Unpacking Genesis 19

What Was the Sin of Sodom?

Blinding the Inhabitants of Sodom, by Charles-Andre Van Loo, 18th century.

Introduction

Few biblical passages have been debated, weaponized, and reinterpreted as often as Genesis 19—the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. For centuries, Christian tradition has assumed that Sodom’s defining sin was homosexuality, giving rise to the term sodomy as shorthand for same-sex relations. But what if this assumption is wrong?

A close reading of the text—especially the Hebrew word yada (ידע) in Genesis 19:5—along with its historical, cultural, and theological context, reveals a far more complex picture. Instead of being about consensual same-sex relationships, Genesis 19 may be a warning against inhospitality, violence, and injustice—themes that later biblical writers emphasize over and over.

So why did Christian tradition come to see Sodom as a story about homosexuality? And what does an honest, faithful reading of the text demand of us today?

This post will explore Genesis 19 through the lenses of historical-critical scholarship, linguistic analysis, and theological reflection. We will:

• Examine the meaning of yada in Genesis 19:5 and its implications.

• Trace how Jewish and Christian interpretations of Sodom’s sin have evolved over time.

• Compare Genesis 19 with other biblical passages that reference Sodom.

• Engage with the official teaching of the Catholic Church and critique its interpretation on exegetical grounds.

• Present a historically and textually grounded conclusion on what the sin of Sodom actually was.

As with any serious engagement with Scripture, this analysis seeks to move beyond inherited assumptions and towards a deeper, more faithful reading of the text. Whether one approaches Genesis 19 from a theological, historical, or pastoral perspective, understanding what the text actually says—and what it does not say—is crucial for meaningful discourse on biblical and moral theology today.

The Linguistic and Contextual Meaning of Yada (ידע) in Genesis 19:5

At the heart of the debate over Genesis 19 is a single Hebrew word: yada (ידע). In Genesis 19:5, the men of Sodom demand that Lot bring out his guests “so that we may yada them.” For centuries, this phrase has been taken as a clear reference to sexual intercourse—specifically, an attempted homosexual act. But is this interpretation justified by the linguistic and textual evidence?

To answer this, we must explore three key questions:

1. What is the typical meaning of yada in the Hebrew Bible?

2. Does yada in Genesis 19:5 specifically imply sexual relations?

3. How does the immediate and broader context of Genesis 19 shape its meaning?

What Is the Typical Meaning of Yada in the Hebrew Bible?

The Hebrew verb yada is one of the most common words in the Old Testament, appearing approximately 947 times. In the vast majority of cases, it simply means “to know” in an intellectual, experiential, or relational sense.¹ Some examples include:

• Genesis 3:7 – “Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.”

• Exodus 1:8 – “Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.”

• Proverbs 3:6 – “In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.”

However, in certain contexts, yada is used as a euphemism for sexual relations. The clearest and most well-known example is:

• Genesis 4:1 – “Now Adam knew (yada) his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain.”

This euphemistic usage appears occasionally elsewhere, but it is far less common than the general meaning of “knowing” in a non-sexual sense. We also note that every other attested usage of yada referring to sexual intercourse describes heterosexual, male-female relations, or the lack thereof, as in the following examples:

• Genesis 4:17 - “And Cain knew (yada) his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch.”

• Judges 11:39 - “She returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew (yada) no man.”

• 1 Samuel 1:19 - “And Elkanah knew (yada) Hannah his wife, and the Lord remembered her.”

Thus, while sexual intercourse is within the semantic range of yada, it must be carefully justified by context.

Does Yada in Genesis 19:5 Specifically Imply Sexual Relations?

Genesis 19:5 states: “And they called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we may know (yada) them.’”

Traditionally, many interpreters have argued that yada here refers to sexual relations—specifically, an attempt at homosexual gang rape. Several factors are cited in support of this view:

1. The parallel usage within Genesis 19 – In verse 8, Lot offers his daughters to the mob, saying they “have not known (yada) a man.” Since yada in this verse seems to refer to their lack of sexual experience, some argue that yada in verse 5 must also carry a sexual meaning.²

2. The violent context – The men of Sodom surround Lot’s house in an aggressive manner, which suggests coercion rather than mere curiosity.

3. Other biblical passages linking Sodom to sexual sin – Later Christian texts, such as Jude 7, describe Sodom as engaging in “unnatural desire” (Greek: sarkos heteras eporeuthēsan), often taken to imply sexual immorality.

