Sep 30 2005
What Was The Sin Of Sodom?
James L. Evans, pastor of Auburn First Baptist Church in Auburn, Alabama, recently wrote about the sins that cities (and nations) might be judged for in the light of Biblical complaints about Sodom.
He points out that Sodom, or “Sodom and Gomorrah” are commonly used as shorthand for homosexual licentiousness pervading a culture, and that
“Nearly everyone agrees that what the men of Sodom had in mind was homosexual rape … Many Bible interpreters believe that what really got God going was the homosexual element in the story. After all homosexual practices are called an “abomination,” in the book of Leviticus. But then, so is eating shrimp, so we have to wonder how far does an abomination go?”
“One way to answer that question is to observe how large the homosexual issue seems to be in the rest of the Bible. For instance, Jesus doesn’t say anything about homosexual practices at all.”
It is true, of course, that Jesus mentions sexual sin in general. But in fact he does not single out homosexuality. Jesus’ example seems important to me compared to the way many American Christians and preachers bring homosexual behavior up so frequently – while avoiding criticism of sins that are vastly more prevalent. Jesus did not major on minors.
Neither did Paul, although Paul does mention homosexuality in Romans 1.
“However, as soon as he makes his case he immediately concludes in the very next chapter that those who condemn such practices are really guilty of the same thing. Interestingly enough, Paul does not invoke Sodom at all.”
Hmm. “Those who condemn such practices are really guilty of the same thing.”
He then informs us that Sodom is mentioned over 20 times in the Bible.
“The ones that are theological clearly regard Sodom as a place of particular wickedness. But even when the emphasis is on Sodom’s shortcomings the homosexual element is not mentioned. Only the Epistle of Jude mentions sex at all in reference to Sodom.”
The problem comes when we find passages that treat Sodom’s sins at any length. Actually, two problems come.
First, the sins described as being so offensive to God are not homosexual, nor even (with the exception in Jude) sexual at all.
Second, the sins described are ones highly characteristic of many American lives and even of America as a whole if compared to the rest of the world.
“In fact, the only real detailed accounting of Sodom’s sins comes from the prophetic traditions of Jeremiah, Isaiah and Ezekiel. For Jeremiah, the sin that brought the wrath of God down on Sodom was the worship of other gods—idolatry. For Isaiah the failure that tipped God’s hand was oppression of the weak and vulnerable. Ezekiel continues this theme by accusing Sodom of having too much wealth and not enough concern for the poor.”
“So … The tragedy of the Big Easy may indeed represent a sort of modern day Sodom. There was certainly wealth and comfort jammed along side poverty and misery.”
“Although why single out New Orleans? There are many places where there is great disparity between the haves and the have-nots. And if we bring third world countries into the comparison, the whole of America might qualify for a Sodom-like condemnation.”
For example, here’s a quote from Ezekiel (16:49 & 50)
“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were
- arrogant,
- overfed
- and unconcerned;
- they did not help the poor and needy.
- They were haughty
- and did detestable things before me.”
Do we know any cities, towns, or rural areas in America guilty of maybe two or three of those? The term “detestable things” might have meant homosexual activity. But it would more certainly have included heterosexual immorality of types prevalent in America today.
The point of all this, of course, is not to argue that God approves of homosexual behavior. The point is that there are a lot of things much more prevalent in America today that God is much more vocal in condemning.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
NEXT AND PRIOR POSTS:
« New Quotes to Tote
I feel the question of what sin was committed in Sodom and Gamorra should not be the focus in a christian’s
faith, but the focus should how do oneself pure themselves of past mistakes, learn from them and move forward
to better themselves physically and spiritually. i only have one question that is totally of content to this
paragraph. “How do I ask GOD to help me to find my better half so I won’t feel left out in the universe?” To me everyday
I look and I see couples who hve each other and I see others who destroy one another for the pleasure of it. As for me
I feel like a fifth wheel as if I weren’t supposed to exist. I try not to dweel on it that much, but unfortunatly it stays in my mind like a trauma victim attempting desparately to forget those painful memories. So once again I’m inquiring on how to ask GOD for help in a situation like this one. If there is anyone who knows the answer, please I really need help on this oneI can only take so much before I begin to lose it all, hope is my last refuge.
