Ah, Sodom, the city that lent its name to the terms "sodomy" and "sodomite". Terms we automatically link with "teh buttsecks". How droll, then, that despite the Sins of Sodom being mentioned in over a score of different verses throughout the bible, "homosexuality" is never one of them19. Societal influence? Surely not again?!
Certainly, there is word of the city being full of immoral people. Inhospitable people. Idolatrous, murderous, greedy, arrogant, adulterous, prideful, oppressive, unrepentant people. All that, and more, mentioned quite specifically. But no reference to queers.
Hence one might ponder, wherefore art said fated city the namesake of such terms? Afterall, sex doesn't even come into the picture until the early Christian Church decided to note sexual immorality as being amongst Sodom's sins (for example Jude Chapter 1 Verse 7, KJV: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."). And even here, "fornication" is the translated word "Ekporneuo" (to go a whoring, "give one's self over to fornication")20 and has very heterosexual connotations. "Strange flesh" refers to having sex with angels, the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis Chapter 6 Verses 1 to 4 (for Lot's guests were, apparently, two angels sent by God21).
The entire argument hinges, as usual, upon one precarious passage (in Genesis 19), and an interestingly translated word: Yada`. For it is this word that appears in Genesis 19 verse 5:
"And they [the men of the city] called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."22
Alternatively:
"They called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.'"23
There appears to be ever-so-slight-a-difference in the implied meaning between these two translations; what is translated as "to know" in the KJV, becomes "to have sex with" in the NIV. One could argue, the author meant "to know carnally". However, Yada` appears in the Old Testament 947 times. Yes, that's nine hundred and forty seven times24. The overwhelming majority of those mentions have no sexual implications whatsoever; it literally means to know experientially, to learn of, find out, etc.
It is perfectly true that there exists a handful of instances (about 5%) where Yada` suggests carnal knowledge. All instances (bar this single, disputed account of Sodom's tale) denote heterosexual sexual encounters. Yada` doesn't always appear alone in these cases (i.e. it is combined with other words that translate as "to lie with.." etc.) and, often, the results of this heterosexual "knowing" are also recorded (e.g. "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain..."25). In addition, if the mens' intention was to perform sexual acts with the strangers, why use Yada`, instead of one of the more direct Hebew words?
Could it not be, that the men of the city wanted to know, i.e. identify, the strangers Lot had decided to shelter within their city? In an era and culture where war, conquest and barbarism were common, and cities had walls with gates that were locked at sundown, is it odd for people to wonder why a foreigner living amongst them26 was harbouring strangers in his home at night?
Still, some consider the Sin of Sodom, and the reason it was destroyed, to be that it was full of homosexuals. I find Abraham's pleading with the Lord beforehand interestingly relevant27. It concludes with God saying "For the sake of ten [righteous men], I will not destroy [Sodom]." So, in the words of the Lord, if there were but ten men in the whole of Sodom who were righteous, the city would not have been destroyed.
Therefore, it goes without saying that if the Sin was homosexuality, then the entire city woud have had to be gay. Even today, with our advanced methods of communication and transport, you couldn't find a city like that (more's the pity). How statistically likely is it, then, that Sodom would have been populated by homosexuals?
And to say "But it was one of the sins, not the only sin, so they didn't have to all be gay, so nyer!" holds no water, for "both old and young, all the people from every quarter" were surrounding Lot's house, demanding to Yada` the strangers.
Finally, it must be mentioned that even if the incident in Sodom was about sexual acts (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding...) then it was a case of attempted rape. An act of power, against the wishes of the recipient, degrading to the victim. Making the angels their bitches, so to speak.
Rape is never a good thing.
But neither is a case of rape grounds to condemn sex or relationships in general. A very similar occurance happened in Gibeah28, which resulted in a concubine actually being raped to death, and again a city being destroyed. But no one would use that to outlaw heterosexuality.
The sad tale of Sodom and its fate is no grounds for condemning homosexuality; one can barely concede that it's even remotely relevant.
No comments:
Post a Comment