However, a growing number of scholars challenge this reading. They argue that yada in Genesis 19:5 may not necessarily imply sexual relations but rather a desire to interrogate, humiliate, or assert dominance over the strangers. Supporting this argument:

1. Alternative meanings of yada – In some biblical passages, yada means to investigate or identify someone (e.g., Exodus 1:8, Judges 6:10). Thus, some scholars propose that the Sodomites were demanding to interrogate the strangers, perhaps to determine if they were spies or threats to the city.³

2. Lot’s offer as a legal bargain – Lot’s offer of his daughters (Gen 19:8) is not necessarily about offering them up for sexual violence, but might reflect an ancient Near Eastern practice of hostage negotiation. James Alison argues that since his daughters “had not known men” (i.e., were not yet legally wed), they remained under Lot’s authority, allowing him to offer them as temporary hostages to guarantee his guests’ good behavior. The Sodomites, however, react with outrage, because they see Lot, a foreigner, as overstepping his social status by attempting to negotiate with them as an equal.⁴

3. Comparison with Judges 19 – The story of the Levite’s concubine in Judges 19 closely parallels Genesis 19 in structure. There, the men of Gibeah also demand to “know” a male guest, and the narrative explicitly results in sexual violence. Unlike Genesis 19, however, Judges 19 uses the Hebrew verb anah (עָנָה), meaning “to abuse” or “to humble.” This distinction suggests that if Genesis 19 were intended to depict sexual violence, the author could have used a more explicit term.

How Does the Context of Genesis 19 Shape the Meaning of Yada?

Beyond linguistic analysis, the broader context of Genesis 19 provides clues about the intended meaning of yada.

• The theme of inhospitality: Genesis 18, the chapter immediately preceding this story, describes Abraham welcoming three divine visitors with great hospitality, feeding them and protecting them. This positive example contrasts sharply with Sodom’s treatment of strangers. The structure of Genesis 18-19 as a narrative unit serves to highlight Sodom’s failure of hospitality, rather than sexual transgression.

• Lot’s response: Lot pleads with the crowd not to commit this “wicked thing,” but he does not explicitly say that they are demanding sex. Some argue that he is objecting to their violent breach of hospitality and social norms, rather than any specific sexual act.⁵

• The destruction of Sodom: Later Old Testament texts commenting on this story (e.g., Ezekiel 16:49-50, Wisdom 19) do not mention same-sex acts but instead emphasize Sodom’s arrogance, oppression, and injustice.

Taken together, these factors suggest that the demand to know the strangers may have been about interrogation, dominance, or humiliation, rather than a specific sexual act.

Linguistic and Contextual Challenges to the Traditional Reading

The claim that yada in Genesis 19:5 necessarily refers to sexual relations is far from conclusive. While some contextual clues support this reading, the word yada itself does not inherently mean “to have sex,” and alternative interpretations deserve serious consideration.

Moreover, even if yada in this passage does refer to sexual violence, that does not mean Genesis 19 condemns consensual same-sex relationships. The focus of the text is clearly on violent coercion, not sexual orientation or mutual relationships.

This raises an important question: If Genesis 19 is not primarily about same-sex relations, then what was the sin of Sodom? To answer this, we must turn to the historical development of interpretation—from early Jewish readings to Patristic, medieval, and modern Christian perspectives.

The Sin(s) of Sodom: A Historical Survey of Interpretation

The story of Sodom’s destruction has been interpreted in various ways throughout history, with shifting emphases depending on the cultural, theological, and social concerns of different eras. Contrary to the common assumption that Sodom was destroyed primarily due to homosexuality, early Jewish and Christian interpretations focused on other aspects of the story. The exclusive association of Sodom with same-sex acts developed gradually over time, only becoming dominant in the Christian tradition by the late patristic and medieval periods.

To understand how this shift occurred, we will examine the diachronic reception of the text across the following eras:

1. Early Jewish interpretations (Pre-Hellenistic and Hellenistic periods)

2. Patristic and medieval Christian interpretations

3. Modern and contemporary scholarship

Early Jewish Interpretations of Sodom’s Sin

The Old Testament itself provides multiple reflections on the sin of Sodom, and significantly, none of the earliest interpretations explicitly identify homosexuality as the primary offense.

• Ezekiel 16:49-50: “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. They were haughty and did an abomination (to‘evāh) before me. So I removed them when I saw it.”

Here, the prophet frames the sin of Sodom as multivalent, involving pride, greed, and neglect of the poor. Ezekiel’s interpretation reinforces the idea that their moral failure was rooted in social injustice rather than sexual behavior. The use of to‘evāh (often translated as “abomination”) in verse 50 is ambiguous. Although it is taken by later interpreters as a clear reference to sexual transgressions, it can also refer to idolatry, dishonesty, or generally to any ways, practices, or lifestyle behaviors that are to be rejected.⁶

• Wisdom of Solomon 19:13-17 (c. 1st century BC): “And the punishments came upon the sinners … since they treated their guests with the more grievous hatred. For those others did not receive unfamiliar visitors, but these were enslaving beneficent guests. And not that only; but what punishment was to be theirs since they received strangers unwillingly! Yet these, after welcoming them with festivities, oppressed with awful toils those who had shared with them the same rights. And they were struck with blindness, as those others had been at the doors of the righteous man—when, surrounded by yawning darkness, each sought the entrance of his own door.”

