the bible and if we believe the God inspired the bible then we have a problem either the writers lied or God is not all that omniscient or mutable and if both or either of those are true then we are in deep trouble. There is paradox but there can not be contradiction

      • Your comment on “contradictions” in the Bible unfortunately is based on the “either/ or” logical fallacy. The Bible is the inspired word of God written by people in historical and cultural context over a long period of time. Christian reading of Holy Scripture is not based on a “dictation” view of Biblical inspiration – an approach that Muslims use with the Quran. Such an approach truncates the Scriptures and their meaning. For Christians, inspiration is much more meaningful and profound than that.

      • tonyh16 says:

        nwanglicanblog- I do not believe there is or could be contradictions in the bible .I was saying in regards the the book mentioned talking about contradictions in the bible and we all know the logical fallacies that employs . If there were contradictions in the bible we would need slime sort of benchmark by which one could see which of the contradictions is true,unless you are one that holds to what Brunner said “contradiction is the hallmark of truth.”

      • tonyh16 says:

        The either/or fallacy,are you saying God can be mutable and immutable at the same time and the same relationship?

  9. gatwin says:

    Simple reply is if we stay in the confines of what God is commanding the believer to do. we wouldn’t be so confused. The Lord created male/female. Anything outside of what the Creator created the creation to do is outside of it’s purpose. A rock was created to be a rock, not a tree. A male was created to be with female. Everything was created with a purpose in mind. God intended for the earth to be replenished. Jesus curse the fig tree because it was created to produce figs. The Creator went to get figs and it did not produce what it was implying that it produced by only having leaves. So if you are male and you not producing what you were created to produce you deny the Creator and vice versa for female. It is like having two male adaptors or two female adaptors it will never work. It will never produce what it is suppose to produce. Example a plug need a socket or you will never get power. Perversion is simple it is man that make it hard. All creation speaks to the Creator or answers to the Creator. Jesus is Lord.

    • Thanks for your thoughts. I would urge you to read, as I urged Trish, to read “Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire” by Jennifer Wright Kunst. This Baptist Bible scholar gives a tremendous amount of insight into the context of the Biblical writers. Keep reading and studying the issue. There’s lots out there to consider. And Jesus is Lord indeed! Just returned from the Christianity 21 conference in Denver, Colorado. Wonderful inspirational speakers on what God has for world Christianity if we’ll open our hearts and minds to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

    • Bob says:

      The problem with people who think everything has a God-given purpose is that you have to ignore the many centuries of history during which people just like you proclaimed the acceptability of practices that we now find abhorrent. Human history clearly establishes that our ability to discern the mind of God or understand the purpose of anything is minimal at best. If we allowed custom to dictate our beliefs about God and morality, we would still be practicing human sacrifice and enslaving or murdering anyone who did not agree with our views. The Old Testament patriarchs, who form the foundation of what we believe about ancient Judaism, all accepted and embraced polygamy, religious warfare, slavery and the subjugation of women. Religious fundamentalists have been on the wrong side of history on almost all moral and scientific issues for thousands of years. The question of gay marriage is just the latest attempt to support a biased view of human nature by appealing to an established practice. No different than attempting to justify the practice of slavery 150 years ago by claiming that slavery had always existed and that it was ordained by God.

  10. Dillon says:

    I find it very telling that at judges 20:5 the victim, THE VICTIM HIMSELF doesn’t even accuse the Benjamite mob of a homosexual charge of any kind. Rather he accuses them of trying to KILL him. This is made all the more interesting in that this is the ONLY biblical account in the Hebrew scriptures were the two parties (the mob and the male victim) are both human and are both the same-sex. Whereas the Sodom account involves humans and materialized angles, where the possibility of a homosexual encounter isn’t even plausible and yet churches still use “sodomite” to denote homosexuality when in sodom the elements to conclude such aren’t even there. “Benjamite” would have been less of a lie than “sodomite”.

    I shake my head at these religious leaders who parade prejudice in the name of god, when scripture itself does no such thing. The more I study scripture, the more I realize that it isn’t god or his word that’s anti-gay (for lack of a better word), it’s religion’s man-made traditions that are. And I accurately and blasphemously so at that.
    Thanks for your article. Very informative. And most importantly u used the facts of scripture itself to make your point. Who can argue with that?

    • newboy2y says:

      I read what everyone posted, carefully, and this is what I want to share as a contribution. Would it be possible to say that homosexuality wasn’t indeed the root sin of Sodom as revealed in Ezekiel 16, but instead a divine judgement as Romans 1:20-28 explains. Maybe that night their action(same sex rape) was their last step God was waiting for as reason to annihilate the whole city.

