Sodom & Gomorrah

It was the story I thought proved homosexuality was wrong. But when I sat down to read the text last year, I couldn’t find the part that said it was.

I kept reading and rereading the passage, searching for the verse that proved it—certain it had to be there somewhere.

Was I missing a line? Was I in the wrong chapter? The wrong book? Because no matter how many times I read it, the words I expected… weren’t there.

So today, I want to share with you what I didn’t find in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah,

and what I did.

This is the story of Sodom.

Genesis 19:1-11 says that “two angels came to Sodom in the evening and Lot invited them to his home. Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house, and they called to Lot: “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.” Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they replied, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot and came near the door to break it down. But the men inside reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them and shut the door. And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they were unable to find the door.”

Why did ALL the men get involved?

The Warfare Culture of the Middle Bronze Age

In this ancient Near Eastern and Mediterranean world (1900–1700 BCE), sexual violence was a common weapon of war—especially male-male rape. It wasn’t about sexual orientation or desire. It was about domination, humiliation, and asserting power over the defeated. This kind of violence intended to strip a man of his masculinity, status, and honor.

“Male-male rape was considered ‘an absolute right of the soldiers to declare the totality of the enemy’s defeat.” Sexual Violence Against Males in Armed Conflict (Illinois Wesleyan University, ~2018). Homosexual loving relationships did exist in that world—just as heterosexual ones did—but this was something entirely different. Just as heterosexual rape is not the same as heterosexual love, male-on-male rape in warfare was about brutality, not desire.

There are many references to this sexual violence in ancient Sumerian, Akkadian, and Greco-Roman sources, and also occurs in a separate town in the Bible in Judges 19.

The Tension of Hospitality

Hospitality was also very important (still is). But so was safety. So rules were put in place.

People lived in communities, groups, towns, and cities. Some wandered and some stayed put. Some built walls around them, some nestled in hills. For most, though, there was fear. Fear of being taken over, robbed, or killed. Hospitality was a big deal, but it was also important to be safe. Strangers were unpredictable (no passports or background checks), a lot of vulnerability after dark (no lights).

So, in these ancient Near Eastern cultures, visiting rights and norms were so important. A foreigner had to have a personal invitation from the town to stay in someone’s home. If someone stayed without being hosted, it was a huge problem because the town as a whole could be held accountable—by the gods or by neighboring tribes. Hospitality (xenia) was not just a courtesy—it was a sacred duty, often tied to divine laws.

Foreigners or outsiders were not allowed to stay after sundown without being properly accepted or invited by the town.

The Difference of Sodom

While the general rule was that towns were welcoming as long as the foreigners had a private invitation from someone, there were groups of people that were not so inviting. They were not hospitable. In fact, they were evil. And some more than others.

One of these was Sodom. Their evilness was famous.

They saw outsiders not only as threats to the social fabric—morally, spiritually, or even biologically (like disease or impurity), but they wanted to show power and control. They wanted to protect their cohesion, status, and purity. They were arrogant, selfish, and greedy.

They did not welcome visitors, even if the foreigners were invited someone in town. Especially by an outsider like Lot. So all the men of Sodom ganged up together and went to punish the strangers. That punishment towards the threat was, per was common in that day and age, dominance through violent male male gang rape.

In the story of Sodom & Gomorrah, Lot got it right. He had invited the strangers so that they had a place to stay. But the people of Sodom were evil, they were not hospitable like the other towns, cities and people groups. Among many evil things they did, one of them was that they were not welcoming to foreigners, even if they had an invite.

Who are the sinners in the story?

Who are the sinners? The text tells us. It was “all the people to the last man“:

“The men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house, and they called to Lot: “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.” Genesis 19:4-6

So, if it was “all the people to the last man”, this means it wasn’t just the homosexuals that went to the door. It was everyone. The heterosexuals too.

So, who sinned? All the men. Not just the homosexuals.

What are the sins in the story?

