The City of the Plain: An Exhaustive Historical and Theological Analysis of the Sodom Narrative and its Role in the Construction of Sexual Morality
1. Introduction: The Archetype of Destruction
The narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah, recorded in the nineteenth chapter of the Book of Genesis, constitutes one of the most formidable and influential texts in the history of Western civilization. For over two millennia, the image of fire and sulfur raining down upon the Cities of the Plain has served as the ultimate theological archetype of divine judgment. It is a narrative that has transcended its origins in the Ancient Near East to become a foundational pillar in the legal, moral, and social architectures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Yet, the specific nature of the transgression that precipitated this cataclysm—the "sin of Sodom"—has been the subject of a profound and complex interpretative metamorphosis that mirrors the evolving anxieties of the cultures that have received the text.
For the vast majority of Western history, particularly from the early medieval period onward, the name "Sodom" has been inextricably welded to the concept of same-sex desire and sexual acts between men. This linguistic and theological fusion generated the legal and moral category of "sodomy," a term that would come to define, criminalize, and pathologize same-sex love for centuries.1 The narrative became the "terror text" par excellence, a divine precedent mobilized to justify the execution of "sodomites," the enactment of draconian civil codes, and the systematic social ostracization of sexual minorities.4 The legacy of this interpretation is inscribed not only in the canons of theology but in the penal codes of nations and the conscience of the modern world.
However, a rigorous excavation of the text's reception history reveals that this sexualized interpretation was neither the exclusive nor the primary understanding of the narrative in its earliest contexts. Prophetic, intertestamental, and early Jewish commentaries frequently emphasized a markedly different constellation of transgressions: xenophobia, arrogance, economic injustice, and a violent refusal of the sacred duty of hospitality.6 The transformation of Sodom from a symbol of inhospitable cruelty into a symbol of homosexual perversion is a complex historical process, influenced by the collision of Hebraic and Hellenistic cultures, the anxieties of the Roman Empire regarding state security, and the theological maneuvering of the medieval Church.9
This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the Sodom narrative and its long shadow. It traces the trajectory of the story from its Ancient Near Eastern origins through the Hellenistic period, the Patristic era, the codification of Roman Law, the Medieval invention of "sodomy," and finally to the modern culture wars. By examining the philological debates, historical contexts, and theological evolutions, this analysis demonstrates how a story about the violent violation of sacred hospitality was repurposed to construct the Western prohibition against same-sex love.
2. The Genesis Narrative: Text, Context, and Philological Debates
To comprehend the later weaponization of the Sodom narrative, it is essential to first engage with the primary text of Genesis 18-19 and the intricate philological disputes that surround it. The narrative is not an isolated incident of divine wrath but the climax of a longer theological arc concerning the righteousness of Abraham, the justice of God, and the wickedness of the Canaanite cities.
2.1 The Narrative Arc: Genesis 18 and the Theology of Outcry
The narrative effectively begins in Genesis 18, setting a critical moral baseline through a scene of paradigmatic hospitality. Abraham, sitting at the entrance of his tent by the oaks of Mamre during the heat of the day, spots three mysterious strangers. His reaction is immediate and overwhelming: he runs to meet them, bows low to the ground, and begs them not to pass him by. He proceeds to provide a lavish feast, washing their feet and serving veal, butter, and milk.1 This scene establishes the central virtue of the patriarchal age: the righteous man is defined by his radical hospitality to the stranger.
The strangers, revealed to be divine messengers (angels) and the Lord himself, inform Abraham of the specific reason for their visit. The Lord states that the "outcry" (ze'aqah) against Sodom and Gomorrah is "great" and their sin "grievous" (Genesis 18:20).1 The use of the term ze'aqah is of paramount theological significance. In the Hebrew Bible, this word is a technical legal term often used to describe the anguished cry of the oppressed calling out for justice against their oppressors. It appears in contexts of severe social injustice, such as the cry of the Israelites under the lash of Egyptian slavery or the cry of the poor against the wealthy landowners. Its usage here suggests that the "sin" of Sodom was already established before the angels arrived—a systemic injustice that had reached the ears of God, necessitating a divine investigation.7 This implies that the events of Genesis 19 are merely the confirmation of a pre-existing state of wickedness, rather than the sole cause of judgment.
2.2 The Confrontation at the Gate: Genesis 19
The narrative shifts to Sodom in Genesis 19, where Lot, Abraham's nephew, is sitting at the city gate—a position often associated with civic commerce or judgment. Like Abraham, he insists on extending hospitality to the two angels (now appearing as men), urging them to enter his home to wash their feet and rest. The contrast, however, is stark: while Abraham's hospitality is performed in the open, confident daylight of the tent, Lot's is performed in the anxious enclosure of a city house, protecting his guests from the public sphere.1
The crisis point of the narrative—and the fulcrum upon which centuries of sexual ethics have turned—occurs in verses 4 and 5:
"Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 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.'" (NIV) 1
This passage requires a meticulous philological dissection, particularly regarding the Hebrew verb yada.