      • gayjim1969 says:

        You’re mixing your terminology. Homosexuality is not the same as “same sex rape.” If you are saying that same-sex rape was the last straw in God’s patience with the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, then that is very different than homosexuality. This distinction is important, along with noting that none of the other scriptures until Paul’s writings mention homosexual activities in association with Sodom. The Sin of Sodom was associated with being inhospitable, arrogance, and not helping the poor and infirm.

  11. gsgkill says:

    What if the men of Sodom knew the two visiting persons were angels? maybe a whole different underlying reason for what was transpiring between what the men of town wanted from the visitors. Lot recognized the two visitors as Angels, evidently the angels were recognizable from that of ordinary men.

  12. Pingback: Christian prays for the suicide of a gay christian (The Infidel 2015-01-29) : AtheismTV

    • What is described in the article you forwarded is a gross act of human ignorance that should be rejected by any human begin with any decently human world view. Thank you for sharing news on something that I would hope most human beings would deplore – an inhuman and totally unacceptable expression of “religious” faith.

  13. Broken says:

    Instead of trying to define the ENGLISH words some translations use, perhaps we should go back to the actual Hebrew… when looking at Gen 19:5, we find the KJV to say “…bring them out unto us, that we may know them.” The Strong’s reference associated with the word “know” in that sentence is H3045. The detailed explanation of which is below. Tell me where in that definition you find the words “carnal”, “sex”, or any other euphemism that would indicate such. Oh, by the way, the Holy Spirit led me to do this research and guided my understanding of this scripture, lest you think I didn’t pray for such. (I do think it’s a bit funny that the word is yada 🙂 )

    A primitive root; to know (properly to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care, recognition; and causatively instruction, designation, punishment, etc.): – acknowledge, acquaintance (-ted with), advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware, [un-] awares, can [-not], certainly, for a certainty, comprehend, consider, X could they, cunning, declare, be diligent, (can, cause to) discern, discover, endued with, familiar friend, famous, feel, can have, be [ig-] norant, instruct, kinsfolk, kinsman, (cause to, let, make) know, (come to give, have, take) knowledge, have [knowledge], (be, make, make to be, make self) known, + be learned, + lie by man, mark, perceive, privy to, X prognosticator, regard, have respect, skilful, shew, can (man of) skill, be sure, of a surety, teach, (can) tell, understand, have [understanding], X will be, wist, wit, wot.

  14. Jef says:

    What is not mentioned here is also that ALL the men of Sodom were mentioned. That means the straight and the homosexual men. Men were seen as the powerful. Wicked men liked to rape other men as it placed them in a subserviant position and was done to humiliate them. In this story it was to humiliate strangers. Sure it’s about sex… but that is not the specific point in the story. Leave it to straight people not to consider anything other then what has been feed to them for decades… You also associated the word sodomy with homosexuals which wasn’t even a word until the 12th century and homosexual was not a word until the 1800’s. There are over 20 words that existed in the time of Paul’s writing that he could have used in the bible to specifically call out the sin of male on male sex, of which none were used. And what about the women? Lesbian sex seems to be just fine with you all.. wonder why that is. Because straight men think it’s hot. It’s something they understand. Two men, they can’t understand so you choose hatred. Many people have cried out to God and the Spirit on your clobber passages and this is the explanation that was given. Get over yourselves.. I am so tired of the rhetoric of people who claim to be Christian…

  15. David Roberts says:

    Genesis 19: 5 Male identity wanting to know males, reference to please use my daughters instead of committing an evil act against men, the substitution proves the argument, the arrow points obviously to the fact and confirms the intent! They wanted to know them sexually! This is one part of what went on in Sodom, it is identified as being wrong by the text! If you don’t agree with the text you can’t manipulate it to suit your view point you can only reject it, your choice! I don’t see you as showing any kind of understanding ( nor those you’ve quoted ) as to the purpose of the account, rather I see you as someone on a crusade prepared to fill the battle field with a smoke screen of poorly founded would be academia to get something you want accepted. This in no way addresses what you see as a bias against homosexuality, its more like trying to drive a nail in with a glass of water, your argument is empty!

