Genesis 19:4-5 and Jude 7

BHS:

טֶרֶם יִשְׁכָּבוּ וְאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם נָסַבּוּ עַל־הַבַּיִת מִנַּעַר וְעַד־זָקֵן כָּל־הָעָם מִקָּצֶה׃
וַיִּקְרְאוּ אֶל־לֹוט וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹו אַיֵּה הָאֲנָשִׁימ אֲשֶׁר־בָּאוּ אֵלֶיךָ הַלָּיְלָה הֹוצִיאֵם אֵלֵינוּ וְנֵדְעָה אֹתָם׃

Vulgate:

[4] prius autem quam irent cubitum viri civitatis vallaverunt domum a puero usque ad senem omnis populus simul
[5] vocaveruntque Loth et dixerunt ei ubi sunt viri qui introierunt ad te nocte educ illos huc ut cognoscamus eos

KJV:

[4] But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
[5] And they 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.

NIV:

[4] Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house.
[5] 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."

NRSV:

[4] But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house;
[5] and they called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.’

Commentary:

This is one of the more famous verses used to condemn homosexuality. To do so, some rather important details have to be overlooked, as well as Biblical and extra-Biblical commentary on the passage. I would say that the people of Sodom were condemned for stuff equated as much worse than alleged homosexuality, but in the end it is homosexuality that gets the blame.

Let's look first at the term "sodomite". It is a term that developed in the Middle Ages to refer to the men of Sodom. The meaning of the word is unequivocally connected to "buggery" and the concept of homosexuality in the Middle Ages. It has stuck with the English language and is often used in a derogatory manner to classify all homosexuals and condemn them.

Before homosexuality takes one for the team, let's review the passage the story and look at how it has been interpreted.

A summary of what happens:

• Lot, Abraham's nephew, moves to Sodom rather than remaining a nomad living in tents.
• Sodom is proclaimed to be a wicked city by God, and God tells Abraham that it will be destroyed for its wickedness.
• Abraham speaks with God and it is decided that God will be merciful if a righteous person is found in the city.
• Enter two Angel ambassadors from God. The Angels come to Lot in the city, although Lot is not aware that they are Angels. Lot is hospitable to the guests.
• While in Lot's care, the men "old and young" of Sodom learn that he has let in strangers and was caring for them.
• They gather around Lot's house and demand that Lot release the men so that they may "know" the strangers. Although some argue that this is not sexual, the context makes it clear that it is a sexual "knowledge".
• Lot pleads with the crowd to not do this, and offers up his virgin daughters instead. This did not please the men of Sodom.
• The Angels blind the men of Sodom and escape, warning Lot to leave because God would destroy Sodom and all the inhabitants.

First of all, who is the mob? The mob is said to be all the men, old and young, and in some translations "the entire populous", from the entire city. As a group of people is only listed in masculine form, it in theory could even mean the women, but let's leave them out for now...just men.

My first question: Is Sodom 100% Gay? This would be an amazing astonishing discovery that there was a Gay City where all the men were Gay, even the boys and old men. I don't believe it; this would be highly unlikely.

The Bible does not say "some men" or "certain men". It says all. There is something going on here more than a bunch of gays wanting to have sex.

The next important thing to consider is that Lot offers his daughters. If this were a group of gay men, why the heck would they want Lot's daughters? Lot does not appear to think that these people are men who go only for other men.

Now how about what they wanted to do to Lot's guests: These guests were outsiders, strangers, possibly feared as enemies. The men of Sodom came not to have a gay orgy, but to rape these outsiders, and show their dominance over them. Rape is characterized as brutal, against the will of the person being penetrated, and violent.

Rape is a violent sin, be it homosexual or heterosexual. This may be very important.

What bothers me is that Lot is willing to let his daughters be raped. I've always wondered why this was never addressed. It disgusts me.

