One of the more brazen reinterpretations offered by Progressive Christianity and LGBTQ-affirming theologians is the claim that the sin for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed had nothing to do with sexual immorality—particularly homosexuality—but rather was about hospitality. According to this view, Sodom’s wickedness was its arrogance, oppression of the poor, and refusal to welcome strangers. This reinterpretation is most often supported by a misapplication of Ezekiel 16:49, which says:
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.
This verse is presented as proof that conservative Christians have misrepresented the story of Sodom, falsely tying it to homosexuality when the real issue was social injustice.
At first glance, this claim may sound persuasive—especially to modern ears sensitized to themes of justice, inclusion, and hospitality. But as with so many progressive claims, it collapses under the weight of serious biblical study. Once again, sound hermeneutics exposes what is not merely a misunderstanding but a willful distortion of the biblical text.
In this article, we will examine the true meaning of Ezekiel 16, the full context of Genesis 19, the supporting testimony of the New Testament, and the witness of church history. We will also expose the consequences of turning Sodom into a parable of failed hospitality rather than a divine warning against moral depravity and rebellion against nature.
Hermeneutics: The Key to Right Interpretation
Hermeneutics is the discipline of interpreting texts accurately, particularly Scripture. Derived from the Greek hermēneuein, meaning “to interpret” or “to explain,” biblical hermeneutics keeps us from reshaping the Bible to suit modern ideologies or preferences.
Key hermeneutical principles include:
- Contextual reading: Always read verses in their literary, historical, and canonical context.
- Scripture interprets Scripture: We interpret unclear passages in light of clearer ones.
- Historical-cultural awareness: We understand texts within the culture and assumptions of their time.
- Lexical accuracy: Hebrew and Greek words must be understood according to their range of meaning.
- Theological coherence: God does not contradict Himself; the Bible speaks with unified authority.
When applied to the question of Sodom’s sin, these principles reveal a much more comprehensive—and morally serious—picture than the progressive retelling admits.
The Progressive Argument: “Sodom Was Condemned for Inhospitality”
The basic progressive argument unfolds like this:
Genesis 19 is not about homosexuality but about violence and a lack of hospitality. Ezekiel 16:49 clearly states that Sodom’s sin was pride and neglect of the poor. Therefore, using Sodom as a warning against homosexual practice is a misinterpretation and promotes bigotry.
Some go further, suggesting that the traditional Christian view is based on homophobic bias rather than sound biblical exegesis. They treat the use of the term “Sodomite” as a slur, and argue that the church has long misunderstood or weaponized the text to harm gay people.
This line of reasoning depends on three key assumptions:
- That Genesis 19 is solely about a breach of hospitality.
- That Ezekiel 16 redefines or clarifies the meaning of Sodom’s sin.
- That sexual sin—especially homosexuality—is absent or secondary in the biblical account.
We will now examine each of these points in turn, applying sound hermeneutics to see what the Bible truly teaches.
Hermeneutical Analysis
Immediate Context: What Happened in Genesis 19?
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is found in Genesis 18–19, where God sends two angels to investigate the city’s wickedness. Abraham pleads with God to spare the city if even ten righteous people are found there. In Genesis 19, the angels arrive in Sodom and are welcomed into Lot’s home. What follows is chilling:
Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.’
—Genesis 19:4–5 (ESV)
The Hebrew verb yada (יָדַע), translated “know,” is sometimes claimed by progressives to mean “get acquainted with” or “interrogate.” But this is special pleading. The word yada can mean “to know” in a general sense, but when used euphemistically in sexual contexts (as in Genesis 4:1, “Adam knew Eve”), the meaning is unmistakable.
The demand of “all the men of Sodom… to the last man” to sexually know the visitors is not about politeness or curiosity. It is about sexual aggression, mob violence, and perversion.
Lot’s own response confirms this:
“I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please.”
