The Difficulty
The traditional interpretation holds that the cities were destroyed for homosexuality. But the text is more complex. The men of Sodom demand to “know” (yada) Lot’s guests. Ezekiel 16:49 explicitly names Sodom’s sin as arrogance, excess, and failure to help the poor — with no mention of sexuality.
Responses
Sexual Sin / Homosexuality
Tradition: Conservative / Traditional Summary: The men of Sodom sought homosexual relations with the angelic visitors; this is the sin for which God destroyed the cities.
The traditional reading from at least Philo through conservative Protestantism today. Yada is read as a demand for sexual intercourse. Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6–8 are read as confirming the sexual nature of the sin.
Strengths
- The sexual reading of yada is contextually supported (Lot offers his daughters as a sexual substitute)
- Long interpretive tradition
Weaknesses
- Yada means “to know” non-sexually in the vast majority of its ~940 OT uses
- Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Amos reference Sodom without mentioning sexuality
- God had already decided to destroy the cities before the incident
Further Reading
- Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon, 2001), ch. 2
- Kevin DeYoung, What Does the Bible Really Teach About Homosexuality? (Crossway, 2015)
Inhospitality and Violence
Tradition: Mainline / Academic Summary: The sin of Sodom was radical inhospitality — the violent refusal to protect vulnerable strangers.
Since D.S. Bailey’s 1955 study, many scholars have argued for the hospitality reading. Ezekiel 16:49: “This was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” Jesus’ reference to Sodom (Matt 10:14–15) is about towns refusing hospitality, not sexual behavior.
Strengths
- Supported by the Bible’s own internal commentary (Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jesus)
- Takes the ANE hospitality context seriously
Weaknesses
- The sexual dimension of the threat is hard to eliminate entirely
- Jude 7’s “different flesh” is still debated
Further Reading
- D.S. Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (Longmans, Green, 1955)
- Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian (Convergent, 2014), ch. 3
- Michael Carden, Sodomy: A History of a Christian Biblical Myth (Routledge, 2004)
Both-And / Complex Sin
Tradition: Canonical / Pastoral Summary: Sodom’s sins were multiple and intertwined — injustice, arrogance, violence, and sexual perversion — and cannot be reduced to a single issue.
The text describes comprehensive corruption: economic injustice (Ezekiel), arrogance (Sirach), sexual violence (Genesis 19), and total collapse of moral order. Isolating one sin as “the sin of Sodom” distorts the narrative.
Strengths
- Respects the full canonical witness
- Avoids reductionism in both directions
Weaknesses
- “It’s complicated” can feel unsatisfying
- People on both sides will feel this doesn’t go far enough
Further Reading
- Gordon Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (WBC, 1994), on Genesis 18–19
- James Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality (Eerdmans, 2013), ch. 12