Sodom, for example
Get it right!
The pro-life movement in 2017 is almost entirely controlled
by people whose political and social thinking and habits come from the right.
This has a very high price. You cannot do anything large and permanent – such
as, for example, provide social and legal protection for all unborn children –
with a single party, or with some specific segment of a deeply divided society.
People intending to deal with abortion through the Republican Party have very
stunted ambitions. Further, if the world in which you move not include
left-wingers, you are cut off from stories and images and attitudes about
nonviolence. And that leaves you without experiences from other movements to
help you think about how to rebuild the rescue movement.
If you want to reach left, in order to rebuild a pro-life
nonviolent movement and indeed to rebuild the whole pro-life movement, it’s
worthwhile re-thinking the story of Sodom. It’s an odd detour, perhaps; but it
is an oddly pregnant detour. The story of Sodom is subject to two wildly
different interpretations – and a healthy Christian will understand and embrace
both.
The story of Sodom is about hospitality. It’s about people
who were so deeply inhospitable that they used guests – guests! celestial
visitors, offering gifts from heaven! – as mere things, objects for sport, sex
toys.
If you think that the story is about homosexuality, and not
about inhospitality, you are ignoring the story of Mamre (Genesis 18), the
story of Gibea (Judges 19-20), the way all the prophets used the story, the way
Jesus used the story in two Gospels, and the way pagans (Ovid) understood this
story from their Jewish neighbors. On the other hand, if you skip over the
issues of same-sex attraction and action altogether, you are ignoring the epistles
of St. Peter and St. Jude, the assumptions of Josephus, plus centuries of
commentary.
Both. Can you hold two thoughts simultaneously?
I agree without hesitation that the story of Sodom refers to
homosexual acts, and that both Scripture and the clear teaching of the Catholic
Church condemn these acts. The story refers to an attempted assault on guests,
rape, gang rape – it’s easy to dodge or downplay the issue of same sex acts in
the story. But two epistles (2 Peter and Jude) that the Church accepts as
authoritative speak unequivocally about homosexual activity in Sodom, and
condemn it. Further, a Roman and Jewish scholar and historian, Josephus, whose
insights provide a clear view into early Christianity, invented the word
“sodomy” – permanently linking homosexual acts and the story of Sodom and
Gomorrah. And further, innumerable Christian writers have followed the teaching
of Peter, Jude, and Josephus.
But.
If you are content that the story is about “sodomy” and you
stop there, you are choosing to be blind. You need: Mamre, Gibea, the prophets,
and the Gospels. Opening your eyes to the story of Sodom is practice for an
essential tool of thought in our time. If you can’t identify and resist social
sins, you have wandered out of the Catholic Church, you can’t think clearly,
and for sure you can’t lead anyone anywhere.
First, Mamre.
The story about Sodom is the second half of a story. The
first half is about Abraham in Mamre. So let me (1) glue the pieces together
tightly, (2) explain Mamre, and then (3) look again at the second half.
Glue them together …
Part 1 of the Mamre-Sodom story (Genesis 18) is about Abraham, the patriarch of
two nations, the Israelites and the Ishmaelites. Part 2 (Genesis 19) is about
Lot, the patriarch of two nations, the Moabites and the Ammonites.
Abraham sees three strangers and offers them hospitality. He
bows, provides water to wash their feet, provides a shady spot to rest, offers
bread, prepares a meal (cheese and roast beef), and stands to serve while they
eat. After dinner, they talk. Lot does exactly the same, except he has two
guests, doesn’t stand, and we don’t know the menu.
Both wives get in trouble. Sarah laughs at the angels, gets
caught, and lies. (No biggie.) The angels say not to look back when they are
fire-bombing the city; Lot’s wife does, and gets turned into a pillar of salt. (Biggie.)
Both men negotiate with the angels to protect their
families. Abraham asks if the cities can be spared if there are 50 good men
there. How about 45? 40-30-20-10? God agrees – but there aren’t ten. Lot tries
to get four people out; only three make it.
So these chapters are very similar. And they’re kinda right
next to each other. Once you see the parallels, you cannot unsee; they belong
together, and cannot be pulled apart. So if someone wants to talk to you about
chapter 19 without chapter 18, just don’t do it! Refuse to cooperate!