2.3 The Verb Yada and the Interpretative Divide
The Hebrew verb translated as "have sex with" or "know" in traditional versions is yada. This verb appears approximately 943 times in the Hebrew Bible. In the overwhelming majority of these instances, it carries the standard meaning of intellectual knowledge, acquaintance, or recognition. However, in a small minority of cases (roughly 10-12 times), it functions as a euphemism for sexual intercourse, most famously in Genesis 4:1 ("Adam knew Eve his wife").2
The Traditional Sexual Interpretation
Proponents of the traditional interpretation argue that the immediate context of Genesis 19 demands a sexual reading of yada. The strongest evidence for this is found in Lot’s response in verse 8. Lot attempts to diffuse the mob's aggression by offering them his two virgin daughters, describing them as women who have "not known (yada) a man".1 This creates a direct textual parallelism: if yada refers to sexual intercourse in verse 8 (regarding the daughters), consistency suggests it refers to sexual intercourse in verse 5 (regarding the male guests). Furthermore, the mob’s refusal of the women and their insistence on the men is interpreted as evidence of a specific desire for male flesh, thus constituting the "sin" of homosexuality.1
The Anti-Xenophobia and Hospitality Interpretation
Scholars challenging the traditional view offer a compelling alternative rooted in the socio-historical context of the Ancient Near East. They argue that yada in verse 5 should be read in its primary sense: "to get to know" or "to interrogate." In this reading, the mob's demand is an act of aggressive civic surveillance. Sodom, acting as a xenophobic fortress, demands to check the credentials of these unauthorized foreigners who have slipped into the city under the cover of night. The "sin" here is not sexual lust, but a violent, paranoid hostility toward strangers.11
However, even scholars who reject the condemnation of consensual same-sex relationships often acknowledge that the text describes a threat of sexual violence. The critical distinction they draw is that this was attempted gang rape, not an expression of sexual orientation or desire for intimacy. In the ancient world, sexual humiliation (of men and women) was a common weapon of war, domination, and subjugation. To rape a man was to feminize him, stripping him of his honor and power. Therefore, the mob's intent was to humiliate the strangers and, by extension, their host Lot, for daring to offer protection without the city's consent.13
2.4 The Parallel of Gibeah: Judges 19
The interpretation of Sodom as a narrative of lethal violence and breached hospitality rather than sexual orientation is heavily bolstered by the parallel story found in Judges 19, often called the "Outrage at Gibeah." The structural and linguistic similarities are undeniable and suggest a shared literary tradition:
Feature
Genesis 19 (Sodom)
Judges 19 (Gibeah)
Traveler
Two Angels (Men)
Levite and Concubine
Host
Lot (Resident Alien)
Old Man (Resident Alien)
Location
City Square
City Square
The Mob
Men of Sodom
Men of Gibeah ("Sons of Belial")
The Demand
"Bring them out that we may know (yada) them"
"Bring him out that we may know (yada) him"
The Offer
Two Virgin Daughters
Virgin Daughter + Concubine
The Outcome
Angels blind the mob
Concubine raped/killed; Civil War
In Judges 19, the mob accepts the substitute (the concubine), and they rape and abuse her all night until she dies. The Levite later summarizes the event to the tribes of Israel by stating that the men of Gibeah "intended to kill me" (Judges 20:5). He does not describe the men as having a homosexual orientation; he describes them as murderers and villains. If the parallel holds, the "knowing" demanded in Genesis 19 is similarly an act of lethal aggression and domination intended to destroy the visitor.14 The linkage between these two texts suggests that the biblical authors viewed this behavior as a specific type of social atrocity—the violent violation of the guest—rather than a commentary on sexual preference.
2.5 The Patriarchal Bargain: Lot’s Daughters
A deeply disturbing element of the text, often sanitized in traditional readings, is Lot's offer of his daughters to the mob. "Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do to them whatever you like" (Genesis 19:8). This act highlights the rigid hierarchy of values in the ancient patriarchal world. The protection of the male guest (the duty of hospitality) superseded the safety, honor, and bodily autonomy of the female members of the household.13
This horrifying offer reinforces the reading that the sin of Sodom was viewed primarily as a violation of the sacred guest-host relationship (xenia). To the ancient mind, turning a guest over to a mob was the ultimate sacrilege, a breach of the divine order of protection. Sacrificing one's daughters was, tragically, viewed by the narrator as a desperate, perhaps even "righteous" (in a twisted patriarchal sense), attempt to uphold that sacred duty at all costs.9
3. Prophetic and Intertestamental Interpretations: The Shift Begins
If the destruction of Sodom was primarily understood by the ancient Israelites as a condemnation of homosexuality, one would expect subsequent biblical authors to cite it as such. However, a survey of the prophetic corpus and intertestamental literature reveals a striking absence of sexual accusations for over a thousand years. Instead, the focus remains resolutely on social injustice, arrogance, and inhospitality.