This passage explicitly compares the sin of Sodom to Egypt’s inhospitality toward foreigners, further reinforcing the idea that Sodom’s transgression was related to their mistreatment of outsiders, not sexual misconduct.

• Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20) (1st century BC): Describes the inhabitants of Sodom as engaging in “abominable deeds” and defiling themselves with “impure blood”—phrasing that suggests a range of transgressions, including ritual impurity and general moral corruption.⁷

This scroll, known as the “Genesis Apocryphon,” was discovered in Cave 1 at Qumran and found to contain an Aramaic paraphrastic retelling of Genesis. While it mentions Sodom’s destruction, it does not explicitly attribute its downfall to same-sex acts.

Taken together, these texts demonstrate that the earliest Jewish commentaries on Genesis 19 focus on violence, injustice, and inhospitality as the sins of Sodom. Only in the Hellenistic period did Jewish commentators begin to introduce a sexualized interpretation.

Hellenistic Jewish Thought: Philo and Josephus

A shift in interpretation begins with the writings of Philo of Alexandria (20 BC–50 AD) and Flavius Josephus (37–100 AD), both of whom highlight sexual immorality—and same-sex acts in particular—as a key element in the Sodom narrative. While earlier Jewish texts focused on inhospitality, arrogance, and injustice, Philo and Josephus introduce a new emphasis on unnatural lusts and moral corruption, reflecting the influence of Hellenistic philosophical concerns about self-mastery, order, and “natural” human behavior.

Philo, a Jewish philosopher deeply influenced by Stoicism and Platonism, describes the men of Sodom as engaging in “unbridled licentiousness” and “fornication contrary to nature” (On Abraham, 133–136; On the Special Laws 3.39–42).⁸ Like the Greek moralists, he saw self-control as the foundation of virtue and treated same-sex acts as a symptom of unchecked passion and moral decay. However, his central concern in interpreting Genesis 19 appears to be, not homosexuality per se, but excess, indulgence, and the failure to govern one’s desires—themes central to Greco-Roman ethics.

Josephus, the Jewish historian, follows a similar trajectory in his Antiquities of the Jews (1.194–195), where he describes the Sodomites as engaging in “unlawful sexual relations” and unnatural lusts.⁹ He presents Sodom’s downfall as divine punishment for those who violate natural law. Like Philo, he does not derive this interpretation from Genesis itself but from the Greco-Roman moral framework, which linked societal corruption to sexual excess and disorder. He seems to be consciously aligning his interpretation of the Genesis text with Roman concerns about degeneracy, perhaps to make the story more easily intelligible or relevant to his audience.

With Philo and Josephus, we see the first explicit linking of Sodom’s destruction with same-sex behavior, a theme that will later be picked up in the Christian tradition. However, their interpretations are not rooted in the biblical narrative itself, but rather in Hellenistic philosophical anxieties about excess, disorder, and unnatural desires. This marks a significant shift away from earlier Jewish readings, which emphasized social injustice and the mistreatment of the vulnerable. The sexualized reading of Sodom’s sin, though later dominant in Christian exegesis, owes more to Greek moral philosophy than to the Hebrew Scriptures themselves.

Patristic and Medieval Christian Interpretations

Early Christian writers offered diverse interpretations of Sodom’s sin, including:

• Tertullian (c. 160–220 AD): References the story of Sodom multiple times, but never associates its destruction with same-sex relations. His primary interpretation in Adversus Marcionem links Sodom’s downfall to “seeking after worldly glory.”¹⁰ In another work, he even uses the story as a cautionary tale against marrying and remarrying.¹¹

• Hippolytus (c. 170–235 AD): Groups Sodom’s destruction alongside the great flood and Egypt’s oppression of Israel as part of the broader reign of sin before the coming of the Lord. He locates the sin of the Sodomites in the fact that, “not satisfied with what the land yielded, [they] offered violence to strangers.”¹²

• Origen (c. 185–253 AD): Describes the sin of Sodom as “endeavoring to commit lewdness even against angels.”¹³ This interpretation aligns with a certain Jewish exegetical tradition that emphasizes Sodom’s transgression as the attempted violation of divine messengers, not (other) males—a reading echoed in Jude 7’s reference to ‘alien flesh’ (sarkos heteras).

• Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–390 AD): Does not interpret Sodom’s sin as uniquely sexual but rather as a general symbol of all sin. For example, in Oration 16, he urges his listeners to “show ourselves men of Nineveh rather than Sodom”¹⁴, invoking Sodom as an example of divine judgment on unrepentant sinners rather than condemning a specific vice.

• Augustine (354–430 AD): Suggests that Lot’s offer of his daughters was justified, so “that the bodies of women rather than of men might be corrupted by them,” since it “is a lesser evil for women to suffer lewdness than for men.”¹⁵ Leaving aside the speciousness of the moral argument, the sin of Sodom is clearly linked here with same-sex acts, but his line of argumentation indicates that Augustine’s primary concern was rape and domination rather than consensual same-sex relations.

