The Sin of Sodom was Capitalism actually

In the past I've put all my eggs in the Hospitality/Immigration argument, and that is still an important symptom of their disease.  But it's verse 49 of Ezekiel's 16th Chapter that gives us the full diagnosis.

"Moreover this was the sin of thy sister Sodom, pride: she and her daughters lived in pleasure, in fullness of bread in abundance: this belonged to her and her daughters, and they helped not the hand of the poor and needy."

There is no getting around that this is a condemnation of Wealth Hording, that the kind of people who talk this way today are Communists and Socialists.

And it's not addressing individual Rich People who don't voluntarily give to the Poor.  It's about Sodom as a society.

References to Sodom in Isaiah and Jeremiah also stress it being tied to their greed and wealth.  I argued on my Prophecy Blog that the Whoredom of Babylon is Capitalism, and Eschatological prophecies of Babylon do evoke Sodom.  

Jude 7 when talking about Sodom uses the word "Pornea" which the KJV translates "Fornication", it's actually a word for Prostitution but that unlike some other Greek words for Prostitution is stressing specifically the economic aspect of it, coming from a root which means "to sell".  Likewise in Ezekiel 16 the three times the KJV refers to "Fornication" it's the exact same words the KJV in this same chapter elsewhere translates whoredom, whore and harlot.  I believe some Biblical references to "whoredom" aren't about sex at all.

And the issue of Sodom being in-hospitable to immigrants is not unrelated, travelers and refuges are also needy and poor.  And Capitalists love to use nativist sentiments to get the poor citizens to blame the immigrants for the problems that are actually Capitalism's fault.

Ironically some Marxists might say I'm being Anachronistic here since we all know Capitalism didn't exist till after the Reformation, at the very soonest.  But the thing is part of why I'm not a Marxist is that I disagree with the Marxist view of history.  I know some Breadtubers love to stress how young Capitalism is in response to Conservatives arguing that it's "Natural", but we can't deny Patriarchy has been a thing for all of Human history.  How about when addressing Conservative Christians we remind them that The Church is supposed to be "contrary to nature" (Para Phusis) according to Romans 11.

Even if I were to concede that Feudalism is distinct from Capitalism, when I look at Ancient Rome ("Republican" Rome at least) it's hard for me not to see it as Capitalist with it's wealthy land owners and the way it's "Democracy" was so thoroughly jerrymandered against the urban poor.  And I see similar Capitalism in Carthage and at least some of the City-States of Greece.

Capitalism has different forms, from Mercantilism to industrial Capitalism, from Classical Liberalism to Neo-Liberalism, from Jeffersonianism to Hamiltonianism.  Some reactionaries claim to hate Capitalism as much as they do Communism while still being called Capitalists by Communists.  

During the Middle Ages I believe Capitalism was continued by Venice and perhaps some other Italian coastal City-States.  Then after the Reformation opened the door for upheavals in some parts of Europe the city of Amsterdam and other northern ports started being influenced by the Venetians they traded with.  And then England started borrowing from both Amsterdam and Venice as it started striving to be a Sea Power under Henry VIII, Elizabeth and the Stuarts.

Some writers have argued Protastantism helped cause Capitalism.  But it's really one major school of Protestantism, the "Reformed Tradition" of Zwingly that later split into Calvinist and Arminian camps.  Luther actually loved Feudalism and wanted to make it stronger rather then weaker.  And the Anabaptists like the Taborite and John Ball before the Reformation were Communists.  But to the point I'm making here, it can be argued that Venetian theologians had an overlooked influence on the early Reformation even though they nominally stayed Catholic through men like Gasparo Continari.

Roman Capitalism came from the Greeks and also Carthage who's Trade networks Rome absorbed as they conquered it.  Carthage and Greece were both influenced by the Phoenicians, a people The Bible refers to as Sidonians who's major cities were first Sidon and later Tyre.  Ezekiel 27 is perhaps just as much a description of Capitalism as Ezekiel 16 is.  The Sidonians were the Canaanites of Lebanon and Sodom is also mentioned when talking about the Canaanites in Genesis 10.  In Ezekiel 16 God's criticism of Jerusalem (which is Sodom's Sin but now worse) also involved Him spiritually calling them Jebusites and Amorites.

Capitalism is the Socio-Economic Vice of the Canaanites, while Feudalism came from Egypt.

According to Ezekiel 16, Sodom will be restored.