Sodom vs Gibbeah

When we re-read the story, we realized that the men end up not raping the guests. The angels blinded them and they all go home. So, what is the sin in this story? To be sure this town was evil. They all wanted to gang rape the visitors.

There is a story of another city in Judges 19-21 (the city of Gibbeah), that does the same thing as in the Sodom and Gomorrah story:

  • The men in the town surround the house and want to have sex with the male visitors
  • The father offers his concubine and daughters

Unlike the Sodom story, where the men go blind and go home, the men of Gibbeah end up not going blind. They don’t go home. Instead, they rape the concubine and kill her. The husband finds her on his doorstep in the morning and cuts her up into 12 pieces. Both towns tell a story of ALL the men wanted male-male rape violance. Neither town ends up having male-male rape. But only one town goes down in the history books. The one that doesn’t end up doing anything.

The Sins in the Story

Sodom was famous for their sins, but what are the sins in this particular story? The Bible doesn’t say which part was a sin or not. We can make assumptions, but the passage itself doesn’t tell us. There are things I personally see as wrong:

  • The men wanted to gang rape the new guests in town.
  • Lot offered up his own daughters to protect the angels.

And yet, Sodom was famous for their sins. What were the actual sins of Sodom?

Where were the sins of Sodom & Gomorrah?

These cities were famous for their sins long before this event, mentioned over 20 years before in Genesis 13:13: “Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord.” It says they were sinful, but it doesn’t tells us what the sins were.

Sodom was famous for their sins three days before God destroyed the city. Three visitors (the Lord and two angels) visit Abraham near Mamre (Hebron), where the Lord warns Abraham about “Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin!” (Genesis 18:20-23). Once again, it says they were sinful, but still doesn’t say what the sin was.

We aren’t told what the sins of Sodom are until the prophets explain it later on in the Bible:

  • Ezekiel 16:49-50 lists a list of all the sins of Sodom, but homosexuality is not mentioned: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: ...arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty …”
  • Isaiah 1 lists the sin of Sodom as oppressing marginalized groups, murder, and theft.
  • Jeremiah 23:14 lists the sins of Sodom as adultery, idolatry, and power abuses.
  • Amos 4:1-11 and Zephaniah 2:8-11 lists the sins of Sodom as oppression of the poor, prideful and mocking behavior.

Out of the many times the Bible mentions Sodom & Gomorrah, only 2 add “sexual immorality” to the list (Jude 1:7 and 2 Peter 2:6–10), but even then, it’s general term that doesn’t mention the same sex acts in the text. Gang rape and sexual abuse is sexual immorality. The term sexual immorality in those two verses is not explained. But all the other detailed lists of the sins of Sodom are.

In all the places that the Bible mentions the sins of Sodom, homosexuality is not mentioned.

What was the “strange flesh”?

“Strange flesh” (sarkos heteras) is mentioned in Jude 1:7, when it speaks of Sodom & Gomorrah.

Bible scholars agree that this is probably referring to the Nephilim (angels) mentioned in the verse right before, in Jude 1:6, when it tells of angels who did “not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling”.

What was a “Sodomite”?

Originally, a Sodomite simply meant a person from the city of Sodom—nothing more. There was no sexual connotation in the Hebrew Bible or in early Jewish thought.

In ancient Jewish tradition, the sin of Sodom was not about sexuality but about violence, arrogance, and inhospitality. Sirach 16:8 (c. 2nd century BCE), one of their texts, says that God “did not spare the neighbors of Lot, whom he loathed on account of their arrogance.” Wisdom of Solomon 19:13–15 (c. 1st century BCE) says that they were punished “for their bitter hatred of strangers.”

Jews also had a saying: “to act in the manner of Sodom”, which meant someone who was unwilling to share or who treated outsiders cruelly.

By the Middle Ages, Christian thought had dramatically reframed sexuality. Influenced by Greek philosophy and early church asceticism, the dominant view became: Sex was only acceptable for procreation only.