  • In his Confessions, however, Augustine explicitly associates Sodom’s sin with offenses contrary to nature, arguing that if all nations committed such acts, they would be universally condemned by divine law, “which has not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another.”¹⁶

• Apostolic Constitutions (4th century): This text, compiled around the fourth century but unknown in the West until early modern times, contains one of the earliest known explicitly homophobic interpretations of Sodom. It blends a Decalogue-like prohibition against corrupting boys (paidophthoria) with the story of Sodom, asserting: “Thou shalt not corrupt boys: For this wickedness is contrary to nature, and arose from Sodom, which was therefore entirely consumed with fire sent from God. ‘Let such a one be accursed: and all the people shall say, so be it’.”¹⁷

By the end of the fourth century, the dominant Christian reading of Genesis 19 increasingly focused on same-sex acts as the central transgression. The medieval period saw the solidification of the sexual interpretation, particularly under the influence of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD), who categorized sodomy under the “sins against nature” in his Summa Theologiae (ST II-II, q. 154, a. 11) along with other unnatural vices that violate the divine order, like bestiality.¹⁸

By the High Middle Ages, “sodomy” became a broad legal category covering all non-procreative sexual acts, including same-sex relations, bestiality, and even certain forms of heterosexual intercourse. Dante’s Inferno (14th century) places sodomites in Hell alongside usurers, reinforcing the connection between unnatural sex and social corruption.¹⁹

Thus, by the medieval period, the interpretation of Genesis 19 had become almost exclusively tied to homosexuality. Earlier, more varied interpretations were largely lost or forgotten.

Modern and Contemporary Scholarship

From the 19th century onward, biblical scholars began to re-examine the received interpretation of Sodom’s sin. Advances in historical-critical exegesis, comparative studies of ancient Near Eastern texts, and deeper engagement with Jewish interpretative traditions led scholars to reconsider the moral, social, and theological dimensions of the Sodom narrative.

Instead of viewing the destruction of Sodom as divine retribution for homosexuality, many scholars began to argue that the central themes of the story were violence, injustice, inhospitality, and defiance of divine messengers—aligning more closely with the explicit biblical explanations found in Ezekiel 16:49-50 and Wisdom 19:13-14.

This shift in interpretation gained momentum in the mid-20th century, with scholars like D.S. Bailey (1955) emphasizing inhospitality as the key issue in Genesis 19,²⁰ and John Boswell (1980) tracing the historical development of anti-homosexual readings of the text.²¹ Their work, among others, laid the foundation for contemporary biblical scholarship, which continues to challenge traditional assumptions and advocate for a more historically and exegetically sound understanding of Sodom’s sin.

Building on this trajectory, contemporary theologian James Alison (2023) has offered a compelling rereading of Genesis 19. Alison demonstrates that the structure of the Sodom story closely parallels the Exodus narrative, reinforcing a broader biblical theme: God’s judgment upon societies that oppress the vulnerable.²²

• In Genesis 18-19, God hears the outcry of an oppressed people and comes down to judge their oppressors (Genesis 18:20-21).

  • In Exodus 3:7, God likewise hears the cries of the Israelites and comes to rescue them from Egyptian oppression.

• In Genesis 19:3, Lot prepares a meal of unleavened bread before fleeing Sodom.

  • In Exodus 12:8, the Israelites eat unleavened bread before fleeing Egypt.

• In Genesis 19:11, the divine messengers strike the men of Sodom with blindness.

  • In Exodus 14:20, God casts darkness upon the Egyptians, preventing them from pursuing the Israelites.

If Sodom and Egypt share the same pattern of divine judgment, this reinforces a central biblical motif: God punishes the powerful when they oppress the vulnerable. This directly aligns with Ezekiel 16:49-50, which defines Sodom’s sin as pride, excess, and neglect of the poor, rather than any particular sexual transgression.

Recognizing Sodom as a forerunner to Egypt further dismantles the notion that Genesis 19 primarily condemns same-sex acts. Instead, we see a consistent biblical pattern of judgment against societies that exploit and mistreat the vulnerable—whether the Sodomites, the Egyptians, or Jerusalem itself (cf. Ezekiel 16).

Although it is possible that the people of Sodom intended to violate Lot’s guests in a sexual manner, context suggests that it is precisely this violence, humiliation, and abuse of power—not homosexuality as such—that “cries out to Heaven for vengeance.”

This review of the historical development of interpretations raises the obvious question: How does the official teaching of the Catholic Church apply and interpret Genesis 19 today? The next section will examine official magisterial teachings and assess their exegetical validity.

The Catholic Church’s Interpretation of Genesis 19

Official Church teaching on Genesis 19 has been shaped by centuries of theological tradition, drawing heavily from the medieval and patristic interpretations that linked Sodom’s destruction to sexual immorality—specifically same-sex acts. However, as we have seen, the biblical text itself is far more complex and ambiguous than this traditional reading suggests.