    • tonyh16 says:

      What about the book of Jude ” just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,” It seems you are driving a nail glass, it doesn’t hold water

    • Blogmaster says:

      The recent Biblical scholarship around this passage indicates that the situation condemned is rape and sexual abuse, not same sex relationships. The use of the word “sodomy” to refer to same sex relationships is a pejorative term based on an unfortunate misinterpretation of Scripture. Ironically the manipulation of the scripture is used to support a particular weak and incomplete as well as outdated view of human sexuality. I urge you to continue to read and study scholarship on this subject.

      • tonyh16 says:

        I don’t know what “biblical scholars” you are referring to but I have not heard them . Maybe they are the same ones that say that Jesus was not born of a virgin or that he never bodily rose from the dead like Marcus Borg, Dominic Crossan, John S. Kloppenborg,John Spong, and the like.Is not God immutable?,at what point did God change from His viewpoint in the Old Testament where He called homosexuality an abomination ,maybe be just wasn’t up on the finer points of biology or maybe the bible is not His word and has been corrupted by man . Maybe the scholar Eugene Peterson got it wrong in his translation “Worse followed. Refusing to know God, they soon didn’t know how to be human either—women didn’t know how to be women, men didn’t know how to be men. Sexually confused, they abused and defiled one another, women with women, men with men—all lust, no love. And then they paid for it, oh, how they paid for it—emptied of God and love, godless and loveless wretches.”(Romans) , or “. Sodom and Gomorrah, which went to sexual rack and ruin along with the surrounding cities that acted just like them, are another example. Burning and burning and never burning up, they serve still as a stock warning.(Jude)

  16. Dre says:

    The author must be gay. Lol

  17. Hezakiah says:

    Nice breakdown. Perhaps “sodomy” does not mean to insinuate homosexuality. However, Leviticus is clear.

    Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)

    22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

  18. Alex says:

    Romans 1:27 is talking about homosexuality.

  19. Steve Bailey says:

    Context, context, context. It’s all about the social and cultural context that surrounded the Biblical authors. Do you think the Holy Spirit that inspired these writers ignores the realities of that context? Of course not. In fact Peterson’s translation enhances the context of a world where people were forced to play sexual roles that were unnatural to them. Pederson brings out the plain sense – a plain sense that has sadly been extrapolated to create questionable propositions about God ordained human sexuality. “Immortal, invisible, God only wise” – not ‘immutable’. The Biblical story is a testament to that reality.

    • tonyh16 says:

      Then If homosexuality is in accordance with Gods plan for mankind where are the scripture that endorse the practice. What happen to the standards of God from the old testament to the new testament . He called Homosexuality and who dress like the opposite sex an abomination.What changed in God ? So ,your god is mutable , have you also dismissed the scriptures that say thing like “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; “, “Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed. “But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.”,”Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”, “For I the Lord do not change; ” Even the name He called Himself in Exodus “I AM” indicates that God does not change . When someone changes they change either to the better or the worse, the they change to the better then before that they were less then perfect and if they change to the worse ,well, hold on it is going to be a bumpy ride. We can not have any assurance in anything that God has said in the past or any hope for the future , He may just change His mind. There is no assurance of salvation , He could just as easily damn all creation and start again. You also destroy the doctrine of omniscience as well ,for if He knew all things then He shouldn’t have to change His mind. Once you start cutting the thread pretty soon your whole theology of God lay in a pile on the floor . What you end up is not the God of the bible but a god found on Mt Olympus.

  20. Rev. Steve Bailey says:

    Unfortunately, you are succumbing to the logical error known as the “slippery slope” that you base on what I believe are erroneous propositions about the nature of God. “I AM” does not denote a static state as evidenced in Holy Scripture. Have a look at the work of process theologians. God is the same in constancy of love and upholding all that is. That revelation reached a climax in the unfolding of God in Jesus Christ. Again, “contextual awareness” is crucial in reading and interpreting Holy Scripture.

    • tonyh16 says:

      What do you do with all scriptures that declare that God does not change. If God chances there in no hope that any promises that God will keep any promises that He has made in the past,for you can’t promise anything when the future is unsure,situations change . You also destroy the idea of omniscience for if he knew all things there would be no need to change for you would have known what was to happen and made the right division in the first place . If He changes there is no assurance that the changes will be done in our favor and just say “to hell with the lot of you” but you may say oh He would never do that,why not its not like He doesn’t have sufficient reason. As for progressive theology they stretch or deny so much of basic Christianity that it is almost another religion with Jesus and the gospel at the very peripheral or ignored all together . Your theology give one little or no hope of salvation ,God may change His mind, and paint a picture of Jesus that is not found in the pages of the bible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s