The Judgment of Sodom

By David J. MacLeod [1]

An Exposition of Genesis 19:1–29

Situated in the south of Palestine at the mouth of the Jordan River is an irregularly shaped body of water about 50 miles long and 10 miles wide. In the Old Testament it is known as the “Salt Sea” (Gen. 14:3; Num. 34:3); the “Eastern Sea” (i.e., east of Judea; Ezek. 47:18; Joel 2:20); and the “Sea of the Arabah” or “Sea of the Plain” (Deut. 3:17; 4:49). Josephus called it the “Lake Asphaltitis,” i.e., the “Bituminous Lake;” the Arabs call it the “Sea of Lot;” and Europeans know it as the “Dead Sea.” Surrounded by gaunt mountains, its surface is at the northern end about 1300 feet below sea level (the lowest body of water on earth, i.e., at its surface), [2] and its deepest point about 1300 ft. lower. [3]

The name Dead Sea is supposed to have been given to the lake because of its desolate appearance and the absence of all animal and vegetable life. The waters of the lake are the most saline of any natural body of water in the world. Fully one fourth of its weight is made up of various kinds of salts. The surrounding soil is saturated with salt, sulphur, and hydrocarbons; no plants or trees grow there; no wild animals go there for food or drink; and no flocks or herds are brought to its shores. [4]

So weird and desolate is the scene that it was long believed that no birds would fly across its waters. Along its shore you may find the trunks and branches of trees, torn from thickets and deposited there by the Jordan. You may also find a few water shells or dead fish, also carried there by the Jordan. [5] There is often an unusual stillness about the place and a feeling of general desolation.

The southeastern waters of the Dead Sea ripple over part of the site [6] where once stood the five cities of the plain: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Bela (or Zoar, cf. Gen. 14:2). [7] Ezekiel (16:46–55) speaks of them as “Sodom and her daughters,” suggesting that Sodom was the capital or the largest of the five. [8]

Those cities once had the busy hum of life, thought, and trade. All the sounds of human joy, sorrow and industry; the march of the soldier, the call of the herdsman, the murmur of the marketplace, the voices of little children playing in the open places—all are hushed in that awful solitude, a striking monument to the divine anger and judgment against a sinful people. [9]

The passage of Scripture before us is the record of the judgment of God on a morally bankrupt Canaanite society. The basic themes of the chapter are destruction and deliverance.10 In the story of Sodom and Gomorrah the LORD [11] clearly indicates what He thinks of their wickedness, and He warns us not to become like them. He also shows that His righteous people are delivered from judgment.

The chapter has been summarized in this way: “When the LORD destroyed the cities of the plain with fire and brimstone he delivered Lot by means of two angels who had to protect themselves from the wicked people of the city.” [12] I might add, for those expounding the passage in a Bible lesson or sermon, the “big idea” [13] or theme of your message might be expressed in this way: God will judge wickedness, yet He will deliver the righteous from that judgment.

The context of the passage is well-known. The LORD has made a covenant (a “bond” or “pact”) with Abraham. Later, in chapter 18, He appeared to Abraham and his wife Sarah in human form along with two angels. The LORD (with the two angels) ate a meal at Abraham’s table and again promised that Abraham would have a son. He then informed the old patriarch that He was going to investigate the rumors about Sodom’s terrible sins, and He left the clear impression that He was going to destroy the city. Abraham’s nephew, Lot, lived in Sodom, and Abraham interceded with the LORD, pleading that He spare the city for the sake of the righteous ones in it.

As chapter 19 begins, the two angels have arrived at the city gate of Sodom. The verses that follow are in every sense a contrast with chapter 18, a contrast of light and darkness.14 Chapter 18 depicts the tender, sensitive fellowship of Abraham with his guests. The scene is “quietly intimate and full of promise.” Chapter 19, on the other hand, is all “confusion and ruin, moral and physical, ending in a loveless squalor.” [15] In chapter 18 we learn that it is those who have faith and obedience like Abraham who are fit company for the LORD God. In chapter 19, however, we see exhibited in the Sodomites the kind of unbelief and disobedience that does not bring salvation but destruction.16 Chapter 18 portrays Abraham, the righteous man who lived in a tent, showing by his life-style or manner of life that he was a pilgrim on this earth, looking forward to life in the heavenly country (cf. Heb. 11:9–13). In chapter 19 we find Lot living in a house, the righteous man without the pilgrim spirit, living not for the heavenly country, but for Sodom, the standing illustration in the Bible of worldly promise, insecurity, and moral decay. [17]

The Basis of Divine Judgment: The Depravity of Sodom, vv. 1-14

The Arrival of the Heavenly Messengers, vv. 1-3

The angels arrive at Sodom “in the evening.” They had arrived at Abraham’s tent at noon. Leaving Abraham in Hebron in the early afternoon, they had traveled the 35 miles to Sodom in six hours, i.e., in about half the time it would take ordinary men.18 The immediate cause of the angels’ visit, says F. B. Meyer, was their love for people.19 The efficient cause was Abraham’s prayer of intercession (v. 29). The ultimate goal was the mercy of God toward Lot and his family. [20]

