Why We Know That the
Story of Sodom Indicts Homosexual Practice
Per Se
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Pittsburgh
Theological Seminary, 616 N. Highland Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15206
gagnon@pts.edu
[posted online in Jan. 2013; written
Summer 2010]
For printing
or pagination for citation use the pdf version
here.
[Note to readers:
This discussion was originally part of a larger essay later published:
“The Scriptural Case for a Male-Female Prerequisite for Sexual
Relations: A Critique of the Arguments of Two Adventist Scholars,” pp.
53-161 in Homosexuality, Marriage, and the Church: Biblical,
Counseling, and Religious Liberty Issues, eds. Roy E. Gane, Nicholas
P. Miller, and H. Peter Swanson (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University
Press, 2012). It was removed from the essay because of overlap with
another article in the same book and to reduce the length of an already
long discussion. The articles in the book came out of a Seventh-day
Adventist conference held at Andrews University in 2009. My article was
more or less completed in Summer 2010, with minor changes made in 2012.
I was one of several non-Adventist speakers invited to the conference. I
critiqued the articles of two Adventist scholars who had promoted
acceptance of homosexual unions, one of whom is a New Testament scholar
and mentioned herein: John R. Jones, “‘In Christ There is Neither …’:
Toward the Unity of the Body of Christ” in Christianity and
Homosexuality: Some Seventh-Day Adventist Perspectives (eds. David
Ferguson, Fritz Guy and David Larson; Roseville, Calif.: Adventist
Forum, 2008), 4-42. Jones, who has a Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University,
is an associate professor of religion at La Sierra University. His
article makes the same kind of claims that one can one find among any
biblical scholar who adopts a homosexualist reading of Scripture. I used
his article as a foil from which to present my own case.]
John R. Jones’
offhand dismissal of the Sodom story as saying nothing about committed
homosexual unions is a common claim but is not supported by the
evidence. Jones and others simply assume that since the story
involves a coercive element the narrator is indicting only the
attempt at coercion. Yet whether the attempted male-male intercourse
constituted a compounding offense or merely a
coincidental act that is incidental to the evil of rape can only be
settled by an examination of the historical and literary context. One
can easily imagine a story where the theme of multiple offenses conveys
how truly bad the perpetrators are. If Jones heard a story about a man
who raped his mother or a child, would he assume that the only offense
was the rape and not also the compounding offense of incest or
pedophilia? I would hope not.
So on what basis
can he assume that the Sodom story does not convey multiple offenses:
not only attempted rape but attempted rape of visitors; and not only
that but attempted same-sex sexual intercourse that dishonors the
visitors by treating their maleness as if it were femaleness? After all,
Jones has already acknowledged that the Levitical prohibitions have as
their implicit motive clause the putting of a male in the position of a
female sexually. If the narrator of the Sodom story (typically labeled
in historical-critical study J or the Yahwist) held a similar view of
male homosexual practice, he obviously would not have regarded
consensual man-male intercourse as acceptable, certainly not on the part
of a passive-receptive partner. The ancient Near East generally regarded
with great scorn a man who willingly offered himself as the passive
receptive partner in male-male intercourse.
Consequently, for the Yahwist a willing participant in
passive-receptive man-male intercourse would be culpable for degrading
his own God-given maleness, whereas the angelic visitors at Sodom were
not culpable for their own degradation because they did not give their
consent.