Hmmm this is indeed an interesting topic. I will respond to this topic….brb
Mr. Lazarus, NOBODY is “denied the institution of marriageâ€? because the institution of marriage is (and ever was in our occidental tradition) defined as the (intended to be life-long) pledge of sexual, personal and civilian love and assistance between a woman and a man. What you presuppose is a concept of “human rightâ€? pertaining to pairs of individuals, not to individuals themselves, – whereby you are discarding centuries of occidental, Christian-humanist, moral tradition.
If a class of people find themselves in the unfortunate position of being so disposed that they cannot benefit from the universally granted individual rights in a given society as do the generality of its people, then, according to pure logic and honest hermeneutics of bible, custom or the constitution there follow only two things:
1. It is sad for them.
2. Society should TRY (but only just try) to give them some compensation for their bad luck, on the idea of generosity, a carefully broad application of the “golden ruleâ€? of mutuality and general goodwill. (By this second token, I find myself supporter of the institution of some kind of “civil unionâ€? between homosexual partners, but cannot agree to your self-evident deduction of a “rightâ€? – or duty of society – to extend the proper concept of marriage on them. For it is NOT clear, in an a-priori fashion, that by such an extension third people, i.e. their adopted children, or society as a whole are not affected negatively.)
I return to my point: Def-E-cation (please, by the way, try to spell correctly, – it was not nice to come around to what you mean when I was still musing you talked about some kind of “deificationâ€?), – apart from being a “basic needâ€? of every human, and not just a “basic urge/desire/ingredience of happinessâ€? as is sex -, is a right defined on individual terms.
———————————-
By your sweep of logic, .. what do you propose to do about a person who says he cannot and will never love another person than his own sister? Will you “deny him the right� of a fulfilled sex life? Or why is adoption a “privilege� only for those who intend to adopt people younger than themselves?
In this debate, there is A LOT of insinuation being done, which should better be purged before making politics on it.
So, Sister Merry, you think that the homosexuals in America should be denied the institution of marriage simply because people of several different faiths? If I recall correctly, isn’t it a point of pride that christians survived persecution, because “several different faiths”, at the time, found them offensive? You seem to be under the impression that it’s okay that change doesn’t come about. It seems to me that if you had your way, and political change didn’t happen because some people found it offensive, then the Christian rebellion should have been squelched long ago. I do not know whether or not you are nun, but, say you are not, do you think you could live your life without getting married? And, should you be a nun, did you ever wonder, statistically, how many people have lived their lives wihout being married, even if for a short time? You know, I think it is a matter of repression. Is it sinful to expect someone to repress their needs simply because it is offensive to some people? If, in the future, defication was looked down upon, or even considered offensive, would it be right to deny someone the right to deficate because of another mans oppinion? The fact that Christianity’s oppinion on gay marriage is cemented so firmly because of a vauge reference to the Sodomites being sinful is offensive.
Thanks for the article on the sin that so easily attacks us. Self-righteousness is slippery as a snake and as prevalent as the air we breathe. Everyone has there pet sin that they never commit which they use to judge everyone else with. This is basic human nature and the word they can be easily applied to me because we all have this nature to deal with. That’s the beauty of this new agreement (covenant) that Christ has negotiated for us in that WE GET TO DECIDE THE DEGEE OF JUDGEMENT WE RECEIVE FROM GOD. Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. Mat 7:2 for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. Imagine that! How you look at others is how God will look at you on judgment day. Most Christians think this does not apply to them but could they be wrong? 2Co 5:10 For we must all be made manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
The article you have written is “THE BLAME GAME� which is by far the biggest game in town. The first man used it in the Garden of Eden on his wife and we’ve been playing it every since. Jesus Christ introduced a new radical alternative to the blame game, which is; Mat 5:45 that ye may be sons of your Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust. It’s amazing to see people still thinking that if they eat right, exercise right, join the religious right, and do good deeds that the will be protected from all the evil in the world. Many times Christian preachers and teachers bait people up by promoting these false teachings that as long as your doing right the storm will always go the other way. If this was the case, real Christians would never have trouble.
The truth is that this whole world has been evaluated and scrapped out. It’s been decided that the only part which can be saved is sinners who decide Jesus is the son of God and decide to do what He said to do and quit playing the blame game.
A very well written and thought provoking blog.
