Homosexuals claim Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed due to … (gasp) bad hospitality!

To those who know better, it is uncanny the excuse that Sodom and Gomorrah was about “hospitality” has actually remained in the apologetic of the homosexual advocates for so long, being that it is one of the most ridiculous answers ever devised by intelligent men. I remember I first heard the “hospitality” excuse when I was in college in 1978. I took a minor in Psychology and in a class on Abnormal Psychology the professor, with tongue in cheek, stated that the more popular explanation psychologists were giving at that time concerning the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was that it had nothing to do with homosexuality; rather, it was about the sin of “inhospitality.” I remember distinctly, as soon as he uttered those words, the whole class went into hysterical laughter. And that, of course, is what we can do with “Reverend Cheri DiNovo’s” present advocacy of the “hospitality” argument.

Any biblical exegete worth his salt would tell DiNovo that in order for “hospitality” to be the central focus of the Genesis narrative, there would have to be some mention of “hospitality,” or some similar term, as that which was the object of God’s concern regarding the events occurring in Sodom and Gomorrah. As it stands, there is not one word about hospitality.

The only time hospitality is part of the narrative is when Abraham meets the three strangers who eventually condemn Sodom and Gomorrah. (Genesis 18:1f). To show kindness, Abraham and Sarah provide nourishment for the three strangers.

Second, Genesis 18:16-33 provides us with the actual conversation between God and Abraham concerning the fate of the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah. Verse 20 states: “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.” Thus, the Lord has ALREADY seen the sin of Sodom, and it is exceedingly perverse. Hence, this couldn’t be the sin of “inhospitality” because the event concerning Lot and the men pounding on his door seeking to consort with the angels has not yet occurred. That event won’t occur until the next chapter, Genesis 19. So “Reverend Cheri’s” argument is completely anachronistic, not to mention completely bogus.

Evidently, the Lord had been observing the sin of Sodom for quite some time, and it is the very reason he has come to Abraham. So perverse and so complete is the sin of Sodom (long before Lot’s door is accosted) that Abraham finds himself bargaining with God not to destroy the city if he can find 10 righteous people. Evidently, Abraham can’t find even 10 righteous people, and thus God plans on destroying the whole city.

Granted, Genesis 18 doesn’t tell us what the sin of Sodom is, but that information is supplied in Genesis 19:5 when the men at Lot’s door say: “and they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.’” (NASB)

The clause “that we may have relations with them” is from the Hebrew word YADAH, which means “to know,” and is often used in idiomatic form to represent sexual relations (cf., Gn 4:25: “And Adam knew his wife and she bore a child”). We know that sexual relations is the meaning of YADAH in this context because it is used again in regard to sexual relations with Lot’s daughters, as Lot says in verse 8: “Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations [YADAH] with man” (NASB).

It is obvious to any unbiased exegete that the context of the narrative demands that sexual relations is the focus of the passage.

How else do we know that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah involved illicit sexual relations? We know it from the many commentaries in Scripture on this very event. In fact, “Sodom” is used as a figure of sexual sin and is referred to as the place of divine judgment over two dozen times in Scripture (cf., Dt 29:23; 32:32; Is 1:9-10; 3:9; 13:19; Jr 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lm 4:6; Ez 16:46-56; Am 4:11; Zp 2:9; Mt 10:15; 11:23; Rm 9:29).

But more importantly, there are two explicit passages in the New Testament that tell us precisely that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was sexual in nature. First there is 2 Peter 2:6-8:

“and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds)”

The words “sensual conduct” are the Greek ASELGEIA ANASTROPHES. The first ASELGEIA, appears 9 times in the New Testament and is usually translated as “lasciviousness” (Mt 7:22; Rm 13:13; 2Co 12:21; Gl 5:19; Ep 4:19; 1Pt 4:3; 2Pt 2:18; Jd 4), which refers to one having lustful, lewd or wanton thoughts or behavior.

We also note here that the men of Sodom were tormenting Lot “day after day.” Hence, this is not merely a one-time occasion of force exerted at Lot’s door, but a continual display of lascivious behavior long before the angels ever arrived.

Then there is Jude 7:

“just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”

Here it is even more explicit as to the nature of the sin of Sodom. The clause indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh is from the Greek EKPORNUESASAI and APELTHOUSAI OPISO SARKOS HETERAS. The first is a combination of the Greek PORNEIA, which is derivation for our English word “pornography,” and the prefix “EK,” which means “out of.” The second phrase literally means “going after different flesh.” The operative word here is “different,” which is from the Greek HETERAS. In this context it refers to sexual relations that are “different” than normal sexual relations, i.e., homosexual relations.

Hence, DiNovo’s interpretation of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being accepted by reputable biblical exegetes.

