« Mary's song resonates today | Main | Living the story »

Who are the 'Sodom'-ites?

In Same-sex marriage without the sex I reviewed the otherwise progressive Purple Pew blog's ultraconservative views on anal sex, or what the author refers to as sodomy. The use of the term 'sodomy' to refer to male-male anal intercourse seems to me to represent a fundamental distortion of the scriptural references to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. This has been written about extensively elsewhere, and by far more knowledgeable persons, but after reading the Purple Pew I wanted to at least make an effort to address the topic for myself.

Traditional (i.e. post-medieval and modern) discussions tend to focus on a narrow interpretation of the violence intended by the men of Sodom against the two visiting angels, concluding that the violence had something to do with homosexual intercourse, and that for such an abomination God destroyed the city. But the biblical prophets themselves, up to and including Jesus, always understood the 'sin of Sodom' as something quite different...

The scriptures most relevant in my mind as pointing to a proper understanding of what was so sinful about Sodom, are the following.

The prophet Isaiah, concerning the leaders of the nation:

Jerusalem staggers,
   Judah is falling;
   their words and deeds are against the LORD,
   defying his glorious presence.

The look on their faces testifies against them;
   they parade their sin like Sodom;
   they do not hide it.
   Woe to them!
   They have brought disaster upon themselves...

The LORD enters into judgment
   against the elders and leaders of his people:
   ”It is you who have ruined my vineyard;
   the plunder from the poor is in your houses.

What do you mean by crushing my people
   and grinding the faces of the poor?“
   declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty.

(Isaiah 3:8-9,14-15)

The prophet Jeremiah, speaking of the work of false prophets:

And among the prophets of Jerusalem
   I have seen something horrible:
   They commit adultery and live a lie.
   They strengthen the hands of evildoers,
   so that no one turns from his wickedness.
   They are all like Sodom to me;
   the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.

(Jeremiah 23:14)

Ezekiel names the sin of Sodom in black and white terms:

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.

(Ezekiel 16:49-50)

Jesus, warning his disciples that many will ignore and reject them:

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

(Matthew 10:14-16)

Jude refers to the fate of Sodom as a parallel for what will happen to false teachers who slip in amongst the faithful:

'Godless men' who 'pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings,' those who 'speak abusively against whatever they do not understand,' 'shepherds who feed only themselves'. 'These men are grumblers and faultfinders; they follow their own evil desires; they boast about themselves and flatter others for their own advantage ... These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.'

(Jude 1)

These and other scriptures point very clearly to the fact that the ancients condemned Sodom for its 'godlessness,' its arrogance and unconcern for the poor and needy. Corrupt religious and politcal leaders were repeatedly compared to Sodom for exhibiting those very characteristics, and for distorting the true teaching about God into a cynical means of manipulating people.

Perhaps sexuality played a part in this sinfulness. If it did, then the nearest parallel I could draw today is to the Roman Catholic hierarchy, which in its own haughtiness and unconcern covered up the sexual abuse of women and children for decades and presumably much longer. It indeed would be better for Sodom on the day of judgment than perhaps for some bishops.

I didn't get much further in this exercise in amateur exegesis, when I ran across an excellent post on the topic in the Jesus Was A Liberal blog. Here are some great excerpts:

[Jesus'] reference to Sodom is that it was a city that was inhospitable to strangers and the poor. In the Jewish tradition - and I do believe the rabbis know more than a thing or two about Hebrew scriptures - the phrase "middat Sdom" has been long used. It translates as acting or thinking like the Sodomites and means lacking charity and hospitality. It means ignoring the needs of the poor, sick, and the widows and orphans. Throughout the Bible, it always has been a moral obligation and duty to help those in need. Indeed, every prophet warned of the indulgences of the leaders and/or people while they ignored the real needs of the poor and downtrodden. Why would the case of Sodom be any different?

... Ezekeiel said the sins of the Sodomites were that they were “arrogant, overfed and unconcerned.” Ezekeiel might as well been talking about a lot of Americans. What else did he say? “They did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things...” According to Ezekeiel, God did in the Sodomites because they were a bunch of fat blowhards who didn’t help the poor while acting like a bunch of sanctimonious blowhards.

