Originally appeared April 19, 2000, in the Chicago Free Press.
Of the religious folktales of the world, few have occasioned more hatred and cruelty, suffering and death than the Old Testament story of Sodom, the city purportedly destroyed by Jehovah because its inhabitants were homosexual. The story comes down to us in a highly confused state, and it seems unlikely that most of those who cite it have ever tried to puzzle out its contradictions.
ONE OF THE MOST BEGUILING but baffling stories preserved in the Old Testament book of Genesis is the ancient folktale of Yahweh's destruction of the city of Sodom (Gen.18:20-19:38).
It would be possible to view the folktale as a charming example of comforting wish-fulfillment revenge fantasy by ancient nomadic tribesmen had the story not been taken literally by so many men who did so much evil: Few stories in the Old Testament have generated more hatred and cruelty, more suffering and death.
The usual interpretation is that the ancient god (1) destroyed Sodom because its inhabitants were homosexual, but (2) spared Lot because he offered hospitality to two angels and tried to protect them from the Sodomites.
It is hard to imagine anyone could believe this interpretation if he had actually read the story. The first element is undermined by inconsistencies in the story; the second by the words of the story itself.
To begin, it is worth pointing out that this god is not omniscient: he does not know for certain what is going on in Sodom, he has only heard reports - "an outcry" as it is expressed. So the god sends two angels to investigate.
When the angels come to the city gate of Sodom, in one of those remarkable coincidences possible only in folk tales, who should they meet but Lot who just happens to be sitting there. Why this is such a coincidence we will see shortly. Lot invites the visitors into his house.
As soon as they hear that two strangers are staying at Lot's house, the entire male population of Sodom - "young and old . . . every one of them" - surround Lot's house and demand that he send the visitors out so the mob can have sex with them.
"Bring them out," they shouted, "so that we can have intercourse with them." Or words to that effect.
Now it is impossible to take any such incident seriously as history. How could the entire male population of a city be homosexual? If all these men were homosexual, how could Sodom sustain its population? Where did the little Sodomites come from?
It is hard to know what a "city" might have meant, but a fair guess would be between 1,000 and 3,000 people. It scarcely seems plausible that so many men (500-1,500) could actually expect to have sex with just two men. Nor is it plausible that the visitors would appeal to the diverse tastes and behavioral preferences of every single man, even if they were homosexual.
Then too, consider the fact that Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be used by the crowd as a substitute. "Let me bring them out to you," he says, "and you can do what you like with them."
But if the men of Sodom had been homosexual why would Lot think they would have any interest in his daughters?
How long has Lot lived in Sodom? Years? You would think he would have noticed something like rampant homosexuality had it existed. You would also have to wonder why he chose to live there. You might even wonder how he could have found the prospective sons-in-law who were engaged to his daughters.
However that may be, when Lot's offer fails to appease the crowd, the visitors pull Lot back into his house and cause the men of Sodom to become blind. They then tell Lot to leave Sodom because they are going to destroy it.
Why? Because, says one angel, "The outcry against it has been so great that the Lord has sent us to destroy it."
This statement makes clear that the god had already decided to destroy Sodom long before the angels arrived and long before any attempted gang-rape. So the whole incident at Lot's house had nothing to do with the reason Sodom was destroyed.
It is also worth pointing out that the incident at Lot's house, however we understand it, is the only one anywhere in the Bible that could suggest any connection between Sodom and homosexuality. There are no others. And, to repeat, that incident was not why Sodom was destroyed.
But why then did the angels spare Lot and tell him to leave town? To reward Lot for his hospitality? Because he tried to protect them from assault?
Because he was the only heterosexual in Sodom? Not at all.
The angel explains that he had already been forbidden to destroy Sodom until Lot is safe: "I can do nothing until you are there" - i.e., in the neighboring town of Zoar, the only one of the five cities of the Plain that was not destroyed.
To understand why, we have to remember who Lot was.
Two chapters earlier in Genesis the god made his covenant with Abraham to create the Hebrew nation. Now it happens that Abraham's brother Haran was Lot's father (Gen. 11:27-28); that is, Lot is Abraham's nephew. Lot is to be saved not for anything he did, but because of who he is.
In the plain words of the folktale narrator: "Thus when God destroyed the cities of the Plain he thought of Abraham and rescued Lot from the disaster" (Gen. 19:29).
So to repeat, neither Sodom's destruction nor Lot's rescue has any connection with the incident at Lot's house nor with Lot's hospitality. The decision to destroy Sodom but save Lot were made by the god before the incident even happened.
The angels then were sent not to investigate at all, but to get Lot out of the city. Which is why it was such a remarkable coincidence that he just happened to be the very first person they encountered at Sodom.