What was the sin of Sodom? Pro-gay theology advocates deny homosexuality was involved. Instead, they point to other offenses like gang rape, inhospitality, sex with angels, and other sins. But prior to the last 40 years, there was little debate about Sodom and Gomorrah. With culture’s approval of homosexual “sex” and same-sex “marriage,” a tremendous amount of ink has been spilt debating the sin of Sodom. It turns out you can resolve the debate with only one question.
To be sure, no one denies the people of Sodom were morally bankrupt. They were guilty of many sins. That’s not disputed. What’s in question is whether Sodom’s inhabitants were also guilty of homosexual sex.
I’ll admit, though, that of the six most famous texts about homosexuality (Gen. 19:1–29, Lev. 18:22, 20:13, Rom. 1:26–27, 1 Cor. 6:9, and 1 Tim. 1:10), it’s hardest to argue that homosexual sex should be included in the list of sins the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of. Still, I want to make an argument for the historical Christian interpretation.
There’s only one question that resolves this mystery: What sin explains all the biblical data? In other words, let’s first read the relevant passages and then ask what sin is best characterized by the verses.
This approach enlists a standard technique of rational inquiry: abductive reasoning. Investigators of all stripes incorporate it. Gather data. Study the clues. Then ask, what’s the best explanation? The answer needs to have the greatest explanatory power. That means it must account for all the data—not just some of it—and not be contradicted by any data point.
In the case of determining the sin of Sodom, the answer needs to account for all the verses and not be contradicted by any of them. Although there are over a dozen passages that mention Sodom and Gomorrah, most of them simply mention the cities without a lot of detail. The following five passages, though, provide valuable insight into the sin of the men of Sodom.
The first passage is Genesis 18:20–21. God speaks these words before the angels arrive in Sodom and Gomorrah: “And the Lord said, ‘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.’”
The second is Genesis 19:1–29. This is the primary source material for the Sodom and Gomorrah narrative. When two angels visit Sodom, Lot invites them to stay inside his house. Then, “the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.’” After Lot offered his virgin daughters to the men, the angels blinded the men. Lot and his family fled the city, and God “rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.” Not only were both cities, the entire valley, and all plant life destroyed in God’s punishment, but even Lot’s wife was killed for looking back.
A third passage is Ezekiel 16:49–50. Pro-gay theology advocates cite this text more than any other because they believe it rules out homosexual sex. After all, it seems to clearly explain Sodom’s sin: “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.”
The fourth passage is 2 Peter 2:6–8. It says, “And if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds)….”
The fifth passage is Jude 1:7. It says, “Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”
Given these verses, what sin best accounts for all the descriptions of Sodom’s behavior?
Could the sin of Sodom have been gang rape? No. Gang rape never occurred. The angels blinded the men of Sodom and escaped with Lot’s family unharmed. None of the biblical narratives describe gang rape occurring in Sodom.
Some argue that although gang rape didn’t occur with the angels, perhaps the men of Sodom engaged in that behavior on previous occasions. This is inconsistent with the biblical data, though, that describes the sin of Sodom as “sensual conduct” (2 Peter 2:7) and going after “strange flesh” (Jude 1:7).
Could the sin of Sodom have been sex with angels? No. Jude’s reference to going after “strange flesh” can’t refer to sex with angels since the men of Sodom never had sex with Lot’s visitors. Plus, the “strange flesh” sex occurred in neighboring cities as well. It’s unlikely men were having sex with angels elsewhere. In fact, nothing that happened at Lot’s house that night could have been the reason for God’s judgment since God sent the angels to visit judgment on those cities before the angels arrived in Sodom: “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave…. The Lord has sent us to destroy it” (Gen 18:20–21, 19:13).
Could the sin of Sodom have been arrogance, abundant food, carelessness, and not helping the poor? Certainly, these are identified as sins of Sodom in Ezekiel, but they can’t account for other descriptions of Sodom’s behavior: “abominations” (Ezekiel 16:50), “oppressed by the sensual conduct” (2 Peter 2:7), “indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh” (Jude 1:7).
Could the sin of Sodom have been inhospitality? Again, no. Inhospitality is not “sensual conduct” or going after “strange flesh” and certainly isn’t described in Scripture as a capital crime that deserves total annihilation (“brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven,” Gen. 19:24).
Were the men of Sodom inhospitable, arrogant, abundant in their food, and not caring for the poor and needy? Yes. The city was full of very evil men. Notice, however, that none of those sins makes sense of all the biblical data.
What sin, then, was something that Lot could see and hear, day after day, that oppressed and tormented him by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men? What sin was exceedingly grave, characterized as going after strange flesh and indulging in gross immorality, and deemed an abomination? What sin was a capital crime that led to the most dramatic and severe judgment outside the flood as God rained down fire and brimstone and annihilated multiple cities? Homosexual sex certainly qualifies. Curiously, neither Peter nor Jude mentions any other problem with the men of Sodom, suggesting their sexual sin eclipsed the other sins.
Notice, the sin of homosexual sex fits all the biblical data. This is in contrast with a common pro-gay theology approach of focusing on Ezekiel 16:49–50 and claiming the sin of Sodom was arrogance, being overfed and unconcerned with the poor and needy. Again, clearly the men of Sodom were guilty of many things, but homosexual sex is the best explanation for the descriptions found in all the biblical texts.