Explain Mamre … Abraham
in Mamre is about hospitality. It’s the First Feast in Scripture, and it’s
linked to the Last Supper, where Jesus was host. Jesus imitated his ancestor:
welcome, water for feet, bread, feast, service, serious business afterwards. Just as the crucifixion is explained (in part)
by comparison with Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac, so the Last Supper is
explained (in part) by comparison with Abraham’s First Feast. Abraham welcomed
strangers; Jesus welcomed a traitor. At both, “God and man at table are sat
down.”
Review part 2 … If
you read chapter 19 by itself, you can get confused. You might wonder why God
smashed Sodom. There is a bitter argument about it: was God angered by “sodomy”
or inhospitality? But when you look at the whole story, beginning with Mamre,
it’s clear that hospitality is a huge issue, not a decoration at the edges of
life. Violating hospitality – trying to rape visitors – stinks to heaven.
The Mamre-Sodom story includes three examples of
hospitality. First, there’s the shaping story for all Jewish and Christian
hospitality, Mamre. And then, second, the details of this central virtue in
Jewish and Christian life are promptly repeated: Lot does the same things that
Abraham did. And then there’s a third piece: we watch some completely
inhospitable people. Abraham’s hospitality is rewarded extravagantly, as only
God can reward: he becomes a patriarch. Lot: the same. The people of Sodom:
they are incinerated. The lesson is crystal clear: choose hospitality and life,
so that you and your children may live.
The story of Sodom is fascinating, and it’s a challenge to
assemble the pieces together in a coherent whole. It’s an interesting passage, because –
skimming the highlights – it involves the interplay of sex, consent, rape (and
power), luxury (or materialism), strangers (and hospitality), judgment coming
like a thief in the night, justice and fiery punishment, repentance and flight
from sin, persistent ambivalence (or concupiscence), the urgency of decision,
incest, and God’s entry into our lives.
Oh! Almost forgot homosexuality!
The story reveals an absolutely fundamental part of Jewish
and Christian life. Visitors knocking on our doors come to us as celestial
guests, and should be received as such. Jews say the visitor at the door might
be celestial; Jesus says the stranger knocking at the door is always Jesus himself. God brings people into our lives who force
us to grow, force us to see and understand more about God and his creation. God
demands of us that we look for him in the people we meet. If we don’t, we may end up treating people as
things. And if we persist in this
willful blindness, we may sink so low that other people become objects for our
pleasure – to use, abuse, then lose. We can
ignore the challenges that God puts in our lives; we can reject visitors. In fact, we can abuse visitors, making them toys in our own stunted little
lives. But that’s a very bad idea. Ka-blooie.
Second: Gibea.
Have you ever heard of Gibea? Most Catholics haven’t.
Protestants who can explain who jumping Jehosaphat was can also tell the story
of Gibea, but it’s not central in our lives. It’s not in the lectionary, never
a reading at Mass. But there’s a detail in the story that’s worth grasping
tightly.
The story of Gibea is in Judges 19-20. It’s not exactly the
same as the story of Sodom in every detail, but the overlap is interesting and
instructive. A Levite travels through the land with his concubine, and stops
for the night in the town center. At first, no one offers them hospitality; but
then an old man who didn’t grow up in Gibea takes them in. Later in the
evening, the people of the town surround the old man’s house and demand that he
send out the guest to get raped. The old man balks, and urges his neighbors to
behave themselves with visitors. For God’s sake, think! The old man has brought
the visitor into his house! The old man pleads for some shreds of decency: how
about just some fun with the man’s virgin daughter, and the visitor’s
concubine? No, the attackers want the new meat. The Levite shoves his concubine
out and locks the door again, hoping for the best. The rabble outside gives up
on getting the man; they rape the girl all night. When they’re done, she crawls
to the door and dies.
So what were the crimes? As in Sodom, the evils include:
inhospitality, and attempted homosexual gang rape. In addition, they rape the
girl, and commit murder.
The Levite takes the body home, and appeals for help in
exacting vengeance. The army of Israel gathers, ready to punish the criminals.