This section will examine:

1. Magisterial teachings on Genesis 19.

2. Scriptural and theological critiques of the Church’s interpretation.

3. The potential for doctrinal development on this issue.

Magisterial Teachings on Genesis 19

The Church’s official interpretation of Genesis 19 is found primarily in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) and statements from what was then called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).²³

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1867, 2357-2359)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church cites Genesis 19 in two distinct places, offering a general reference to the “sin of the Sodomites” in one instance, and an explicit use of the passage in the condemnation of same-sex acts in another.

Genesis 19 first appears in the Catechism in the discussion of “sins that cry to heaven”:

“The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are ‘sins that cry to heaven’: the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner” (CCC 1867).²⁴

The in-text citation for “the sin of the Sodomites” refers to Genesis 19:13, where the angels declare: “We are about to destroy this place, for the outcry reaching the LORD against those here is so great that the LORD has sent us to destroy it.”

Notably, the Catechism does not specify what the sin of Sodom was. It simply places the reference alongside injustices such as murder, oppression, and mistreatment of the vulnerable—categories that resonate more with Ezekiel 16:49-50 than with later sexualized interpretations. This suggests that, at least in this passage, the Catechism remains ambiguous about the precise nature of Sodom’s transgression.

The second citation of Genesis 19 in the Catechism is found in its treatment of homosexuality:

“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (cf. Gen 19:1-29, Rom 1:24-27, 1 Cor 6:10, 1 Tim 1:10), tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (CCC 2357).²⁵

Here, Genesis 19 is explicitly listed alongside Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1 as evidence for the claim that Scripture presents homosexual acts as “acts of grave depravity.” However, this citation presents two major exegetical problems.

First, the Catechism assumes, rather than demonstrates, that Genesis 19 condemns homosexual acts. Unlike Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6, which explicitly refer to male-male intercourse, Genesis 19 does not clearly describe consensual same-sex relations. Unfortunately, the Catechism does not acknowledge the existence of alternative interpretations of Genesis 19, such as those that emphasize inhospitality, violence, and injustice rather than sexual behavior as the cause of Sodom’s condemnation.

Second, the Catechism’s use of Genesis 19 in CCC 2357 introduces a tension with its earlier citation in CCC 1867. There, “the sin of the Sodomites” is grouped with injustices such as murder and oppression, aligning more closely with Ezekiel 16:49-50. Here, however, Genesis 19 is simply assumed to be about same-sex acts, without recognizing the broader biblical context that challenges this interpretation.

This inconsistency suggests that the Catechism’s use of Genesis 19 is shaped more by the later theological tradition than by rigorous biblical exegesis. The lack of engagement with counter-evidence from Scripture, such as Ezekiel 16 and Wisdom 19, raises serious questions about the validity of the Catechism’s appeal to Genesis 19 in its moral teaching on homosexuality.

The 1986 CDF Letter (On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons)

In its 1986 letter to bishops, the CDF sought to counter what it saw as “erroneous” interpretations of biblical texts related to homosexuality. The document states:

“There is nevertheless a clear consistency within the Scriptures themselves on the moral issue of homosexual behavior … [After the fall,] the human body retains its ‘spousal significance’ but this is now clouded by sin. Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgment made there against homosexual relations.” (Homosexualitatis problema, 6)²⁶

Like CCC 2357, this document asserts, rather than argues, that Genesis 19 condemns homosexual acts. It does not acknowledge the viability of alternative interpretations of the text. Instead, the CDF states that the Church’s doctrine is based, “not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony.”

As we have seen, modern scholarship does not unambiguously support this claim. The Biblical testimony is more complex and multifaceted than it is presented here by the CDF.

Scriptural and Theological Critique of the Church’s Interpretation

Despite the CDF’s assertion of a “clear consistency” regarding the Scriptural interpretation of Genesis 19, a closer examination of biblical texts challenges the received sexualized reading of Sodom’s sin. The evidence already surveyed in this study raises serious exegetical difficulties for the traditional interpretation:

1. Genesis 19 never states that homosexuality was the sin of Sodom; rather, it describes an attempted violent act, which can be understood in multiple ways.

2. Ezekiel 16:49-50 explicitly identifies pride, excess, and neglect of the poor—not same-sex acts—as Sodom’s transgressions.

3. Wisdom 19:13-17 compares Sodom’s destruction to Egypt’s mistreatment of foreigners, reinforcing the themes of inhospitality and oppression.

4. Matthew 10:14-15 presents Jesus’ own interpretation, in which he compares Sodom’s fate to that of towns that reject his disciples, underscoring a failure of hospitality rather than sexual immorality.

If the Church’s claim of “clear biblical testimony” were accurate, we would expect stronger internal Scriptural support for its traditional interpretation of Genesis 19. Instead, we find a pattern of biblical texts emphasizing themes of injustice, inhospitality, and abuse of power—not same-sex acts per se.

