Grace & Peace
East and West, I certainly appreciate your position here. I’m not trying to undermine your conviction that homosexual acts are wrong. I’m arguing that you can’t come to that conclusion based on the story of Sodom, much less based on the witness of Jude’s epistle. You’re on much better ground simply asserting your obedience to the magisterium than you are arguing your point from the story of Sodom or Jude–they just don’t fully support your thesis. That’s all.
I think your conclusion is more than streching it. When you take into account the general cultural and scriptural attitude towards homosexuality at the time, the idea that the men of Sodom were comdemned for Sodomoy makes a great deal of sense.
It actually
doesn’t make much sense if by “sodomy” you mean the understanding of the word which doesn’t develop until much much much later in the West. Scripture interprets scripture–if you want a culturally-appropriate understanding of the term “sodomy”, then you can do no better than Ezekiel’s definition already cited above–lack of hospitality, lack of concern for the poor, etc.
You may imply homosexuality and/or homosexual acts wherever you want in the story, but it just doesn’t work. If homosexual activity specifically is being condemned here, it’s actually
not particularly clear–not as clear as popular lore would have it, at any rate. What you have here, first and foremost, is violation of one of the ancient world’s cardinal laws, and one of the laws that a nomadic people would certainly see as peculiarly important–be good to guests.
In this context, an act that was viewed as unclean and vile was about to be performed. In order to avoid such a heinous act, Lot is willing to go so far as to offer his own daughters.
Two things here–
1: the vileness of the act is inferred, insofar as that vileness refers to homosexuality. The law of Leviticus against “lying the lyings of a woman” was not yet delivered. As Paul writes, where there is no law, neither is there condemnation. You could argue that their behavior was against the Noahide laws given to all people, but homosexuality wouldn’t even have to enter the discussion if you consider the obvious–gang rape is certainly a wrong and a violation of the Noahide laws.
2: If what is being discussed here is homosexuality, why would Lot (who
chose to live with these people and presumably
knew exactly what they were up to) think that offering his daughters would do any good?
Because sexuality is not the point here–sexual violence, though, is. Lot is protecting his guests, not making sure that the people of Sodom commit the lesser (???) sin of heterosexual gang rape.
What I am saying is that Lot didn’t look out, think, “Oh no! A gay mob!” and try to convince that mob that heterosexual rape is less sinful than homosexual rape. Lot did not share our notions of sexuality–that his guests’ attackers were gay or straight was not a thought in his mind. What was foremost in his mind was protecting his guests against sexual violence. He opted to bear the brunt of that violence by offering his daughters–AS ANY GOOD HOST WOULD. The story supports this interpretation
fully.
If it was just inhospitality that was being committed then then why offer the daughters? Surely exposing one’s own daughter, the person a father is most charged with protecting, is a more heinous crime than inhospitality to men one does not know, grown men who were much more capable of protecting themselves than Lot’s own daughters.
You’re inferring a
lot here–specifically that the modern idea of the nuclear family was shared by the nomadic pre-modern Hebrew people of ancient Mesopotamia. Lot’s daughters were his property to do with what he pleased–moreover, daughters were less valuable than sons. You need only look at honor killings in the Middle East now to see what a father is capable of doing to a daughter if his honor has been impugned. Sacrificing his daughters to the mob was the least he could do in order to continue to be hospitable to his guests.
The only way that Lot’s acts can be seen as more acceptable than allowing then men to be raped over his own daughters is that illicet homosexual acts are always worse than illicit heterosexual ones. Why? Because homosexuality is a perversion of nature.
You are reading your personal (and your cultural) bias into the story. Lot is a paragon of hospitality here, in contrast to the raving mob. He offers his daughters to the mob because his daughters are not his guests, and because he believes the mob will be satisfied with the offer. Not because he appreciates heterosexual gang rape more than he does homosexual gang rape. Not because he thinks heterosexual gang rape is a lesser evil than homosexual gang rape. The mob raping his daughters is a lesser evil than the mob raping his guests. That’s just the way it is. Sexuality (particularly sexuality as we understand it today) really has nothing to do with the story.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
Deo Gratias!
