Revisionism, a type of Biblical criticism that employs a critical and creative look at the meaning of Scripture…

Revisionist Biblical critics try to understand the Bible by using very untraditional methods, new evidence and various contemporary perspectives.  Adherents of revisionism highlight interesting insights this type of study can bring forth in the understanding of the Bible.  They feel that the dialogue that they stimulate about Scripture is never a bad thing; scholars with entrenched beliefs can free up their minds with revisionist interpretations and ordinary believers and nonbelievers can gain new insights as well.

In my previous post, I indicated that I had some childhood familiarity with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, my familiarity centered on Lot’s wife being turned into a pillar of salt.  As a kid, I found that fascinating. 

However as a child, I had no familiarity with the reason God rained down sulfur and fire on those cities, that reason being the sinful nature of those cities in the eye of God (a bit too serious for a child).

Kevin DeYoung in Chapter 2 of his book* entitled “Those Infamous Cities” deals with revisionist interpretations of the Sodom and Gomorrah story.  For example, some revisionists do not focus on sexual sinfulness as the source of God’s wrath.  They use the Book of Ezekiel to explain that the guilt of Sodom and her daughters is pride, not sharing food with the needy and so much prosperity that the people became indulgent.

Some point to the fact that the men of Sodom came to Lot’s door and they demanded to have sex with the two angels that were in Lot’s home.  Lot did not allow that [he gave them his daughters to gang rape instead].  That of course is reprehensible but revisionists say that this proves the men did not want to have sex with other men; they wanted to have sex with angels.  Therefore their sexual desires were not homosexual (after all, they also raped two virgins).

Accordingly, a lot of ink has been spilled on the revisionist interpretation of the word strange, which shows up in Jude 1: 7.  That Scripture states that Sodom and Gomorrah were judged because of the implication that the people did not engage in “hetero” attractions:  “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” [KJV]. Revisionist scholars say strange does not necessarily mean “different gender” or “different from the norm.” 

Lastly, some charge that if one adheres to the idea that Genesis 19 does refer to homosexual rape what does that have to do with loving homosexual desire?  There is a big difference between the violence of homosexual gang rape and homosexual love.

Kevin DeYoung addresses these views before he defends his traditional position that Sodom and Gomorrah deserved the punishment they received. 

In the above discussion, in the reference to the book of Ezekiel, Sodom is seen as having the sin of pride more than sexual aberration.  DeYoung has a different reading on that same scripture, focusing in on Ezekiel 16: 49 and the use of the word abomination.  Abomination comes from the word to ‘ebah which is used in Leviticus 18: 22.  To ‘ebah means “man lying with a man as with a woman.”  Revisionist scholars ignore or deemphasize that word in favor of pride etc.  DeYoung admits that Sodom had many sins and homosexual behavior was one of them [it cannot be ignored].  DeYoung writes that his interpretation is supported by other writings in the Second Century.  Other writers refer to Sodom and Gomorrah as “departing from the order of nature.”  Their punishment was pronounced on them like God’s curse of the flood.  Sodom’s sexual transgressions were of a unique kind, “not merely fornication” but of “something more polluting.”  Instead of sex with angels, the real sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is homosexual sex with human beings.  To add fuel to the fire, actual graffiti depictions found in Pompeii provide visual and written evidence that same-sex activity happened in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Revisionists state that the book of Jude does not really refer to same-sex behavior, just because the word “strange” is used.  DeYoung begs to differ: the phrase sarkos heteras or “strange” means men lying with men instead of women.  That phrase is used to bolster the case that the men of Sodom did want to have sex with the angels in Lot’s home.  The argument that they wanted to have sex with angels [which clears them of homosexual desire] is confounded by the idea that those men did not know Lot’s guests were actually angels.  It is more likely that they just wanted to have sex with ordinary men.  Sarkos heteras means other flesh and that translates into the sin of homosexual activity. 

DeYoung writes, “The scene in Genesis 19 looks very different from two men and two women entering into a consensual and committed sexual relationship.  The case against same-sex sexual intimacy is less obvious from the Sodom account than from the other passages we will consider [he is referring to future discussions in his book].  And yet, the destruction of these infamous cities is not irrelevant to the matter at hand….Sodom had a reputation for sexual sin in general and homosexual sin in particular” [38].

The effort to reinterpret the Bible according to contemporary viewpoints seems interesting but is it valid?  Is there such a thing as the timeless nature of God’s word?  Revisionists point to the common practice of slavery in Scripture; of course, it is good that that practice is not accepted today.  Revisionists point to the common notion that women were not regarded as important members of society in Biblical Scripture; by today’s standards that attitude is outdated and that is good.  But DeYoung argues that LGBTQ+ concerns should not be addressed by rewriting references that Sodom and Gomorrah’s residents indulged in same-sex activity. Ignore Isaiah 1: 9-10; 3:9; Jeremiah 23:14;  Ezekiel 16: 44-58; Deuteronomy 29:23; Isaiah 13: 19; Jeremiah 49:18, 50:40; Lamentations 4:6; Amos 4: 11; Zephaniah 2:9?  Ignore the fact that Jesus referenced Sodom and less frequently Gomorrah in his efforts to warn people of God’s impending wrath?

DeYoung ends Chapter 2 with these telling words regarding these “infamous cities.”  “Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of a great many sins; we don’t have to prove that homosexual practice was the only sin to show that it was one of them” [38].

*What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?