Furthermore, as we have seen, the Church’s official interpretation of Genesis 19 is the product of a long history of development, rather than an unchanging doctrine rooted in biblical exegesis. Early Jewish and Christian interpretations did not initially focus on homosexuality; rather, it was Hellenistic Jewish authors like Philo and later medieval Christian theology that progressively reframed the story in sexual terms. The Magisterium’s current application of Genesis 19 seems to be shaped more by this later tradition than by the text’s original meaning.

Finally, even if one grants the assumption that Genesis 19 depicts attempted male-male sexual violence as the sin of Sodom, this would still not justify the use of the text to condemn consensual same-sex relationships. As James Alison notes:

“Most of us can make the distinction between a terrible act of violence, on the one hand, which is obviously a sin, and consensual acts of lovemaking between same-sex partners who share a certain social equality. No one has any reason at all to think the latter are denounced, or even mentioned tangentially, in Genesis 18-19.”²⁷

This presents a fundamental theological and pastoral question: If the Church’s interpretation of Genesis 19 is not as clear-cut as previously assumed, is there room for the development of a more biblically faithful doctrine on same-sex relationships?

The Potential for Doctrinal Development

The 1986 CDF letter On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons asserts that there is a “clear consistency within the Scriptures themselves on the moral issue of homosexual behavior” and that the Church’s doctrine is built “not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant biblical testimony.” The document also appeals to the unity of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium:

“It is clear, therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.” (Dei verbum, 10)²⁸

These affirmations highlight a critical theological principle:

• The Church does not rely solely on Scripture to determine moral doctrine but instead reads Scripture within the living Tradition of faith.

• The interpretation of Scripture cannot contradict Tradition, but neither can Tradition remain static and immune to further refinement and deepening understanding.

Thus, an honest engagement with Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterial teaching on Genesis 19 requires that we ask:

1. Does the “constant biblical testimony” cited by the CDF truly reflect a clear and unambiguous rejection of all same-sex relationships, or is this a later theological synthesis rather than a directly biblical mandate?

2. If the official interpretation of Genesis 19 is itself the result of historical development, does this open the door for an authentic ressourcement (return to the sources) in the Church’s doctrinal application of the text?

3. If doctrinal development has occurred in other areas where traditional interpretations no longer held in light of deeper theological reflection (e.g., slavery, usury, geocentrism), can a similar process unfold regarding Genesis 19?

The Church teaches that the authentic development of doctrine is not a rupture with Tradition, but a deepening of it. The very theological framework the CDF invokes—Dei verbum’s vision of Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium working together—allows for doctrinal refinement when historical-critical exegesis challenges prior understandings. Consider the following examples:

• Usury: The Church once universally condemned lending at interest, citing biblical texts (e.g., Exodus 22:25, Deuteronomy 23:19-20) that prohibit it. However, as economic structures evolved, the Church came to recognize that lending at moderate interest was not inherently exploitative but could serve the common good. Today, the condemnation of usury has been reinterpreted to apply to predatory lending rather than all forms of interest.

• Slavery: Certain Biblical texts (e.g., Exodus 21:2-11, Leviticus 25:44-46, Ephesians 6:5) permit slavery, and for centuries the Church tolerated it on that basis. More recently, however, the Magisterium recognized that the dignity of the human person required the full abolition of slavery, leading to explicit papal condemnations in the 19th and 20th centuries. This was not a rejection of Scripture but a development of doctrine in light of a deeper moral understanding.

• Geocentrism: The Church once held to a pre-Copernican, geocentric cosmology, partly due to a literal reading of texts like Joshua 10:12-13, where the sun is said to “stand still.” Scientific discoveries forced a reevaluation of these interpretations, leading to the recognition that Scripture does not intend to teach science, but salvation.

Given this pattern of legitimate doctrinal development, there is a strong theological foundation for reassessing the Church’s official application of Genesis 19:

1. The biblical evidence overwhelmingly supports an interpretation of the sins of Sodom as inhospitality, violence, and social injustice, rather than homosexuality.

2. If modern exegesis disproves the traditional reading, then doctrinal development should follow suit, as it has in other areas.

3. A more accurate biblical interpretation would allow the Church to address LGBTQ+ issues with greater pastoral sensitivity and integrity.

The Church rightly insists on charity and truth in its pastoral care of LGBTQ+ persons (CCC 2358), but charity requires truthfulness in exegesis. If Genesis 19 does not, in fact, support the traditional condemnation of homosexuality, then the Church’s reliance on this text requires reexamination. A more biblically faithful interpretation would recognize that the true lesson of Sodom is not a proof-text against same-sex relationships, but a warning against the abuse of power, injustice, and the mistreatment of outsiders.

What Is the Best Interpretation of Genesis 19?

A Reasoned Conclusion Based on Linguistic, Historical, and Theological Insights

Over the centuries, interpretations of Genesis 19 have shifted dramatically—from early Jewish readings emphasizing inhospitality and injustice, to medieval Christian theology focusing on same-sex acts, to modern biblical scholarship reclaiming a broader understanding of Sodom’s sin. Given the available linguistic, historical, and theological evidence, we must ask: What is the most accurate interpretation of Genesis 19?