I can’t really recall homosexuality being discussed often in the churches I grew up attending. But I come from a religious tradition that really hammers home the message that gay is really, really bad.
To be honest, I held the same opinion for many years. But as I am finally settling into Bible study myself, a lot of my views are shifting.
I’m not sure I agree 100% with everything you’ve written. But I will agree with you that sin is sin is sin. Homosexuality, which I do believe is sin, is no worse than the thousand-and-one other sins we each commit every day (many have become such habit, that we no longer even realize they are sin….like ignoring the homeless panhandler, or thinking impure thoughts about the gorgeous woman we’ve just seen, etc).
Gay and lesbian men and women are just as much my brothers and sisters as anyone else, and as Jesus instructs, I love them too.
If you want to know why New Orleans was hit and what is really coming down the pike, do a web search on Peak Oil.
During the last two weeks I have leaned so much that has totally transformed how I look at everything – just by
studying peak oil. An excellent starter site is http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net New Orleans has the only
port in the nation capable of accepting a supertanker. Yes, it was New Orleans the city but it was just as much
the oil refineries and the port.
It’s kind of ironic. Up until 3 months ago I was a card carrying member of the Republican=Christian club. The
last three months so many of my bubbles have been burst. God has a way of doing that when you ask Him for His
Truth.
Thank you for pointing out the truth about sin. I don’t know exactly where it is, but I know in 1 or 2 Sameul God
told Saul that his rebellion and stubborness were the same thing as idolatry and witchcraft. From elsewhere in the
Bible, God makes it clear that idolatry and witchcraft are just as offensive to Him as homosexuality. It seems to me
that sin is actually twofold: one is not believing God and the other is wanting what we want when we want it.
These two heart attitudes act out in a multitude of offenses against God, but He is looking at the heart attitude that
caused the sin.
For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Divine irony, indeed.
We’re to think that our safety comes through exporting violence, but now this… i want to hear more about Bush’s domestic package. Maybe he meant domesticating Iraqis? americanizing another commercial support layer in the pyramid scheme? Oh well. And yes, it’s about oil. Brilliantly spoken about the pushing towards heavy oil consumption… Just the other day, there was a documentary on the creation of the u.s. interstate highway system around 50 yrs ago, and how it made everything so wonderful… it made us the biggest oil consumers on the planet.
Wow…what thorough and insightful analysis. I’m impressed, and I plan to visit your blog more often.
For the love of mercy, why interpret the storms as a judgment against the cities, instead of a) a judgment against our government, our system, and b) a judgment against the leader – Bush – who made such a fool of himself in all of this?
The hurricanes were nothing short of divine irony – almost satire – on a government trying to sell its people on “securityâ€? through wars and development of an internal police state. Secure? Ha, ask anyone in the south if they feel more secure. All those billions to make us secure? Where were they, or who was at the helm to make it work? All of this illustrated the folly of the preoccupation with war in the supposed interest of national security. The money was gone, an invertebrate middle-manager was fingered (Brown), and no one knows where the money went. This is all mud on Bush’s face, not on the homosexual people of New Orleans or anywhere else. “Homeland Securityâ€? in a pig’s eye. The divine answer is splendidly ironic.
You know what we will call those of New Orleans, in a few years or less? The lucky ones. Because all our US cities are built up as death traps, every one of them. This is all about oil, and individual ownership of vehicles. Gracious, cities can’t even deal with daily rush hour, where only those in the prime of work life are in cars. How can anyone countenance evacuation plans for large cities, predicated on everyone turning over their engines and driving somewhere?
It’s about oil. The country, since Jimmy Hoffa and the teamsters, has been predicated on including as much oil burning as possible to all commerce. Railroads were abandoned to promote trucking. We used to have efficient railroads. But decisions were made, decades ago, to promote oil-burning commerce, to broaden it to the maximum, so that all citizens would own vehicles. The railroads were torn up, dismantled, and this public trust sold into private hands. Even in New York state, there were scandals about bridges being built too low to allow busses to pass into the city. The intention? To keep poor blacks from entering New York City by mass transit. It was intended to limit transport to private vehicles – the privilege of the wealthy, at the time.
