Genesis 19:4-11

2. The Violence of the Sodomites (Genesis 19:4-11)

4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 5 and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out unto them to the door, and shut the door after him. 7 And he said, I pray you, my brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Be-hold now, I have two daughters that have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing, forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof. 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said, This One fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and drew near to break the door. 10 But the men put forth their hand, and brought Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. 11 And they smote the men that Were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

Before Lot and the members of his household and his celestial visitors lay down, that is, could retire for the night, the men of Sodom surrounded the house, both young and old, all of them from every quarter, i.e., from one end of the city to the other, there not being even one righteous man to protest (SC, 94), The mob cried out to Lot to bring his visitors out to them that we may know them. i.e., vent our lust upon them (Rashi, et al). This demand was, of course, the basest violation of the sacred rite of hospitality, and the most shameless proclamation of their sin (COTP, 233). (The verb know, as used here, is used in the same sense as in Judges 19:22-26, namely, as having reference to such perversions of the sex function as homosexuality (including Lesbianism), pederasty, bestiality, etc., practices everywhere prevalent among the Canaanites (Leviticus 18:3; Leviticus 18:22-23; Leviticus 20:13; Leviticus 20:15), and according to the Apostle Paul, Romans 1:24-27, the curse of heathenism generally. It will be recalled that the Cult of Fertility, worship of the Sun-father and the Earth-Mother, which characterized the entire ancient pagan world, featured ritual prostitution, phallic worship, etc., and sanctioned all forms of individual sex perversion as well). It was at this point that Lot committed the egregious error of offering as a substitute his two virgin daughters to be used as the attackers might want to use them to satisfy their unnatural lust. But the immediate response was even more threatening. This fellow (Lot), they cried out, who is only a sojourner in our city, has been trying to play the role of a judge all this while (undoubtedly this means that he had been wont to reprove the people for their iniquitous ways), so now let us be rid of him. In exasperation they threaten to deal with him severely, that is, not just to abuse him sexually as they sought to abuse his guests, but actually to kill him. To the heavenly visitors all this was the final proof that Sodom was fit only for destruction; and so they pulled Lot back into the house, closed the door, and smote the men outside with blindness. What is involved here is not the common affliction, not just -total blindness,-' but a sudden stroke. a blinding flash emanating from angelswho thereby abandon their human disguisewhich would induce immediate, if temporary, loss of sight, much like the desert or snow blindness (ABG, 39). Thus, as has often been the case, human violence was frustrated by divine intervention.