3.1 The Prophetic Witness: Ezekiel and Isaiah
The Hebrew prophets, serving as the earliest and most authoritative commentators on the Torah, explicitly identify the sin of Sodom without reference to same-sex acts. The most comprehensive definition is found in Ezekiel 16:49-50, a text that poses a significant challenge to the sexual interpretation:
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me." 6
Here, the "abomination" (to'evah)—a word often associated with idolatry or ritual impurity—is explicitly linked to economic excess ("overfed") and social apathy ("did not help the poor"). The sin of Sodom is presented as a failure of social solidarity. Similarly, Isaiah 1:10-17 links the "rulers of Sodom" to those who offer empty religious sacrifices while their hands are full of blood, urging them to "seek justice, encourage the oppressed, defend the cause of the fatherless." Jeremiah 23:14 mentions adultery and "walking in lies" (hypocrisy).7 In the prophetic tradition, Sodom is the archetype of the wealthy, selfish society that tramples the vulnerable, not a symbol of sexual deviance.
3.2 The Wisdom Literature and Apocrypha
This interpretative trajectory continues into the Second Temple period. The Wisdom of Solomon (c. 1st century BC), a Hellenistic Jewish text included in the Catholic and Orthodox canons, describes the Sodomites as those who "failed to welcome strangers" and "made slaves of guests and benefactors" (Wisdom 19:13-14).11 The Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 16:8 refers to the "people of Sodom" who were "arrogant in their folly," again omitting specific sexual references.17
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a pseudepigraphical work from the 2nd century BC, offers a slightly more complex picture. The Testament of Naphtali (3:4) compares the Sodomites to the "Watchers" (fallen angels), stating that they "changed the order of their nature." This introduces the concept of "nature" into the discourse, which would later become pivotal, though in this context it likely refers to the mixing of categories (human/angelic) rather than same-sex acts specifically.13 The Testament of Benjamin (9:1) predicts that Israel will "commit fornication with the fornication of Sodom," linking the city to sexual immorality generally, but often in the context of idolatry.13
3.3 The Hellenistic Turn: Philo, Josephus, and the Gymnasium
The first explicit, unambiguous interpretative shift toward a sexual definition of Sodom’s sin occurs in the writings of Hellenistic Jews, specifically Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD) and Flavius Josephus (37 – 100 AD). This shift must be understood within the specific cultural pressure cooker of the 1st century: the collision between Judaism and Hellenism.
Greek culture, particularly the ubiquitous institution of the gymnasium, normalized pederasty (erotic relations between adult men and adolescent boys) and athletic nudity. For conservative Jews, this was a cultural abomination and a direct threat to Jewish distinctiveness and continuity. In their apologetic writings, Philo and Josephus sought to distinguish Jewish sexual morality as superior to Greek practices, using their own scriptures to counter the dominant culture.18
Philo of Alexandria: In his treatise On Abraham, Philo expands vividly on the Genesis text, projecting his contemporary anxieties onto the ancient narrative. He claims the men of Sodom "mounted males without respect for the sex nature which the active partner shares with the passive." He explicitly condemns the "disease of effeminacy" and the "waste of seed," arguments that owe more to Stoic philosophy than to the Hebrew Bible.18 Philo is arguably the first writer to interpret the Sodom narrative as a condemnation of same-sex intercourse per se, reframing the story to attack the pederastic customs of his Greek neighbors.
Flavius Josephus: In Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus writes that the Sodomites "hated strangers and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices" and resolved to enjoy the beautiful angels "by force and violence".18 While Josephus retains the element of inhospitality ("hated strangers"), he explicitly sexualizes the mob's intent in a way the Hebrew text leaves ambiguous. He describes the angels as "beautiful boys," framing the mob's aggression through the lens of Greek homoerotic attraction to youth.21
This Hellenistic Jewish literature marks the "birth" of the sexual interpretation of Sodom. It was a rhetorical move designed to assert moral superiority over the Greeks, framing the destruction of Sodom as God's judgment on the very sexual practices central to Greek social life.19
4. The New Testament and The Early Church: The "Strange Flesh" Debate
The New Testament contains conflicting traditions regarding Sodom. Jesus himself aligns strictly with the prophetic tradition, using Sodom as a warning against inhospitality. In Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:10-12, when instructing his disciples on their missionary journeys, he tells them that any town that does not welcome them will face a fate "more bearable for Sodom" than for themselves.11 For Jesus, the sin of Sodom is the rejection of God's messengers and the refusal to offer shelter.
4.1 Jude 7 and the Sarkos Heteras Controversy
The epistle of Jude 1:7 serves as the primary proof-text for the sexual interpretation in the New Testament. It states that Sodom and Gomorrah "gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion."
"...just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire [strange flesh], serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." (ESV) 4
The Greek phrase translated as "unnatural desire" or "strange flesh" is sarkos heteras (literally: "other flesh" or "different flesh"). This phrase has generated intense scholarly debate.