Oilmen run our country. Our leaders worship that economy. They are warring about it. But it will, in the end, kill our own citizens, when people are trapped in evacuations from these ill-planned cities. Let such an evacuation happen to a northern city, in winter. Let the east coast be in need of evacuation for some wartime purpose, and watch the approximate 25 percentile of our nation between Washington, D.C. and Boston try to simultaneously drive out of town. It’s solid city from D.C. to Boston, and if anyone thought the Houston evacuation was ugly, guess again. Our cities have been built as death traps, for the cause of oil.
Homosexuals? Try the White House. Google anywhere.
. This family has a history of prosecution for kidnapping boys for homosexual prostitution rings
. The president has a relationship with his college roommate of four years, Victor Ashe
- a known sodomite – which can not easily be explained away. Bush, and his family and colleagues, are not whom they pretend to be. Or: why do so many openly homosexual men flank the presidency (Ari Fleisher, Carl Rove, et al) in his closest members of personal counsel?
No insult to gays here – but to leaders who are not whom they pretend to be. The administration is living a lie.
Thus the storms are not a rebuke to the rural poor of the south, but the pretenders who lead this country.
I imagine Sodom as a frontier city where every vice was available for a price & neither peace nor justice had any influence. Whether it was destroyed by God, natural forces, or space aliens, I do not know.
How refreshing to see a Christian stop long enough to
weigh the importance of the merit of sin vs. sin.
How can we weigh the amount each instance of “missing
the mark” is? (For that is what I see sin as – missing
the mark our Lord would have us attain to reach, yet
in our humanity we often do miss that mark, and our
spiritual growth is a process of SELF examination, learning, and concecration. How do we grow? By pointing a
finger of condemnation at others while refusing to
take personal responsibility for our own errors?
Of course not, but from my perspective, that is what
I see many Christians doing. Our Lord taught so
much more in the New Testament about heart attitude
and purging Phariseeism, and being genuine, and
loving than he did about anything else, other than
the importance of believing that He alone is our
redeemer, and then choosing to follow Him.
I am afraid that this country, and this world, has
been given a false glimpse of Christianity by this
administration, and the powerful Christian leaders
who support it.
You cannot read Jesus’ own words without getting
his message:
Quit the games, quit the one-upmanship, quit the
finger-pointing, quit the lusting for power, recog-
nition, money, pride and lust. Be transparent, real,
love me, and I will show you how to love others.
Because that’s what matters.
Now, I ask everyone….what is so hard to understand
about that message? It’s not hard to understand, is
it? It is, however, much easier understood than
done. Selfishness takes over and sits on the throne
where the Prince of Peace should be seated in many
“christians” lives. When these selfish and proud
people are in a position of power and leadership in
the church, they are sitting ducks for neoconserv-
atives who use them, and make prey of the well mean-
ing, devout people sitting under their leadership.
Make no mistake about it, they will be judged for
every person they had under their watch, for they
have been poor stewards, and did not guard the
flock.
How does this have anything to do with whether homo-
sexuals should be allowed to marry?
In the old testament and even into the first century,
many couples did not make their unions “legal” by
a legal marriage ceremony. Our present practice was
something that came later. If a man desired a woman
to be his wife, he “took her as his wife”. There
may have been a religious ceremony and a celebration,
but the marriage itself was not part of a legal
ceremony, and the state was not involved.
We claim to be a “Christian nation”. Yet we do not,
and in my opinion, should not, interfere with people
of the Jewish faith, Buddhist, Muslim, Jehovah’s
Witness, Morman, athiest, agnostic, etc., and their
right in America to legally marry. Why then, are
homosexuals not allowed to legally marry in the
United States? My guess is because homosexuality
offends many people of several different faiths,
and to give it legality in marriage signifies our
acceptance of homosexuality as a life style.
What would it look like to grant people of any
and all religions the right to a “civil union”?
Would we sin by association as Christians if our
country allowed homosexuals the legal right to a
civil union?
If we made the institution of marriage something
that is between people and their preference of
religious practice, and took it out of the legal
setting, and instead afforded all human beings in
America civil unions, what would that look like?
Would we be “missing the mark” if that was the law
of the land?
Larry, thanks for your great article yesterday.
There certainly are alot of grievous sins being
committed in America today. My own personal view
is that homosexuality is made a hot button issue to
keep the “faithful” incited to vote a particular
political party.
I welcome any and all comments on this subject.