It’s become more and more popular over the last few decades to say that Sodom and Gomorrah’s sin was not what we call sodomy or homosexuality, but it’s just not Scripturally accurate.
Genesis 19:1-5 shows that the men (not the women) of the city wanted/desired to have sex with the male visitors.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 calls this very act to’evah, often translated abomination, and this is easily seen by even pro-gay “Christian” proponents, because their argument here is just: “The law is no longer binding through Christ.” Unbelievers see it clearly too. I once heard Ian McKellan say that he tore out the Leviticus 18 page of the Gideon Bible when he slept in a hotel room, because he didn’t want to sleep beside such garbage. They all see it; it’s not hard to see.
Jude 1:7 then says the cities were given over to ekporneuo, a Greek word meaning sexually immoral acts, and suffered the punishment of eternal fire. The strange flesh Jude mentions isn’t speaking of the men wanting sex with angels - they didn’t even know the men were angels - it’s speaking of the flesh being different than female, i.e. a male-to-male sexual relationship.
The text many progressives like to go to is in Ezekiel 16:49. There we find that *a* sin of Sodom was pride connected with a neglect of helping the poor and needy. Most do not read the next verse though where it says that Sodom practiced to’evah, the same word used in Leviticus 18:22 (and verse 26, 27, 29, and 30) and Leviticus 20:13.
It would be fine to say that practicing homosexuality was not Sodom’s *only* sin, but that’s certainly not how those using Ezekiel 16:49 frame it. They attempt to bypass the Older Testament Law by saying Leviticus has been abolished, or they try to use some fancy footwork to get around what Genesis and the rest of the Bible teaches against, all in hopes of appeasing a modern crowd.
White and Neil write, “Indeed, arrogance and pride are closely related to a willingness to twist even the most basic and fundamental aspect of our being, our sexuality, and to flaunt this in the face of God and our fellow creatures.” (The Same Sex Controversy, p.42)
Some try to say gang rape is in view in Genesis 19:1-5, but it was only the men of the city who were lustfully wanting the *male* visitors. They weren’t interested in the females. And there was no violence going on in Genesis 19:1-5, only a request that righteous Lot knew was wicked (2 Pet. 2:6-8).
Yahweh even held the Canaanites accountable to their many sexual sins; that’s how Leviticus 18 begins and ends. He tells Israel to not act like the Canaanites, because the Canaanites were vomited out of their land due to their sexual sins (Lev. 18:27-28). It’s similar to when Yahweh speaks of the “iniquity of the Amorites” (Gen. 15:16). Homosexual practice is just like adultery, it’s not limited to being prohibited in Israel.
In the beginning Yahweh made them male and female (Mt. 19:4). This is why a man leaves *father and mother* (one family unit) and *he* cleaves to his *wife* (forming a new family unit), Genesis 2:23-24. It’s been happening for thousands of years.
Some people use the, “Well Jesus never condemned homosexuality.” I can at least understand if an unbeliever says something like that (because they don’t believe the Bible), but for a believer to say such is unacceptable. We are supposed to be whole Bible Christians. Yeshua (Jesus) doesn’t have to address something for it to be a sin. His Father is the law-giver, and is top authority. As a matter of fact, Yeshua didn’t even speak his own words (John 12:49-50).
Stick with the whole Bible my friends. Don’t let anyone fool you by quoting one verse. #pridemonth
10/5/2022 01:42:16 am
I just stumbled across this website and wanted to let you know I really enjoy reading your blogs. I just read another one of your blogs from 2011 about afflicting our souls on the Day of Atonement. Great observations.
11/17/2022 11:44:57 pm
Skill majority number. Their activity decade school painting.
Leave a Reply.
Blog by Matthew Janzen. Lover of Yahweh, Yeshua, my wife and 5 children. All else is commentary.