Decoding Sodom: Truth Behind the Flames
- Josh Klein
- Sep 5
- 7 min read
Updated: Oct 29
Recently, I wrote a review of Pastor Brandan Robertson’s book Queer and Christian (read it here: Queer and Christian Book Review) but had to leave much of the critique of his arguments on the cutting room floor. However, his work is important enough that I believe more must be done to address the specific arguments he makes concerning scripture and its relation to human sexuality and identity. Because of this I am writing responses to specific chapters in his book. Some will be longer and more involved than others, regardless, each argument should be taken seriously and dealt with honestly.
In Robertson's book, Queer and Christian, he has a section where he "dismantles" arguments against homosexuality as a sin. I've covered, and will continue to cover, the more important arguments (See the Adam and Eve rebuttal) but feel that this chapter deserves its own short blog.
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has long been used as evidence against homosexual behavior as it contains vivid and graphic depictions of sexual desires and actions. In fact, I often hear the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) still referred to flippantly as the knock down case against homosexuality by conservative Christians today. The fact that we have a sexual act named after this event (Sodomy) stands in relation to this idea.
But what is truth?
In Chapter 11 Robertson responds to this argumentation. The chapter is short (only four pages) but he ends it with a quick response box in which he addresses the claim “God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality.” Here’s what it says:
“Have you ever read the story? It’s about a mob that seeks to gang-rape two angels. And the fact that Lot offers his daughters to the mob – as terrible as that is – suggests that he didn’t think they were gay men. Ezekiel tells us that the reason God destroyed the cities was their “inhospitality” – they sought to rape and kill foreigners. They were xenophobes, not gay.” (pg 69)
The question at hand seems to be:
Did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality or because of inhospitality?
But what if I told you that the answer was: neither.
That might be somewhat of a surprise to those that read this blog. Many likely know that I am a conservative Christian apologist that argues against the use of scripture to distort God’s design for human sexuality and to soften its stance against aberrant sexual behaviors as sin. However, I also will not force a story in scripture to teach what it does not explicitly teach.
Robertson is both right and wrong in his assessment of this story. As are most conservative Christians. Was inhospitality an issue in Sodom? Yes. Was homosexual behavior rampant in Sodom? Seemingly. Were those reasons alone why God destroyed the city? No.
Allow me to explain.
Inhospitality
First, to the “inhospitality” case. This has long been a reason that scholars have alluded to, to explain the issue God had with Sodom. This reasoning is based in the ancient near-east cultural context of “hospitality” and the fact that the story takes place in this ancient near-east context. Within that context visitors were to be welcomed and honored, fed and encouraged and in return these visitors would often give gifts to their hosts and bless the city as they leave. This was a common practice in the ancient near-east context. The people in Sodom and Gomorrah explode this expectation by asserting their elitism toward the foreigner and desiring to subjugate rather than welcome. While the word “hospitality” is not used in the book of Ezekiel, Robertson’s framing is not without historical or scholarly precedent. Lot’s offering of his daughters bolsters this “inhospitality” case as he sought to honor his guests to the detriment of his own daughters. Twisted, yes, but in a culture that values hospitality above all else, unfortunately not surprising.
Homosexuality
Second, to the “homosexuality” case. Of course, the desire to rape the visitors is in line with committing a homosexual act and of course Lot’s offering of his daughters and subsequent refusal leads one to think their desire was for some sort of same-sex sexual experience. This, coupled with a straight forward reading of Ezekiel 16:49 and Jude 1:7, could lead one to believe that homosexuality
was
the primary issue in Sodom and Gomorrah.
The problem with both of these assertions is that it misses the entire picture.
