Was Homosexuality the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah? | Matthew Vines

[@tylerjornov]

I may very well have to buy your curriculum, this is very interesting. Thanks Matthew!

[@Bazroshan]

If arrogance is so reprehensible that it might attract destruction, we should all value modesty more highly.

[@BramptonAnglican]

Thank you for the great video

[@Cytl-bu3nq]

the problem is the term "men" in that passage in hebrew is not translated as "male", it's actually translated as "people", which indicates there were both sexes in the crowd. Remember it says the people of Sodom were wicked not just the men of Sodom. It's interesting that people will refer to Sodom and Gomorrah, but conveniently omit what is said later in Ezekiel about what the sin of Sodom was. Matthew uses context, something that a lot of preachers and teachers don't do. Notice the part where Philo says that Men mounted "males" , not "men mounted men". "males" in this context denotes male child.

[@colina4699]

None of what you said here is true. A quick look at the LXX would make it plain that the Hebrew term man is translated as man, and not peoples or male children.

[@MusicalRaichu]

@@colina4699 I looked up a Hebrew dictionary. The first term, the men of the town, seems to refer to males, hence LXX "andres". But the next term, everyone young and old, seems to refer to people generally, hence LXX "laos", all the people. You only attempted to refute one statement and failed at that, so how can you assert "none of what you said"?

[@colina4699]

@@MusicalRaichu the scriptures go out of the way to highlight that it was the men of the town who were seeking to rape these angelic guests. The presence of the rest of the townsfolk as witnesses of these events does not change that, and I don't know of anyone who attempts to refute that the whole town witnessed what was taking place.

[@MusicalRaichu]

@@colina4699 Yes, men would be the instigators. The point that the entire town came out highlights their interest. Examine the setting. There was political tension. The town was unpopular to put it mildly. They would have been suspicious of strangers. Thus they ostensibly sought to "know" them (the translation Vines read was inaccurate), that is, interrogate them. Were they spies? This is reasonable, a valid concern for the entire town. What was unreasonable were their interrogation methods. To "know" held a second meaning as Lot rightly perceived, to humiliate the visitors by placing them in a woman's subservient role in the act. In other words, to show them who's boss. This was also of interest for the entire town to confirm their sense of superiority and power over others. You are right that the men would do the dirty work. Women don't have the necessary apparatus.

[@colina4699]

@@MusicalRaichu thank you for admitting that homosexual rape is in view when God judges the people.

[@ogon7777]

Thank you for faithfully proclaiming the truth! God's blessings to you and to all those that support your work. You are leading people into the truth and the light of Christ's love. In the letters of the New Testament, the inclusion of gentiles was critical to a full understanding of the gospel, even though Genesis 17 required the circumcision of Jews and non-Jews. Early Christians and Jesus argued for full inclusion based on the barriers that have now been broken down. The same is true of our LGBTQ- siblings. Thank you for leading people to the truth.

[@dougvb2096]

@ogon7777 Genesis 17 does not say non-Jews are to be circumcised, it says if a Jew acquires a servant who is a foreigner, that servant must be circumcised. There was never a blanket statement requiring gentiles to be circumcised.

[@MusicalRaichu]

@@dougvb2096 I think you're right. The issue in the early church was the because Jews were God's people and they believed Jesus the Jewish messiah, then gentiles would have to convert to Judaism to be part of the Christian community. They took Gen 17.14 to effectively say that the uncircumcised would not inherit the kingdom of God. Experience, however, showed that gentiles showed every evidence of living faith in Christ and exemplifying a life of love in obedience to Jesus's teaching. This forced the early church to rethink its theology, see Acts 15, Galatians. I think the parallel is helpful. For centuries, the Church taught that all reproductive secs was mortal sin. Since mid to late last cent, this mutated into the modern protestant notion that same secs acts are inherently sinful. Experience, however, has shown that people of all orientations show every evidence of living faith and life of love according to Jesus's teaching. This again has forced us to rethink our theology and to discover where we went wrong. Doing some research, I discovered that what Vines has been saying isn't new. It's actually been known at least since the 80s. It's just that those voices have been ignored and drowned out.

[@PhoebeFayRuthLouise]

Thank you for the well researched video!

[@God_gave_His_Son_for_you]

Roman Catholics are misunderstanding Matthew 16:18. The confession that "Jesus is the Christ the Son of God" is the only foundational truth that Christ builds His church on. Peter’s confession is the rock.