Consider this article that I found on "Would Jesus Discriminate?" relaying a report of a beating in Brooklyn:

On August 9, 1997 in New York City, two white police officers were strip-searching a black Haitian immigrant named Abner Louima and grew angry with him. They dragged him into a bathroom and, while one officer held him down, the other repeatedly rammed a broken broom up Louima’s rectum. While they did this, the officers reportedly yelled things like, “We’re gonna teach you n****rs to respect police officers!” -Christopher John Farley, A Beating In Brooklyn, Time.com: Time Magazine Archive, August 25, 1997.

One does not have to argue that the brutality came out of hate of the outsider, rather than out of homosexual love. This modern incident is strikingly similar to what I believe was the intentions of the men of Sodom.

That being said, let's see what other passages say about Sodom and Gomorrah.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 (NRSV)

[49] This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. [50] They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.

The emphasis seems to be on neglecting the poor and needy, and of being prideful. It does not appear to be about sex.

Luke 10: 7-42 (NRSV)

Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the laborer deserves to be paid. Do not move about from house to house. ⁸Whenever you enter a town and its people welcome you, eat what is set before you; ⁹cure the sick who are there, and say to them, “The kingdom of God has come near to you." But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, ¹¹“Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.” ¹²I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town.

One must take note that Jesus is referring to cities being inhospitable to the 70 he has commissioned to go out and spread the Good News of the Kingdom of God. Sex is not even suggested here. He references Sodom and the messengers sent by God. As God dealt greatly to Sodom for those who would rape visitors, it will be worse for those who do not even welcome his disciples. That's a tough passage in itself, but still it does not refer to sex or homosexuals, it is about the way Sodom dealt with its visitors.

The final passage related to this that must be dealt with is Jude 7:

just as 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.

First of all, we need to look at the context. One sees mention of the "angels"/fallen angels/Nephilim who came down in the Genesis and fell in love with mankind and had children...giants allegedly. Next there is Sodom mentioned with "strange flesh", or "unnatural flesh", or "other flesh". Next we see the Archangel Michael coming to set things right.

If one recalls, the messengers who visited Lot in Genesis were not human. They were Angels. The mating of man with angel is what is being spoken about.

I personally think that Sodom and Gomorrah is about gross inhospitably manifesting in forced gang rape, and even worse, upon two Angels. I would go so far as to say, if Genesis referred to the messengers as female, the sin of Sodom would be the same. It is interesting to note that in Matthew 22:30, it is suggested that Angels do not adhere to specific genders...so who knows what manner of creature Lot gave hospitality to.

In the end, the real lesson of Sodom is this from Hebrews 13:2:

Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

Matthew 5:22

NA27:

ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει: ὃς δ' ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ, Ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ: ὃς δ' ἂν εἴπῃ, Μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός

Vulgate:

Ego autem dico vobis: Omnis, qui irascitur fratri suo, reus erit iudicio; qui autem dixerit fratri suo: “Racha”, reus erit concilio; qui autem dixerit: “Fatue”, reus erit gehennae ignis.

KJV:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

NIV:

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

NRSV:

But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire.

Commentary:

I am not sure I agree with assertions about this passage, but it should be mentioned. This passage comes in the Sermon on the Mount. Most editors will label it under "Murder", where Jesus speaks about physical murder, and how anger in the heart towards a brother is equally liable to the person as if they had murdered. Compare this with adultery and looking at someone with lust.

That being said, some scholars suggest that there is a different possible rendering of this passage. This revolves around two words: Ῥακά (raka) and Μωρέ (moreh). These words are not Greek in origin. They are transliterations into Greek of probably Aramaic words. If you look at even the NIV translation, the footnotes express that the meaning is unknown and inferred.

Ῥακά
Here's what we can also infer. Raka, if Aramaic or Hebrew may be related to "rakha" which both mean "soft" and have a connotation of effeminacy. The root word is used throughout other Semitic languages to refer to feminine jobs, such as the Akkadian word "raq". If applied to a male, it could mean "sissy".

Μωρέ
This word is often rendered "fool" but could be "fooler", "trickster" and in some Greek literature has the connotation of a male aggressor or sexual aggressor, or as some scholars suggest, with a homosexual act connotation.

The passage has name-calling. One could be Sissy, and one could be Fool or Top or as the English say Bugger.