When they are ready to fight, they ask to hear firsthand what happened: what
will we be fighting about? And here’s the punch line. The Levite explains the
inhospitality, the attempted murder (of the Levite), the gang rape, and the
murder. He does not mention the attempted homosexual rape. So the Israelites go
to war, destroying Gibea and several towns nearby. The destruction is not as
dramatic as the fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, but it’s another
bloody mess.
The story is obviously parallel to Sodom in many ways. So
it’s interesting to see why it happened. Why was Gibea destroyed?
Inhospitality, attempted murder, rape, and murder. The list of crimes in the
summary before battle begins does not include any reference to homosexuality.
And clarity about Gibea may shed light on the story of Sodom.
Third: Isaiah.
In Scripture, there are 39 references to Sodom in the Old
Testament, and 10 in the New Testament. Most of these references use the story
as a warning about severe punishment: listen to the Lord and obey, or end up
like Sodom; most of these references do not indicate in any way what the writer
thinks about why Sodom punished. However, some of the references are clear
about the writer’s understanding of the sins of Sodom. There are references to
the sins of Sodom – not just the punishment, but the sins – in Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Matthew, Luke, 2 Peter, and Jude. The teaching in 2 Peter
and Jude is clear and forceful – and familiar. I am not down-playing the two
epistles; I accept their teaching. But since they are familiar, I’m going to
skip over them, and focus on the less familiar teaching from three prophets and
two Gospels. Isaiah first.
In the first chapter of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah,
there’s a denunciation of sin in the nation of Israel. There’s a lot of anger
and upset in the passage: God’s own people have rebelled, and Isaiah says they
are dumb as oxen, total asses, evil and rebellious. Like Sodom, he says, three
times. Ox, ass, rebel, Sodom: the general drift is pretty clear. Resembling
Sodom isn’t good.
The land, Isaiah says, is destroyed, “like the devastation
of Sodom.” (1:7) That’s not specific; it’s just a reference to dramatic
punishment. But then Isaiah goes on, calling the people Sodomites. Not exactly,
but almost: he insults them, addressing them the “princes of Sodom” and “people
of Gomorrah.” He’s not talking to anyone who really is from Sodom; all those
folks are long dead, gone with the wind. “You’re from Sodom” is an insult.
It’s clearly an insult, but what did he mean? We do not have
to speculate! He goes on for a dozen verses: your sacrifices are useless, your
incense is an abomination, your festivals are wicked, and hands are full of
blood. So what should they do? “Wash yourselves clean! Put away your misdeeds
from before my eyes; cease doing evil; learn to do good. Make justice your aim:
redress the wronged, hear the orphan’s plea, defend the widow.” (1:16-17)
So when Isaiah calls them Sodomites, he is not angry about
sex. What he’s denouncing is clear and explicit: injustice.
Fourth: Jeremiah
Jeremiah refers to Sodom three times. Two of the passages
(see 49:18 and 50:40) use Sodom to emphasize that terrible punishments are
coming, but do not link Sodom to any specific evil. But one passage is clear
about the evils in Sodom.
In a long passage about idolatry, Jeremiah uses adultery as
a metaphor for infidelity to God. It’s not just a metaphor; the idolatrous
practices included sexual sins like prostitution. But the focus is idolatry. In
his attack on idolatry, Jeremiah distinguishes idolatry among the pagan from
idolatry among the Hebrews. The Hebrews have a covenant with the one true God,
and should know better. So the evil of idolatry among the Hebrews is in some
ways worse than among their neighbors. What went wrong? Jeremiah focuses on the
false prophets who are leading the people astray: “But among Jerusalem’s
prophets I saw something more shocking: adultery, walking in deception,
strengthening the power of the wicked, so that no one turns from evil; to me
they are all like Sodom, its inhabitants like Gomorrah.” (23:14) Exactly what
are the false prophets doing that makes them resemble Sodom and Gomorrah? They
fail to call people to repentance. People are engaged in grave evils, and the
false prophets let it go.
