In the minds of most people, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about very naughty things. Among these, dissolute forms of homosexuality are likely to play a prominent part, while the thought of bestiality makes an occasional appearance. From a historical perspective, the most striking fact is the way in which the powers that be have used the narrative to punish lesbian and gay people. However, it is worth asking whether this situation was there from the beginning. This is the question I seek to answer below.

In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) the name of Sodom occurs 41 times. The fundamental points made by the prophets address issues such as idolatry, selfishness, social injustice, exploitation, and violence. The feelings expressed oscillate between indignation, condemnation, and despair. Following these early beginnings, a close inspection reveals that the interpretation of the story of Sodom changed considerably over the centuries. In fact, this drama has repeatedly been recast to address post-biblical concerns. Since the Middle Ages, the number one preoccupation of Christianity in relation to Sodom can be expressed as ‘sex’, specifically in the form of ‘sodomy’ interpreted as ‘male homosexuality’. The effects of these historical reinterpretations of Sodom are omnipresent, including in most current English Bible versions, specifically in Genesis 19:5–8.

At least six major phases of interpretation can be traced with some accuracy. Between several of these phases there is no clear break but rather a chronological overlap.

Phase One represents the Hebrew Bible, in which the Sodom narrative appears as a sophisticated work of art with a powerful theological message. With the exceptions of Jude and 2 Peter, this overall approach is shared by the New Testament and a few early Christian writers. Phase Two coincides with the period of Hellenization starting in the third century BCE. The first shift in relation to Sodom emerges in the Hellenistic Jewish literature known as pseudepigrapha. Here the focus is on undesirable heterosexual relationships, including intermarriage with Gentiles. Phase Three is heralded in the writings of Philo of Alexandria (first century CE). He depicts Sodom as a hotbed of pederasty. Both interpretive shifts in antiquity had a lasting impact on the evolution of Christian tradition, particularly via the Greek letters of Jude and 2 Peter (second century CE). By contrast, post-biblical Jewish tradition has cultivated a diversity of approaches to Sodom, most of which are non-sexual.

Phase Four commences in the Middle Ages. Increasingly Sodom is depicted as the emblem of dangerous male–male sexual relations. Thus, the monastic world of the eleventh century sees the birth of a new, extra-biblical concept, namely, ‘sodomy’. Despite its impreciseness, it has become permanently embedded in the life of the Christian church, particularly Roman Catholicism. Phase Five begins in the late nineteenth century. At this stage the ‘sodomy’ term is gradually being replaced by the modern word ‘homosexuality’. However, ‘sodomy’ continues to play a legal role in some countries. Finally, Phase Six has come about in recent decades. The image of male homosexuality has been discarded. The latest label for the plot of Sodom is ‘attempted gang rape’.

Unfortunately Bible commentators tend to ignore these six phases. Today many take the current view of Sodom for granted as they reserve a place of honour for post-biblical voices. The loser has been Phase One, at least within the Christian tradition. While most Jewish scholars have continued to study the Hebrew Bible in the original language, the early Christian community lost the Hebrew connection by adopting the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. In the Roman church this was to be replaced by Latin versions. The Reformation did not question the dubious ‘sodomy’ concept whose toxic effects are still palpable. In summary, the approach to Sodom taken by many churches today—Protestant and Catholic alike—is rooted in post-biblical anxieties.

2. The meaning of ‘know’

For a Bible-based interpretation of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Hebrew text itself offers valuabe clues. An intriguing example is the Hebrew verb yāda‘, ‘to know’. For a long time this has been regarded as a sexual euphemism. This reading has narrowed the scope for interpreting the plot of the darma, reducing the number of available options to one. Alternative approaches to yāda‘ are virtually non-existent, which is a remarkable situation. It has led me to analyse the Hebrew text afresh along with the ways in which it is rendered by 35 English Bible versions. My detailed word study reveals that the Sodom narrative contains not two occurrences of yāda‘, as most observers seem to think, but six. At least four of these are certain to perform non-sexual roles. It is possible to interpret all six appearances of the verb within the realm of legal language.  Moreover, a collateral survey of the entire book of Genesis documents 53 occurrences of yāda‘. The verb consistently operates within seven connected semantic categories, all of which may well be described as unrelated to the realm of sex. In other words, the popular sexual reading of yāda‘ is far from inevitable.

Viewed in the light of legal language, yāda‘ plays three distinct roles in the Sodom narrative. Firstly, yāda‘ in the Simple Conjugation (Qal) is used in the context of covenants. This is the verb chosen by the Eternal (YHWH) in Gen. 18:19 to characterize his relationship with Abraham: ‘I have known him’. Another form of covenant is the ancient marriage contract. Thus, in 19:8 yāda‘ may be read as a technical term by which Lot describes the marital status of his young daughters: they have not 'known' a husband. Both usages of yāda‘ are archaic and attested in pre-biblical literature of a legal nature, including treaties and law codes. Modern Bible commentators and translators have failed to make these connections. Particularly the subject of marriage terminology in the Hebrew Bible is under-researched.