This section will synthesize our findings so far and offer a compelling case for the most faithful reading of the text.

1. The Key Findings from Linguistic and Contextual Analysis

• The Hebrew word yada (ידע) does not necessarily mean “to have sex.”

  • The overwhelming majority of instances of yada in the Hebrew Bible simply mean “to know” in a non-sexual sense.

  • In Genesis 19:5, the demand to “know” the strangers could be about asserting dominance, interrogating them, or humiliating them, rather than seeking sexual relations.

  • The strongest internal textual evidence for a sexual meaning is Lot’s offer of his daughters to appease the strangers, but even this can be interpreted as a desperate act to prevent violence, rather than an indication that yada must mean sex.

• The sin of Sodom, according to other Biblical texts, cannot be identified univocally with homosexuality.

  • Ezekiel 16:49-50 clearly identifies Sodom’s sin as pride, excess, and neglect of the poor, without mentioning same-sex acts.

  • Wisdom 19:13-17 compares Sodom’s destruction to Egypt’s oppression of foreigners, reinforcing the theme of inhospitality.

  • In Matthew 10:14-15, Jesus himself parallels Sodom’s fate with that of the towns that reject his disciples, emphasizing hospitality over sexual sin (cf. also Lk 10:12).

  • Judges 19:22-30 shows that gang rape was a tool of humiliation and violence, not necessarily sexual desire.

• These texts overwhelmingly support the conclusion that the sin of Sodom was not primarily about same-sex relations, but about violence, inhospitality, and the abuse of power.

2. The Evolution of Interpretation: A Shift Toward Sexualized Readings

• Early Jewish interpretations of Genesis 19 (prior to the first century AD) did not emphasize homosexuality.

• Philo and Josephus introduced sexual immorality into the discussion, but this was influenced by Hellenistic moral philosophy rather than the biblical text itself (eisegesis rather than exegesis).

• Patristic and medieval Christian writers gradually adopted this interpretation and associated the sin of Sodom with same-sex acts, culminating in Aquinas’ classification of sodomy as an “unnatural vice.”

• Modern biblical scholarship (post-20th century) has largely rejected this medieval interpretation, returning to earlier Jewish understandings emphasizing social injustice.

• Thus, the traditional Christian reading of Genesis 19 as a condemnation of homosexuality is a later theological development rather than a biblical mandate.

3. Theological Implications of a More Accurate Reading

If the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality, but rather inhospitality, violence, and injustice, then several theological implications follow:

1. The Church’s use of Genesis 19 to condemn homosexuality is exegetically unfounded.

The Catechism (CCC 2357) and CDF documents cite Genesis 19 as evidence of “intrinsically disordered” homosexual acts, but this is based on a misreading of the text. The lack of direct scriptural support for this interpretation should prompt reconsideration of how Genesis 19 is used in doctrinal discourse.

2. A more Scripturally informed approach to moral theology on sexuality is needed.

Since the Second Vatican Council, the Church has reaffirmed that the study of Scripture is the soul of theology (cf. Dei verbum, 24). Unfortunately, this renewed emphasis on Scripture has not yet fully reached the Church’s moral theology of same-sex relationships. If the sin of Sodom was rooted in power, injustice, and inhospitality rather than sexual orientation, then Genesis 19 should not be used to support the claim that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. A deeper commitment to biblical exegesis—faithful to both the text and its historical context—could foster a moral theology that is more just, truthful, and pastorally responsible.

3. A pastoral shift in the Church’s approach to LGBTQ+ persons is urgently needed.

Genesis 19 should no longer be invoked as a condemnation of same-sex relationships, as it simply does not address consensual love between persons of the same sex. Instead, a more faithful reading of this passage might challenge the Church to refocus its moral witness on extending hospitality to the vulnerable and defending the dignity of all, especially those marginalized or oppressed.

The Best Interpretation of Genesis 19: A Summary

Given the overwhelming biblical, historical, and theological evidence, I suggest the most accurate reading of Genesis 19 is as follows:

1. Genesis 19 does not primarily condemn homosexuality. Instead, it condemns violent abuse, inhospitality, and the mistreatment of outsiders.

   1. Ezekiel 16:49-50, Wisdom 19, and Jesus’ own references to the story in Matthew and Luke confirm this interpretation.

2. The traditional Christian focus on same-sex acts arose much later and is not supported by the biblical text.

3. The Church’s use of Genesis 19 in its moral teaching on homosexuality is based on later theological tradition rather than authentic exegesis.

Final Thoughts: Reclaiming the True Meaning of Genesis 19

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is one of the most misinterpreted passages in the Bible. For centuries, it has been wielded as a weapon against LGBTQ+ people. But when we return to the text itself, we find a very different message—one that challenges violence, injustice, and the mistreatment of the vulnerable.