I think that
there is good reason to believe that the story of Ham’s offense
against his father Noah in Gen 9:20-27 is a similar instance of
a “kitchen sink” story of multiple offenses designed to present the
action of the perpetrator as particularly heinous. The arguments for
reading the story in this way are numerous:
(1) the expression “see the nakedness of” (Gen 9:22) appears elsewhere
as a metaphor for sexual intercourse (Lev 20:17); (2) Noah “came to know
what his youngest son had done to him” (Gen 9:24; the Babylonian
Talmud records a debate about the meaning of this phrase in which one
rabbi suggests homosexual relations, the other castration; Sanhedrin
70a); (3) the severity of the curse and its placement on Ham’s son
rather than Ham himself better suits an act of sexual assault on Ham’s
part (note the subtext: the curse falls on Ham’s ‘seed’/son because Ham
offends with his ‘seed’/sperm); (4) the same narrator subsequently tells
a similar story of Lot’s daughters having sex with their drunken father
(Gen 19:30-38); (5) a similar story of incestuous same-sex rape as a
means to establishing familial dominance exists in the Egyptian tale of
Horus and Seth; (6) the narrator shortly after links the Canaanites,
i.e. Ham’s descendants, to the Sodom story (Gen 10:19), suggesting that
the narrator understands both stories in a similar light; and (7) there
is an ideational link with Leviticus 18 (specifically, 18:6-18, 22)
inasmuch as both texts show that incest and man-male intercourse were
pivotal reasons why the Canaanites were subjugated or expelled from the
land.
Clearly the editors of Leviticus 18 have not limited their critique of
incest or of man-male intercourse to coercive forms. If the narrator of
the Ham episode is not limiting his indictment of incest to coercive
forms, there is little reason to suppose that the same narrator of the
Sodom story is limiting the indictment of man-male intercourse to
coercive forms.
There are
additional reasons to think that the Yahwist is indicting homosexual
practice per se, besides the evidence from the Levitical
prohibitions
and the story of Ham’s act against Noah. Scholars agree that the
narrator of the Sodom story also narrated the description of the
creation of man and woman in Genesis 2. I argue elsewhere in the
fuller article that Gen 2:21-24, along with Gen 1:27, has proscriptive
implications for same-sex intercourse.
In addition,
the history of the interpretation of the Sodom story also
supports this interpretation. This is clear enough in two first-century
Jewish authors: Philo of Alexandria (Abraham 135-37 and
Questions on Genesis 4.37) and Josephus (Antiquities
1.200-201), among other early Jewish texts (e.g., the Testament of
Naphtali 3.4; Jubilee 16.5-6; 20.5-6; 2 Enoch 10.4;
34.1-2).
Jones follows others in arguing that most, if not all, biblical texts
that refer directly to Sodom say nothing about homosexual practice but
rather comment on inhospitable treatment of the vulnerable in their
midst: the poor, resident aliens, and visitors. The truth is that most
texts in the canon of Scripture that refer to Sodom simply mention it
and Gomorrah as places of great evil that God utterly destroyed.
Isaiah 1:7-17 alludes to Sodom and Gomorrah in the context of discussing
social injustice but this merely picks up one theme of the Sodom cycle
without excluding other themes. There are a number of biblical texts
that allude to the immorality of homosexual practice at Sodom.
(1)
Ezekiel 16:49-50. According to Ezek 16:49-50, Sodom “did
not take hold of the hand of the poor and needy. And they grew haughty
and committed an abomination (to’evah) before me and I removed
them when I saw it.” Is the reference to “committing an abomination” to
be identified with “not taking the hand of the poor and needy”? The
evidence indicates that it is to be identified rather with man-male
intercourse.
a)
The vice list in Ezek 18:10-13, consisting of
ten vices, clearly distinguishes between the offense “oppresses the poor
and needy” (fifth vice) from the offense “commits an abomination” (ninth
vice).
b)
The conjunction in Ezek 18:12-13 of a singular
use of to’evah, as a reference to a single specific offense, with
a plural use of to’evoth, as a summary description of all
preceding offenses, is exactly what we find in Lev 18:22 (man-male
intercourse) and 18:26-30 (summary of preceding offenses).
c)
All scholars of Ezekiel agree that Ezekiel
knew, and shared extraordinary affinity with, either the Holiness Code
(Lev 17-26) or a precursor document. The Holiness Code, as we have seen,
treats man-male intercourse as intrinsically sinful. There are no
historical grounds for believing that Ezekiel had a different
perspective.
d)
The phrase “committed an abomination” in Ezek
16:50 is identical to the phrase in Lev 20:13 that refers to man-male
intercourse.
e)
The two other singular uses of to’evah
in Ezekiel refer to sexual sin (22:11; 33:26).