[@Marinanor]

Yes and no. I'm not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, but it's obvious that homosexuality, was the least of Sodom and Gomorrah's sins. The evil men wanted to SA the angels. That's not just attraction towards one another, it's just plain evil.

[@purplereign392]

Awesome!

[@Runguyt]

I am same sex attracted. I used to believe this stuff. I decided to follow Jesus. Much better now.

[@frannynet553]

what did you use to believe?

[@The_Word_Is_The_Way]

Amen. Praise God for your deliverance and may the Lord keep you. Continue to draw near to Him as He draws near to you. Shalom.

[@chrissmith8198]

Jude 1:7 speaks of “Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh” (KJV). In context, Jude is assuring his readers that God has punished sin in the past and, therefore, He will continue to do so in the future. Jude gives a list of incidents as evidence of God’s judgment, and one of the incidents that he cites is the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. The King James Version and the New American Standard Version are similar in the translation of Jude 1:7, and both use the term strange flesh. “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire” (NASB). The ESV has a more interpretive translation: “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” The ESV includes an alternate translation, “different flesh,” in a footnote. The NIV provides the most interpretive translation: “In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” The traditional understanding of this passage is that the “strange flesh” refers to homosexual desire similar to what was exhibited in Sodom in Genesis 19. Two angels (appearing as men) visited Sodom. Lot, not knowing that they were angels, asked them to come into his home. The men of the city learned of the visitors and mobbed Lot’s house, saying, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them” (verse 4). In recent years, there has been an attempt to legitimize homosexual desire and even to look for ways to make it compatible with biblical teaching. Some have challenged the traditional understanding that the pursuit of “strange flesh” refers to homosexual lust. Jude 1:7 begins with “in the same way,” which calls our attention to the situation in the previous verse. Verse 6 says, “And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling-these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.” This has often been understood as a reference to Genesis 6. The first verses of that chapter highlight the wickedness that precipitated the flood. Many interpret the Genesis passage as referring to angels who in some way had sexual relations with human women. According to some, the logic in Jude 1 runs this way: in verse 6 angels have sexual desire for human beings, and in verse 7 human beings have sexual desire for angels. The conclusion is that the desire for “strange flesh” in Jude 1:7 refers to human-angel relations, not any kind of human-human relations. This interpretation has several problems. First, it is far from clear that Jude 1:6 is a reference to Genesis 6:2-4. Second, it is far from clear that “the sons of God” in Genesis 6:2-4 refers to angels or that human-angel sexual activity is what is in view. Third, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah warranted judgment before the angels ever showed up (Genesis 19:20). In fact, pending judgment was the reason the angels went to Sodom in the first place. It is not as though angels were being assaulted on a regular basis in Sodom. And, finally, the men of Sodom had no idea that the “men” visiting Lot’s house were angels, so the issue could not be an unnatural attraction to angels. The next issue that needs to be addressed is the term translated “strange “ in the phrase “strange flesh.” The word translated “strange” is hetero, which means “different.” The issue is complicated by the fact that we use the term heterosexual to refer to attraction to the opposite gender and homosexual to refer to same-sex attraction. Jude 1:7 says that Sodom and Gomorrah were judged because of hetero attractions. However, the context is clear that hetero in this case does not mean “different gender” but “different from the norm,” as in “strange.” Romans 1:26-27 calls these urges and actions “unnatural”-that is, they are different (hetero) from the God-ordained design. Finally, some have charged that the sin of Sodom was not homosexuality per se, but violence and attempted homosexual rape. They claim that Genesis 19 has nothing to do with loving, mutual homosexual desire. Certainly, the violence of the men of Sodom adds an additional layer to the problem. It may account for why Jude describes the incident in Sodom as one of “gross immorality,” but it does not explain why Jude says they desired “strange flesh.” Furthermore, it was not for the single incident with Lot that Sodom was judged; rather, that incident simply demonstrated and confirmed the kind of immorality that was rampant in Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding areas. When all the evidence is considered, the traditional understanding is still the most consistent with the biblical data. Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding areas gave themselves over to all sorts of sexual perversion (rape would be included in this), but homosexual attraction and activity, described as a desire for “strange flesh,” is also included. Jude describes homosexual desire as a desire for hetero flesh because it is “different” from the God-ordained plan for sexuality. Jude says that the men of Sodom were judged for this and stand as an example of God’s willingness and ability to judge such actions in the future.