When the angels arrived, Lot, Abraham’s nephew, was “sitting in the gate.” The “gate” of the city would be an arched entrance with deep recesses and seats on either side. [21] Just inside the gate would be a large square where the citizens would gather. It was the market and it was the place where business was conducted, where justice was administered, and where recreation was enjoyed. Some of the Jewish commentators understand the phrase “sitting in the gate” to mean that Lot was now an acknowledged magistrate, judge, or elder in the city. While this is probably true, verse 9 suggests that he was too good a man to be a popular judge. [22]

Only Lot rises to greet the strangers, and he respectfully invites them to his house. Initially they decline his invitation and say they will bed down in the square. We have a glimpse here of the etiquette of the times. A stranger would not want to seem forward in accepting an invitation, so he would at first refuse. Lot knows the danger that faces chance strangers in his town, so he is quite insistent, and they finally accept his invitation. They go to Lot’s house where he made them “a feast” (lit. a meal with wine, a מִשֶׁתֶּה, mishteh). [23] He quickly bakes unleavened bread and his guests ate.

The Attack upon the Heavenly Messengers, vv. 4-11

As Lot and his guests are innocently enjoying the meal the house is surrounded by “the men of the city, the men of Sodom.” The expression “men of Sodom” seems to have been a proverbial designation at the time for the men who practiced Sodomy. Leupold translates, “men of Sodom that they were.” [24] Our text tells us that the corruption had infected all orders, ranks and ages of the city; “young and old, all the people from every quarter.” “Sodom,” says one of the old commentators, “was full of Sodomites.” [25] We are probably meant to think of the angels as young men in their prime whose handsome looks aroused the lust of the people. [26]

What was the sin of Sodom? In Genesis 13:13 we are told the men of Sodom were “wicked exceedingly and sinners.” Later, in Genesis 18:20–33, its citizens are called “wicked,” and the LORD says, “their sin is exceedingly grave.” The prophet Ezekiel (16:46–50) says this, “Sodom. .. and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me.” At that time the plain around Sodom was known for its extraordinary fertility (Gen. 13:10). The people had an abundance of things, and they were arrogant and lacked compassion for the needy. The easy life-style and the tropical climate were conducive to idleness and luxury and sexual immorality. [27] The Epistle of Jude says they “indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh” (v. 7). Our text says the men of the city called in to Lot and demanded that he bring out the angels that they might rape them, i.e., have homosexual intercourse with them. [28]

The Scriptures teach that there is but one place for sexual intimacy, i.e., in a marriage between a man and a woman. There is no other legitimate form of sexual intercourse given in Scripture. Later in Israel’s history, when the LORD gave His moral law to the people, homosexuality was condemned along with incest and bestiality (i.e., sexual intercourse with animals) as an abomination and worthy of death (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). Such activity was common among the Canaanites. The Apostle Paul says that homosexuality was a sign of a culture degenerating into idolatry and paganism (Rom. 1:26–27). It is a sin of the heathen world generally. [29] The very term Sodomy is forever linked with this perverse practice.

It is startling, therefore, to come across a book by D. Sherwin Bailey, [30] which argues that Genesis 19 is not referring to homosexuality at all. Let me briefly summarize his thesis: [31] (1) In v. 5 the men of Sodom say they want to “have relations” (NASB) with the angels. The verb “have relations” is the Hebrew verb יָדַע (yāḏaʾ, “to know”). Bailey’s view is that the verb in v. 5 means no more than “get acquainted with.” He says that the sexual sense of “to know” is rare in the Old Testament. [32] That may be true, but there are several contexts that demand that interpretation, e.g., Gen. 4:1 (“Now the man knew his wife Eve”). Bailey himself cites fifteen texts where it has a sexual meaning (Gen. 4:1, 17, 25; 19:8; 24:16; 38:26; Num. 31:17, 18, 35; Judg. 11:39; 19:25; 21:11, 12; 1 Sam. 1:19; 1 Kings 1:4). Furthermore, in this very context he acknowledges that the verb יָדַע, does refer to sexual intercourse two verses later (v. 8). [33]

(2) Bailey says a sexual interpretation of the verb “to know” does not fit homosexual intercourse psychologically. Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman “is a very important means to the attainment of personal knowledge.” This demonstrates, he contends, why יָדַע always refers to heterosexual intercourse when used in a sexual sense. The possibility of “knowing” in this sense “depends upon sexual differentiation and complementation, and not merely upon physical sexual experience as such.” Bailey’s assertion is contradicted by Judges 19:25 where the men of Gibeah raped (יָדַע) a Levite’s concubine. The verb in that verse hardly means to gain knowledge in the sense of personal relationship. [34]

(3) Finally, Bailey argues that Lot was only a sojourner (ר, gēr, “an alien,” NASB, v. 9) in the city of Sodom, and he exceeded his rights by receiving the two foreigners without having their credentials examined by the proper authorities. In other words Lot had exceeded the rights of a ר in that city by receiving and entertaining two foreigners whose intentions might be hostile.

Why, then, was the city destroyed? Bailey asserts that we are only told that Sodom was “wicked exceedingly” (13:13; 18:20) and that Genesis does not get more specific. [35] The lawless commotion before Lot’s door and the violent display of inhospitality [36] (along with other signs of wickedness which would not escape their scrutiny) were sufficient to satisfy the angels that the report of Sodom’s sin was true, and the city deserved destruction.