The Homosexual Interpretation
Traditionalists argue that "strange flesh" refers to same-sex intercourse, which is "strange" or "other" than the God-ordained male-female union established in Eden. They argue that the context of "sexual immorality" (ekporneusasai) points clearly to deviant sexual acts.4
The Angelic/Hybrid Interpretation
Modern scholars and queer theologians offer a robust counter-argument based on the text's immediate literary context. Heteras (hetero) means "different," not "same" (homo). If Jude intended to condemn homosexuality (same-flesh), he might have used sarkos homoios. Instead, "different flesh" likely refers to the attempt by humans to mate with angels—a transgression of cosmic boundaries.
This interpretation is supported by Jude 6, the immediately preceding verse, which describes the angels who "did not keep their proper domain" (a reference to the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 who mated with human women, creating the Nephilim). Jude draws a direct parallel: just as angels sought human flesh (Genesis 6), the men of Sodom sought angelic flesh (Genesis 19). The sin is the hubris of mixing ontologically distinct categories—the celestial and the terrestrial—rather than same-sex attraction.13 Under this reading, Jude is not condemning same-sex love, but rather the violation of the cosmic order.23
4.2 Patristic Developments: Augustine and Chrysostom
As the Church Fathers engaged with Roman culture, the interpretation of Sodom hardened into a sexual condemnation. John Chrysostom (c. 347–407) preached violently against homosexual acts, linking them to the Sodom narrative in his Homilies on Romans. He viewed same-sex acts as a subversion of the gender hierarchy and a rejection of God's design.
Augustine of Hippo (354–430), in his Confessions (Book III, Ch. 8), argued that the "offenses of the Sodomites" would be criminal in any time or place because they violate the "nature" of the relationship between God and man. Augustine’s focus on "nature" laid the essential groundwork for the later natural law arguments of the Middle Ages. He framed the act as one that "defiles" the body which is a temple of the Holy Spirit, shifting the focus from the violence of the mob to the "unnaturalness" of the act itself.24
However, even in the Patristic era, the definition wasn't entirely fixed. Some Fathers, including Clement of Alexandria and Ambrose, continued to emphasize the violation of hospitality alongside sexual excess. It was not until the legal reforms of the Christian Roman Empire that Sodom became firmly attached to a specific category of capital crime.
5. The Imperial Turn: Rome, Law, and the Sword
The transition of the Roman Empire from paganism to Christianity marked a decisive turning point in the legal status of same-sex acts. Pagan Rome had no concept of "homosexuality" as an identity; sexual acts were evaluated based on passivity and activity, status and power. A freeborn Roman male could penetrate partners of lower status (women, slaves, boys) without losing masculinity. The Lex Scantinia (possibly 149 BC) penalized sex crimes against freeborn male minors but did not criminalize same-sex acts between adults generally.25
5.1 The Justinian Code: Sodomy and State Security
The Byzantine Emperor Justinian I (r. 527–565) fundamentally altered the landscape, initiating the legal weaponization of the Sodom narrative. In his Novels (New Laws) 77 (538 AD) and 141 (559 AD), Justinian explicitly linked same-sex acts ("defilement of males") to the destruction of Sodom. Crucially, he introduced a causal link between these acts and national catastrophes.
Justinian's legal innovation was to frame sodomy not just as a moral failure, but as an existential threat to the state. In Novel 77, he writes:
"For... we know that God brought a just judgment upon those who lived in Sodom, on account of this very madness of intercourse... [by] prohibiting such conduct, there are not arising famines, earthquakes, and pestilences." 2
This legislation was enacted during a period of severe instability for the empire, including the plague of 542 AD and a series of devastating earthquakes (likely the events of 535-536 AD). By claiming that the "sin of Sodom" caused earthquakes and famines, Justinian transformed private sexual acts into matters of state security. A "sodomite" was no longer just a sinner; he was a traitor whose actions threatened the physical survival of the empire and the lives of the citizenry. This legislation moved the Sodom narrative out of the realm of pure theology and into the machinery of the state, justifying the death penalty as a necessary public safety measure.28
6. The Medieval Invention of "Sodomy"
While Justinian provided the legal framework, the Middle Ages provided the terminology. The word "sodomy" itself is a medieval invention, a term that aggregated various sexual acts under the shadow of the biblical city.
6.1 Peter Damian and the Liber Gomorrhianus
In the 11th century, the Benedictine monk Peter Damian wrote the Liber Gomorrhianus (Book of Gomorrah, c. 1049), addressed to Pope Leo IX. Damian was deeply concerned with what he perceived as rampant sexual corruption among the clergy. He coined the term sodomia to describe a wide range of non-procreative sexual acts, including masturbation, mutual masturbation, and interfemoral intercourse, culminating in anal sex.30
Damian’s work was pivotal in the history of sexuality. He consolidated various sexual sins under the single, terrifying umbrella of "Sodom," creating a unified category of vice. Although Pope Leo IX did not adopt all of Damian's harsh recommendations (preferring a more lenient approach to clergy who had not engaged in anal intercourse), the terminology stuck. "Sodomy" became the standard ecclesiastical term for "unnatural" acts, forever linking the biblical city to a specific set of sexual behaviors.