[@The_Word_Is_The_Way]

Very good. That was dead center. I would just like to add that insisting the "strange flesh" is an attraction to angels is flawed due to the inclusion of the surrounding cities being judged along with Sodom and Gomorrah. Not only is there no evidence of there being multiple visits by angels to these two cities, but the surrounding cities are not said to have received a visit at all.

[@harveywabbit9541]

Sodom and Gomorrah are the first two months in Rev. 9.5..

[@jont39]

Making a Comparison with the watchers is not quite correct. Firstly the watchers were the manipulative violators, they took wives for themselves and so they caused the act of what was unnatural. Second the men of Sodom had no idea that these were angels Gen 19:5 tells us so. Thirdly cities don't just gang grape strangers, you have to remember Lot was at one time a stranger, so weather they saw them as a treat from a neighbouring city we don't know but whatever the circumstances for either pleasure, prestige or as a standard ritual, either were wrong and to say Sodom was destroyed just because they wasn't giving to the poor or not hospitable is beyond ridiculous.

[@MusicalRaichu]

Jude's language is subtle. "hetero" means "otherly", something different to you. By seeking so raip outsiders (hetero in one sense), they ironically ended up seeking angelic/non-human (hetero in another sense) flesh. This is difficult to render in an English translation so the misunderstanding persists.

[@joshuamay5807]

@@MusicalRaichujust wanna say seeing your profile pic in comment sections always gives me a morale boost. Keep fighting the good fight my friend!

[@MusicalRaichu]

@@joshuamay5807 Thanks. People I reply to generally are unwilling to change, but I persist because it might help other people who come along and learn something.

[@celestialmorpho]

25:20 Because sexual orientation is a modern concept. We’ve always abided by natural law. Men and women compliment each other. We didn’t have to explicitly say that that is that way it should be. Any other relationship would be out of order and incompatible with natural law and our design.

[@Nai61a]

celestial etc: You are making an awful lot of assumptions here, not the least of which are that there is a "natural law" and that we are designed. Homosexuality is part of nature. And there is no good, credible evidence that we are designed.

[@MusicalRaichu]

What? Men say compliments to men too.

[@cjr258]

He presumes he knows the reasons why people of that time were against homosexual behaviour . You cant make up the reasons why to suit your argument.

[@Tylerbngjk]

This video is the definition of apostasy and deception

[@dougvb2096]

At 10:57 you state that no other scripture refers to "same-sex behavior specifically." You even make a reference to verses from Ezekiel's comments on S&G, but you omit that aside from the specific sins Ezekiel mentions, he refers to their "abominations" five times in one chapter. Their abominations were not hospitality! Abominations refer to sexual immorality. That same deceptive tactic is also used to say Jesus never spoke of the sin of same-sex relations when He speaks of abominations.

[@MusicalRaichu]

I did a survey of the use of that term in the OT. It basically meant "against our culture or religion" and covers three areas, idolatry or improper worship of God, unjust practices, and cultural taboos (like eating pork). It's not used for secs immorality. The predominant form of secs immorality in those days was a woman unfaithful to her husband. Neither the Bible nor any other ancient document referred to the category of "same secs behaviour". That category didn't even exist until around 150 years ago. Their concern was the denigration of a male put in a woman's role in bed. And that was because women were assumed inferior, something no one should even agree with.

[@budcurtis4512]

Don't let this man lead you into the lake of fire!

[@bennieboi99]

boohoo

[@comradecyborghost8826]

me when i don't want an objective understanding of Scripture

[@realitywins9020]

What kind of God would send someone to the lake of fire for something they cannot help and something which is harmless? People like you used to preach the same hatred against left-handed people! This obsession with and hatred towards LGBTQ people is nonsensical

[@The_Word_Is_The_Way]

Right. He's an apostate who wants us to believe that the Israelites misunderstood God and the Church has been wrong all along. He never gives any example of Rabinical teaching nor any affirming examples in the Bible, yet he has dedicated his life and this organization to this agenda to overturn biblical truth. Run very far from him and his ilk!

[@productamadeus8745]

The Apostle Paul clears this whole thing up “Do not be deceived, neither the homosexual or the effeminate will inherit the kingdom of God”. It has nothing to do with love or commitment. It has to do with obedience. God is the author and as such He can set whatever limits He wants. Everybody wants Heaven, but they want to get there on their own terms. That is a fools errand. Sexual sin is a problem doe all of us. We must not try to compromise Gods Word to accommodate our individual weaknesses. God can deliver anybody.