The medieval
Jewish commentator Rashi also understood to’evah in Ezek 16:50 as
a reference to homosexual practice, as have some modern commentators.
The evidence thus indicates that Ezekiel in 16:50 was apparently
interpreting the Sodom episode through the lens of the absolute
prohibition of man-male intercourse in Lev 18:22 and 20:13, indicating
that he understood the same-sex dimension of the rape to be a
compounding offense.
(2) Jude 7
and 2 Pet 2:6-7, 10. According to Jude 7 the men of Sodom
“committed sexual immorality (ekporneusasai) and went after other
flesh.” Jones is correct in thinking that “went after other flesh”
refers to sex with the angelic visitors but fails in his assumption that
“committed sexual immorality” has the same referent. Jude 7 is an
instance of parataxis: two clauses conjoined by ‘and’ where one is
conceptually subordinated to the other. Jones follows other
homosexualist interpretations in assuming the meaning as “they committed
sexual immorality by going after other flesh.” But a paratactic
construction in Greek can just as easily make the first clause
subordinate; in this case, “by (or: in the course of)
committing sexual immorality they went after other flesh.” In other
words, in the process of attempting the sexually immoral act of having
intercourse with other men, the men of Sodom got more than they
bargained for: committing an offense unknowingly against angels (note
the echo in Heb 13:2: “do not neglect hospitality to strangers for,
because of this, some have entertained angels without knowing it”).
This is apparently how the earliest ‘commentator’ of Jude 7 read it. For
2 Peter 2:6-7, 10 refers to the “defiling desire/lust” of the men of
Sodom. Since the men of Sodom did not know that the male visitors were
angels—so not only Gen 19:4-11 but also all subsequent ancient
interpreters—the reference cannot be to a lust for angels but rather
must be to a lust for men. So both Jude 7 and 2 Pet 2:6-7 provide
further confirmation in the history of interpretation that the Sodom
narrative is correctly interpreted when one does not limit the
indictment of male homosexual relations to coercive forms.
(3) Romans
1:24-27. In Rom 1:24-27 Paul had in view not only the
Levitical prohibitions and Gen 1:27 but also the cycle of traditions
about Sodom.
Romans 1:24-27 is a veritable echo chamber of the most important OT
texts impinging on homosexual practice: creation, Sodom, and the
Levitical prohibitions. Note the following echoes to the Sodom cycle in
Rom 1:18-32:
a)
Romans 1:18 refers to God’s “wrath” being
revealed “from heaven” against all “irreverence/godlessness/impiety” (asebeia)
and “unrighteousness/ injustice” (adikia). Similarly, Deut 29:23
states that God overthrew Sodom “in his wrath and anger.” According to
Gen 19:24, God rained on Sodom sulfur and fire “from heaven.” In Gen
18:23, 25, Abraham pleads with God not to lump the righteous with “the
irreverent” or “godless” at Sodom (compare Josephus, Jewish War
4.484). Lot implores the men of Sodom: “don’t do this unrighteous/unjust
thing to these men” (Gen 19:8; compare Philo, Abr. 133; 3 Macc
2:4-5).
b)
Romans 1:19-23 focuses on the Gentile sin of
idolatry, a sin loosely associated elsewhere with Sodom (perhaps
implicit in Deut 29:23-28; 32:32; Isa 1:2-3; Jer 27:33-40; Jub.
20:5-8; T. Naph. 3:3-4).
c)
Romans 1:24-27 refers to same-sex intercourse
as a dishonoring of their bodies, an indecent act, and a product of
unclean desires (epithumiai). Similar descriptions of Sodom
appear in both Josephus (Ant. 1.201) and Philo (Abr. 135).
It also refers to same-sex intercourse as an act “contrary to nature.”
Philo employs the against-nature theme in his interpretation of the
Sodom story (Abr. 135, 137). Similar to Rom 1:19-27 Testament
of Naphtali 3:4 immediately follows an indictment of idolatry with
an indictment of Sodom for its unnatural intercourse.
d)
Romans 1:29-31 lists a series of vices
characteristic of the Gentile world, some of which factor prominently in
the traditions about Sodom: “arrogant/ haughty” (huperēfanoi:
Ezek 16:49; Sir 16:8; 3 Macc 2:5; Josephus, Ant. 1.194-95) and
“insolent” (hubristai: Josephus, Ant. 1.194); “wickedness”
(ponēria: compare Gen 13:13; 19:7; Josephus, Ant. 1.199)
and “badness” (kakia; 3 Macc 2:5).