—Genesis 19:7–8
Lot’s offer—though appalling—shows he understood the men’s intentions were sexual and violent. He pleads with them not to commit “wickedness,” clearly referring to a grave moral sin, not a social faux pas.
Cross-Referencing: What Does the Rest of the Bible Say?
1. Ezekiel 16:49–50
Progressives latch onto Ezekiel 16:49, which reads:
Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.
On its own, this verse emphasizes social injustice—arrogance, gluttony, and disregard for the needy. But the next verse is key:
“They were haughty and did an abomination before Me. So I removed them, when I saw it.”
—Ezekiel 16:50
The word abomination (toevah in Hebrew) is loaded. It is the same word used in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 for homosexual acts:
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
Ezekiel is not limiting Sodom’s sin to inhospitality—he’s broadening it. The city was guilty of pride, injustice, and sexual perversion. These are not either/or but both/and.
2. Jude 7
The New Testament removes any doubt:
“Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities… indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”
—Jude 7 (ESV)
The Greek phrase translated “unnatural desire” (sarkos heteras) literally means “strange flesh”—a euphemism for perverse sexual lust. Jude interprets the sin of Sodom as sexual immorality, not a failure of hospitality.
3. 2 Peter 2:6–7
Peter writes:
[God] turned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes… and if He rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked…
Again, the sin of Sodom is tied to sensual conduct, not poor manners.
C. Historical and Cultural Context: Why the Hospitality Argument Fails
Some claim that ancient Near Eastern hospitality customs were so central to society that a violation of them—particularly in threatening guests—would be the gravest possible offense. This, they argue, explains why Sodom was destroyed.
While it’s true that hospitality was highly valued, we must not confuse custom with covenant law. Nowhere in the Torah is inhospitality listed as a capital offense. But homosexual acts are—repeatedly, and in unequivocal terms.
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
—Leviticus 20:13
Progressive interpreters often ignore this legal framework and instead insert modern sensibilities—e.g., that “welcoming the marginalized” is the highest moral good—back into the ancient text. This is eisegesis, not exegesis.
Moreover, if Sodom’s sin was primarily a failure of hospitality, why is its destruction described in such apocalyptic terms? Fire and brimstone are not God’s response to mere rudeness. The text clearly depicts a society overrun with depravity, so heinous that its judgment became proverbial (Isaiah 1:9; Lamentations 4:6).
D. Lexical and Grammatical Accuracy: What Does “Know” Mean in Genesis 19?
As previously noted, the Hebrew word for “know” (yada) can mean “to know” in general or euphemistically to refer to sexual relations. The latter usage is consistent and undeniable in passages such as:
- Genesis 4:1 – “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived…”
- Judges 19:22 – A parallel account where wicked men demand to “know” a male guest, resulting in a gang rape.
It’s striking that Judges 19:22–30, which mirrors the Sodom account almost exactly, makes clear that “know” refers to rape, not interrogation. In that story, the Levite’s concubine is thrown to the mob and “they knew her and abused her all night until morning.”
The idea that “know” in Genesis 19 means “interview” or “get acquainted” is not only grammatically dishonest—it’s morally reckless.
E. Theological Coherence: The Danger of Redefining Sin
To reduce the sin of Sodom to social injustice is to gut the moral authority of the text. The Bible’s testimony is consistent:
- Genesis describes a city overrun by sexual deviance.
- Leviticus codifies male-male sex as an abomination.
- Ezekiel affirms both social and sexual sin.
- Jude and Peter reinforce the theme of sexual immorality and divine judgment.
When modern interpreters redefine sin, they do more than alter theology—they invite others into error and judgment. Progressive Christianity often presents its revisionism as a form of compassion. But affirming what God calls sin is not love—it’s deception.
Rebutting the Misuse: Understanding Ezekiel 16 Rightly
Let’s return to Ezekiel 16, the favored prooftext of the hospitality argument.