[@karenyeshua5086]

Totally agree!

[@alankruza997]

Paul didn’t clear things up because he didn’t say what you are “quoting”. The word “homosexual” didn’t exist until the latter part of the 19th century and it originated in Germany. I’m not saying that Paul didn’t say something but he didn’t say what you have quoted.

[@comradecyborghost8826]

And the best thing is God's lovingkindness doesn't even stop at Sodom's destruction. "'I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters, and Samaria and her daughters. I will also restore your fortune along with theirs." -Ezekiel 16:53

[@dougvb2096]

You need to read the entire chapter! Here's how it starts: Ezekiel 16:1 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 2 “Son of man, make known to Jerusalem her abominations..." Did you catch that? God is speaking to Jerusalem but calling it Sodom because their sin was nearly as grievous in God's eyes as that of Sodom. However, God will restore Jerusalem, NOT the literal Sodom.

[@Jeroen4]

Just make up the reasons why people were against homosexuality, among other things, itll help you make a coherent argument. Though one that is completely disingenuous and will mislead people towards sin. Pathetic and unforgivable.

[@harveywabbit9541]

The "sin" of Sodom (Scorpio) was the failure to exercise hospitality. Ezekiel 16.49-50. Goggle ...Zeus and Hermes visit Baucis and Philemon.

[@matthewjohnson6360]

Why didn't you read the verses in Leviticus? Or Romans 1:26 - 32. Which all show consent.

[@donj2222]

Those are later videos in the series.

[@Cytl-bu3nq]

The verses in Leviticus are also mistranslated in English. The verse refers to a Man and a male child, hence the words being represented differently.

[@jont39]

Romans is NOT SHOWING CONSENT it in fact calls it disgraceful who will be judged for this behaviour, please read the context verses 27,28 are clear and where on earth is Verse 32 allowing same sex relationships, as it reads: Although these know full well the righteous decree of God-that those practicing such things are deserving of death-they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them. If you promote or encourage this practice we too are compromised so to speak.

[@MusicalRaichu]

This video is part of a series which does cover the other texts that are often incorrectly assumed to be about homxoesuality. You have pay for the series, he's just made this one available for free for some reason.

[@Gary-z3t]

Right on! It's the context/meaning of the versus.

[@mrminer071166]

It's all about making the Bible say what you want it to say. Vines is no philologist, but rather a tendentious activist. The idea of him being a "Bible Teacher" -- !

[@dougvb2096]

Here's a verse you missed: Leviticus 18:22 ‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. 23 ‘Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion." Can a person disagree with verse 22, but agree with verse 23?

[@Nai61a]

doug etc: Do you follow all the other laws in Leviticus?

[@dougvb2096]

@@Nai61a Do you understand that most of the laws in that book are specifically for the Jews? The dietary laws, garment laws, the sabbath, etc, were all for the Jews who were set apart by God to be different. The laws regarding sexual morality were universal.

[@Nai61a]

@@dougvb2096 I understand that that is what modern people want to believe. I do not think it is the scholarly or historical position, however. I saw an interesting video on this very topic just a few days ago. I will try to link it separately. If it does not appear, I am sure you can search Dan McClellan's channel and find it.

[@Nai61a]

@@dougvb2096 kzbin.info/www/bejne/fIW2nKydfbh7iNk

[@MusicalRaichu]

If, hypothetically speaking, the issue had been that they were of the same secs, then it would have said "men don't lie with men" and "women don't lie with women". It says neither. As Vines explained, their concern was that because women were assumed inferior to men, then a male put in a woman's role denigrated the male. Thus it says, more accurately rendered, "you shall not lie with a male a woman's bed, it is against our religion". More crudely, "don't treat a male like a woman in bed [by poking them between the legs], we Israelites don't do that." We don't follow Israelite rules anymore, so it's irrelevant anyway. But to impose it is to assert the underlying assumption, that women are inferior to men. Thus imposing Lev 18.22 is an "abomination" to us today.

[@robertowens4164]

THIS IS 2024.... Stupid subject matter in this new medical day and age...ridiculous

[@myjoyisCHRIST]

Unfortunately because the churches are persecuting homosexuals still today by using Bible verses against them, this is relevant subject matter. Perhaps if people actually take an intelligent look at their scriptures and stop just listening to what everybody else is saying in their church then they can see what the verses really mean and they can stop the persecution.

