Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2022 20:43:14 GMT -5
Arriving at the crux of the narrative in Gen 19:9 we see the true intent of the Sodomite men coming to the fore. In v. 9a the men forcefully order Lot to stand back, since they are unsatisfied with his daughters as a counter-offer. The men then call Lot’s immigrant status into account (lit.: this one came in as a foreigner); לגור-בא האחד by accusing him of severely condemning their behavior (lit.: and he will surely judge; שׁפוט וישׁפּט), suggesting that if Lot was a sojourner, then he was socially inferior to the native-born Sodomite men. One should notice at once a connection with the honor/shame value system mentioned in the previous section, suggesting that Gen 19:1–11 might be working with the concept that same-sex intercourse was a tool of the state for political violence. The virulent intensions of the townsmen become all the clearer in v. 9b when they proclaim לך נרע עתה” (now, we will violate you!”), to which the men attempt to break down Lot’s door. Simply put, the Sodomites were not promiscuous men looking for intercourse—they sought to violently assault Lot and rape his guests.1
Another recent hypothesis about the main sin of Sodom (and one which is often taught in concert with the “rape” hypothesis) is the lack of hospitality position.
In this article, I argue that the view of the Sodom and Gomorrah story held by the Christian Right as well as conservative biblical scholars overlook the presence and role of women in the entire narrative about the cities, beginning in Genesis 13. As this presence and role are acknowledged, I further assert that it is more logical to assume that the sexual orientation of the men and women of Sodom and Gomorrah is heterosexual rather than homosexual. In arguing this, I wish to undercut the dangerous understanding that the “sin” of Sodom is homosexuality in need of annihilation in our society. Instead I assert that the wickedness of these cities is the inhospitable treatment of resident aliens and sojourners at its worst, through the sexual humiliation of rape, linked with the wickedness of idolatry.2
From the text of Genesis 19:4-9 though, if rape was the primary sin of Sodom, then the men of the city would have been just as willing to take Lot up on his suggestion to sexually abuse his daughters. If the men of Sodom were using rape as a means to humiliate “outsiders,” then wouldn’t Lot’s daughters have qualified since Lot was considered an outsider (verse 9)? Some have even postulated that this may be one reason Lot didn’t offer his wife—she was most likely from Sodom, therefore an “insider.” To address the potential question that the rape of the women would not have been as humiliating as the rape of men during this time period and in the Middle East, we need to keep in view what happened about 100 years later in Genesis 34. In that chapter, Simeon and Levi killed all the men of Shechem because of the rape of their sister Dinah. The narrative in that chapter makes this claim a weak one. The fact that the men of Sodom so quickly (and unanimously) refused Lot’s offer of his daughters shows that rape could not be the primary sin of the men of Sodom.
Notice the wording of this passage in Genesis 19:4–9,3 they wanted Lot to offer them the men (angels in the form of men) as sexual playthings. They had no interest in sexual relations with women; only after Lot offered them a heterosexual alternative did they then decide that they would now forcefully seize and rape Lot (“deal worse with you”), and this would have been in contrast to the way they had desired to "deal with them." In other words, in threatening to now rape Lot, they were admitting that their desire for the angels was pure lust, not dominance in the form of rape. There were likely many cases of rape in Sodom, but it seems clear that all the men of the city (except Lot, and perhaps his sons-in-law mentioned in verse 14) had become bisexual or preferentially homosexual.
Furthermore, if the sin had just been men of Sodom wanting to rape, then why judge the women of the city? Why were they not counted among the righteous when Abraham pleaded for Sodom (Genesis 18:23-33) and stopped at 10? Simply put, even the women of the city were unrighteous and wicked, so the blame cannot simply be on the actions of these men.
Therefore, the reference to their wickedness and ordained destruction by God beforehand (in Genesis 13:13 and 18:20) is entirely appropriate, because it was sexual sin (in this case homosexuality) which God considered “grievous” or “grave,” then later condemned and destroyed Sodom (and the other cities of the plain) for. The propensity for violence, rape, and adultery (which must have also been occurring in Sodom, since there were no women present at this mob scene) are all factors here though. God considers all sexual sin abhorrent in his eyes (Galatians 5:19-21).
Another recent hypothesis about the main sin of Sodom (and one which is often taught in concert with the “rape” hypothesis) is the lack of hospitality position.
In this article, I argue that the view of the Sodom and Gomorrah story held by the Christian Right as well as conservative biblical scholars overlook the presence and role of women in the entire narrative about the cities, beginning in Genesis 13. As this presence and role are acknowledged, I further assert that it is more logical to assume that the sexual orientation of the men and women of Sodom and Gomorrah is heterosexual rather than homosexual. In arguing this, I wish to undercut the dangerous understanding that the “sin” of Sodom is homosexuality in need of annihilation in our society. Instead I assert that the wickedness of these cities is the inhospitable treatment of resident aliens and sojourners at its worst, through the sexual humiliation of rape, linked with the wickedness of idolatry.2
From the text of Genesis 19:4-9 though, if rape was the primary sin of Sodom, then the men of the city would have been just as willing to take Lot up on his suggestion to sexually abuse his daughters. If the men of Sodom were using rape as a means to humiliate “outsiders,” then wouldn’t Lot’s daughters have qualified since Lot was considered an outsider (verse 9)? Some have even postulated that this may be one reason Lot didn’t offer his wife—she was most likely from Sodom, therefore an “insider.” To address the potential question that the rape of the women would not have been as humiliating as the rape of men during this time period and in the Middle East, we need to keep in view what happened about 100 years later in Genesis 34. In that chapter, Simeon and Levi killed all the men of Shechem because of the rape of their sister Dinah. The narrative in that chapter makes this claim a weak one. The fact that the men of Sodom so quickly (and unanimously) refused Lot’s offer of his daughters shows that rape could not be the primary sin of the men of Sodom.
Notice the wording of this passage in Genesis 19:4–9,3 they wanted Lot to offer them the men (angels in the form of men) as sexual playthings. They had no interest in sexual relations with women; only after Lot offered them a heterosexual alternative did they then decide that they would now forcefully seize and rape Lot (“deal worse with you”), and this would have been in contrast to the way they had desired to "deal with them." In other words, in threatening to now rape Lot, they were admitting that their desire for the angels was pure lust, not dominance in the form of rape. There were likely many cases of rape in Sodom, but it seems clear that all the men of the city (except Lot, and perhaps his sons-in-law mentioned in verse 14) had become bisexual or preferentially homosexual.
Furthermore, if the sin had just been men of Sodom wanting to rape, then why judge the women of the city? Why were they not counted among the righteous when Abraham pleaded for Sodom (Genesis 18:23-33) and stopped at 10? Simply put, even the women of the city were unrighteous and wicked, so the blame cannot simply be on the actions of these men.
Therefore, the reference to their wickedness and ordained destruction by God beforehand (in Genesis 13:13 and 18:20) is entirely appropriate, because it was sexual sin (in this case homosexuality) which God considered “grievous” or “grave,” then later condemned and destroyed Sodom (and the other cities of the plain) for. The propensity for violence, rape, and adultery (which must have also been occurring in Sodom, since there were no women present at this mob scene) are all factors here though. God considers all sexual sin abhorrent in his eyes (Galatians 5:19-21).