Does Genesis 19 condemn Homosexuality?

by brotherdan 116 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • undercover

    I've never been able to get past the fact that Lot was willing to give up his daughters.

    I've heard it said that in those times, it was important that hospitality toward your guests was of utmost importance. What it confirms to me is the attitude toward women of the day... property, not people. Not equal in value to the men.

    Lot: "Please angry, lust filled villagers. Don't harrass and torture these men who have come to visit. But, take my daughters, they are but females. I give you this property to do with as you please. Enjoy them." turns back to angels.. "come, let us dine together and enjoy wine..."

    If the Bible was condemning homosexuality but is okay with rape, you can keep count me out as relying on it for seeking God's guidance.

  • PSacramento
    I've never been able to get past the fact that Lot was willing to give up his daughters.

    Considering what his daughters do afterwards ot him, maybe he was on to something ;)

    I think that it was to show how protective Lot was of his visitors that he was willing to sacrifice his daughters to save them, which really doesn't excuse things but kind of leads to the issue of why the people of Sodom were killed and why Lot and his family were spared.

    I don't think that WE can look at this episode as anything but a mess in all reagrds.

    The people of Sodom were sick bastards, Lot was a sick Bastardm his daughters were sick, his wife was salty and oen totally sympathises with the angels in destroying everthing.

  • Billy the Ex-Bethelite
    Billy the Ex-Bethelite

    My thoughts exactly, UC.
    Of course, Botchtower gives a lengthy explanation of Lot's strategy of offering his daughters... which isn't in the Bible.
    Didn't Lot realize that these angels could have easily depenised the entire crowd.
    Lot: "Say, you guys look pretty tough. Can you teach these local wankers some manners?"

  • Leolaia
    Edited to add: I can't buy the argument that it was about the act of rape rather than homosexuality for two reasons. Lot offered up his two daughters to be raped, which shows the wicked act Lot was reffering to couldn't of been rape if he was ok with the idea of his own daughters being raped.

    This doesn't make much does Lot offering the men his virgin daughters make the story about same-sex orientation? This rather indicates the opposite. And yes, Lot would rather have his virgin daughter raped than have his guests violated. It is the same with the parallel story of the Levite who did the same thing (and there the men took him up on his offer wrt the concubine). What this really shows is the kind of male supremacist culture the ANE was (and the Middle East continues to be in many ways); women were property. The protagonist of the story was not a man with 21st-century American sensibilities.

    Secondly the men rejected Lot's request of his daughters and continued to try to have sex with the men. All of this points to the wicked act being homosexuality rather than rape.

    No they did not reject the daughters on account of them being women, they were there to abuse strangers. Their response to Lot's offer was (to paraphrase): "How dare you tell us what to do, you are a stranger yourself, you came to the city as one, and we're gonna abuse you now worse than these guests of yours".

    Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” “Get out of our way,” they replied. “This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” (v. 6-9)

  • Snoozy

    Funny. I get that it is sexual orientation that is objected to..


  • brotherdan

    What is the Bible's position on gay marriage?

    It doesn't specifically say anything about loving and committed relationships that take place within the same sex. It may refer to a man marrying a woman. But it doesn't say anything about same sex commitment.

    I will answer each of these posts in order. I just got back from a long lunch. But I am prepared with these arguments. I had the same ones. But if you don't read more into the Bible than what it says, there is a very different conclusion that you will come to regarding this.

  • PSacramento

    Lets look at it this way, Lot have lived there for a bit, he knew them and they knew Lot.

    If it was a homosexual thing and they were homosexuals looking for some male butt to crack ( get it butt..crack..anyways) then why would Lot offer them his daughters?? If Lot though it was a homosexual act he would NOT have offered up his daughters.

    If you know that someone is a vegan, do you offer them a hamburger?

  • glenster
  • brotherdan

    I wouldn't quibble with the meaning of "know" here because it is clearly has a sexual nuance here as it is in Genesis 4:1; the parallel story in Judges 19:22-25 is clearly referring to rape.

    It really doesn't say that about the instance in Genesis 19. That's why I brought up the other scriptures that talk about the lack of hospitality. In our culture hospitality is a "weak" word to mean being nice to strangers. But in ancient times it had a far greater conotation. It was acknowledging the human-ness of another person. It was showing respect for their life. I will discuss the matter of the offering of their daughters in both Genesis 19 and Judges 19 in a different post, but for now it goes to show how seriously the ancients viewed the matter of hospitality. I do not justify this, and nowhere does God justify this in the Bible. It's history of something that happened, not justification. God nowhere commanded that this be done. So you cannot blame God for the actions of these men.

    Again, the focus of Judges 19 is NOT condemnation of homosexual behavior. It was condemnation of abusing visitors. It has nothing to say about consentual homosexual relationships.

    Also, note the similarity of the stories in Genesis and Judges. One was (allegedly) a desire for homosexual rape. But Judges 19 was a carried out heterosexual rape. Why take the Genesis account and say that it condemns homosexuality because of the mens desire to rape, and not condmen heterosexuality for the mens actual rape of a woman in Judges 19? If you condmen one, you have to condemn the other.

    Iit seems obvious that neither Genesis 19 nor Judges 19 were written as tools for condemnation toward homosexuals. The major focus of these stories was the issue of hospitality.

  • brotherdan
    If Lot though it was a homosexual act he would NOT have offered up his daughters.

    Exactly right. This account was FULLY about rape. And think of it from our perspective today. Rape RARELY has anything to do with sex. It almost always about power and submission.

    Also, nowhere does it say that Lot was right for doing this. It is a historical account of an event that happened.

    These were angels of God, however. Lot was protecting them. Do you think that it would have been impossible for God to intervene for Lots daughters? Look at the account of Abraham. He was allowed to almost sacrifice Isaac. God never wanted that. But Abraham was able to prove his faith and had more faith than I could ever have.

Share this