Chapter 6
Old Testament references
Genesis 13:13; 19:1-11
(see also Addendum on Sodom story added
later)
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah has
done more damage to the image and status of homosexuals than perhaps
any other part of the Bible.
Yet when we read it carefully, we find that we are not told the
sexuality of the offenders.
What we are told, in Genesis 13:13, is that those involved were
'wicked, great sinners' [NRSV]. The passage aptly describes them. The
men of Sodom were guilty of:
*firstly, the grossest
inhospitality:
In a land where hospitality was of the highest importance (as it
still is), and the host was responsible for the safety and well-being
of his guests, Lot was more willing to offer his daughters than let
his guests be abused.
* secondly, the intended rape of the
guests:
The men of Sodom were both intimidating and violent in their
manner; but if this is a story about intended male rape per se, why did they not rape Lot who went
out to them?
The issue here is not the sexuality of the offenders (which we
are not told), but the intention of violent wicked men trying
to destroy Lot's reputation as a host by abusing his guests, thus
humiliating him and driving him away.
We can only guess at the reasons in the story - perhaps jealousy
at Lot's wealth? Or suspicions about racial or cultural differences,
or about the separateness of those people whose God was Yahweh?
These are similar to the motives that cause people nowadays to
mistreat outsiders or perceived intruders. The homosexuals I know are
as horrified at this kind of behaviour as any other responsible
person would be.
Doubtless there are wicked men, homosexual or heterosexual, who
would do such things, but we don't know the sexuality of those in the
story. It can't be important, or we would have been told.
The issue the writer is addressing is the demonstrable wickedness
of the people in the story. It is about as far removed as one can get
from the enriching, faithful love that responsible homosexuals,
especially Christians, can share, and which is the burden of this
study.
This story has nothing to do with the
issue!
How did Jesus see this story? We
have the evidence in the gospels! When he referred to
Sodom and Gomorrah it was not as many do, to castigate a minority
group; he used it only in the context of inhospitality (Matthew 10: 11-15; Luke 10:
8-12), or unbelief (Matt 11: 20-24) or
unpreparedness (Luke 17: 28-30).
There is another possible explanation
for this story being included in the Hebrew Bible.
Sodom gave its name to the sexual act that the Israelites
normally associated with cult male prostitution (of which more anon).
Cult prostitution was hated by the faithful Israelites, and if the
cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were burned when tar pits (known to
exist in that area) were ignited, then cult prostitution may have
provided the Israelites with a ready-made explanation of why God
should have punished the people of Sodom.
The Israelites always had to find such a reason for people's
misfortunes - it was the way they thought, and continued to do so
even in Jesus' day (see John 9:1-2 and Luke 13:1-4).
This explanation would have served as a suitable warning to any
young Israelite who was tempted to get involved in cult prostitution.
Judges 19:16-28
This passage contains an almost identical story to that of Sodom,
except that here the culprits were from the tribe of Benjamin, and
their actions included violent heterosexual rape leading to the death
of the guest's concubine (although they initially demanded that the
male visitor be given to them).
Again, the host went out to them, but they wanted the guest.
Their punishment was a war that decimated the tribe (Judges 20), although
there is a twist in the story's end.
Much the same comment applies as to the story of Sodom in
Genesis. The sexuality of the offenders is not given, but their
identity in this case is, ie Benjamites. The issue is again gross
inhospitality, intimidation, and in this case violent heterosexual
rape and the death of the female victim, when their initial desire
for the male guest was frustrated.
It is interesting that the condemnation of homosexuals is
justified by many on the basis of the Sodom & Gomorrah story,
(though homosexuals are not identified in the story), but not the
condemnation of all members of the tribe of Benjamin ie the
'Benjamites' who are positively identified in the Judges story.
And it is as illogical to castigate all members of the tribe of
Benjamin for the crime of those Benjamites, as it is to castigate all
homosexuals for the crime of Sodom & Gomorrah, even IF those
involved were all homosexuals, which we are not told, and is most
unlikely from the order of things.
This story from the book of Judges has no connection with whether
God's love can or cannot embrace homosexuals who share an enriching,
faithful, committed love.
Yet again, it has nothing to do with the
issue.
Leviticus 18:22;
20:13
I shall not comment on these verses at this stage, for reasons
that will become apparent later. These verses need to be dealt with
so fully that they warrant a chapter of their own.
Deuteronomy and
Kings
Deuteronomy 23:17-18; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12,
22:46; 2 Kings 23:7. These five refs are dealt with
together as they all refer to the same issue - that of cult
prostitution. In every case, the King James
Version uses the term 'sodomite' incorrectly (in the
modern sense). Reliable modern versions now correctly
translate the Hebrew word variously as:
- 'male temple prostitute'
- 'male prostitute at pagan
worship'
- 'sacred male prostitute'
- 'male shrine prostitute'.
The treatment meted out to these cult prostitutes shows how
Israel felt about the sexual practices of Canaanite fertility cults.
They hated it! Because of this, and because Israel was to be a
separate people, it fed back into their law.
In conclusion
This is the total of the relevant references in the Old
Testament, which is the Hebrew Bible, and
which was the Bible of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Early Church,
including Paul. The New Testament, as we know it, was not
agreed as part of the canon of scripture until the 4th Century AD.
We have yet to deal with the references in Leviticus (see next
chapter). But apart from these
there is no passage in the Hebrew
Bible that in any way condemns homosexuality that expresses itself in
a love which is fine and enriching
to those who love one another in a faithful, committed
relationship.
There are only passages which condemn various kinds of same-sex
sexual abuse.