The grave evil that resembles Sodom and Gomorrah is a
hard-hearted refusal to repent. But there’s more in Jeremiah. What are these
evils that a true prophet will speak about it? Jeremiah lists the needed
reforms twice. The first time (7:6), the Lord demands:
• be just
• don’t murder the innocent
• avoid idolatry – and
• end the oppression of widows and
orphans and strangers
And later, Jeremiah repeats the demands, explaining the
oracle that the Lord that the Lord told him to deliver to the king of Israel. Do
four things, the Lord says, or I will destroy Israel.
• justice
• protecting victims
of oppression
• ending the
oppression of widows, orphans, strangers
• ending the murder
of the innocent
Turning
away from sexual sin isn’t on the list. Inhospitality is. In Jeremiah’s second
cry for repentance, idolatry drops off his list, but care for strangers does
not!
Fifth: Ezekiel
Like Jeremiah, Ezekiel links
Sodom to injustice and inhospitality: “Now look at the guilt of your sister
Sodom: she and her daughters were proud, sated with food, complacent in
prosperity. They did not give any help to the poor and needy.” (16:49) He is
not criticizing the people of Israel for sexual sins, but for arrogance,
complacency, and luxury in the face of the suffering poor.
The next verse says that instead
of arrogance and inhospitality, the people engaged in “abominations.” To our
ear today, “abominations” might sound like sexual sins, suggesting that Ezekiel
was indeed focused on sex. However, the meaning of the word in Ezekiel is
clear; it refers to violence, murder, idolatry, robbery, dishonesty, usury, and
oppressing the poor as well as sexual sins like adultery. (16:50, but see also
18:10-13 for clarification).
Sixth: Matthew
In a passage instructing the
apostles before sending them out, Jesus talks about the way they should respond
to inhospitality. He says they should not carry much; they should depend on
their hosts (and God, of course) to take care of them. In a new town, stay in
one place, and don’t shift from one home to another. And if they have trouble:
“Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words – go outside that house
or town and shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it will be more
tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for
that town.” (Mt 10:14-15) Jesus uses Sodom as a way to think about hospitality
and inhospitality. The apostles bringing the Gospel should be received in a
town the way the angels who came to Mamre were received. And if they are
rejected, leave the response to God, who will give the inhospitable people what
they deserve – think Sodom and Gomorrah – on the day of judgment.
Jesus also speaks of Sodom the
same way Jeremiah did, as an example of people called to repentance who simply
do not listen. Obviously, a refusal to repent can refer to sexual sins – but it
can refer to any other sin as well. Both Jeremiah and Jesus saw a refusal to
repent as a grave problem, by itself. His words: “And as for you, Capernaum: ‘Will
you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to the netherworld.’ For if the
mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Sodom, it would have remained
until this day. But I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom
on the day of judgment than for you.” (Mt 11:23-24)
Seventh: Luke
The two passages in Luke in
which Jesus refers to Sodom are almost identical to the passages in Matthew,
about inhospitality and unrepentance. In Luke, the instructions are for the
apostles and disciples, 72 people on the road. They should travel light, and
not fuss about where they stay. If there’s trouble: “’Whatever town you enter
and they do not receive you, go out into the streets and say, ‘The dust of your
town that clings to our feet, even that we shake off against you.’ Yet know
this: the kingdom of God is at hand. I tell you, it will be more tolerable for
Sodom on that day than for that town.” (Lk 10:10-12)
Luke’s Gospel does not mention
Sodom explicitly in connection with an unrepentant attitude. Jesus says: “And
as for you, Capernaum, ‘Will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to the
netherworld.’ Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects
me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” The words about
listening versus rejecting in Luke’s Gospel correspond to the words in Matthew:
“For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Sodom, it would
have remained until this day.”
There’s another passage in Luke
that’s noteworthy. There are three chapters in Luke’s Gospel – chapter 9 though
chapter 11 – that have one insight after another about hospitality. In this
mix, James and John ask a question about inhospitality, and Jesus deflects the
question. But then, a little later, he does in fact answer the question pretty
clearly. The answer is above: if a town doesn’t receive you, shake the dust off
and leave, and trust that in the end – at the Last Judgment – such towns will
be treated like Sodom.
That’s the answer; the question
was, should we call down fire from heaven to consume an inhospitable town? (Lk
9:51-56) In a Samaritan village, James and John smelled out some inhospitality.