This objection is weak for four reasons: First, it substitutes a trivial reason for a serious one for the angels’ decision to destroy the city. Second, it is grotesque to think that Lot would offer his daughters to the men of the city in reply to a demand for credentials (v. 8). Third, the phrase “sitting in the gate” (v. 1) suggests that Lot was a man of standing in the city, perhaps a judge. [37] He was not a mere sojourner with no voice in the city’s affairs—until now, that is! In v. 9, the mob finds it convenient to remember that Lot is an alien in order to dismiss his objections to their conduct. Finally, Bailey is silenced (at least in the minds of those who believe the Bible) by Jude 6–7, which says that the Sodomites “indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh” (cf. 2 Pet. 2:6–10). [38]

At this point Lot shows some courage in going out to face the mob in verses 6 and 7. Like Abraham, he viewed the opportunity to entertain strangers as a providential gift of God. He cannot believe that the laws of hospitality are to be violated in such a vile and violent way. [39]

Then Lot made the mob an offer that defies our understanding. He offered them his two unmarried daughters to do with whatever they liked (v. 8). It is possible that he made this incredible suggestion because he was confused with fear. [40] Somehow he may have felt that his obligations to his guests were greater than his obligations to his children. [41] The moral of this strange action, of course, is that it is wrong to try to avoid sin by sin. [42] We should never try to prevent one evil by taking recourse to another.

As has been suggested above, Lot was a judge or elder in Sodom. The people of Sodom had gone along with this role because the great chief, Abraham, Lot’s uncle, had once delivered the city in a great military victory (ch. 14). The Apostle Peter says that Lot was a “righteous man” whose soul was tormented by the lawless deeds he saw every day (2 Peter 2:7–8). Every day as cases of violence and immorality were brought before the elders at the gate it was Lot who protested that the crimes were wrong, immoral and unjust. He got to be known as “Lot the Censor.” He rebuked their terrible sins. They tolerated it for a time, but now they were fed up. [43]

The men now try to break down the door (v. 9). Doing his best, Lot has jeopardized his daughters and enraged his townsmen. At this point the angels pulled him back into the house, and they struck the Sodomites “with blindness” (v. 11, בַּסַּנְרִים, bassanwērîm). The term used here for blindness (סַנְרִים, sanwērîm) is rare, occurring only here and in 2 Kings 6:18. This cannot mean ordinary blindness. If it was, the men would have stopped trying to get in.44 Some suggest that the Sodomites saw a bright flash as one might see when having a stroke, which left them confused. [45] The objects they saw were swimming before their eyes and mocked every attempt to approach or seize them. [46]

The Admonition of the Heavenly Messengers, vv. 12-14

The messengers of the LORD have all the evidence they need that the outcry of Sodom’s sins is indeed true. The wickedness of the city was every bit as great as the cry had indicated.47 They now tell Lot the twofold purpose of their visit:48 They have been sent to destroy the city and to rescue Lot and his family.

Lot now learned that he would have nothing to show for all the of years as a social reformer in Sodom. “A dung heap cannot be perfumed,” says Barnhouse. [49] Political action will not change people spiritually. Moralistic preaching did not help Sodom. The only thing that will change a Sodomite is repentance and faith. Yet Lot was to be rescued. There would be mercy in the midst of the judgment. In spite of his failings so apparent in this chapter, he was a righteous man, one of Scripture’s true believers.

Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law [50] and warned them of the coming judgment. They responded as many do when told of God’s judgment. They mocked the very possibility of such an event. [51] We can well imagine their comments: “What, these houses, this entire city to be destroyed? Incredible! Impossible! Away with such ‘fire and brimstone’ religion!” [52]

So it is today when preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ tell people of coming judgment. They are often rejected and ridiculed. “Impossible,” the unbeliever responds, “you are playing upon the fears, anxieties, and superstitions of your fellow man.”

There is another sobering lesson in verse 14. Lot’s compromise with the world had bolstered the natural unbelief of his family. “The worldly compromising believer, who practices expediency in his life, cannot expect to have a telling influence on his own family, much less the world around him.” Lot’s worldliness does not, of course, excuse the unbelief of his sons-in law. [53]

The Mercy in Divine Judgment: The Deliverance of Lot, vv. 15-22

The Hesitation of Lot, vv. 15-16

At dawn the angels awakened Lot and told him to flee the city with his wife and two daughters. Our text says (v. 16), “But he hesitated.” The charitable explanation is that his heart was paralyzed by the thought of what was going to happen to his city and relatives. [54] The truth is, however, that Lot was a weak believer. The thought of leaving all his wealth and property, acquired over so many years, was putting his faith to the test.

Yet the Bible tells us that fleeing from God’s wrath will require that we leave all behind (Luke 14:26–27). The opening scene of John Bunyan’s great classic of the Christian life, Pilgrim’s Progress, is taken from this passage. The hero, Christian, is informed that his city, a picture of the world, is going to be burned with fire from heaven. His wife and family would not believe him. They at first thought he was sick. Then they derided him, argued with him and ignored him.

Then, as he was walking in a field, a man named Evangelist spoke with him and told him, “Fly from the Wrath to come.” Evangelist pointed Christian to a shining light, and Christian began to run. His wife and children cried after him to return, but he put his fingers in his ears and ran on crying, “Life! Life! Eternal Life!” Some of his neighbors mocked him; others threatened him. Some tried to argue with him. But he left them all behind. [55]

The men “seized [Lot’s] hand.” How marvelous is the mercy of God. If Lot had been left to himself he would have perished. This illustrates the irresistible grace of God in saving His people (John 6:44).

