What was the sin of Sister Sodom?
My mother is going to a church who’s pastor keeps up on politics. He feels the need to tell his congregation all about the hot topics in politics. Mom was talking about gay marriage as it is a national news sensation at this point. She mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah and pastor’s sermon. I love my Mom, but she’s a hopeless follower, so while she was talking about the issue I didn’t for a second think that she actually searched things out. I took this time to ask her a basic question. What was the sin of Sodom? Well, she said, it was homosexual relations. And so I said, “The sin of the sister Sodom was pride, gluttony, laziness and not taking care of the needy.” My Mom just said that she didn’t really know, because that’s not what pastor went over. Of course not, I wouldn’t expect that pastor would go over something that doesn’t conform to his political agenda. Whatever it takes to propagandize. I’m not missing church at all.
Ezekial 16:49 “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.”
Sacred Struggler 
Thank you for that verse. I had not known it.
LikeLike
No problem. Puts it in perspective doesn’t it?
LikeLike
The next verse in Ezekiel reads, “They were haughty and did an abomination before me” (ESV). The verse you stated in Ezekiel only lists some of the sins of Sodom. Jude 1:7 states, “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire”. You can tie the key terms together (abomination; sexual immorality) with the knowledge of Leviticus 20:13, which reads, “If a man lies with a male as a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them”. Combine this with consideration of the story of the destruction of Sodom where the men from the city were harassing Lot to let the two men out (the crowd did not know these men were angels as far as we can tell from the passage), so they might “know” them (the term used in Hebrew is used to describe sexual relations), and it is clear that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah based primarily on predominant indulgence in homosexuality. I say predominant indulgence, as Abraham struck a deal with God that if even 10 righteous people were found in Sodom the city would be spared. Apparently that quota could not be met. Please do not misconstrue this comment as bigotry, or hatred. Just trying to bring clarity as best I can.
LikeLike
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Equating ‘abomination’ with homosexuality is over simplifying the word and effectively adding to the Scripture. There are many verses in which abomination is used to call things such as lying, false weights, breaking the law, a sacrifice from a wicked man, pride, and others. Assuming that the Bible is speaking about homosexuality when it says abomination is not accurate and does not work with the rest of Scripture. On top of that, the sexual sin that was committed in the story was rape and fornication. Those are sexual sins as well, but for some reason people point to the fact that Lot shielded his guests, and gave his daughters away as meaning that the bigger sin was homosexual rape. This disregards the fact that Lot still allowed these men to rape his daughters and the fact that desert hospitality is taken very seriously. It is not at all clear that the culture was one of homosexuality. It is quite clear that the culture was an abomination to God. Their pride, their gluttony, lust, laziness, and greed. These are five of the seven deadly sins listed in just that verse and none of them are directly referencing homosexuality but one references all manner of sexual sin. (ie. the rape.) Let’s not forget or try to diminish these sins and make homosexuality some kind of trumping sin, let alone the reason that this city was destroyed. It’s just not there Biblically, but only historically. The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were the abundance of all sins.
Here are alternate verses using the word abomination to refer to a non-sexual: Proverbs 16:5, Proverbs 24:9, Galatians 5:19-21, Isaiah 1:13,
Proverbs 6:16 – 6:19, Proverbs 17:15. These are just a sampling.
Thanks always for contributing and adding to discussion. I love to talk things out. May you find blessings of the Lord.
LikeLike
No, the Sodomites did not have relations with Lot’s virgin daughters, because they were both virgins when they plied their father with wine and then laid with him on separate nights. So, father-daughter incest is OK, I guess, if there are no other men to be had. The world is a lot different now. The meaning of the story is that homosexuality unchecked leads a city to complete destruction. Not a bit of it can be salvaged.
Homosexuals expect normal people to correct them. They act out in increasingly outrageous ways until someone stops them. The guilt is so severe that sodomites eventually form roving gangs that sodomize righteous men and boys to death. Documentation exists of such depravity in the Roman Empire. Once the cultists learned Roman Catholicism, they could obtain atonement through the Perfect Living Sacrifice of Jesus Christ rather than through serial sexual assault-homicide.
We all need someone to dump our sin on and take it to the grave. But only a willing sacrifice can atone for sin. Jesus was the only one willing to give Himself so that all others might live.
LikeLike
Genesis 19:7-8 is the verses where Lot offers his virgin daughters instead.