If the Church is truly committed to the purification of theology through renewed attention to Scripture, then it must be willing to reassess its application of Genesis 19.

This is not about changing doctrine for the sake of cultural relevance or social pressure. It is about ensuring that Catholic doctrine faithfully reflects divine revelation. The challenge before the Church today is not whether it will remain true to tradition, but whether it will allow tradition to deepen in truth.

Next Steps and Further Study

For those who wish to explore this topic further, I encourage you to consult the footnotes throughout this study, as well as the following key resources, which provide historical, exegetical, and theological insights into the interpretation of Genesis 19 and the broader discourse on sexuality in Christian thought:

• Theodore W. Jennings, Jr., Plato or Paul: The Origins of Western Homophobia (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2009)

• Michael G. Lawler and Todd A. Salzman, “Usury and Homosexual Behavior: Parallel Theological Tracks?” (Modern Believing, 2003, pp. 193-200)

• Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler, The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology (Washington, DC: Georgetown UP, 2008)

• Mark D. Jordan, The Silence of Sodom: Homosexuality in Modern Catholicism (University of Chicago Press, 2000)

If this study has challenged or inspired you, I encourage you to reflect with me on these essential questions:

• What does it mean to be truly faithful to Scripture? Are we willing to approach these ancient texts with fresh eyes, allowing them to challenge us as much as we seek to understand them? Can we resist the temptation to read our own assumptions into the text and instead hear what God is actually saying to the Church through the Scriptures?

• Can we approach these questions with humility, openness, and trust that God leads His people into deeper understanding over time? If theological development has occurred in other areas, can we discern where God may be calling the Church to greater clarity and truth today?

• How can we help the Church grow in fidelity to the Word of God in its teaching on sexuality? What role do scholarship, theological reflection, and pastoral care play in ensuring that doctrine develops authentically, guided by both the truth of Scripture and Tradition and the demands of charity?

If Genesis 19 has been misinterpreted and misused in ways that harm rather than heal, then seeking to understand it rightly is not an act of defiance, but an act of faithfulness—a commitment to reading Scripture with both intellectual honesty and moral integrity.

Perhaps faithfulness is not so much about preserving our own inherited assumptions, but trusting that the God of truth is continually inviting us deeper into His living Word.

May we have the courage to seek truth and justice, wherever they may lead.

1. Whitaker, Richard, Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament: From A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs, Based on the Lexicon of Wilhelm Gesenius. Boston; New York: Houghton Mifflin and Company, 1906.

2. Peterson, Brian Neil. The Interpretation of Genesis 19:1-29: A Comprehensive Analysis. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 59, no. 1, 2016, pp. 17-31.

3. Alison, James. “‘Sodomy’ & ‘Homosexuality’ Are Not Biblical Sins.” The Body, November 28, 2023. https://www.thebody.com/article/sodomy-homosexuality-not-biblical-sins.

4. Ibid.

5. Peterson, Brian. The Interpretation of Genesis 19:1-29.

6. Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

7. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. “Sodom and Gomorrah in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, edited by Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov, Brill, 2002, pp. 219-234.

8. Philo of Alexandria. The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by C. D. Yonge. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993.

9. Josephus, Flavius. The Antiquities of the Jews. Translated by William Whiston. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987.

10. Tertullian. Against Marcion, 4.2.7. Translated by Ernest Evans. London: Oxford University Press, 1972.

11. Tertullian. Exhortation to Chastity, 9.4. Translated by S. Thelwall. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1885; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

12. Hippolytus. Fragments of Commentary on Proverbs. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, translated by J. H. MacMahon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994, p. 175.

13. Origen. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 5.6.2. Translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2001.

14. Gregory of Nazianzus. On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations and Two Letters to Cledonius. Translated by Frederick Williams and Lionel Wickham. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002.

15. Augustine. On Lying, par. 10, 29. Translated by H. Browne. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, edited by Philip Schaff. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

16. Augustine. Confessions, 3.8.15. Edited by James J. O’Donnell. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.

17. The Apostolic Constitutions: A Revised Text with Notes and a Commentary, 7, 2. Translated by James Donaldson. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1896.

18. Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. Edited by the Blackfriars. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province.. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964–1976.

19. Dante Alighieri. The Divine Comedy: Inferno. Translated by Allen Mandelbaum. New York: Bantam Books, 1982.

20. Bailey, Derrick Sherwin. Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1955.

21. Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

22. Alison, James. “‘Sodomy’ & ‘Homosexuality’ Are Not Biblical Sins.”

23. Now known as the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) since the promulgation of the Apostolic Constitution Praedicate evangelium in 2022. Nonetheless, the older name for the congregation will be used in reference to documents promulgated prior to 2022.

24. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997.

25. Ibid.

26. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1986.

27. Alison, James. “‘Sodomy’ & ‘Homosexuality’ Are Not Biblical Sins.”

28. Second Vatican Council. Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation). Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1965.