The Concession to Lot, vv. 17-22

One of the angels tells Lot to “Escape for your life!. .. escape to the mountains.” True preachers of the gospel are often charged with being too severe in their message of judgment. Such preaching, however, is mercifully severe. [56] The angels would actually have been unloving and unkind if they had failed to warn Lot. They certainly would not have been his friends if they had been silent.

In verses 18–20 Lot shows his weak and wavering faith. He is filled with fear as he looks at the mountains far away. He imagines that he will be unable to reach them in time to be safe. [57] It is easy to get impatient with Lot as we read these verses. God had told him to run for the hills, yet he asks that he be allowed to go into the small town of Zoar (“is it not small?”). It was small and, by Lot’s carnal estimation, its sins were comparatively small.

The angel tells him that he may go into Zoar, and it will not be overthrown with the other cities. Was this an act of mercy, or was it a terrible judgment upon a justified man who refused to obey the will of God? Was God being kind to Lot, or was He delivering him over to his own desires? I incline toward the latter view. [58] The rest of the chapter demonstrates that Lot’s choice was disastrous. Nevertheless, he was saved from the much greater judgment upon Sodom.

The Certainty of Divine Judgment: The Destruction of Sodom, vv. 23-29

The Lord’s Destruction of the Wicked, vv. 23-26

According to verse 23, the sun had risen over the earth when Lot entered Zoar. Meyer says of this particular sunrise, “Nature keeps God’s secrets well.” [59] People were getting up in Sodom and facing another day. There was no special sign in the sky and no indication that anything was wrong. That is often the way God’s judgments are. [60] He warns of judgment, and then nothing seems to happen. Yet as soon as the fixed day arrives the stroke of judgment falls.

Some people assume that they are going to be given a last minute warning before leaving this life, a final chance to make things right with God. That is not the way God’s judgment works. It is often delayed, but when it comes it comes without warning. It comes, the Bible tells us, “like a thief in the night” (1 Thess. 5:2–3). [61]

The description of the destruction takes just two verses. “Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire.” According to Deuteronomy 29:23, the cities of Admah and Zeboiim were also destroyed. [62] Commentators differ in their explanation of exactly how the LORD accomplished the conflagration. [63] Some have suggested that the Lord acted immediately, i.e., He acted without the means of any natural forces or materials. The events in verses 24 and 25, they suggest, are purely miraculous. He rained down flaming sulphur from heaven.

It is possible, however, that He acted through natural means. [64] Older writers used to suggest that verse 24 describes a volcanic eruption. There is evidence of volcanism in the area, but not as recently as the time of Abraham. [65] Still others say that the LORD used a terrible earthquake. There is a fault along the Jordan Valley known as the “Great Rift.” Furthermore the area is known to be rich in combustible materials such as oil, asphalt (or hydrocarbons, cf. Gen. 14:10) and natural gas. The LORD, it is suggested, triggered an earthquake which released into the atmosphere vast amounts of this combustible material. [66] At the same time He set off a violent electrical storm. [67] However the LORD worked, the cities and the very soil disappeared in a torrent of flames. [68]

The wording of verse 24 is striking: “the LORD rained. .. from the LORD.” Some understand the repetition of the name of the LORD to be for emphasis. [69] Others see here an intimation of the distinct persons of the Triune God. As some of the early Christians put it, “God the Son brought down the rain from God the Father” (the Council of Sirmium [A.D. 357]). [70]

As Lot walked toward Zoar his wife followed behind and even lingered. Her heart was in the city. She did not appreciate the deliverance the LORD was offering her. She “looked back,” i.e., she tarried to watch and was covered by the molten materials of the explosion which rained down on her. [71] The saline and sulphurous materials that fell on her in the days that followed formed a thick incrustation, which gradually hardened and looked like a pillar of salt. [72] The Lord Jesus said, “Remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17:32). She captures in a single picture the fate of those who turn back, i.e., those who profess for a while to believe, but who fall away (Heb. 10:38–39; cf. Luke 8:13). [73]

The Lord’s Faithfulness to the Righteous, vv. 27-29

That morning Abraham awoke and returned to the place where he had negotiated with the Lord over the fate of Sodom. He looked out over the fertile and delightful plain of Siddim. The green fields and well-peopled cities that he had often viewed were now enveloped in flames.74 The city was not saved. There were not ten righteous people found in it. But in answer to his prayer the LORD delivered his nephew out of Sodom.

Conclusion

What are the lessons of Sodom? Why is this horrible account preserved for us in the Word of God? I would like to suggest at least four reasons why these events are recorded in Holy Scripture:75

1. To Provide a Picture of the Awful Extent of Human Depravity

Sodom was a society where the young felt free to expose their guilt before their elders, and the older men felt free to expose their shame before the young. [76] The inhabitants of that city were lawless, and where there is no restraint from the law of God there are no limits to human degeneracy and depravity. Today we have many in America who follow the Sodomites in their moral outlook. Some abort their unborn infants. Some quietly—and many, not so quietly—advocate all kinds of sexual perversion, including homosexuality and sex with children.

2. To Provide a Demonstration of the Certainty of Divine Judgment

In Genesis 18:25 Abraham asks, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” The answer is, “Yes, He does act justly.” The Bible is clear on this point: God is not indifferent to human sin. God brought this catastrophe upon Sodom and Gomorrah because of their wickedness.