I believe that Ezekial is quite plain. You could read the context if you like as Daniel did. And the other verses I provided to him are the very tip of the iceberg on the use of abomination. If we feel the need to add to Scripture to make sense of it , we disregard the idea of sola scriptura. Now, you may not abide by that idea. Which I get, some don’t. This blog is definitely one that emphasizes that.
No one is questioning that sexual sin and perversion happened. The Bible, however, never mentions a monogamous homosexual relationship, but all forms of rape. Of course rape is wrong. No one with any sense believes that Sodom was not brought down by sexual immorality. However, the simplification of it down to homosexuality, especially as we know it, is off base.
Not sure why Christ’s sacrifice got brought into this. I don’t think anyone who frequents my blog let alone myself questions Christ’s sacrifice. But thank you for witnessing. And thank you for thinking. I always look forward to people who think commenting on my blog.
I just recently read a new blog about this that really made me think. I’ll post the link.
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/sodom_and_gomorrah.html
Blessings on your journey.
LikeLike
I wondered if you had read this post:
http://crystalstmarielewis.com/2013/05/18/how-seminaries-and-the-ordination-process-leave-theologically-liberal-christians-behind/
LikeLike
I had not. It is very interesting. Ordination councils are fascinating. I do think that they serve a purpose. As in, you have to know the rules before you can break them. Kind of like a history test for the President, you don’t necessarily hold up all the things that the history was, but you have to know it regardless.
LikeLike
To consider the lack of hospitality to be the sin for which Sodom was destroyed does not follow with the timeline of events, as God sent the angels to destroy the cities prior to the incident of poor desert hospitality. Rape, with regard to the men who surrounded Lot’s house, has the same issue. Despite the reference to abomination Jude 1:7 still stands. Considering the men of Sodom wished to have sexual relations with the two men in Lot’s house, but were uninterested in his daughters it seems clear that the men of Sodom had homosexual intent (note no women were trying “to know” the two house guests). Was their desire unnatural? Seems reasonable considering the men surrounding Lot’s house continued to grope for the door once they were struck with blindness. Thus, as I mentioned previously the sins mentioned in the passage from Ezekiel only outline some of the sins of Sodom.
By the way. As always, I really appreciate the conversation. I wish more people were willing to respectfully discuss such topics, as you do.
LikeLike
No I don’t think it was destroyed for the lack hospitality. I think it was destroyed for all the reasons listed in the verse. Like I said, there were 5 out of seven of the ‘deadly sins’ in that verse. And as you say, there were others. So probably there was an abundance of all of the sins. Blaming it only on homosexual rape, is doing what you think I am doing by saying that the reasons in the passage are it. Oversimplification. On all accounts making this passage/ story the basis of an argument against homosexuality, is a poor choice.
Thanks for making me think.
LikeLike
Pingback: ‘World’s Worst Tornado’ Came ONE DAY After OK Began Gay Pride Week « vineoflife.net
All sin is matter of the heart. Man assigns degrees to sin, like a bar graph…this one is 1/16 inch high (gossip), that one is 4″ (child abuse), but THAT one is off the charts (homosexuality). However, God looks down at it from above and sees * * * * * (sin, sin, sin, sin, sin) and it ALL separates us from God.
Romans 1:18-32 points out that homosexuality begins as idolatry and ingratitude to the One who created man. Because of your article, I looked this up and began to see this in a different light. Thanks for that.
It’s hard for me to stay out of the shoes of the prodigal’s brother when this topic comes up and people are so vile in their condemnation. By comparison, they make me look pretty good. The standard is Jesus, though. By comparison, I have a very long way to go.
\o/
LikeLike
I’m glad I could make you think. That’s the goal. And it’s true who are we to condemn when we are no where near Jesus. We all have a long way to go and we’ll all never get there. We should feel solidarity not rivalry and competition.
LikeLike
The people who cite Jude 1: 7 as a proof text should consider the context first. The verse before it speaks of angels who are fettered in nether darkness until the judgement of the great day, because they didn’t keep to their natural place. That is a very clear reference to the Watchers in 1 Enoch, of whom Azazel will be bound and veiled with darkness. And the wrong thing about the Watchers was that they had intercourse with women (compare Gen. 6: 2).
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe013.htm
So we have two references to sex between humans and non-human supernatural beings, likely angels in both verses. This makes much more sense of “going after other flesh”, as whatever issues people may have with homosexuality, the claim that men are too ‘other’ for other men fails to make any sense.
LikeLike
Thanks for the insight. My knowledge of the Apocrypha is seriously lacking.
LikeLike
Same here. I am afraid that is true of at least 99.5% of our fellow Christians.
LikeLike