6.2 The Etymology of "Buggery": Heresy and Sex
Parallel to the development of "sodomy" in Latin, the term "buggery" emerged in the vernacular, carrying its own complex history. The word derives from the Old French bougre, which in turn comes from the Latin Bulgarus (Bulgarian). This term was originally a pejorative used to describe the Bogomils, a gnostic Christian sect that originated in 10th-century Bulgaria.
The Bogomils were dualists who believed that the material world was evil. Consequently, they were accused (often falsely) of rejecting procreation and engaging in anal or oral sex to avoid conception. In the medieval imagination, religious heresy and sexual deviance were two sides of the same coin. A "Bulgarian" (bugger) was thus both a heretic and a sodomite. This etymology reveals how the crime of sodomy was viewed as a form of spiritual treason and doctrinal error, not just sexual misbehavior.2
6.3 Aquinas and Natural Law
In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas systematized the theology of sodomy in the Summa Theologica. Aquinas classified sodomy as a "vice against nature" (vitium contra naturam), distinct from and worse than other sexual sins like adultery or fornication. For Aquinas, sins like adultery violated the rights of the spouse or the laws of the church, but they still respected the biological teleology of sex (procreation). Sodomy, however, violated the order of creation itself by misusing the sexual organs for non-procreative ends.2
Aquinas linked this directly to the Sodom narrative, cementing the idea that the city's destruction was due to its violation of the "natural order." This natural law framework became the bedrock of Catholic moral theology and, subsequently, European criminal law, framing the act as an offense against Reason and God.
6.4 Dante’s Inferno: Violence Against Nature
The cultural penetration of this idea is vividly illustrated in Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy (early 14th century). In the Inferno, Dante places the "Sodomites" in the Seventh Circle of Hell—the circle of the Violent. They are not placed in the Second Circle with the Lustful (like Paolo and Francesca), who are blown about by winds of passion. Instead, the Sodomites run endlessly on burning sand under a rain of fire (mimicking the Genesis judgment).33
Crucially, Dante classifies their sin as Violence Against Nature (and God's Art). By placing them alongside usurers (who commit violence against Art/Economy) and blasphemers (violence against God), Dante illustrates the medieval worldview: Sodomy was not an excess of love or desire, but a violent rebellion against the structure of reality. The usurer makes money breed money (unnatural), and the sodomite makes sex sterile (unnatural). Both are sterile acts that mock God's creative power.35
7. The Reformation and the Secularization of Sin
The Protestant Reformation brought a renewed focus on the biblical text and a shift in legal jurisdiction, which paradoxically intensified the persecution of sodomy.
7.1 Luther and Calvin: Integrating the Narrative
Martin Luther and John Calvin, in their extensive commentaries on Genesis, did not abandon the sexual interpretation, but they reintegrated it with the prophetic themes of inhospitality and unbelief. Calvin, for instance, noted that the Sodomites were guilty of "savage cruelty" and a "violent rage of lust," emphasizing the violence as much as the sexual nature.37 Luther viewed the sin as a rejection of God's word and order. While they maintained the condemnation of same-sex acts, they saw Sodom's depravity as total—encompassing social, spiritual, and sexual rebellion.
7.2 The Buggery Act of 1533: The Sword of the State
In England, the pivotal moment for the legal history of sodomy came in 1533 during the reign of Henry VIII. The Buggery Act of 1533 (25 Hen. 8 c. 6) was the first civil sodomy law in England. Previously, sodomy had been dealt with by ecclesiastical courts (church law), where penalties were often penance or excommunication. By making "buggery" a felony punishable by death (hanging), Henry VIII effectively nationalized the sin.25
The motivation for this Act was largely political, intertwined with the English Reformation. Passed during the turbulent period of Henry’s break with Rome, the Act served as a tool to undermine the Catholic Church. By moving jurisdiction from church to crown, Henry could seize the assets of convicted sodomites (which he could not do under church law). Furthermore, the charge of buggery was a convenient weapon to discredit monks and Catholic clergy during the Dissolution of the Monasteries, reinforcing the narrative of Catholic corruption.5
The Act defined the crime as "the detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind or beast." This definition remained the template for sodomy laws across the British Empire for centuries. It was exported to colonies in America, Africa, and Asia (including the infamous Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code), the legacy of which persists in global penal codes today, criminalizing the lives of millions based on a 16th-century English political maneuver.40
8. From Act to Species: The 19th Century Transformation
For centuries, a "sodomite" was defined by what they did, not who they were. Sodomy was a behavior—a potential temptation for any sinner—not a psychological identity. The 19th century witnessed the transformation of this concept.