3. To Provide a Warning to Israel and the Nations

The Book of Genesis was originally written for Israel as she entered the land of Canaan with its many pagan practices (cf. Deut. 18:9). “Do not be like the Sodomites,” is the message of this judgment to God’s people.

Sodom became proverbial both in the Bible (cf. Deut. 29:23; Isa. 13:19; Jer. 49:18; Zeph. 2:9) and in nonbiblical writers [77] for its sin and judgment. Even though the ruins of the cities have entirely disappeared, says George Adam Smith, “the glare of this catastrophe burns still,” and the names of Sodom and Gomorrah have been “scattered to infamy across the world.” [78]

The Word of God authorizes us to apply the lesson of Sodom to other cities including our own (cf. Isa. 1:10; Rev. 11:8). The Apostle Peter says that the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah is “an example to those who would live ungodly thereafter” (2 Pet. 2:6).

America is today rapidly becoming enmeshed in the sins of Sodom: “arrogance, abundant food, careless ease” (Ezek. 16:49), and homosexual sin (Jude 7). At this point someone might say, “How can you condemn America for homosexuality? You cannot legislate biblical morality onto the law books of a secular society.” Such a person forgets or does not know the words of Genesis 18:25: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” The God of the Bible is the One True God, and He is the “Judge of all the earth.” The will of God is God’s will for all men, not just the church. It is the task of government, says the Apostle Paul, to implement the general will of God (Rom. 13:1–7). The failure of a nation to follow God’s will will bring down God’s wrath upon that particular society (Amos 1:3--2:3; cf. Dan. 4:25–27). [79]

We live in the day of “gay liberation,” the term gay being defined as being free from shame, guilt, misgivings, or regret over being homosexual. [80] Cities have legalized homosexual marriages. [81] Education officials in San Francisco talk of a new public school curriculum to sensitize students to accept or tolerate homosexuals. [82] Some time ago a Dallas TV station canceled the program of an evangelist after he criticized homosexuality as sin. [83] In a cleverly mounted but deceiving public relations campaign homosexuals compare their woes to other persecuted groups like blacks and Jews. [84]

But most alarming of all, however, are the discussions and actions of so-called homosexual Christians. A report presented in the Presbyterian Church (USA) advocates the full ordination of practicing homosexuals. [85] One Episcopal bishop has actually ordained a homosexual to the ministry of that church. [86] The Washington Post recently cited the figures of a Baltimore therapist who concludes that 20% of all Roman Catholic clergy are homosexual. [87] One group of homosexuals has formed their own denomination, viz., the Metropolitan Community Church. [88] Even a few professing Evangelical Christians, using sophisticated but ideologically skewed exegesis, are now defending homosexual unions. [89]

The church of Jesus Christ is to be a light in Sodom. Instead, some elements of it have become infected with the perversions of the pagan culture. An editorial in the pages of Christianity Today magazine offered this devastating opinion, “If the Presbyterian Church (USA) approves a controversial statement on sexuality, it will more closely resemble a Canaanite fertility cult than a Christian church.” [90] This astute judgment applies to any Christian communion or denomination that jettisons the clear teaching of Scripture.

4. To Provide an Illustration of the Suddenness and Completeness of the Judgment God Will Bring Upon the Earth at the Time of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (Luke 17:28-30)

The judgment of Sodom foreshadows the end of history as we know it. There are a number of brief observations I may make on this point in conclusion: (1) First, the reference to Sodom suggests that the vice that characterized that city will be prevalent when our Lord returns. It certainly is true that homosexuality is a vice that is more and more common in our time. (2) Second, the judgment at the end of this age will come suddenly and without warning. (3) Third, the judgment of Sodom is a Scriptural illustration of the final wrath of God upon the world. (4) Fourth, the historical judgment of Sodom was not the final judgment of the men of Sodom. They shall one day face God at the last judgment (Matt. 11:20–24). [91] (5) Fifth, those who hear and reject the gospel of Jesus Christ will be more severely judged than the men of Sodom (Matt. 11:20–24). Jesus told those who rejected His message, “It will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.” In other words, there is a sin worse than Sodomy or homosexuality. It is the sin of unbelief, the root of all other sin (John 16:9; Rom. 14:23).

(6) Sixth, believers in Jesus Christ have been promised deliverance from the future wrath of God (1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9). Just as Lot had an intercessor in the person of Abraham, so the people of God today have an intercessor in heaven, viz., Jesus Christ. He prays for us even when we forget to pray for ourselves (Heb. 7:25). [92] Just as Lot escaped the judgment upon Sodom, so those who trust in Christ as their Savior will escape the fearful catastrophe of the last day. Lot’s sons-in-law laughed when they heard the warning of judgment (Gen. 19:14), and they perished with the city. The lesson is that the warnings of God should be heeded and not ridiculed. None of the Sodomites were saved (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9–10). But Lot was, and that is enough to show that God is a God of mercy and will forgive all our sins if we run to Him for forgiveness.