I see Raka more apparent than I do Moreh, and am not wholly convinced. However, it would be interesting if Jesus did say "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Sissy!' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'Bugger!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Although ambiguous, it feels like eisegesis and wishful thinking.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

NA27:

[9] ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε: οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται
[10] οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.

Vulgate:

[9] An nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt? Nolite errare: neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri neque molles neque masculorum concubitores
[10] neque fures neque avari, non ebriosi, non maledici, non rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt.

KJV:

[9] Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind
[10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

NIV:

[9] Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
[10] nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

NRSV:

[9] Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites,
[10] thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers-- none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

Commentary:
In this verse, there are two words that are often rendered as referring to homosexuals. The Greek words are μαλακοὶ (malakoi) and ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai).

μαλακοὶ
Malakoi is believed to mean "soft". It is used in Matthew 11:7-18 and Luke 7:24-25, in those instances as an adjective for soft clothing. Looking at common use of the word in other Greek texts of the time, one sees similar references to "softness".

If you look at the above translations, you see "male prostitute" and "effeminate" as two possible translations of the word. Looking at earlier Christian commentaries, you find it referring to those with "soft or weak morals". Martin Luther's commentary connects it to masturbation., and you can find this understanding for malakoi used by traditional scholars even into the 20th century.

ἀρσενοκοῖται
Arsenokoitai is a confounding word. It is made up of two words "arsen" or male and "koite" or bed. Arsenokoitai = male bed. It has the connotation of sexual intercourse. Outside of this Epistle, and Paul's letter to Timothy (1 Timothy 1:8-11) the word is not found in Greek literature. We do not know if it had a special meaning or not. It may be related to "laying with a man" referring to Leviticus, perhaps a coined phrase by Paul. I noticed the Vulgate translates it as "masculorum concubitores" which certainly has the root word for "male concubine".

What is striking is that it is probably paired with malakoi. If one looks at the full verse, they cannot help but see similarities between pairings of words in the list. For example Adultery and Idolatry are often connected in the Old Testament. In fact the word πόρνοι rendered Adulterer is also used for those who are unfaithful to God. The next example of pairing is "thieves" and the "greedy" or "covetous"--those who steal and those who want the possessions. Some would say "drunkeness" and "slander" or "reviling" go together. It is not a stretch to think that malakoi and aresnokoitai go together too. Additionally, some translations in English group the two words together. The question is how do they relate--what is the relationship between the malakoi and the arsenokoitai that make them unqiue offenders?

I have found 3 concepts of their connections, from conservative to liberal.

1. catamite and sodomite - or passive and active partners in same sex activity. It should be noted that there is discussion about whether this is referring to our concept of homosexuality or the idea of two straight males.
2. morally weak people and catamites/male prostitutes/corruptors of boys. This rendering of arsenokoitai is reflective of the male concubine image in the Vulgate.
3. effeminate call-boys/young boy prostitutes and the men who use them. This would be a reflection of pedastry, and exploitation (possibly economic).

What we do know is that Corinth did have male prostitution. We know that pedastry was commonly kept in Greek society at that time. We also know that prostitution of males often included young boys and male adults. What is also a given, is that there is no separation between a heterosexual world and a homosexual world--it is assumed that anyone could do any of these things.

Looking at these words, we know there is some sort of taboo here. It is not "clearly" homosexuality. The problem is we do not know what the words mean for certain. I tend to believe it is referring to the prostitution in Corinth between young boys and adult men. One finds it hard to argue the problem of that situation. Prostitution, exploits a person, degrades a person to comodity that can be bought--a sex object. It is often connected with rape and other physical harms. The person "buying" the prostitute does not see the person as an equal. There is no love or relationship.

In all these renderings, the unanswered question is about women. In a conservative reading of the passage, what does it say about lesbians? In liberal interpretations, what about female prostitutes and how they are treated? There is so much missing and unclear here.

What I am sure of, is that this does not describe two people of the same gender loving each other and building a relationship with each other. This is about equality vs. sexual exploitation, pedastry and prostitution.