This fact about Ezekiel 16 has been relevant to my Universal Salvation argument in three prior posts on this Blog.  Words Translated Eternal, KJV only Universalism and My Evangelical Universalism does not contradict Free Will.  Typically also referencing Jude's use of the word Aionios in reference to the Fire that consumed Sodom.

The context is God scolding Judah, foretelling Judgment that will come upon Judah.  And He references both Samaria (The Northern Kingdom) and Sodom as earlier nations He judged.  Saying Samaria had less excuse then Sodom, and Judah has less excuse then Samaria.  But He also promises Judah will eventually be restored, just as Samaria and Sodom will be.  Verses 53-55

When I shall bring again their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters, then will I bring again the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them: That thou mayest bear thine own shame, and mayest be confounded in all that thou hast done, in that thou art a comfort unto them. When thy sisters, Sodom and her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former estate, then thou and thy daughters shall return to your former estate.

Genesis 18-19 clearly tells us Sodom and Gomorrah had no righteous people in them, and so they were completely destroyed with no Survivors.  Lot and his Family were taken out, but they were up to this very day still considered foreigners living among them by the Sodomites.  And Lot's descendants became their own nations living in a different geographical region, Moab and Ammon.

So Sodom's restoration can't be via bringing their descendants back, as we traditionally assume Judah and Samaria's restorations will be.  Sodom's restoration can only be via The Resurrection of the Dead.  And because of Ezekiel 37, I believe that is what Judah and Samaria's restorations are ultimately about as well.

So there is no way an aboslutly Literal interpretation of Ezekiel 16 can get around it's obvious Universalist implications.

And yet, the only valid typolocial or allegorical interpretation, is even more Universalist.  As that says the three nations in question here must somehow represent all of Humanity.

You can't argue that even Sodom represents a type of believer.  Because even going off only what this passage says about Sodom, they are clearly people who never had a relationship with Yahuah.

The only valid typological interpretation, is that Sodom represents people who never believed, Samaria people who believed and then fell away, and Judah people who remained believers, but still even the best of us have our failings.  And our knowledge of God's Word only makes us more accountable for our Sins.

Therefore the Universalist implications of Ezekiel 16 are unavoidable.

Update April 13th 2018: Younger Sister?

I've become aware of an objection to the Universalist use of this passage by pointing out in verse 46 how Sodom is called a Younger Sister of Judah.  "This name must be a poetic idiom or something since literal Sodom clearly came before Judah or Samaria", they say.

Here is the problem with that.  Samaria is definitely called Judah's older Sister.  Even though the Northern Kingdom split off from Solomon.  And Joseph the dominate tribe of the North was literally younger then Judah the dominate tribe of the South in terms of their respective patriarchs.  And Samaria specifically was founded during the reign of Omri but never became the sole chief capital till Jehu.

In Exodus and Hosea Israel as a whole is proclaimed Yahuah's Firstborn when He brought them out of Egypt.  And Joseph received the Firstborn inheritance because of Jacob's love for Rachel though Judah got the Kingship.

What's not literal in that verse is the sibling terminology, not what Nations are being refereed to.

It is still implied in the narrative of the passage that Sodom came first because the Judgment of Sodom was the warning Samaria failed to heed, while Judah failed to heed both warnings.

Update November 10th 2018: Fortunes

I've been presented with another objection, that God is only saying the Fortunes of Sodom will be restored.   Well "Fortunes" isn't used the KJV but I guess they're referring to their Estates.  The passage also refers to the Daughters of Samaria.  The point remains it's the same as Samaria and Jerusalem's restorations.

They actually suggest it's fulfilled in Jerusalem's restoration because of when Jerusalem is called Spiritually Sodom and Egypt.  I find that kind of semantics laughable. 

Fact is it's also part of what YHWH says here that Jersalem's Wickedness was worse then Sodom or Samaria's, and that's why Jerusalem is compared to Sodom in places like Revelation 11.  So it would make Him Unjust to not restore Sodom, instead he chronologically will restore Sodom first.

Complex history of the Word Sodomite

This is my third post specifically on the Sin of Sodom being Inhospitality (Or Trumpism as I now like to call it).

What prompted this post was an interaction I had on IMDB.  So this is mainly my archiving those sources here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

Many cognates in other languages, such as French sodomie (verb sodomiser), Spanish sodomía (verb sodomizar), and Portuguese sodomia (verb sodomizar), are used exclusively for penetrative anal sex, at least since the early nineteenth century. In those languages, the term is also often current vernacular (not just legal, unlike in other cultures) and a formal way of referring to any practice of anal penetration; the word sex is commonly associated with consent and pleasure with regard to all involved parties and often avoids directly mentioning two common aspects of social taboo—human sexuality and the anus—without a shunning or archaic connotation to its use.