Notes

1. Dave MacLeod is a faculty member at Emmaus Bible College.
2. The deepest lake on earth is Russia’s Lake Baikal, which measures 1,637 meters (over one mile) from top to bottom. Cf. Don Belt, “The World’s Great Lake,” National Geographic 181 (June, 1992): 2.
3. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, s.v. “Dead Sea,” by H. L. Ellison, 1 [1979]:881-82; cf. George Bush, Notes on Genesis, 2 vols. (New York: Ivison, Phinney & Co., 1860; reprint ed., Minneapolis: James & Klock, 1976), 1:315–16.
4. Bush, Genesis, 1:315, 318.
5. Bush, Genesis, 1:316; cf. F. B. Meyer, Abraham: or, The Obedience of Faith (New York: Fleming H. Revell, n.d.), 131.
6. The exact location of the cities is unknown. Some reject the theory that Sodom and Gomorrah were submerged beneath the Dead Sea but argue, nevertheless, that the cities were located near the southeast corner of the Dead Sea. Cf. David M. Howard, Jr., “Sodom and Gomorrah Revisited,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 (Dec., 1984): 385-400.
7. Cf. J. Penrose Harland, “Sodom and Gomorrah: The Location of the Cities of the Plain,” The Biblical Archaeologist 5 (May, 1942): 17-32.
8. Robert Jamieson, Genesis - Deuteronomy, in A Commentary Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old and New Testaments by R. Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and D. Brown, 6 vols. (1868; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1945), 1:160.
9. Meyer, Abraham, 131; Bush, Genesis, 1:318.
10. Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 355.
11. In the NASB the Divine Name Jehovah or Yahweh ( יַהְוֶה, M.T. has יְהָֹוה) is regularly translated LORD (cf. vv. 13, 16, 24). I have followed that practice in this essay.
12. Ross, Creation and Blessing, 354–58.
13. Cf. Ross, Creation and Blessing, 352. For a defense of the view that an expository sermon should be the explanation, interpretation, or application of a single dominant idea, cf. Haddon W. Robinson, Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 31–48.
14. Cf. Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1967), 131.
15. Kidner, Genesis, 131. Cf. John J. Davis, Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 195.
16. Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 170.
17. Kidner, Genesis, 133.
18. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1942), 1:555; Gerhard von Rad, Genesis, OTL (rev. ed., Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 217.
19. Meyer, Abraham, 138.
20. S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., “Sodom, Lot, and the Harvest of Sowing to the Flesh, Genesis 19:1–38,” Believers Bible Bulletin (August 19, 1979): 2.
21. Cf. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, 3 vols., BCOT (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1864; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), 1:232.
22. Bush, Genesis, 1:302; cf. Kidner, Genesis, 134; Ross, Creation and Blessing, 359.
23. Cf. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), s.v. “שָׁתָה,” 1059; Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, s.v. “שָׁתָה,” by H. J. Austel, 2:959–60; Bush, Genesis, 1:303; Leupold, Genesis, 1:557.
24. Leupold, Genesis, 1:557–58.
25. Bush, Genesis, 1:304.
26. John C. L. Gibson, Genesis, DSB, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 2:82–83.
27. Jamieson, Genesis-Deuteronomy, 160.
28. Cf. Claus Westermann, Genesis 12–36 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981), 301; G. J. Wenham, “The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality,” The Expository Times 102 (1990–91): 361; David F. Wright, “Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible,” The Evangelical Quarterly 61 (Oct., 1989): 292.
29. Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, 1:233.
30. D. Sherwin Bailey, Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1955), 2–28.
31. For brief summaries and critiques of Bailey’s thesis, cf. Kidner, Genesis, 136–37; D. J. Atkinson, Homosexuals in the Christian Fellowship (Oxford and Grand Rapids: Latimer House and Eerdmans, 1979), 79–82.
32. Bailey (Homosexuality, 2–4) leaves the impression that the sexual sense of יָדַע is rare, while the sense “to get acquainted with” is common. Bailey’s scholarship is careless here. It is significant that, according to Brown, Driver and Briggs (Lexicon, s.v. “יָדַע,” 394), of the 943 times יָדַע occurs in the Old Testament, 17 refer to sexual intercourse, and 28 “to get acquainted with.” Cf. Atkinson, Homosexuals, 81.
33. “Lot’s offer of his daughters as sexual surrogates shows clearly that the men of Sodom did not simply want to become acquainted with the angelic visitors socially.” Cf. Richard F. Lovelace, Homosexuality and the Church (Old Tappan: Revell, 1978), 100.
34. Incidentally, Judges is another context where the verb יָדַע is used of both homosexual and heterosexual relations in the same paragraph (vv. 22, 25).
