References to Sodom in Ezekiel 16 speak about homosexual acts
 |
| Sodom and Gomorrha, Alte Pinakothek, Room 23 (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
However, Boswell and Bailey and others interpret these two verses incorrectly because they fail to consider their context, especially verse 50.69 In the passage, Ezekiel compares Jerusalem with her two sisters, the elder Samaria and the younger Sodom. He finds that Jerusalem, is worse than either of the others (note 16:47–52). Sodom obviously is a figurative term here, probably a reference to Judah as a whole.70 Ezekiel 16:2 sets forth the argument of the chapter: “Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations” (KJV).
In failing to take into account verse 50, Boswell misrepresents the text. There it is written about Sodom and her daughters, “And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good” (KJV). The sins of “Sodom” went far beyond pride and neglect of the poor. These sins gave rise to abominable conduct, and this conduct caused their destruction, as described in Genesis 19. God singles out pride as the root of Sodom’s sin. Pride is frequently linked to homosexuality in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, as well as in the New Testament (Rom. 1:21–22, 28ff.; see p. 160).
Indeed, when one understands that Ezekiel is comparing Jerusalem and Judah with Sodom, one realizes just how appropriate the comparison is. Judah practiced the same sins as Sodom. This observation finds substantiation if the references in Deuteronomy and especially those in 1 Kings and 2 Kings refer to sodomy. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel made frequent comparisons of Judah with Sodom.
Note the terms used to describe “Sodom’s” iniquity in Ezekiel 16. The revisionist view makes much of these terms in the discussion of the prohibitions of homosexuality in Leviticus 18 and 20. The terms include:
1. zōnāh about twenty-one times (“play the harlot, whoredoms, and fornication”; the LXX translates with cognates of porneia and diatheke);
2. toʿeba ten times (“abominations”; the LXX has anomia and anomēma); and
3. zimmah three times (“lewdness”; the LXX has cognates of asebeia).
These terms seem to be synonymous and clearly relate to sexuality and spiritual adultery (idolatry). The Levite uses zimmah to describe the “lewd act” committed by the men of Gibeah (Judg. 20:6; see p. 79).
If someone should protest that Ezekiel 16 does not specifically use the term homosexuality, the reply is that the concept is clearly present. One can assume it under one of the three terms involved, and it is present in the very mention and significance of the term Sodom. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 support this assertion because they use abomination (Heb. toʿeba; Gk. bdelygma) to denote male homosexual acts. This point is especially significant, for no one term is reserved specifically for this behavior, unless it be dog or changed sex.
Why would Ezekiel say that Jerusalem’s sin is worse than “Sodom’s”? The passage provides the answer: Jerusalem has
1. forgotten the days of her youth (ingratitude, 16:43);
2. committed Sodom’s abominations (idolatry, harlotry, v. 47);
3. acted more corruptly than did Sodom (vv. 47–48) and multiplied corrupt actions more (v. 51);
4. made Sodom appear righteous by comparison (vv. 51, 52); and
5. become the reproach of her enemies (v. 57).
Most important, she has broken covenant with Yahweh (vv. 59–62). The real Sodom had no such covenant, was not married to Yahweh, and did not belong to Him. God had loved Jerusalem when no one else did, made a covenant with her, made her His, enriched her, made her into a kingdom, and made her beauty perfect (vv. 3–15).
Indeed, when one understands that Ezekiel is comparing Jerusalem and Judah with Sodom, one realizes just how appropriate the comparison is. Judah practiced the same sins as Sodom. This observation finds substantiation if the references in Deuteronomy and especially those in 1 Kings and 2 Kings refer to sodomy. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel made frequent comparisons of Judah with Sodom.
Note the terms used to describe “Sodom’s” iniquity in Ezekiel 16. The revisionist view makes much of these terms in the discussion of the prohibitions of homosexuality in Leviticus 18 and 20. The terms include:
1. zōnāh about twenty-one times (“play the harlot, whoredoms, and fornication”; the LXX translates with cognates of porneia and diatheke);
2. toʿeba ten times (“abominations”; the LXX has anomia and anomēma); and
3. zimmah three times (“lewdness”; the LXX has cognates of asebeia).
These terms seem to be synonymous and clearly relate to sexuality and spiritual adultery (idolatry). The Levite uses zimmah to describe the “lewd act” committed by the men of Gibeah (Judg. 20:6; see p. 79).
If someone should protest that Ezekiel 16 does not specifically use the term homosexuality, the reply is that the concept is clearly present. One can assume it under one of the three terms involved, and it is present in the very mention and significance of the term Sodom. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 support this assertion because they use abomination (Heb. toʿeba; Gk. bdelygma) to denote male homosexual acts. This point is especially significant, for no one term is reserved specifically for this behavior, unless it be dog or changed sex.
Why would Ezekiel say that Jerusalem’s sin is worse than “Sodom’s”? The passage provides the answer: Jerusalem has
1. forgotten the days of her youth (ingratitude, 16:43);
2. committed Sodom’s abominations (idolatry, harlotry, v. 47);
3. acted more corruptly than did Sodom (vv. 47–48) and multiplied corrupt actions more (v. 51);
4. made Sodom appear righteous by comparison (vv. 51, 52); and
5. become the reproach of her enemies (v. 57).
Most important, she has broken covenant with Yahweh (vv. 59–62). The real Sodom had no such covenant, was not married to Yahweh, and did not belong to Him. God had loved Jerusalem when no one else did, made a covenant with her, made her His, enriched her, made her into a kingdom, and made her beauty perfect (vv. 3–15).
In committing harlotry with other lovers, she bribed them to come to her, rather than asking money for her services—making her different from all other harlots (vv. 33–34). This sets Jerusalem apart from historical Sodom, and even Samaria, for Jerusalem’s fall was from heights of privilege and favor that neither of the other places had known. Neither had such a covenantal relationship with God.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 43–45). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 43–45). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