There is one curious fact we also need to mention. The mere fact that DiNovo feels compelled to answer the Bible shows that she implicitly regards the Bible as a practical authority on the issue. If she didn’t esteem the Bible, then all she would need to do to answer the narrative is say: “The Bible is not an authority, and therefore we are not compelled to answer its assertions.” Instead, DiNovo implicitly subjects herself to the authority of Scripture, and thus, if she is wrong about her interpretation of Scripture (which we have clearly shown), then she will also suffer the condemnations Scripture specifies for those who practice or advocate homosexuality.

Read more from Robert Sungenis at Catholic Apologetics International


  1. 1. I am not a Christian, so am asking only out of intellectual curiosity.

    2. I had your page. Although you make you assertions most forcefully, I find them very debatable. I came across your page while researching hospitality myths. While hospitality myths are almost universal, the occidental and Near Eastern cultures seem to have the most.

    3. You article brought curiosity to me so I checked the verses of Genesis 4:29 and Genesis 19:5. As you are probably aware there are various forms of knowledge in Hebrew much as there are many words with same basic meanings in English but with subtle differences in connotation. The texts written in Hewbrew use three primary roots translated into English as knowledge, known, know, knew are נֵדְעָ, דוע, and ידע. The text of Genesis 4:29 is:

    וַיֵּדַע אָדָם עוֹד, אֶת-אִשְׁתּוֹ, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן, וַתִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ שֵׁת: כִּי שָׁת-לִי אֱלֹהִים
    זֶרַע אַחֵר–תַּחַת הֶבֶל, כִּי הֲרָגוֹ קָיִן.

    As you will notice this verse uses וַיֵּדַע which means “And knowledge” using the root יֵּדַע, knowledge. Knowledge spelled this way indicates intimate relationship with a of a person, thing, or idea. It can when referring to sexual relationship with a person.

    The text of Genesis 19:5 is:

    וַיִּקְרְאוּ אֶל-לוֹט וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ, אַיֵּה הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר-בָּאוּ אֵלֶיךָ הַלָּיְלָה; הוֹצִיאֵם
    אֵלֵינוּ, וְנֵדְעָה אֹתָם.

    As you will see here the verse uses וְנֵדְעָה with the root נֵדְעָ which actually means inward sense of reason. This is more like think about, cogitate on, or understand.

    This looking at the original language texts, eliminates the suggestion that the men of Sodom wished the “angels” be brought out for the purpose of interrogating them. That would have required the use of the root דוע which translates as a desire to know something but more like why (are you here) or how (is it made) in contempory English.

    4. I have reviewed all the references to Sodom and Gomorah in both the old and new testament. In no verse in the Old Testament has a reference that I saw of homosexuality. I found multiple references to idolatry, adultery, lack of charity or consideration for those around them. Ezekiel 16 is especially vocal on their iniquities for which they were punished.

    The only verse in the Bible I found that specifically accused the city of Sodom with sexual perversion was in the New Testament Jude 1:7. I do not know the original language or where I would find it. I do know that after the Hellenistic dynasties many of the Jews especially rural Jews rejected anything they could point to as accepted within Greek/Roman society not seen as common in Jewish/Samaritan society. This reference therefore does not completely surprise me.

    • To put things very simply … until the last few years … nobody … and I mean nobody … has ever legitimately attempted to “spin” the Sodom and Gomorrah biblical events in any way counter to the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding. Since absolutely nothing new has recently come to light, the only explanation is pro-homosexual “spin”. God didn’t utterly destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for the sin of being inhospitable … nor did he destroy the cities for attempting to “interrogate” people. Sodom’s sin was so great that it cried out to heaven for vengeance. That sin has always been known as sodomy. It still is. So don’t waste my time playing silly language games. Homosexual activity was always regarded as a great offense against God and his natural order of things. It was always abhorrent to the ancient Jews, and it remains abhorrent to properly observant Jews and Christians today … not only because of the way the Bible handles the matter, but because of the constant and unchanging teachings of the Catholic Church, which, in its Catechism, provides the authoritative interpretation of the matter, citing specifically Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10. Thanks for writing.


  2. I remember this Muslim gay man went to I’m not sure what you would call them but a teacher of the quran and he said Sodom and Gomorrah was because they wanted to rape the angels that’s why it happened and the man said back you cant twist words to fit your lifestyle choice. Its very clear what Sodom ans Gomorrah Is about. Now they can choose to believe it or not but got condemned homosexuals its just the way it is. Homoesexuality is perversion someone is a homosexual because they have sexual attraction to members of the same sex. Sexual attraction isnt a good enough excuse to commit such a sin. Its no different then a lustful perverter straight man or woman that has sexual relations with numerous people because of perversion and self indulgence. It’s called control your lust. If your that unattracted to the opposite sex then dont have sex period

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s