35. Bailey (Homosexuality, 9–21) makes much of the fact that Old Testament (Jer. 23:14; Ezek. 16:49–50) and intertestamental (Wisdom of Solomon 10:6–8; 19:14; Ecclesiasticus 16:8; 3 Maccabees 2:5) references do not specifically mention homosexuality as a sin of Sodom. They only mention Sodom’s inhospitality and violence. Four observations are in order: (1) One reason for such understatement in these writers was modesty. As the Apostle Paul says (Eph. 5:3, 12), there are some things done by people in secret that are disgraceful even to speak of. This is an attitude, of course, which in our sex-saturated society is difficult for many to understand [cf.. R. T. Beckwith, “The Attitude to Homosexual Practices in the Jewish Background to the New Testament,” Appendix to Atkinson, Homosexuals, 98]. (2) Another reason is that homosexuality was not a domestic concern of these writers in that they did not encounter it. It is only when Judaism encountered homosexuality in the Greek world that it became more than a marginal issue. In later works (e.g., Book of Jubilees 16:5, 6; Testament of Levi 14:6; Testament of Naphtali 3:4–5; Testament of Benjamin 9:1) the sexual overtones of the sin of Sodom is made clear [cf. James B. DeYoung, “A Critique of Prohomosexual Interpretations of the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha,” Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (Oct., 1990): 437-54]. Bailey’s absurd explanation of these later texts [pp. 11-17] is that the Sodomites are condemned for lusting after angels, not for lusting after men. (3) The New Testament [Jude 6–7] is clear on the homosexual nature of the sin of Sodom. (4) The Jewish writers Philo and Josephus are clear on the homosexual nature of the Sodomites’ sin. Cf. Philo, On Abraham 133–41, in Philo, 12 vols., trans. F. H. Colson, G. H. Whitaker and Ralph Marcus, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935), 6:68–73; Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1.194-202, in Josephus, 10 vols., trans. H. St. J. Thackery, Ralph Marcus, Allen Wikgren and Louis H. Feldman, The Loeb Classical Library (London: William Heinemann, 1930), 4:94–99. These two writers make clear their views on the sin of homosexuality in other contexts as well. Cf. Philo, On the Special Laws 3.37-42, in Philo [1937], 7:498–501; On the Contemplative Life 59–63, in Philo [1941], 9:146–51; Hypothetica 7.1, in Philo 9:422–23; Josephus, Against Apion 2.199 and 2.273-75 in Josephus [1926], 1:372–73, 402–3.
36. That the Sodomites showed shocking disregard to the accepted principles of eastern hospitality is, of course, true. Having said this, however, we must also say that their disregard for the rules of hospitality is seen in their demand that Lot’s visitors submit to the most demeaning treatment the Sodomites could devise, viz., homosexual rape, a treatment elsewhere used on prisoners of war. Cf. Wenham, “The Old Testament Attitude to Homosexuality,” 361.
37. Cf. Kidner, Genesis, 134.
38. Bailey’s exegesis of Jude 6–7 (Homosexuality, p. 16) is tortured, to say the least. For Jude, he argues, the Sodomites’ sin was their desire to have intercourse with angels. The sin was only “incidentally homosexual”! Bailey’s idea is absurd, since the men of Sodom were unaware that Lot’s visitors were angels. Bailey’s argument (cf. pp. 12-16) is based on Jude’s linking of the sins of Sodom and the angels of Genesis 6:1–4. However, the only reason Jude joins the two is that both unions were unnatural. “In all other respects the unions were dissimilar, for in the case of Sodom it was the men, not the women, that were involved, and it was they, not the angels, who took the initiative.” Cf. Beckwith, “The Attitude to Homosexual Practices,” in Atkinson, Homosexuals, 97. Jude 6–7 undermines the thesis that the sin of Sodom was inhospitable and violent rape and that the nature of the rape (homosexual or heterosexual) is immaterial (cf. Simon B. Parker, “The Hebrew Bible and Homosexuality,” Quarterly Review 11 [1991]: 5-6). Jude specifically indicts the Sodomites for the unnaturalness of their immorality (“gross immorality … strange flesh”).
39. Cf. Bush, Genesis, 1:305.
40. Scanzoni and Mollenkott give two reasons why the men of Sodom were perverted heterosexuals rather than homosexuals: (1) For the city to have had a continuing population a substantial number of the men had to be husbands and fathers, and (2) Lot offered them his daughters. Cf. Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? (San Francisco: Harper, 1978), 55–59. Four observations are in order: (1) The text gives no indication that the Sodomites welcomed Lot’s suggestion concerning his daughters. (2) The most that Lot’s offer suggests is that he believed the Sodomite culture was so sensate that the search for pleasure had destroyed all sexual standards and that some of the perverted townspeople might be bisexual and not exclusively homosexual. (3) A bisexual population would have provided the city a continuing population. (4) The biblical writers uniformly view homosexuality and not heterosexuality as a perverted and unnatural practice (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; 1 Tim. 1:10; Jude 6–7; 2 Pet. 2:6–10). From the biblical standpoint, the adjective perverted belongs with homosexuality and not heterosexuality. Cf. Lovelace, Homosexuality, 101.
41. Davis, Paradise to Prison, 201.
42. Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, 1:233. Ukleja writes, “Lot’s offer was motivated by the thought that however wrong rape is, homosexual rape was even worse.” Cf. P. Michael Ukleja, “Homosexuality and the Old Testament,” Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (July, 1983): 262.
43. Leupold, Genesis, 1:561; Bush, Genesis, 1:306; cf. William J. McRae, “The Deterioration of a Righteous Man, Gen. 19:1–38” (cassette tape, Dallas: Believers Chapel, 1971).
44. Bush, Genesis, 1:306. Brown, Driver and Briggs (Lexicon, s.v. “סַנְרִים,” 703), translate “sudden blindness.”
45. E. A. Speiser, Genesis, AncB (Garden City: Doubleday, 1964), 139–40.