3. Lot's Degeneracy

This has already been pointed out (1) as beginning in his move to the Plain of Sodom (Genesis 13:11) being motivated by the prospect of material prosperity and ease, (2) as continuing in his choice of the city itself as a dwelling-place, and thus (at least tacitly) accepting the activities of his urban environment with a more or less tolerant interest, (3) is now accentuated by his willingness to allow his two virgin daughters to be victims in a sexual orgy by the lustful male Sodomites (Genesis 19:8). About all that can be said in his favor is that he did adhere closely to the prescribed cult of hospitality and did try in his own weak way to protect his guests from the unnatural vice with which the Sodomites threatened them. Butdid fidelity to the law of hospitality justify his willingness to make scapegoats of his daughters? For example, note this comment: At that period the honour of a woman was of less account, Genesis 12:10 f. than the sacred duty of hospitality (JB, 35). Cf. Skinner (ICCG, 307):-' The unnatural vice which derives its name from the incident was viewed in Israel as the lowest depth of moral corruption (cf. Leviticus 18:22 ff; Leviticus 20:13; Leviticus 20:23; Ezekiel 16:50, Judges 19:22). Lot's readiness to sacrifice the honor of his daughters, though abhorrent to Hebrew morality (cf. Judges 19:25; Judges 19:30), shows him a courageous champion of the obligations of hospitality in a situation of extreme embarrassment, and is recorded-' to his credit. The over-all consensus is, however, that Lot's action in the offer to sacrifice his daughters on the altar of human male lust was, whatever mitigating circumstances might be offered in his defense, morally without excuse. Thus Delitzsch (COPT, 233): In his anxiety, Lot was willing to sacrifice to the sanctity of hospitality his duty as a father, which ought to have been still more sacred, and committed the sin of seeking to avert sin by sin. Even if he expected that his daughters would suffer no harm, as they were betrothed to Sodomites (Genesis 19:14), the offer was a grievous violation of his paternal duty. While the narrative reveals Lot's hospitality, it also reveals his wickedness (SC, 94). Murphy (MG, 322): How familiar Lot had become with vice, when any necessity whatever could induce him to offer his daughters to the lust of these Sodomites! We may suppose it was spoken rashly, in the heat of the moment, and with the expectation that he would not be taken at his word. So it turned out. (This fact surely points up the infamy of the men of Sodom: they would not be satisfied with what females could offer; they had to have males to serve their purposes.) Leupold (EG, 559-560): The kindest interpretation of Lot's willingness to sacrifice his daughters to the depraved lusts of these evildoers stresses that it was done with the intent of guarding his guests. To that certainly must be added the fact that under the circumstances Lot was laboring under a certain confusion. But Delitzsch's summary still covers the truth, when he describes Lot's mistakes as being an attempt to avoid sin by sin. In days of old, when an exaggerated emphasis on hospitality prevailed, we might have understood how such a sacrifice could be made by a father. But in our day we cannot but feel the strongest aversion to so unpaternal an attitude. Luther's attempts to vindicate Lot's character are quite unconvincing: for Lot could hardly have anticipated with a certain shrewdness that the Sodomites were so bent on this particular form of vileness as to refuse any substitutes. In fact, their refusal to accept Lot's substitute argues for an intensity of evil purpose that surpasses all comprehension. Jamieson (CECG, 160): The offer made by Lot was so extreme as plainly shows that he had been thrown into a state of the most perturbed and agitated feeling, between fear of the popular violence and solicitude for the safety of the strangers that were under his roof. The incident (IB, 626-627) is recorded to Lot's credit as one who was concerned at all costs to fulfill the sacred obligation of a host to protect his guests. At the same time, such treatment of the daughters would have been abhorrent to Hebrew morality. Again, (ibid): Compared with the general population of Sodom Lot was a decent person. The writer of Second Peter (Genesis 2:6-8) could even think of him as -just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked.-' The moments came when, as in the vile events described in this chapter, he was more than vexed. He tried to resist the extreme outrage which the lustful gang in Sodom were about to perpetrate upon the men who had harborage in his house. He would go to great length to fulfill the obligation of hospitalityan obligation which in his world and time was one of the supreme laws of honor. But he had got himself into a place where there could be no decent way out of the crisis that had caught him. All he could think of was the desperate and shameful alternative of sacrificing his own daughters. Even this would not avail. The gang that assaulted his house wanted the men who were his guests therewanted them for sodomy, the vileness to which the city of Sodom gave its name. In the day when Lot made what he thought was his smart decision to select the neighborhood of Sodom, in the choice Abraham offered him, he did not foresee that the place would prove so evil. But because he did not care enough to consider that, he took the chance and reaped the consequences. Like many another man since, he learned that early choices which seem clever when they smother conscience must pay their heavy reckoning. There is no guarantee of limited ability for a wrong act.(italics mine-C.C.)