[@discoveringthegardenofeden7882]

This is such bad scholarship. The plain reading is clear and you try to reason from absence. Nothing in the Bible condones homosexual acts. Your attempt at eisegesis will not stand.

[@chrissmith8198]

Jude 1:7 in Greek: ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι. In English: just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the around them cities - in like manner with them having indulged in sexual immorality and having gone after flesh strange are set forth as an example of fire eternal [the] penalty undergoing. What the strange flesh that is mentioned is (σαρκὸς ἑτέρας), is where the question comes in. Among those who agree that the Bible prohibits homosexual practice, there is a disagreement about whether the story of Sodom and Gomorrah should be used in support of this conclusion. Traditionally, the sin of Sodom has been considered, among other things, the sin of pursuing same-sex intercourse. Hence, the act of male-with-male sex has been termed sodomy. More recently, others have maintained that attempted homosexual gang rape is hardly germane to the question of committed, monogamous gay unions today. Sodom had many sins-violence, injustice, oppression, inhospitable brutality-but same-sex intercourse per se is nowhere condemned in the Genesis account. Some conservative scholars, while still holding conservative conclusions about marriage and homosexuality, have concurred with this line of reasoning, arguing that when it comes to deciding the rightness or wrongness of homosexual behavior, Genesis 19 is irrelevant. There are many important considerations to weigh when trying to make sense of Sodom and Gomorrah. Obviously, the Old Testament context matters. Knowing something about the Ancient Near East may help too. Looking at literature from Second Temple Judaism is also important. Most critical, however (at least for those with an evangelical view of Scripture), is how the New Testament understands the sin of Sodom. Which is why Jude 6-7 is so important. And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day-just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire (sarkos heteras), serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 6-7) There is a case to be that Jude’s comment about sarkos heteras (“other flesh”) is a reference to sex with angels not sex with other men. Verse 6 is likely an allusion to the sin of the angels in Genesis 6:1-4, which according to Jewish tradition, involved angels having sex with the daughters of men. So it is not far fetched to think that the “other flesh” in verse 7 is a reference to the men of Sodom trying to have sex with Lot’s angelic visitors. If this interpretation is correct, it makes it less likely (though not at all impossible) to see the sin of Sodom as being, at least in part, the sin of homosexual practice. Which, of course, would do nothing to invalidate the other verses that speak on the subject, but it would set aside the most infamous account of homosexuality in the Bible. Having said all that, I still see good reasons to accept the traditional interpretation and conclude that Jude 7 is a reference to the sin of homosexual behavior. 1. This interpretation is in keeping with prevailing Jewish norms in the first century. Both Josephus and Philo not only condemn relations that are “contrary to nature,” they explicitly understand Genesis 19 as referring to homosexual acts. 2. As a striking example of sexual immorality, it would certainly be more relevant in a first century Greco-Roman context to warn against homosexual behavior as opposed to the non-existent temptation to have sex with angels (cf. 2 Peter 2:6). 3. It would be strange to refer to attempted sex with angels as pursuing other “flesh.” Of all the ways to reference angels, the very physical, human, and earthly sarx seems an odd choice. 4. The men of Sodom did not know they were trying to have sex with angelic beings. Even if sarkos heteras could be taken to mean a “different species” (and I don’t think it does), the men of Sodom had no idea that that is what they were pursuing. Isn’t it more likely to think they were guilty of pursuing sex with other men (as they saw them), then that they were guilty of pursuing sex with angels (which they did not understand)? 5. If pursuing “unnatural desire” is a reference to seeking out sex with angels, how do we make sense of the beginning of verse 7 which indicts Sodom and Gomorrah *and* the surrounding cities of this sin? Were Admah and Zeboim guilty of trying to have sex with angels? It makes more sense to think that Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities all had a reputation for sexual immorality and that one flagrant example of such sin was homosexual practice. This is why the parallel passage in 2 Peter 2:7-8 can depict Lot as greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of these cities. They had a reputation for lawlessness which did not rely on angels to be manifested. In short, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah and the whole region was not just a one-time attempted gang rape of angelic beings, but, according to Jude a lifestyle of sensuality and sexual immorality, at least one aspect of which was exemplified in men pursuing the flesh of other men instead of the flesh of women.