8.1 The Gallows: Pratt and Smith (1835)
The severity of the sodomy laws continued well into the modern era. In 1835, James Pratt and John Smith became the last two men to be executed for sodomy in England. They were hanged in front of Newgate Prison under the Offences against the Person Act 1828. Their execution serves as a grim milestone, marking the end of the capital era in Britain but highlighting the persistent lethality of the "Sodom" legacy.2
8.2 The Birth of the Homosexual
In the late 19th century, a profound shift occurred in medicine and psychiatry. As philosopher Michel Foucault famously argued in The History of Sexuality (Vol. 1):
"The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species." 10
Medical professionals like Richard von Krafft-Ebing (Psychopathia Sexualis, 1886) and Karl Westphal began to categorize same-sex desire not as a sin of will, but as a condition of the nerves or the soul—a "contrary sexual sensation" or "inversion." This shifted the Sodom narrative's application. It was no longer a warning against a specific sinful act that anyone might commit; it became the origin story of a specific type of person: the Homosexual.
This medicalization, while initially intended by some reformers to argue for legal leniency (since the condition was innate/congenital), ultimately solidified the barrier between "normal" and "abnormal." The Sodom narrative was retroactively applied to this new identity category. The "sin of Sodom" was no longer just buggery; it was being gay.
9. Modern Theological and Cultural Wars
In the 20th and 21st centuries, the Sodom narrative has become a central theater in the "Culture Wars" over LGBTQ+ rights, influencing debates on marriage equality, civil rights, and ordination.
9.1 The "Terror Text" vs. "Hospitality Text"
Conservative/Traditionalist View:
This view maintains the trajectory established by Philo, Jude (traditional reading), and Aquinas. It asserts that the text of Genesis 19, supported by Jude 7 and the consistent teaching of the Church, clearly identifies the sin of Sodom as homosexuality. They argue that the mob's desire to "know" the men was sexual and that the destruction of the city is God's permanent verdict on same-sex relations. Arguments for "inhospitality" are viewed as modern revisionism attempting to soften the Bible's moral demands in favor of cultural accommodation.1
Progressive/Queer Theological View:
Scholars in this camp (e.g., Matthew Vines, James Brownson, Marcella Althaus-Reid) argue for a "reclamation" of the text. They emphasize:
Gang Rape is not Homosexuality: The mob's intent was sexual violence (humiliation), which bears no resemblance to consensual, loving same-sex relationships or marriage. Equating the two is a category error and a slander.13
The Prophetic Canon: Ezekiel and Jesus define the sin as inhospitality and injustice. To ignore these explicit biblical definitions in favor of a speculative reading of Genesis 19 is poor exegesis.6
Xenophobia: The "sin" was the city's violent rejection of outsiders. Queer theology often flips the script, suggesting that modern churches which exclude LGBTQ+ people are the ones committing the "sin of Sodom" by being inhospitable to the marginalized.9
Marcella Althaus-Reid: In her work The Queer God, Althaus-Reid challenges the very categories of the debate, viewing the "indecency" of Sodom as a site of theological disruption that questions the "straight" order of systematic theology.46
9.2 The "Sodom" Rhetoric in Politics
The narrative continues to wield immense political power globally. Anti-LGBTQ+ activists, such as American evangelist Scott Lively, have used the Sodom narrative to lobby for restrictive laws abroad. Lively's involvement in Uganda's "Kill the Gays" bill and his influence in Russia (where he was featured in the documentary Sodom, aired on state TV) demonstrate the enduring power of the narrative. Lively frames the "homosexual agenda" as a harbinger of divine judgment and societal collapse, explicitly echoing Justinian's 6th-century link between sodomy and national disaster.48
9.3 Islamic Perspectives: Lut and Highway Robbery
The Sodom narrative also exists in the Quran through the story of the Prophet Lut (Lot). Traditional Islamic jurisprudence generally interprets the "action of the people of Lut" as sodomy (liwat), often prescribing severe penalties (hadd) analogous to adultery (zina). However, contemporary scholars and progressive Muslim movements have revisited the text, noting that the Quranic account also emphasizes the people's practice of "cutting off the highway" (highway robbery) and their rejection of the Prophet's authority. Some scholars, like Scott Kugle, argue that the "abomination" was the combination of infidelity, inhospitality, and sexual violence (rape) used to terrorize travelers, rather than consensual same-sex love.50
10. Conclusion: The Long Shadow of the Plain
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a mirror. For the prophets of Israel, it reflected the economic oppression of the poor. For Hellenistic Jews, it reflected the threat of Greek cultural imperialism. For the medieval Church, it reflected the horror of "unnatural" acts. For the British Empire, it was a vice to be regulated by the gallows. And for the modern world, it is a battleground over the legitimacy of same-sex love.