There are three summarizations of Lot's acts and their motivations which are worthy of being presented here to bring to a close this phase of our subject. The first is by Whitelaw (PCG, 253): The usual apologiesthat in sacrificing his daughters to the Sodomites instead of giving up his guests to their unnatural lust, Lot (1) selected the lesser of two sins (Ambrose); (2) thereby protected his guests and discharged the duties of hospitality incumbent on him (Chrysostom); (3) believed his daughters would not be desired by the Sodomites, either because of their well-known betrothal (Rosenmuller), or because of the unnatural lust of the Sodomites (Lange); (4) acted -rough mental perturbation-' (Augustine)are insufficient to excuse the wickedness of one who in attempting to prevent one sin was himself guilty of another (Delitzsch), who in seeking to be a faithful friend forgot to be an affectionate father (Kalisch), and who, though bound to defend his guests at the risk of his own life, was not at liberty to purchase their safety by the sacrifice of his daughters (-Speaker's Commentary-').

A second excellent summarization is that of Speiser (ABG, 143): Lot is dutiful in his hospitality. His manner with the visitors, however, appears servile (-with his face to the ground,-' Genesis 19:1), as contrasted with the simple dignity of Abraham (Genesis 18:2), and both his invitation and subsequent preparations lack his uncle's spontaneity. But true to the unwritten code, Lot will stop at nothing in order to protect his guests. Presently, the identity of the visitors is revealed in a flash of supernatural light (Genesis 19:11). The angels-' intercession serves to bring out the latent weaknesses in Lot's character. He is undecided, flustered, ineffectual. His own sons-in-law refuse to take him seriously (14). He hesitates to turn his back on his possessions, and has to be led to safety by the hand (16), like a childan ironic sidelight on a man who a moment earlier tried to protect his celestial guests (von Rad). Lot's irresoluteness makes him incoherent (20). Small wonder that his deliverance is finally achieved without a moment to spare. Had the sun risen an instant sooner, Lot might have shared the fate of his wife; for God's mysterious workings must not be looked at by man. In addition to all this, Lot's degeneracy is further underscored, in his declining years, by intoxication and incest (Genesis 19:30-38). Though neither of these were of his own making, they surely do point up his failure as a father, by proving that he allowed his offspring to suffer the contaminations of the environment in which he had placed them by his own choice and had allowed them to grow up, to become promised to men of Sodom, and so to become infected by the moral rot with which the Cities of the Plain fairly stank. It is significantis it not?that after this last-recorded disgraceful incident, the name of Lot disappears completely from sacred history, not even his death being recorded. Here is an eternal picture of the corrosive possibilities of a bad environment. Those who accustom themselves to the ways of an evil society may themselves at last be evil. What is happening now to people who make no effective protest against the wrongs they live with every day? (IBG, 624). As Alexander Pope has put it so succinctly:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

A final summation here is of special interest, even though it takes the form of a contrast: Lot and Abraham both were righteous men (Genesis 15:6, 2 Peter 2:7; 2 Peter 2:9), and both enjoyed similar backgrounds and advantages. Abraham, however, -looked -forward to the city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God (Hebrews 11:10). Lot, on the contrary, looked toward the city without heavenly foundations, choosing for the present time without concern for eternity (Genesis 13:5-18). Lot's misfortune should be a warning for all (HSB, 31).

4. The Iniquity of Sodom and Gomorrah

The iniquity of the Cities of the Plain included certain corollary practices, such as (1) lack of social justice (Isaiah 1:9-17), (2) reveling in the indulgence of all kinds of vice openly (Isaiah 3:4-12: note tendency in our day to assume that there is a certain virtue in unblushing openness in the practice of vicea sophisticated kind of hypocrisy; (3) priestly (ecclesiastical) heresy and moral corruption (Jeremiah 23:14-15); complete disregard of the poor, in an affluent society: poverty in the midst of plenty (Ezekiel 16:49); preoccupation with things of the secular world (Luke 17:26-32); obsession with sex (Jude 1:7: note the phrase, gone after strange flesh, that is, a departure from the order of nature in the corruptions practised). (In our day the ancient Cult of Fertility has been superseded by the by-products of libidinal psychology).

