Our purpose is to look at the question of what Genesis says with respect to homosexuality, and with specific focus on one passage that is often taken to refer to homosexuality (Sodom and Gomorrah), and then look at a passage that is seldom understood to refer to homosexuality, but does so in a condemning way.

Let's start with the one that everyone discusses:

> Genesis 19:4-11 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them...

Common points of discussion, with our answers:

• "Know" doesn't mean sexuality, it just means, "get to know".

Scholars note that the word used (the very common yada) does at times refer euphemistically to sexual activity, but that this is seldom the case. However, the presence of a mixed group, as opposed to merely elders, speaks against this being any sort of "welcoming committee" (for elders had that role in an ancient village or city). It is also important to consider the full semantic field: In other languages of the period, there are equivalent verbs to yada (in Egyptian, Ugaritic, Akkadian) which are clearly used with a sexual connotation. In addition, it is widely acknowledged that yada means sexual intercourse in Judges 19:25, a story which scholars unhesitatingly identify as having used Gen. 19 as a literary model. It is also clear that yada is used sexually of Lot's daughters in 19:8. Finally, the LXX translators used a Greek verb which clearly indicated that they understood yada in 19:5 in a sexual sense.

• They were just being inhospitable.

Of course, there is no doubt under our view that the Sodomites were also inhospitable. But the refusal to take Lot's daughters shows that the matter was likely one of social dominance: the men wished to show that they were social superiors to Lot's visitors, and they wished to accomplish this by means of the socially-dominating act of homosexuality. Moreover, the "persistence of the Sodomites does not reflect the demeanor of would-be hospitable folk." If it were, Lot would have hardly protested as he did.

Now let's move to a "surprise" passage about homosexuality:

> Genesis 9:20-27 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without...

• To "see the nakedness" of someone is a metaphor for forbidden sexuality such as fornication or harlotry (Ex. 20:26; Deut. 23:1; Ezek. 16:36-7, 22:10, 23:10, 29; Is. 47:2; Hos. 2:12, etc.)
• The grammar specifically indicates that it was a third party who "uncovered" Noah: "This is the only place in the Hebrew Bible where this form (hith pael third-person masculine singular) of the verb gala appears. Because of the way verses 21-22 are normally punctuated, the reader is made to pause after verse 21 and begin a new thought with verse 22. But the original Hebrew text did not have punctuation marks. If the thought at the end of verse 21 is continued at the beginning of verse 22, with the sequential waw ("and") introducing verse 22a in apposition to verse 21b, then Ham may be associated with the verb gala. It is a passive verb and Noah is the subject. He was acted upon. The implied actor in this view is Ham, and we could understand that Noah was uncovered by Ham."
• Why the curse on Canaan? This is an illustration for the sake of Israelites in Moses' time: Ancient peoples believed that one's ancestry explained one's current behavior. For Israel the act of Ham explained why the Canaanites were so depraved. For Noah, Ham's behavior would be transmitted to his descendants.

Some may respond that neither of these passages would offer any clear condemnation of a "loving, stable" homosexual relationship, because they are directed towards rape (or incest). But that is far from clear in the first passage, and in the second, one is hard pressed to find such a distinction without the assumption of finding what is desired to begin with, and apart from issues of homosexuality as a violation of the cosmic order in the ancient world.

In the famous narrative of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah recorded in Genesis 19, one discovers that Lot, his wife, and two daughters are led outside of the city in order to avoid death by means of fire and brimstone. Although Lot’s wife was not destroyed in the devastation of these cities, she never made it to the mountains to take refuge with Lot and her daughters, but instead was turned into a pillar of salt for looking back upon the devastated cities after specifically being warned otherwise (cf. 19:17,26). Of the inhabitants of the cities who were destroyed on that day of reckoning, only Lot and his two daughters survived (19:25-26).

A casual reading of this memorable event has lead some to believe (and advocate) that there is a contradiction involving the number of Lot’s daughters. (Whenever one alleges that a contradiction exists in the Bible, a logical answer needs to be offered or a person might become convinced that the Bible contains contradictions and therefore is not God’s Word.) In the beginning of Genesis 19, we find where Lot tells a harassing mob outside his house in Sodom that he has “two daughters who have not known a man” (19:8). Later, after two angels warned Lot to leave the city because it was going to be destroyed, the text says that “Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who had married his daughters” (19:14). The next morning the angels urged Lot to hasten their departure saying, “Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city” (19:15). While the patriarch lingered, the angels “took hold of his hand, his wife’s hand, and the hands of his two daughters…and they brought him out and set him outside the city” (19:16).

The question that has been posed about the Bible’s description of Lot’s family is as follows: If Lot only had two daughters who were virgins (“not known a man”—19:8), then how could he have “sons-in-law”? Is this a legitimate contradiction, or is there an adequate explanation?

One possible explanation to this supposed contradiction is that Lot actually had more than two daughters. But how can that be when the text simply speaks of Lot “and his two daughters?” The answer could be found in verse 15, where Lot’s two daughters in the house (19:15) might be contrasted with other daughters who were married to his sons-in-law (19:14), and thus were out of the house. Since the angels who urged Lot to hasten his departure modified “two daughters” with the phrase “who are here,” then it is conceivable that Lot could have had daughters elsewhere who remained in Sodom and were destroyed along with Lot’s sons-in-law.