46. Bush, Genesis, 1:306.
47. Ross, Creation and Blessing, 360.
48. Cf. John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 2:154.
49. Donald Grey Barnhouse, Genesis: A Devotional Exposition, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 1:162.
50. Most modern translations (RSV, NEB, NIV, JB) agree with the NASB in making these men future sons-in-law, i.e., they are only betrothed to Lot’s daughters at this point (cf. Kidner, Genesis, 135, n. 1). The NASB has “who were to marry his daughters.” However some (e.g., NIV mg., NEB mg.) offer an alternate translation like the NASB margin, “who had married his daughters.” Franz Delitzsch (A New Commentary on Genesis, 2 vols. [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888; reprint ed., Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1978], 2:54) defends this alternate translation. He argues that the two daughters still at home in v. 15 are distinguished from the married daughters. He also points out that the two daughters saved with Lot in vv. 30–38 do not mourn the loss of bridegrooms. Finally, the LXX reads τοὺς εἰληφότας [= msc. acc. pl. perf. ptc. act. λαμβάνω] τὰς θυγατέρας (“who had taken his daughters”).
51. Davis, Paradise to Prison, 202.
52. Cf. Bush, Genesis, 1:308–9.
53. Johnson, “Sodom, Lot, and the Harvest of Sowing to the Flesh,” 4.
54. Jamieson, Genesis-Deuteronomy, 161.
55. John Bunyan, The Pilgrim’s Progress From This World to That Which is To Come Delivered Under the Similitude of a Dream (11th ed., 1688; reprint ed., London: Religious Tract Society, n.d.), 17–20.
56. Bush, Genesis, 1:310.
57. Bush, Genesis, 1:312.
58. Barnhouse, Genesis, 1:166.
59. Meyer, Abraham, 141.
60. Robert S. Candlish, The Book of Genesis Expounded in a Series of Discourses (rev. ed., Edinburgh: A. and C. Black, 1868; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1979), 327.
61. Cf. James Montgomery Boice, Genesis: An Expositional Commentary, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 2:178–79.
62. Leupold, Genesis, 1:568.
63. Cf. Bush, Genesis, 1:319–24.
64. Jamieson, Genesis-Deuteronomy, 162.
65. Cf. Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976), 354.
66. Cf. J. Penrose Harland, “Sodom and Gomorrah: The Destruction of the Cities of the Plain,” The Biblical Archaeologist 6 (Sept., 1943): 41-54.
67. Morris, The Genesis Record, 353–54.
68. Most scholars today would probably reject the popular theory that the high salinity of the lake is due to the phenomena connected with the destruction of the cities of the plain (ISBE, 1:881; Morris, The Genesis Record, 353–55; cf. Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, 1:236, n. 1, for the view that the Dead Sea either originated at the catastrophe or was a large fresh water lake until that time).
69. Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, 1:235; Bush, Genesis, 1:325.
70. Cited by Leupold, Genesis, 1:570. The doctrinal position of this council was Arian. Cf. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, s.v., “Sirmium, Blasphemy of,” 1280.
71. Kidner, Genesis, 135.
72. Bush, Genesis, 1:328.
73. Cf. Kidner, Genesis, 135.
74. Bush, Genesis, 1:328.
75. Cf. W. H. Griffith Thomas, Genesis: A Devotional Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1946), 173–74.
76. Bush, Genesis, 1:333.
77. E.g., Tacitus, The Histories 5.7, in Tacitus, Histories and Annals, 4 vols., trans. C. H. Moore and J. Jackson, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931), 186–89.
78. George Adam Smith, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1902), 505.
79. Cf. B. L. Smith, “Homosexuality in the Bible and the Law,” Christianity Today (July 18, 1969): 9.
80. Cf. Harold Lindsell, “Homosexuals and the Church,” Christianity Today (Sept. 28, 1973): 8.
81. Cf. “Gay Couples United Under San Francisco Law,” Chicago Tribune (Feb. 15, 1991): 2.
82. “Confronting the Homosexual Issue,” Christianity Today [July 8, 1977]: 36). In 1993 New York City’s School Chancellor Joseph Fernandez lost his job because of his advocacy of a multicultural curriculum called “The Children of the Rainbow,” which aimed in part at teaching grade-school children “positive aspects” of homosexual family life. For an insightful discussion of the gay lobby’s methods and agenda in this case, cf. Richard Vigilante, “Winning in New York,” National Review (Jan. 18, 1993): 18, 20.
83. “How to Call Sin Sin Noncontroversially,” Christianity Today [May 4, 1979]: 45.
84. Cf. “Gays on the March,” Time [Sept. 8, 1975]: 32-43; “The Future of Gay America,” Newsweek [March 12, 1990]: 20-27).
85. “Sexuality Report Draws Fire,” Christianity Today (April 29, 1991): 37.
86. “The Fall of a Gay Priest,” Newsweek (Feb. 12, 1990): 61.
87. “The Battle over Gay Clergy,” Time (Nov. 13, 1989): 89.
88. I. M., “Metropolitan Community Church: Deception Discovered,” Christianity Today (April 26, 1974): 13-14.
89. E.g., Scanzoni and Mollenkott, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?
90. J. R. Edwards, “Eros Deified,” Christianity Today (May 27, 1991): 14. Note: In Summer, 1991, the general assembly voted to reject the report. Yet commissioners declined to adopt language affirming marriage between a man and a woman as “the only God ordained relationship for the expression of sexual intercourse” (“Presbyterian Assembly Rejects Sexuality Report,” Christianity Today (July 22, 1991): 37.
91. Boice, Genesis, 2:180; Ross, Creation and Blessing, 365.
92. Bush, Genesis, 1:329.