A Tale of Two Cities

STR Quick-Reference App

A Tale of Two Cities

Alan Shlemon

TRP conference “Talking Point #6” characterizes the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah this way: “Sodom and Gomorrah involved a threatened gang rape, not…loving relationships based on mutuality and fidelity.” According to Ezekiel 16:49 (NIV), the cities’ residents “were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and the needy.” Jude’s reference in verse 7 to the men of Sodom and Gomorrah going after “different flesh”…“likely refers to the attempted rape of non-human beings, angels.”

On TRP’s take, then, homosexuality itself was not a problem, only sexual violence and social injustice. Are they right? Of course, the above explanations are not mutually exclusive and may have been factors in their own way. Here’s the key question, though: Does the biblical record indicate that homosexuality was a factor at all in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Three observations make it clear that the revisionist approach is not an adequate explanation.

First, there was no rape, only an expressed intention that was not fulfilled. Thus, according to the revisionist view, God annihilated two entire cities in part because a gang of ruffians hoped to sexually assault two men they never actually touched. This seems odd. It’s hard to believe that merely attempting a crime—even one as despicable as rape—would bring annihilation. I think we can eliminate that option.

Second, Jude 7 says, “Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them…indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh” (sarkos heteras). Yes, sex with angels would be strange, but there is absolutely no indication the men of Sodom—or even Lot—knew the visitors were angels. Further, the strange-flesh sex was happening in neighboring cities as well. More angels? Doubtful. The “strange flesh” that appealed to the sexual appetites of the men of that region clearly was not angelic flesh. Eliminate that option, too.

Third, nothing that happened at Lot’s house that night could have been the reason God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah—neither attempted gang rape, nor sex with angels, nor anything else that took place that evening. Why? Because God had sent the angels to visit judgment before those incidents ever happened: “We are about to destroy this place, because their outcry has become so great before the Lord that the Lord has sent us to destroy it” (Gen. 19:13).

Something terrible had been going on for so long in the those two cities and beyond that God’s judgment was a fait accompli before the angels even arrived—meant as a vivid example of Divine wrath towards any people tempted to mimic their godless habits. What was this behavior? Both Peter and Jude tell us clearly.

Peter says Lot was “oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men,” and, “by what he saw and heard...felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds” as they “indulged the flesh in its corrupt desires and despised authority.” Jude says that those who, in the entire region of Sodom and Gomorrah, “indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”

The sin, therefore, was some kind of ongoing, sensuous behavior Lot saw and heard in which men, driven by corrupt desire contrary to right principle, rejected what was proper in order to pursue flesh that was odd, unusual, abnormal and “strange.” There is only one characteristic of Sodom’s assailants that fits this description: their homosexuality. Curiously, neither Peter nor Jude even hint at any other problem, meaning sexual sin eclipsed everything else.

The references to strange flesh, to the corruption of their sensuality, to actions contrary to right principle, and to a pursuit of fleshly appetites in a way not proper, all signal an abandonment of God’s expressed purpose for sex established in His original, created order emphasized by Jesus. In this, they despised His authority by exchanging the proper for the perverse, triggering the most severe judgment anywhere in biblical history outside of the flood.

Wait, revisionists interject. Ezekiel never mentions homosexuality. Correct, he doesn’t use that word. He uses another. Ezekiel says they “committed abominations before Me,” (16:50), the very word used of homosexuality in our next passage.

Introduction

Alan Shlemon

The scene was familiar: a church filled with joyful Christians, singing well-known hymns, praising God with arms outstretched, enjoying beautiful, bountiful fellowship with each other. There was one significant difference, though, between this gathering and one you probably attend. All the participants were either homosexual or “gay affirming.” Plus, they’re on a mission to change your mind and your congregation’s theology about homosexuality. It’s being called a new Reformation, but this is a reformation we do not need. These people are organized, serious, and single-minded—and you need to be ready for them, because they are coming to your church. The Reformation Project (TRP), founded by Matthew Vines, is one of a number of organizations in this movement hosting conferences around the country. Their mission: “We are dedicated to training LGBT Christians and their allies to reform church teaching on sexual orientation and gender identity through the teaching of the Bible.” TRP’s statement of faith is standard Evangelical fare, including a commitment to “the inspiration of the Bible, the Word of God…the Triune God…[Jesus’] death for our sins, His resurrection and eventual return…and the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit.” Their conferences engage all the relevant Scriptures and standard challenges to the gay-friendly view. Drawing from the writings of legitimate scholars, they teach the conferees hermeneutics and theology combined with tactically clever and rhetorically compelling talking points. Then they role-play the responses in a winsome and attractive way. It’s essentially a Stand to Reason for revisionist pro-gay theology. TRP’s approach adds a clever twist, though. Vines knows that an appeal to Scripture alone will not convince today’s Christian. Believers also need a subjective prod. To make his view most appealing, then, Vines wants to make sure every non-gay-affirming Christian has a pleasant encounter with a gay person, especially a “gay Christian”—to overcome what might be called the “ick” factor—the discomfort many feel about homosexuality chiefly because they have no gay family or friends. This personalized approach is powerful. It’s easy to stigmatize and demonize the unfamiliar. Even stalwart fundamentalists, though, frequently change their view once they discover, for example, a family member identifies as gay.