Another explanation revolves around the modifying phrase “who had married his daughters” (19:14). The words “who had married” are from the Hebrew word laqach, which means in the widest variety of applications “to take” or “to grasp.” In this passage, the word obviously is used in reference to taking a “wife.” According to Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton, “The Hebrew form used here is a participle (loqcheey), and as such is without a specific tense reference. Even the ancient versions differed on how to render the participle, with the [Latin] Vulgate opting for a future tense, and the LXX [Septuagint—the first Greek translation of the Old Testament] opting for a past tense” (1995, p. 40, bracketed items added). Biblical commentator John T. Willis agreed, saying, “The Hebrew lying behind the phrase who were to marry can be interpreted equally well in either of two ways” (1984, p. 266). Interestingly, most modern translations (including the NAS, RSV, and NIV) agree with first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in making these men future sons-in-law (1:11:4). This is in contrast to the KJV, ASV, and NKJV, each of which renders these men as already being sons-in-law (“who had married”). No doubt the translators of the more modern versions believed that Lot’s “sons-in-law” were only betrothed, not married, to Lot’s daughters at the time they departed Sodom.

Other information that adds credence to the “future sons-in-law” position revolves around how people in ancient times viewed their future spouses. In the first chapter of the first book in the New Testament, we read where Joseph was called Mary’s “husband” while they were betrothed and before they were married. The text reads:

After His [Jesus’—EL] mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18-20, emp. added).

The wording of this passage is not just a simple use of “prolepsis” (the assignment of a name, description, or event to a time that precedes it). Rather, betrothal was a valid marriage in Jewish law (see Jamieson, et al., 1997). When marriage vows were said at the betrothal, it required a “putting away” or a divorce to end them. Furthermore, according to Josephus’ comments about Hyrcanus II being Herod’s father-in-law four years before Herod married his daughter (Mariamne), espousals of old were a sufficient foundation for kinship (14:13:1).

In light of all this information, one obviously can understand that there is not a contradiction in Genesis 19. Either Lot had more than two daughters (which the text allows), or Lot’s two virgin daughters were betrothed to men who were called Lot’s sons-in-law before the marriage was consummated. It is my judgment that, in view of the evidence, the latter is the more likely explanation. But, regardless of which explanation is correct, we may rest assured that no contradiction exists.

The YouTube channel BigThink, featured popular American magician, actor, and entertainer Penn Jillette in a video titled “How Did You Become an Atheist?” The video has been viewed some 2.5 million times. In it, Jillette stated: “I read the Bible, cover to cover. And I think that anyone who is thinking about maybe being an atheist, if you read the Bible…cover to cover, I believe you will emerge from that as an atheist…. The Bible itself will turn you atheist faster than anything.”1

When Penn Jillette was asked, “Why would reading the Bible make you an atheist?,” he said, “Because what we get told about the Bible is a lot of picking and choosing.” He then gave his first specific example of what will make a person an atheist, saying: “When you see Lot’s daughter gang raped and beaten and the Lord being okay with that.”2

Indeed, in an attempt to protect two guests in his house, Lot offered his two daughters to an angry mob of homosexuals in Sodom, saying, “See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish” (Genesis 19:8).3 As incomprehensible and detestable as Lot’s actions were, there is nothing in Genesis 19 or anywhere in Scripture that indicates God was “okay with that” (as Jillette contends). Quite the opposite, in fact. Genesis 19 actually reveals that the two guests, who were really angels sent by God, did not allow anything to happen to Lot’s daughters. Rather, they struck the wicked men of Sodom with blindness and later safely ushered Lot’s daughters (as well as Lot and his wife) out of the repulsively sinful city prior to God destroying it (19:12-25).

> [NOTE: To read more about whether or not Lot was “righteous,” see https://apologeticspress.org/righteous-lot-2400/.]

Endnotes
--------

1 Penn Jillette (2010), “How Did You Become an Atheist?,” BigThink, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3rGev6OZ3w.

2 Ibid.

3 He also later became drunk and impregnated his daughters, albeit unknowingly (Genesis 19:30-36).

The Anvil Rings
---------------

---

Problem: Some have argued that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality, not homosexuality. They base this claim on the Canaanite custom that guarantees protection for those coming under one’s roof. Lot is alleged to have referred to it when he said, “don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof ” (Gen. 19:8, niv). So Lot offered his daughters to satisfy the angry crowd in order to protect the lives of the visitors who had come under his roof. Some also claim that the request of the men of the city to “know” (Gen. 19:5) simply means “to get acquainted,” since the Hebrew word “know” (yada) generally has no sexual connotations whatsoever (cf. Ps. 139:1).

Solution: While it is true that the Hebrew word “know” (yada) does not necessarily mean “to have sex with,” nonetheless, in the context of the passage on Sodom and Gomorrah, it clearly has this meaning. This is evident for several reasons. First of all, 10 of the 12 times this word is used in Genesis it refers to sexual intercourse (cf. Gen. 4:1, 25).

Second, it means to know sexually in this very chapter. For Lot refers to his two virgin daughters as not having “known” a man (19:8), which is an obvious sexual use of the word.

Third, the meaning of a word is discovered by the context in which it is used. And the context here is definitely sexual, as is indicated by the reference to the wickedness of the city (18:20), and the virgins offered to appease their passions (19:8). Fourth, “know” cannot mean simply “get acquainted with,” because it is equated with a “wicked thing” (19:7). Fifth, why offer the virgin daughters to appease them if their intent was not sexual. If the men had asked to “know” the virgin daughters, no one would have mistaken their sexual intentions.

Sixth, God had already determined to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, as Genesis 18:16–33 indicates, even before the incident in 19:8. Consequently, it is much more reasonable to hold that God had pronounced judgment upon these cities for the sins they had already committed, namely homosexuality, than for a sin they had not yet committed, that is inhospitality.