It was the city's sexual depravity, however, that provided the basic reason for its utter destruction. On this fact the consensus is practically universal. E.g., The sin of Sodom was unnatural vice (IB, 627), as is evident from the fact that Lot knew all too well what remaining in the street all night would have meant to his visitors. The unnatural vice that takes its name from this incident was an abomination to the Israelites, Leviticus 18:22, and was punished with death Leviticus 20:13; but it was rife among their neighbors, Leviticus 20:23; cf. Judges 19:22 ff (Job 35). The unnatural vice alluded to here was, undoubtedly homosexuality, in all likelihood accompanied by all forms of sex perversion. (It should be noted that bestiality is also specifically mentioned in the Scripture references: cf. Leviticus 18:22-23; Leviticus 20:13-16.) Lesbianism (female homosexuality) was probably common also: the name derives from the island of Lesbos where Sappho the Greek poetess, maintained the first finishing school in history for young women, which achieved the reputation of having been a disseminator of this vice among the women of Lesbos and the surrounding Greek states.)

Young men and women of our time need to be warned against these unnatural practices. In this category belong the solitary sex acts (voluntary in origin and involving sex satisfaction through some method of erotic stimulation of the sex organs). These are unnatural in that they involve the abuse of the sex function; they are harmful in that they tend to become habitual and hence gradually to weaken the will. In this category we put the following: masturbation, commonly called self-abuse, sometimes erroneously called onanism (cf. Genesis 38:8-10). (Onan's act was an offense against the theocratic family, not an act indulged for erotic pleasure). The act, however, if it becomes habitual with young boys, certainly tends to vitiate the will; if persistently practised, undoubtedly it contributes to impotence in later life. Bestiality, coition of a human being with a brute; necrophilia, erotic satisfaction obtained by physical sexual contact with a corpse (a practice prevalent in ancient Egypt especially, where mummification of corpses of the nobility, both male and female, was common); fetishism, an act in which the person obtains sexual gratification onanistically with the aid of a symbol, usually a symbol of the loved object; transvestism, putting on the clothing of the opposite sex for purposes of erotic satisfaction; scoptophilia, the avid viewing of the external sex organs or of actual sex acts for the purpose of obtaining sex excitation; voyeurism, defined as pathological indulgence in looking at some form of nudity as a source of gratification in place of the normal sex act. Under this heading we must also include obscenity, pornography, lasciviousness (Galatians 5:19), lewdness, exhibitionism (indecent exposure), etc.

Homosexual activity, even though it involves another person, belongs in the category of solitary sex acts because the erotic pleasure is confined to the one who plays the role of the active agent in the perversion. Homosexuality may stem from a glandular dysfunction; generally, however, it seems to be psychological in origin, that is, a habit formed in adolescence which results in such a weakening of the will that the victim, in adulthood, lacks the mental and physical strength to cast it off. In the end, its effect, like that of alcoholism, is often pathological; obviously, it is not a natural use of the sex function. Many eminent authorities speak of it as a cogenital anomaly rather than a disease. Usually the homosexual possesses characteristic psychic and physical traits of the opposite sex. Pederasty is carnal copulation of an adult as the active partner with a boy as the passive partner. Sodomy, basically, is defined (WNCD) as carnal copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal, or unnatural copulation with a member of the opposite sex. As a matter of fact, however, the term has come to be used in many legal codes for all kinds of sex perversion. History proves that in cultures in which homosexuality has become a practice woman has never been accorded any particularly honorable status; moreover, that the spread of the perversion throughout the population, as in the days of the so-called Enlightenment in Athens and in those of the Empire in Rome, is an unfailing mark of national decadence. The morale of a people depends upon the national morality; and the national standard of morality depends very largely on the nation's sex morality. Socrates, in Athens, had his belovedhis name was Alcibiades. Plato winked at the practice. Pericles, the great Athenian statesman, on the other hand, despised it. And Aristotle deplored it, criticizing Plato for his seeming tolerance of the perversion. It is amazing to discover how many eminent persons in the field of literature in particular have been enslaved by it, and one might well say, haunted by the enslavement. (See Paul's list of the vices of the pagan world, Romans 1:18-32). Parentshave a solemn obligation in our day to instruct their children about these unnatural uses of the sex function; moreover, this instruction should begin even before the child reaches adolescence. Let it never be overlooked, as Dr. Will Durant has stated so pointedly, that the control of the sex impulse is the first principle of civilization,to be blunt, the first step out of the barnyard.