The historical evidence suggests that the association of Sodom exclusively with homosexuality is a later development, superimposed onto a text primarily concerned with the sacred duty of hospitality and the violent abuse of power. The shift from "Sodom the Inhospitable" to "Sodom the Homosexual" was not inevitable; it was constructed through centuries of translation, legislation, and theological maneuvering.
Today, the influence of this narrative remains profound. It birthed the term "sodomy," justified centuries of execution and imprisonment, and continues to shape the conscience of millions. Yet, the rigorous recovery of the "hospitality" interpretation offers a potential path forward—one where the story of Sodom stands not as a condemnation of love, but as a terrifying warning against the violence we inflict upon the stranger at the gate.
Summary of Interpretative Evolution
Era
Dominant Interpretation of Sodom's Sin
Key Texts/Figures
Context
Ancient Near East / Biblical
Inhospitality, Social Injustice, Arrogance
Genesis 18-19, Ezekiel 16, Isaiah 1
Sacred duty of xenia (guest-friendship).
Second Temple Judaism
Xenophobia, Pride, Hatred of strangers
Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach
Jewish identity preservation.
Hellenistic Judaism
Sexual immorality, Pederasty, "Unnatural" acts
Philo, Josephus
Reaction against Greek gymnasium culture.
Early Christianity
Unbelief, Inhospitality, Angelic/Human boundary crossing
Matthew 10, Jude 7 (Nephilim context)
Apocalyptic expectations.
Byzantine Empire
Cause of Natural Disasters (Earthquakes)
Justinian Novels 77 & 141
State security and political purging.
Middle Ages
"Sodomy" as a specific vice against nature
Peter Damian, Aquinas, Dante
Systematization of Canon Law.
Reformation/Early Modern
Capital Crime (Felony)
Buggery Act 1533, Coke's Institutes
Secularization of law, State-building.
19th Century
Identity Category (The "Homosexual")
Krafft-Ebing, Foucault's Analysis
Medicalization of sexuality.
Modern Era
Conflict: Consensual Homosexuality vs. Gang Rape/Inhospitality
Culture Wars, Queer Theology
LGBTQ+ Rights movement.
Works cited
What was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? | GotQuestions.org, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.gotquestions.org/Sodom-and-Gomorrah.html
Sodomy - Wikipedia, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy
Sodomy - Etymology, Origin & Meaning, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.etymonline.com/word/sodomy
Sodom and Gomorrah: What Was the Primary Sin? - Answers in Genesis, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/what-was-primary-sin-sodom-gomorrah/
ANNEX 1 HISTORY OF KING HENRY VIII, QUEEN MARY, QUEEN ELIZABETH, AND THE BUGGERY ACT 1533 1. Sodomy was first criminalised und, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.mha.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/annex-1-history-of-buggery-act-1533.pdf
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah asks us to consider our own inhospitality - Outreach.faith, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://outreach.faith/2022/12/the-story-of-sodom-and-gomorrah-asks-us-to-consider-our-own-inhospitality/
How does Ezekiel 16:49 define the sin of Sodom beyond sexual immorality? - Bible Hub, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://biblehub.com/q/What_sin_does_Ezekiel_16_49_cite_for_Sodom.htm
Sodom and Gomorrah - Wikipedia, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah
Compulsory Heterosexuality in Biblical Narratives and their Interpretations: Reading Homophobia and Rape in Sodom and Gibeah - CORE, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/229435210.pdf
accessed on November 25, 2025, http://timothyquigley.net/vcs/foucault-homosexual.pdf
Was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah really homosexuality, or was it xenophobia? - Reddit, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/4rq4zi/was_the_sin_of_sodom_and_gomorrah_really/
Emulating Hospitality, Evading Xenophobia-Tracing the Sins of Sodomites: Special Emphasis on yāda` | Semantic Scholar, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Emulating-Hospitality%2C-Evading-Xenophobia-Tracing-Setiawidi-Fangidae/520a18f38c95f21d6b00d005070067ee71bd9c7e
Was Homosexuality the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? - The Reformation Project, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://reformationproject.org/was-homosexuality-the-sin-of-sodom-and-gomorrah/
Sodom and Gomorrah addresses gang rape, not a loving relationship - The Reformation Project, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://reformationproject.org/case/sodom-and-gomorrah/
The Bible and Same Sex Relationships, Part 4: Sodomites in Genesis (and Judges), accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.futurechurchnow.com/2015/08/10/the-bible-and-same-sex-relationships-part-4-sodomites-in-genesis-and-judges/
Understanding the True Lesson of Sodom and Gomorrah - First Christian Church Katy Texas, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://fcckaty.org/understanding-the-true-lesson-of-sodom-and-gomorrah/
INVENTION - Summer Study at Yale Divinity School, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://summerstudy.yale.edu/sites/default/files/07jordan_sodomy.pdf
The crime of Sodom was not homosexuality. : r/behindthebastards - Reddit, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/behindthebastards/comments/17kkjhb/the_crime_of_sodom_was_not_homosexuality/