Given the fact
that Sodom was widely regarded in ancient Israel and early Judaism as a
byword for God’s terrifying wrath against human iniquity, it is not at
all surprising that Paul alludes to it in his description of divine
wrath against human unrighteousness in Rom 1:18-32. Indeed, Paul refers
to Sodom as just such a byword in his citation of Isa 1:9 in Rom 9:29.
The big difference, of course, is that Paul in Rom 1:18-32 is describing
a preliminary stage of that wrath: the “handing over” of human beings to
their controlling, self-dishonoring desires (1:24, 26, 28)—a handing
over that heaps up sins and leads to a Sodom-like, cataclysmic judgment
on the Day of (ultimate) Judgment (2:6).
Since Paul in Rom 1:24-27 does not limit his indictment of same-sex
intercourse to rape,
his series of intertextual echoes to the Sodom tradition in 1:18-32
indicate that he understood the Sodom story as an indictment of
homosexual practice per se.
Another element
that confirms the intrinsic indictment of homosexual practice in the
Sodom story is the related story of the Levite at Gibeah in Judg
19:22-25, a story within what scholars refer to as the
Deuteronomistic History (Joshua through 2 Kings). Since the story of a
Levite at Gibeah in Judg 19:22-25 is in many respects a carbon copy of
the Sodom narrative in Gen 19:4-11 (there are even some verbatim
agreements in the Hebrew), how the narrator of Judg 19:22-25 interpreted
the attempt of the men of the city to have intercourse with a male
visitor provides our earliest commentary of how the Yahwist would have
interpreted the similar event at Sodom.
In fact, we have
strong evidence from within the Deuteronomistic History that the
narrator would have regarded even consensual acts of man-male
intercourse as abhorrent. The evidence comes from a string of references
in Deut 23:17-18 and the Deuteronomistic History to persons known as the
qedeshîm (pronounced kə-day-'sheem; 1 Kgs 14:21-24;
15:12-14; 22:46; 2 Kgs 23:7; cf. Job 36:14). The word literally means
“consecrated men” but refers in context to male cult figures who
sometimes served as the passive receptive sexual partners for other men.
The narrator appears to have been especially repulsed by the consensual,
receptive intercourse that these figures had with other men. How do we
know this? The reference to such figures as “dogs” (Deut 23:18) matches
the slur made against parallel figures in Mesopotamia (the assinnu,
kurgarrû, and kulu’u), called both “dog-woman” and
“man-woman” because of their consensual attempts at erasing
masculinity and being penetrated by other men (compare Rev 22:15,
“dogs,” to Rev 21:8, “the abominable”). It will thus not do to dismiss
the references to the qedeshîm as irrelevant because of the
cultic associations, the exchange of money, or the absence of
orientation.
Since the
Deuteronomistic Historian’s attitude toward the qedeshîm makes it
clear that he would have been repulsed by a consensual act of
man-male intercourse, it is evident that in telling the story of the
Levite at Gibeah the Deuteronomistic Historian was indicting man-male
intercourse per se and not only coercive forms of man-male intercourse.
Since too the story is in many respects a carbon copy of the Sodom
narrative, it lends significant support for concluding that the Yahwist
too viewed the man-male dimension of the attempted act as a
compounding factor in underscoring the depravity of the inhabitants
of Sodom.
In sum,
every piece of historical and literary evidence that can be brought
forward to assess the attitude of the narrator of the Sodom story toward
man-male intercourse per se suggests a sense of abhorrence. In
fact, there appears to be an interconnected ideational nexus in the OT
as regards the issue of man-male intercourse, linking the Yahwistic
material in the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History,
the Levitical sex laws, and Ezekiel. These links are picked up also Paul
and the authors of Jude and 2 Peter.