The village was not pleased or impressed about having a Jew pass through on the
way to Jerusalem, and they were not going to provide a welcome. The “sons of
thunder” suggested wiping the town off the face of the earth, with fire. Where
did they get such a horrible idea? One possibility is that they recalled a
struggle years before, between a king of Samaria and the prophet Elijah. The
king was hurt in an accident, and sent messengers to get advice from a false
god. Elijah intercepted the messengers and asked why they were doing such a
thing. When the king heard that Elijah was raising questions, he sent 50
soldiers to fetch the pesky prophet. Elijah was not pleased by the military
summons, and he summoned fire from heaven to come down and consume the
soldiers. This happened twice before Elijah agreed to go see the king. Now, James
and John had seen Elijah on a mountaintop shortly before the incident in the
inhospitable town, so some critics suggest – plausibly – that James and John
got the idea of a violent response from the example of Elijah. But another
possibility is that they recalled what happened when the people of Sodom were
inhospitable to a couple of important visitors. So, they advise, maybe the town
should be Sodom-ized. Now, the word “Sodom” does not appear in their question
(or suggestion); it’s just fire from heaven destroying a town for
inhospitality. But then a few lines later, Jesus says that treating the town
like Sodom might be a good idea, but leave it to God. So I think the question
from the brothers is about Sodom; and I think Jesus answers their question
clearly though not promptly, with explicit reference to Sodom.
Eighth: Ovid
Literature throughout the world
is full of stories about gods and divinities visiting earth disguised as poor
and vulnerable. One such story is from Ovid’s Metamorphoses, the story of
“Philemon and Baucis.” Ovid wrote during
the reign of Augustus Caesar, the Roman emperor at the time Jesus was born.
“Philemon and Baucis” is similar
to the story of Sodom. Two gods, Jupiter and Mercury, visit a town, and are
turned away repeatedly, finding doors bolted and no kind words. Eventually, an
elderly couple takes them into their cottage, and feeds them out of their poor
means. The gods send the two up a nearby mountain, and then destroy the wicked
town, turn the cottage into an ornate temple, and install the couple as its
guardians.
At the time that Ovid wrote his
story, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was over a thousand years old, and it
appears that Ovid was imitating the story from Genesis. So it’s interesting
that he, like the Jewish prophets, uses the story to criticize greed and luxury
in the face of the poor, as an example of injustice and inhospitality. This
pagan text doesn’t prove anything about the teaching in Scripture, but it does
suggest that the people of the region knew the story of Sodom, and thought it
was about hospitality to guests who might be gods.
It was two generations after
Ovid that that St. Peter and St. Jude wrote about Sodom, focusing on sexual
sins, and Josephus coined the term “sodomy” to refer to homosexual acts.
Each of these passages, taken alone, can be explained away.
But taken together, they make clear that it is foolish to interpret the story
of Sodom simply as a warning about homosexuality.
Conclusion
The Catechism of the
Catholic Church (CCC 1867) states, “The catechetical tradition also recalls
that there are ‘sins that cry to heaven’: the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites,
the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow,
and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.” But the Catechism does not explain what the “sin of the
Sodomites” was. The link to Mamre and the story of Gibea suggest that the sin
was crimes against hospitality. The prophets refer to luxury in the face of the
poor, complacency, inhospitality, injustice, non-repentance. Jesus himself
refers to Sodom when he is talking about inhospitality and a callous
unrepentant heart.
For sure, Peter and Jude link Sodom and homosexual acts, and
no serious Catholic can dismiss that teaching. However, it is simply not
necessary to assume or agree that “the sin of the Sodomites” was “sodomy.”
The story of Sodom can be understood from the left (it’s
about social sins including inhospitality) or the right (it’s about sex games
in the stadium). Faithful Catholics will lay hold of both.
+++++++
I see the story of Sodom, with its varying interpretations,
as a challenge to pro-lifers. Will we go left, or go right – or both? Will we
lay hold of our heritage, in its entirety, and refuse to be captured by
partisans of either squinty-eyed side in a polarized frozen-eyes-d nation?