I can add that in the Book of Revelation, the imperial capital Rome itself is figuratively called 'Sodom' and 'Egypt' (Revelation 11:8) -- thus the reference is as to a harsh oppressor. In our day 'Sodom' might aptly be used as an epithet for any people, power or authority that mistreats the poor and powerless.

Anyone looking for a more detailed explanation of the Genesis story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and of issues concerning homosexuality and the Bible in general, should look here and here.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.prodigalsheep.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/66

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who are the 'Sodom'-ites?:

» Scripture as propaganda from The Prodigal Sheep
A few months ago I posted on the confusion surrounding fundamentalist misinterpretations of the story of Sodom. Shortly thereafter there was a lively discussion on the same topic in a Yahoo group I subscribe to. The following essay is reprinted... [Read More]

» Thoughts for a new year from The Prodigal Sheep
In Camino Real, Tennessee Williams said “Life is an unanswered question, but lets still believe in the dignity and importance of the question.” Dignity is found in the pursuit of the important questions, not in the possession of all... [Read More]

Comments

Well done Mark. It causes me to wonder when the shift in importance went from “charity and serving those less fortunate” to “how we physically choose to copulate” took place.
It's all about Luxuria; the 7 Lethal Sins, especially Mandatory Celibacy for the priesthood (Lateran II in 1139) and also about post Carolingian social disciplining (abstinences to the people!). Pietro Damiani (Peter Damian) was first out, in around 1050, with this Liber gomhorrianus. In these he talked of the spilling of semen for non procreative purposes, dividing this into 4 categories; with oneself, with somebody else (man, woman, child, animal), inter fermore, that is probably on the body, and lastly what we would call anal copulation. But it's all really about masturbation; only the one actually spilling his semen, is the doer. (And later the one to be burnt). More importantly Pietro Damiani also invented the essentialist concept of "Inhabitant of Sodom", to be found mainly in the celibatary institutions of the day ;=) His proposals were rejected by the then Bishop of Rome Leo X in the 1051 bull Nos humanios agentes; We who act more humanely... Then in the last quarter of 12th century Paris (Lateran III in 1179 and the Paris Council of 1210), Pierre Chanteur (Peter Cantor) went after ganymedes, the metropolitan male gay sub-culture of the day. From this came the social out-casting and the burnings (blood is not to be spilled either, according to Leviticus) of Lateran IV in 1215. The change in attitudes was argued by way of extensive pro-abstinence changes in the Latin translation (2nd century North Africa) made by the Sorbonne in making assisted by the fellows at Saint Victor near Paris, who dabbled in Hebrew. Changes from cultic and material (Greed) to sexual were made in the Commandments and in words referring to them, such as porneía; sacral prostitution, that is cult, referring to the 1st Commandment, moixeía; unfaithfulness to the group, referring to the 7th Commandment and epithumía; material greed, referring to the 10th. Only the 10th Commandment that talks of unfaithfulness - of the husband, not the wife! And it's about the dowry ;=) The changes were achieved through an General (Koiné) or Academic Greek (Platonistic) reading of the LXX specific technical-theological lingo of the NT... Specifically, Lev 18:22 was changed from l o c a l: and with a man don't put youself "in" the bed of a wife, to (sexual) act: cum masculo non commiscearis coitu femineo; with a man don't commit womanly coitus. That is wantonly: for pleasure. This mis-using the fact that the Hebrew text is damaged in this place (as in many others); an "im", that is in, is missing. After 1947 many of the 12th century changes from material to (hetero)-sexual, change to homo-sexual... From activity for all, to essentialist identity for the new social minority... "Masturbation" as Lethal Sin being a somewhat hard sell in the medically defining 20th century West ;=) I have written more about this in my blog - the piece on Lev 18 is somewhere in the November Archives, I think (in English).
Göran's post on Leviticus 18 is here.
Can you clarify the reasoning that one cannot stress "charity and serving those less fortunate" because they find reasonably translated biblical messages of morality in "how we physically choose to copulate”

Post a comment