Any act of sex perversion is a selfish prostitution of the sex function: it gives pleasure only to the one who performs the act, and physical pleasure only. In the true conjugal union, however, one that is sanctified by mutual love, the participants enjoy the planned sharing of the bliss, one with the other; indeed this bliss is enhanced by the fact that each participant is thinking in terms of what is being contributed to the enjoyment of the other: the satisfaction thus becomes spiritual and not exclusively physical. There is a vast difference here, difference which evinces the sanctity of the conjugal union and the superiority of monogamy as a selective institution. Let us remember that love is a permanent and fixed attitude which puts the interest of the one loved above the interests of the lover: the reversal of this sacrificial quality is the fallacy which permeates Fletcher's so-called situationist ethics, which in essence is the advocacy of sheer, selfishness.
The physiological sex union of husband and wife in the conjugal relation has by divine ordination a twofold purpose: it is procreative, i.e., it guarantees the preservation of the race, and it is unitive in that it enhances the intimacy of the conjugal relation. Obviously, because homosexuality thwarts these ends of marriage, it is unnatural. On the basis of the Principle of Universalization, namely, that the moral validity of a human act is to be realistically tested by considering what the consequences would be if every human being did it under the same or similar circumstances, indubitably homosexuality would destroy the race in short order. Hence the Divine pronouncements recorded in Genesis 1:26-31; Genesis 2:18; Genesis 2:21-25. It simply is not good for the man to be alone: under such conditions his potentialities could never be realized and the race would die aborning. Moreover, in every case of addiction to the practice, it could serve only to debase the intimacy of the marriage relation and so to vitiate the very character and design of the conjugal union. Sexual coition without love is simply that of the brute. On the other hand, coition sanctified by love, is treated in Scripture as an allegory of the mystical relationship between Christ and His Bride, the Church. (Cf. the entire Song of Solomon; also Ephesians 5:22-33, 2 Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 21:1-4, etc.). (Suggested reading: The Sexual Offender and His Offenses, by Benjamin Karpman, M.D., Julian Press, Inc., New York, 1954).

In view of all these facts, we are not surprised to find that sodomy is anathematized throughout both the Old and New Testaments as an abomination to God, and that the terrible judgment which descended on Sodom and Gomorrah is repeatedly cited as a warning to all people who would tolerate such iniquity. Thus the name of Sodom itself has become a byword among all peoples whose God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. See, on sodomy, Exodus 22:19, Judges 19:22 ff; Leviticus 18:22-23; Leviticus 20:13-16; Leviticus 20:23; Romans 1:24-27; Romans 9:29; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10; on sodomites, Deuteronomy 23:17-18; 1 Kings 14:23-24; 1 Kings 15:12; 1 Kings 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7; on the divine judgment visited on the Cities of the Plain, Deuteronomy 29:23; Deuteronomy 32:32; Isaiah 1:9-10; Isaiah 3:9; Isaiah 13:19; Jeremiah 20:15; Jeremiah 49:17-18; Jeremiah 23:13-15; Jeremiah 50:40; Ezekiel 16:46-51, Ezek. 53:58; Lamentations 4:6; Amos 4:11, Hosea 11:8, Zephaniah 2:9; Matthew 10:15; Matthew 11:23-24; Luke 10:12; Luke 17:28-30; 2 Peter 2:6; Judges 7, Revelation 11:8.

Review Questions

See Genesis 19:30-38.