Secondly, yāda‘ in the Hebrew conjugation known as Cohortative implies a judicial enquiry or investigation. In this sense it is first used by the Eternal in Gen. 18:21, as the deity sets out to verify the nature of the ‘outcry’ of Sodom that has come before him: ‘let me know’. In the same conjugation—and in the very same sense—yāda‘ is employed by the king of Sodom and all his men in 19:5. Given that Sodom has just suffered defeat in a war (Gen. 14), they are anxious at any sign of espionage and keen to establish the identity of the two strangers. So they proceed to investigate the nature of this unnannounced visit: ‘let us know them’. The subject of judicial terminology in the Hebrew Bible is another under-researched area.

Thirdly, the Simple Conjugation of yāda‘ reappears towards the end of the story, which describes mythological incest  (Gen. 19:32–35). On this occasion the whole sentence in which yāda‘ is embedded is repeated verbatim. Lot’s two daughters want life to continue following the destruction of their hometown Sodom. The fact that Lot does not ‘know’ what his daughters are doing reflects not only his lack of awareness, but possibly also the absence of legal responsibility on his part. It should be noted that the specifically sexual action is described through seven occurrences of another Hebrew verb, namely, šākhav,‘lie down’.

While the ancient pre-biblical legal traditions were still in place, it is fair to assume that the technical usage of yāda‘ for covenants and contracts was readily understood, as well as its role in enquiries. However, as social institutions changed—particularly in the wake of the Babylonian exile—so did the Hebrew language. The early technical aspects of yāda‘ are likely to have become incomprehensible to speakers of Late Hebrew. In the case of Sodom the void was filled by the process of sexualization which began during the Hellenistic period. In post-biblical times the crucial pre-biblical roots of yāda‘ have been largely ignored. 

3. The concerns highlighted by the Sodom narrator

When read in its biblical context, Sodom and Gomorrah is part of a longer, very complex story of two immigrants who came together to the land of Canaan (Abraham and Lot). Their different destinies are illustrated: one remains faithful to his covenant with the Eternal and is richly blessed (Abraham). The other abandons the ways of the Eternal to seek integration with the Canaanites of Sodom, whereby he loses everything (Lot). In addition, the narrator manifests a passionate concern for the plight of the socially vulnerable, specifically in the guise of foreigners (Lot) and, indirectly, widows and orphans (Lot’s children).

This attention to social justice is echoed in the book of Exodus, with which the story has strong textual and thematic links. In general it is worth noting that the Hebrew Scriptures make no clear distinctions between theology, ethics, politics, and history. Everywhere these categories are interwoven.

One of several under-researched areas in relation to Sodom is the interface between Bible translation and theology. If a text is translated with humility and sensitivity, it may enlighten the reader. If a mistranslation occurs, it may give rise to non-biblical theology. The overlooked legal side of the Hebrew yāda‘ is a case in point. The Sodom narrative shows the extent to which theology and Hebrew linguistics are intimately connected.

Many biblical writings express concerns in relation to Sodom. They expand the limited picture of the city painted by Genesis 18–19 to include idolatry (polytheism). This is perhaps the greatest preoccupation of ancient Israelite religion. Read in this light, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah may be taken as an ethnically motivated diatribe against the people(s) of Canaan. 

What makes the scriptural approaches to Sodom so rich is the fact that the Hebrew Bible resists the temptation to settle for a single interpretation. Instead it moves along, almost restlessly, in search of new insights. Several prophets—notably Isaiah and Ezekiel—are deeply committed to this continuing quest for broader horizons. It leads them to embrace a theology of universality and inclusiveness. The book of Ezekiel chronicles a process of growing awareness of the nature of the divine: the Eternal cares about all people. The prophet reaches the conclusion that, if restoration is promised for Jerusalem, in spite of all her transgressions, a similar destiny awaits other cities that have sinned. Even the reviled Sodom will be given a second chance.

Conclusion

The post-biblical sexualization of yāda‘ has turned a profound theological treatise into a text of terror for gay people. With the more recent focus on attempted gang rape, the anti-gay dimension is partly removed. However, the terror is still present as it affects women. When post-biblical assumptions are bypassed, the powerful voice of the biblical narrator can be heard. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah spans chapters 18–19 of Genesis, whereby it becomes the centrepiece of the Abraham narrative (Gen. 12–25). The Hebrew text highlights a series of theological, social and legal concerns: the importance of trusting the Eternal in the face of impossible odds (Abraham, Sarah); the obligation to act with fairness and justice (Abraham); the virtue of welcoming the stranger (Abraham, Lot); the issue of intermarriage (Lot & his wife; Lot's daughters); and the extent to which the Eternal is stirred to action when the socially vulnerable are mistreated (Lot the immigrant and his children).