The Whole Picture
One need not run to Ezekiel or Jude to find the reason God destroys the city. God explicitly tells Abraham in Genesis 18:
“The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave. I will go down now, and see if they have done entirely according to its outcry, which has come to Me, and if not, I will know.” (
)
Abraham seemingly understands the issue. He barters with God in that moment on behalf of Lot for God not to destroy the city if 50 righteous people resided in the cities. Abraham though, knows that there are likely not 50 so he pushes the number all the way down to 10. According to Genesis 19 Lot and his family would, presumably, account for half of those 10. Thus, Abraham knows the issues in Sodom and Gomorrah are so great that he hopes and pleads with God that Lot and his family and perhaps 5-6 other people
might
be considered righteous. Going forward, into Genesis 19 we discover the answer. Not only are there not 5-6 other people (aside from Lot’s family) that are righteous, Lot, his wife, and his daughters also are not righteous (Lot’s wife looks back indicating she enjoyed her time in the city and Lot’s daughters end up committing incest with their father to attain offspring). God saves Lot because of Abraham, not because of Lot. The issue in Sodom and Gomorrah is not merely inhospitality or homosexuality, but the haughtiness of an evil spirit bent on self-gratification and self-aggrandizement. Even if Robertson is right that the “strange flesh” referred to in Jude 1:7 is “non-human flesh of angelic beings” the point remains that the issue itself was not as simple as xenophobia or homosexuality. Instead, the issue was about their own hubris and desire to judge what is right according to their own flesh. Take the context of Ezekiel 16:49-50 is God comparing Jerusalem’s sin to other nations. God is saying that Israel has done even worse than the worst because of the light given to Israel. In this particular context God declares that Israel and Sodom are “sisters” but what makes them sisters? Practicing homosexuality? No, hubris, arrogance, and the audacity to declare righteous that which God has declared wicked. Does this include homosexuality? Perhaps, and I would even say probably, but it is not the sole
reason.
Rather, homosexual behavior was a feature of the society as a whole and a desire to dominate visitors by raping them points to a larger issue.
When God says:
“Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus, they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore, I removed them when I saw it.”
(
)
He is not simply pointing to homosexual behavior or lack of hospitality or care for the needy in Sodom, but that their hubris and arrogance led their entire society to commit all sorts of
abominations
before the Lord. So, Brandan Robertson, to my estimation is partly correct here. His explanation of Jude 1:7 is plausible (
but perhaps not convincing – how is Jude intimating that the men KNEW these were angels? Is Jude saying that this “strange flesh” desire is still an issue even if they did not know? While this interpretation is plausible it does not seem probable to me
) but his exegesis of Ezekiel 16:49-50 lacks clarity. Yes, Sodom practices inhospitality but is inhospitality an abomination to the Lord? It is never referred to as such in scripture, thus, if their inhospitality does anything it signals to a broader sin issue which features both sexual and non-sexual sins that were an afront to an Almighty God
(i.e. specific and customs-based abominations include but were not limited to: homosexuality <
="20:13</a>">
, bestiality <
="18:26-30</a>">
, idol worship <
="19:4</a>">
, child sacrifice <
="20:2-5</a>">
, and incest <
="18:26-30</a>">
)
.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while Robertson’s argument has issues, it is not without at least some scholarly and textual merit. Another small quibble I have with Robertson is that, while he states elsewhere in his book that there was not an understanding of “sexual identity” (even in attraction), he seems to smuggle it into contexts like this when he says that Lot offering his daughters up “suggests that he didn’t think these were gay men.” Of course he didn’t, because, as Robertson has said elsewhere the idea of “gay man” is anachronistic to that context, however, the desire for homosexual behavior was not, and regardless of whether a man’s proclivity is towards heterosexuality or homosexuality the issue here is the behavior, not the innate desire. The lexical and exegetical debate is deep and the nuanced context of all three sections (Gen. 18-19; Ez. 16 and Jude 1:7) and can bog it down. The fact that the men in the story were clearly desiring to forcefully rape two men does nothing to explore the idea of how consent might shift the broader implications of the story. In my opinion, there is so much biblical evidence pertaining to homosexuality and its sinfulness that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, while seeming to be low hanging fruit, should not be used much, if at all, in the debate. While I still think Robertson’s treatment of this passage treats the allusions to homosexual behavior too flippantly, I cannot help but say that he is not completely wrong and that Christians should generally stop using the Sodom and Gomorrah story as evidence against homosexuality particularly and certainly they should stop saying that God destroyed the cities
only
because of homosexuality.
Notes
Gordon J. Wenham,
Genesis 16–50
, Word Biblical Commentary 2 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1994). Daniel I. Block,
The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24
, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997). Max Anders,
Holman Old Testament Commentary: Ezekiel
(Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2002). Richard J. Bauckham,
Jude, 2 Peter
, Word Biblical Commentary 50 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983).
Comments