Yes, the prophet emphasizes pride, indulgence, and neglect of the poor. But this is a literary crescendo—he is building a case for comprehensive wickedness. Verse 50 then summarizes their guilt:
“They were haughty and did an abomination before Me.”
Here’s the key: Ezekiel is not correcting Genesis 19. He’s expanding it. Sodom was not only sexually perverse—it was economically unjust, arrogant, and apathetic to the weak.
The progressive error is in treating Ezekiel 16:49 as if it overrides Genesis 19 and Jude 7. That violates the hermeneutical principle of scriptural harmony.
Scripture does not contradict Scripture. Instead, it offers layered moral insight—showing that Sodom was guilty of a wide range of sins, with sexual deviance among the most central.
God’s Design and Human Sexuality
The consistent moral message of the Bible is that sex is a gift from God, designed to be enjoyed within the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman. Any deviation from this design—whether fornication, adultery, incest, or homosexuality—is sin.
Romans 1 offers a theological diagnosis:
“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature… men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
—Romans 1:26–27
Paul’s words echo the judgment on Sodom. The phrase “contrary to nature” (para physin) emphasizes the violation of created order—male and female, designed for union.
Biology Confirms This Design
The design of the human body reflects God’s intent:
- Male and female anatomy are complementary—clearly structured for reproductive union.
- Homosexual acts contradict this structure:
- Male-male anal intercourse leads to higher rates of rectal tearing, fecal contamination, and transmission of disease.
- Lesbian acts lack complementarity and simulate male-female union unnaturally.
God’s design is both beautiful and protective. When we reject that design, we not only rebel against God—we harm ourselves.
Sodom as a Warning for the Church and the Culture
The story of Sodom is not just a judgment on an ancient city—it’s a warning for every generation. Jesus Himself said:
“Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot… so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed.”
—Luke 17:28–30
Sodom’s sins—pride, indulgence, sexual perversion, and indifference to judgment—mirror those of our own culture.
- We celebrate what God condemns.
- We accuse truth-tellers of hate.
- We twist Scripture to justify sin.
- And we reject the very Savior who can redeem us.
Progressive reinterpretations are not merely errors—they are acts of war against the Word of God. They lull sinners into false security, telling them that fire won’t fall when it already has begun to smolder.
The Good News: Christ Saves Sodomites—Including Us
The story of Sodom is a tragedy—but the gospel turns tragedy into triumph.
Paul writes:
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral… nor men who practice homosexuality… will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you.”
—1 Corinthians 6:9–11
“Such were some of you.” These are some of the most hope-filled words in the Bible.
- Homosexual sin is not unforgivable.
- The blood of Christ covers every kind of brokenness.
- The Holy Spirit empowers change—not merely behavior modification but regeneration.
Jesus saves sinners—including those who once walked in the sins of Sodom. He gives not affirmation but transformation.
Conclusion: Hospitality or Holiness?
The claim that Sodom was judged for inhospitality, not homosexuality, is not only poor hermeneutics—it is spiritual malpractice. It recasts divine judgment as divine misunderstanding and confuses compassion with compromise.
Sodom was destroyed because it was a city that exalted pride, despised the poor, and perverted the image of God in human sexuality. Its sin was comprehensive, but its judgment fell chiefly because it rebelled against the created order.
The lesson for us is not that we should be more “welcoming.” The lesson is that we must be holy—and warn others to flee from the wrath to come.
Only the gospel saves sinners from Sodom’s fate. Only Christ can wash away the stain of abomination and restore the image of God in man.
Let us proclaim that gospel boldly—without revision, without apology, and without fear.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
MMXXV
rob@basedchristianity.org
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.
Realize that I sometimes use phrases like “trans man”, “trans woman”, “transgender” , “transition” or similar language for ease of communication. Obviously, as a conservative Christian, I don’t believe anyone has ever become the opposite sex. Unfortunately, we are forced to adopt the language of the left to discuss some topics without engaging in lengthy qualifying statements that make conversations awkward.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at rob@basedchristianity.org if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.