Sodom in the New Testament means...
At this point, revisionist interpreters appeal to the New Testament, claiming with Boswell that Jesus “apparently believed that Sodom was destroyed for the sin of inhospitality.”30 In Matthew 10:14–15 and Luke 10:10–12, the Lord does not cite the cause of Sodom’s destruction, but He identifies the destruction as a prime example of God’s judgment. The sin in the context is not inhospitality but failure to believe the gospel of the kingdom (Matt. 10:7; Luke 10:9). It is rejection of Christ (10:16).
Sodom in the Septuagint
One of the strongest supports for the traditional interpretation of what happened at Sodom comes from the LXX translation of Genesis 19:5, which uses the term syngenōmetha. Boswell believes that this use supports his interpretation. He points out that this word simply means “becoming familiar with” or “making the acquaintance of” in Genesis 19:5, whereas egnōsan and chrēsas clearly refer to sexual behavior in 19:8. However, in the parallel of Judges 19:22, the LXX uses another form of egnōsan, gnōmen, in the request of the men of Gibeah to “know” the Levite. It plainly has a sexual sense.
Also, Boswell has not given all the information regarding the term in 19:5. The word syngignomai, which later came to be spelled synginomai, can mean various things, including to (1) “be born with, (2) associate or keep company with or hold converse with, or to (3) become acquainted or conversant with.”
Under the second meaning, various ideas are possible, including “come to assist,” “come together with,” “meet,” or “have sexual intercourse with.” The last meaning occurs in the fifth to fourth centuries B.C. in Xenophon’s Anabasis 1.2.12 and in Plato’s The Republic 329c and Leges (Laws) 930d.
It is also found with that meaning in an undated Greek inscription, in writings by Herodotus (2.121.e; 5th century B.C.) and Epidaurus (4th century B.C.), and in Plutarch’s Solon 23 (A.D. 1st–2d centuries).
These several references, most of them from shortly before 250 B.C., which was the era of the LXX translation, argue that a sexual meaning for the term is probable in Genesis 19:5.
In addition, A Concordance to the Septuagint by Hatch and Redpath cites two occurrences of synginomai in the canonical Septuagint (Gen. 19:5; 39:10) and one occurrence in the Apocrypha (Judith 12:16).
In addition, A Concordance to the Septuagint by Hatch and Redpath cites two occurrences of synginomai in the canonical Septuagint (Gen. 19:5; 39:10) and one occurrence in the Apocrypha (Judith 12:16).
These occurrences are in sexual contexts. Genesis 39:10 relates to the attempted seduction of Joseph by Potiphar’s wife. The last words are the translation of this term: “And it came about as she spoke to Joseph day after day, that he did not listen to her to lie beside her, or be with her” (emphasis added). The New International Version translates the last portion: “He refused to go to bed with her or even be with her” (emphasis added).
The final words could just as well be in apposition to the earlier ones: “he refused to go to bed with her, to have intercourse with her.” Indeed, William L. Holladay cites this verse as an instance in which the Hebrew hayaʿim means “to be with someone at someone’s house sexually.”34
The above data rather convincingly supports a sexual meaning for synginomai in Genesis 19:5. Indeed, the translators of the LXX might have deliberately desired to make the sexual reference more explicit, not weaker, than the Hebrew yādaʿ or the Greek ginōskō would suggest. This and other evidence from the LXX is compelling.
Revisionist interpreters do acknowledge that Lot’s offer of his daughters to the men in Genesis 19:8 must suggest some sexual meaning for yādaʿ. Boswell believes that the connection with 19:5 is purely imaginary. Lot was speaking impulsively, “on the spur of the moment.”
The above data rather convincingly supports a sexual meaning for synginomai in Genesis 19:5. Indeed, the translators of the LXX might have deliberately desired to make the sexual reference more explicit, not weaker, than the Hebrew yādaʿ or the Greek ginōskō would suggest. This and other evidence from the LXX is compelling.
Revisionist interpreters do acknowledge that Lot’s offer of his daughters to the men in Genesis 19:8 must suggest some sexual meaning for yādaʿ. Boswell believes that the connection with 19:5 is purely imaginary. Lot was speaking impulsively, “on the spur of the moment.”
That argument is irrelevant to the point that the same term yādaʿ occurs in verses 5 and 8, in such proximity that the assumption can hardly be missed: Both instances mean “to have sexual relations with.” Boswell cites examples from Roman literature in which fathers offered female children as bribes in nonsexual contexts, but this is beside the point. He already has admitted the strong sexual behavior belonging to the verbs used by the LXX in verse 8.
The Hebrew yādaʿ occurs here as a euphemism, one of four occurring in the Pentateuch as references to sexual intercourse. The others are “to come near or approach” (Gen. 20:4; Isa. 8:3); “to lie with” (Levit. 20:11); “to take (marry) a wife” (Levit. 20:21); and “to uncover the nakedness” (Levit. 18:14). All of them have the same meaning.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 34–36). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
The Hebrew yādaʿ occurs here as a euphemism, one of four occurring in the Pentateuch as references to sexual intercourse. The others are “to come near or approach” (Gen. 20:4; Isa. 8:3); “to lie with” (Levit. 20:11); “to take (marry) a wife” (Levit. 20:21); and “to uncover the nakedness” (Levit. 18:14). All of them have the same meaning.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 34–36). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