Not That Kind of Homosexuality

Alan Shlemon

The current revisionist approach seeks to simplify an apparently complex textual issue by making a single, uncomplicated point: The kind of same-sex behavior condemned in the Bible is not what modern-day LGBT Christians practice. This is the “cultural distance argument,” the claim that ancient same-sex behavior was exploitive, abusive, and oppressive—completely unlike the caring, committed, covenantal unions promoted by gay Christians today. Scriptural prohibitions of homosexuality, then, apply only to the harsh and unjust practices, not to loyal, loving, same-sex intimacy. Author Kevin DeYoung sums up the revisionist approach nicely in his recent critique: “The issue was not gender (whether the lovers were male or female), but gender roles (whether a man was overly feminized and acting like a woman). The issue was not men having sex with men, but men having sex with boys. The issue was not consensual same-sex sexual intimacy, but gang rape, power imbalances, and systemic oppression. The revisionist case can take many forms, but central to most of them is the ‘not that kind of homosexuality!’ argument. We can safely set aside the scriptural prohibitions against homosexual behavior because we are comparing apples and oranges: we are talking in our day about committed, consensual, lifelong partnerships, something the biblical authors in their day knew nothing about.” Thus, on this view the Bible does not prohibit homosexuality per se, only abusive forms of homosexuality like pederasty, master-slave exploitation, promiscuity, rape, victimization, etc. We have two general responses to this claim before we address the biblical case directly. First, this conclusion is based on a selective use of the historical evidence from ancient Near East culture. Examples of exploitive sexuality abound in the literature, to be sure. However, a variety of non-abusive homosexual practices show up in the record, too—including all of the “loving” variations we witness today (except, notably, “gay Christians”). There are even references to nascent notions of what we would now call “sexual orientation.” As it turns out then, in the ancient Near East “committed, consensual, lifelong partnerships” did exist, in addition to the exploitive forms. Why, then, presume the biblical texts merely forbid the second, but not the first? By what logic can biblical passages be said to inveigh only against the “abusive” practices and not homosexual conduct itself? Second, Scripture nowhere makes this not-that-kind-of-homosexuality distinction. There’s not the slightest hint in any biblical passage that condemnation of homosexuality is based on—and therefore limited to—coercive or oppressive, same-sex activity. Instead, the Scripture consistently makes a different point, one emphasized with every passage in question. To see that point clearly, though, we need to go back to the beginning.

From the Beginning

Alan Shlemon

Two thousand years ago, Jesus of Nazareth based an argument about marriage on a simple observation about the created order: Humans are made male and female. They are gendered. When confronted with the revisionist teaching on marriage of His own day, Jesus said: "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (Matt. 19:4-6) Jesus answered a question about divorce by going back to the beginning, to God’s original intention for marriage: one man, with one woman, becoming one flesh, for one lifetime. That was Jesus’ view. Contrary to common assertion, then, Jesus did have something to say about homosexuality. From the beginning God had designed, intended, and endorsed marriage and sex (“one flesh”) solely for long term, monogamous, heterosexual unions. Indeed, gendered human bodies reflect that purpose: men and women designed to function together, to fit each other physically in a complementary way. Simply put, the man was made for the woman and the woman was made for the man. Reject that function and replace it with another, and you reject God’s own good purpose for sex. Sam Allberry, himself a Christian managing same-sex attraction, put it this way: “What was going on with Adam and Eve explains what has gone on ever since. The perfect ‘fit’ between the two of them is the foundation for every human marriage since. The account is not just about their union, but every marriage union.” Not surprisingly, then, the six sexual activities prohibited in the Bible—adultery, fornication, rape, incest, bestiality, and homosexuality—each involve sex with someone other than one’s spouse. This point deserves repeating: All forms of sex condemned in Scripture have a common characteristic: sex other than between a husband and his wife. Jesus spelled out the natural, normal sexual/marital relationship with crystal clarity. Inside marriage, sex is sacred; outside marriage, it is defiled. God gives sexual freedom only to husbands with wives—not to friends or co-workers, not to casual dates, not to long-term sweethearts, and not to same-sex partners in any kind of relationship—exploitive and abusive, or loving and committed. Man was made to function sexually with a woman, and a woman with a man, to accomplish a natural purpose—“be fruitful and multiply”—that could not be fulfilled in same-sex unions.[11] This was God’s intention “from the beginning.” It was the way God wanted it. It is still the way it’s supposed to be. And this is the theme we find— explicit or implicit—with every passage condemning homosexuality: man abandoning the natural function of God’s purpose for sex. It’s time now to look at those passages.