Jesus Was a Jew: Understanding Jesus and Same-Sex Marriages in His 1st Century Jewish (Not Our 21st Century Western) Context - Theology in the raw, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://theologyintheraw.com/jesus-was-a-jew-understanding-jesus-and-same-sex-marriages-in-his-1st-century-jewish-not-our-21st-century-western-context/
Chap. 3. Gender and Same-Sex Relations The priestly account of creation in Genesis 1 reaches its climax in Gen 1:27: So God crea - Summer Study at Yale Divinity School, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://summerstudy.yale.edu/sites/default/files/chapter_3._gender.pdf
The Ancient Pedigree of Homosexuality as the Sin of Sodom - The Gospel Coalition, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-ancient-pedigree-of-homosexuality-as-the-sin-of-sodom/
What is the strange flesh in Jude 1:7? | GotQuestions.org, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.gotquestions.org/strange-flesh.html
What Does Jude 7 Mean By "Other Flesh"? - The Gospel Coalition, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/what-does-jude-7-mean-by-other-flesh/
A quick summary on the history of homophobia in the West - Out Leadership, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://outleadership.com/news/a-quick-summary-on-the-history-of-homophobia-in-the-west/
Sodomy law - Wikipedia, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law
History and Laws of Sodomy | PDF | Sodom And Gomorrah | Bible - Scribd, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/419659817/sodomia
The Novels of Justinian : Novel 141 ( Scott ), accessed on November 25, 2025, https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Anglica/N141_Scott.htm
The Regulation of “Sodomy” in the Latin East and West | Speculum: Vol 95, No 4, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/710639
Sodomy, Repression of | Encyclopedia.com, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/sodomy-repression
Peter Damian's Counsel - First Things, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://firstthings.com/peter-damians-counsel/
'Foucault se sodomiet': Damianus se Liber gomorrhianus (1049) heropen - DOAJ, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://doaj.org/article/e061ade05b2c42a1aa703fa74bdd3197
The History of Psychiatry & Homosexuality - LGBT Mental Health Syllabus, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.aglp.org/gap/1_history/
Sodomites in Dante's 7th Circle of Hell - Kalle Hamm, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.kallehamm.fi/sodomites-in-dantes-7th-circle-of-hell/
Why Does Dante Consider Sodomy Worse Than Homicide & Suicide? | New Oxford Review, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.newoxfordreview.org/documents/why-does-dante-consider-sodomy-worse-than-homicide-suicide/
Circle 7 - Cantos 12-17 - Dante's Inferno, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/circle7.html
Major Themes: Sin | Inferno | School of Languages, Cultures and Societies | University of Leeds, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://ahc.leeds.ac.uk/discover-dante/doc/inferno/page/7
Genesis 19 Bible Commentary - John Calvin | Christianity.com, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary/john-calvin/genesis/19
Genesis 19 Calvin's Commentaries - Bible Hub, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/genesis/19.htm
Buggery Act 1533 - Wikipedia, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggery_Act_1533
Sodomy | Law, Crime, & Definition - Britannica, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/sodomy
This Alien Legacy: The Origins of "Sodomy" Laws in British Colonialism | HRW, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.hrw.org/report/2008/12/17/alien-legacy/origins-sodomy-laws-british-colonialism
2 The sodomy offence: England's least lovely criminal law export?1 - SAS-Space, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/4824/20/02Kirby_TheSodomyOffence.pdf
Quote by Michel Foucault: “Homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of s...” - Goodreads, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7717462-homosexuality-appeared-as-one-of-the-forms-of-sexuality-when
Was Sodom and Gomorrah Really About Homosexuality? | Catholic Answers Podcasts, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.catholic.com/audio/caf/was-sodom-and-gomorrah-really-about-homosexuality
Emulating Hospitality, Evading Xenophobia-Tracing the Sins of Sodomites: Special Emphasis on yāda - ResearchGate, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390163348_Emulating_Hospitality_Evading_Xenophobia-Tracing_the_Sins_of_Sodomites_Special_Emphasis_on_yada
Queer Theology: Reclaiming Christianity for the LGBT Community - Chapman University Digital Commons, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=e-Research
The Queer God - Trans Reads, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://transreads.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2022-03-02_621f849230507_marcella-althausreid-the-queer-god.pdf
Scott Lively's statement at anti-gay protest - YouTube, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUBJFygrPtI
This Anti-Gay Candidate's Message Is Bigger in Moscow Than Massachusetts, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/scott-lively-massachusetts-governor-sodom-russia/
Sodom and Gomorrah | Description, Summary, & Controversy - Britannica, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/place/Sodom-and-Gomorrah
The Islamic State's Views on Homosexuality | The Washington Institute, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/islamic-states-views-homosexuality
SEXUAL DIVERSITY — Muslims for Progressive Values, accessed on November 25, 2025, https://www.mpvusa.org/sexual-diversity