  • Even heterosexual sex for pleasure was suspect.
  • Non-procreative acts (like oral sex or same-sex intimacy) were condemned as “sodomy”.
  • “Sodomite” became a catch-all slur for sexual “deviance”—not just for same-sex acts, but anything deemed “unnatural.”

It wasn’t until 529 CE, under Byzantine Emperor Justinian I, that the term “sodomy” was explicitly tied to male homosexual sex in Roman law. This legal move began the centuries-long criminalization of homosexuality in Christian Europe, often under the label of “sodomy”—which came to carry both moral and legal weight, and frequently led to torture or execution.

Why did Lot offer up his daughters?

That’s just messed up.

How could a father give up his daughters instead? Was he just such a homophobic that he prefered seeing women getting raped than men? What was his purpose?

While the text doesn’t tell us, Biblical scholars give us some hints.

1. Patriarchal Culture & Women’s Status

In the ancient Near East, women were considered property — first of their fathers, then of their husbands. Daughters were seen as having less social worth and less value than male guests, especially divine ones.

2. Hospitality Was Sacred

In that world, hospitality wasn’t just kindness — it was a sacred obligation. Violating it could bring shame on the entire town or household. Some scholars argue that Lot was prioritizing hospitality above all else, even morality. The fact that the guests were angels (though Lot may not have fully realized it) makes his urgency even greater.

3. Fear and Powerlessness

Lot may have been trying to appease a violent crowd he couldn’t control. He may have felt powerless and tried to bargain for a “lesser evil.” That doesn’t justify it, but it may explain the psychology behind it.

4. Fear of Divine Retribution

Lot knew these visitors were not ordinary men. They were divine. He may have believed that protecting them was directly tied to divine judgment.

The Bible does not present Lot as a moral hero in this scene. The story doesn’t praise or excuse his actions — it simply reports them. His offer shows the brokenness of that society.

Why Did God Destroy Sodom?

The sins of Sodom were domination, sexual rape, humiliation, exploitation, a rejection of foreigners and a complete disregard for the vulnerable.

Over and over, the Bible itself names pride, greed, arrogance, and the failure to care for the poor as the city’s great sins (Ezekiel 16:49).

The more we examine the story of Sodom, the clearer it becomes that we cannot use this passage as a command against loving, consensual same-sex relationships.

Reducing this story to a condemnation of gay people not only misrepresents the text—it turns a warning against injustice into a weapon of exclusion.

If anything, this passage calls us to protect the marginalized, not scapegoat them.

Gibbeah

There is a similar story in Judges 19-21 that is almost identical (in the city of Benjamite city of Gibbeah). It’s not the Sodom story, but we still have ALL the men raping visitors. The ending of this story is so much worse than Sodom, though. When the man offers his daughter and his concubine to the men, they take the concubine, rape, abuse, and kill her. The man finds her on his doorstep in the morning and cuts her up into 12 pieces. These men ALSO wanted to rape the male visitors, just like Sodom. We find it interesting that the people of Sodom & Gomorrah didn’t end up doing anything because the angels blinded them, while the people of Gibbeah did: they ended up rapping and killing someone. Both cities include homosexual requests, and yet, we hear more about Sodom & Gomorrah today.

What does Sodom tell us?

What does the story of Sodom & Gomorrah tell us about gay people or gay marriage? Nothing.

Why? Because it speaks of both homosexuals and heterosexuals committing sins. And the Bible tells us what those sins are. The sins of Sodom were domination, sexual rape, humiliation, exploitation, a rejection of foreigners and a complete disregard for the vulnerable. Over and over, the Bible itself names pride, greed, arrogance, and the failure to care for the poor as the city’s great sins (Ezekiel 16:49).

The more we examine the story of Sodom, the clearer it becomes that we cannot use this passage as a command against loving, consensual same-sex relationships. We must go elsewhere for this.

Reducing this story to a blanket condemnation of gay people not only misrepresents the text—it turns a warning against injustice into a weapon of exclusion. If anything, this passage calls us to protect the marginalized, not scapegoat them.

Next Page: Levitical Law

Scroll to Top