In modern German, the word Sodomie has no connotation of anal or oral sex and specifically refers to bestiality.[11] The same goes for the Polish sodomia. The Norwegian word sodomi carries both senses. In Danish, sodomi is rendered as "unnatural carnal knowledge with someone of the same sex or (now) with animals".[12]

https://nwanglicanblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/sodomy-a-biblical-word-study-that-might-surprise-you/

Roman Catholic scholar, Mark Jordan in his book The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology (1997) shows that the term “sodomy” originated in the eleventh century as a new classification of certain ‘clerical sins’. While early church fathers such as St. Ambrose and Origen clearly associate sodomy with inhospitality, by the time of St. Augustine, cultural associations around the word, communicated through secular poetry and legend shifted both its denotative and connotative meanings.

http://www.banap.net/spip.php?article122

 “ ‘Sodomy’ as defined by religion and law included a range of condemned practices, ‘a way to encompass a multiple of sins with a minimum of signs’ as one critic has cleverly expressed it.” (Phillips and Reay. Sex Before Sexuality A Premodern History, p. 61)


Despite the term’s enduring flexibility, from the twelfth century sodomy was increasingly associated with sex acts between men. (Phillips and Reay. Sex Before Sexuality A Premodern History, p. 62)

...

In the older sense, sodomy surpassed all other crimes; in its sinfulness it also included all of them: from blasphemy, sedition, and witchcraft, to the demonic. It was, as many extracts declare, the crime without a name; language was incapable of sufficiently expressing the horror of it. The category was a repository for many items, yet in the eighteenth century a highly specific portrait of an individual, and of a group, was increasingly displacing an undiscriminating, demonic generalization.(McCormick editor, Secret Sexualities A Sourcebook of 17th and 18th Century Writing, p. 118)

...

Sodomy surpassed all other crimes. In its sinfulness it also included all of them, blasphemy, sedition, witchcraft, the demonic: it is yet without a Name: What shall it then be called? There are not Words in our Language to expressive enough of the Horror of it. The foregoing suggests, however, a degree of insecurity about the range of the activity, and what it ought to be called. It was terrible in its sublimity, but unnamed in its sublimation. What was changing was that a specific kind of portrait of an individual was taking over from a theological category of generalized evil. (McCormick, editor Sexual Outcasts 1750-1850 Volume II Sodomy, p. 5)

...

“Clearly when we come across a writer using the words ‘sodomy’ or ‘buggery’ in relation to homosexuality we do the words less than justice if we simply disregard their other meanings. The one word was used because the one concept was intended, and this was a broader concept than simply homosexuality. The notion underlying these passages was not homosexuality but a more general notion: debauchery; and debauchery was a temptation to which all, in principle at least were subject.” (Bray, Homosexuality in Renaissance England, p. 16

...

“On the one hand, historians confirmed sodomy’s capaciousness: it means masturbation, several of forms of same-sex sexual behavior, bestiality, non-procreative sex (oral or anal most commonly) between a and a woman, or any form of sex in which conception was impossible.” (Crawford, The Sexual Culture of the French Renaissance, p. 4)

...

“Initially, sodomy was a theological construct, serving only intermittently to refer to a clear variety of sexual activity or to bring into focus the behaviour of a particular kind of person.” (Mills, “Male-Male Love and Sex in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500”, p. 14 in A Gay History of Britain Love and Sex Between Men Since the Middle Ages editor Matt Cook)

...

“In the early modern phase (here roughly before 1688), the term sodomy covered any activity that challenged the ‘Nature’ of the church-state authority. The logic of sodomy’s deviation from the feudal order was precise but the category covered a wide range of transgressive acts: witchcraft, usury, political dissent, nonconformity, any kind of nonreproductive, non-matrimonial sexuality, and exogamous social relations, for example with Jews or Muslims (Bredbeck, pp. 2-23). By the late eighteen –century, ‘sodomy’, more or less, narrowed to mean a male-male erotics typified by anal penetration (buggery).” (Shapiro, “Of Mollies: Class and same-Sex Sexualities in the Eighteen Century”, p. 159 in In a Queer Place Sexuality and Belonging in British and European Contexts, editors Kate Chedgzoy, Emma Francis, and Murray Pratt.)

So I hope this information is helpful to many.

Words translated Eternal

Aionion, Aionios, Aioniou, are different forms of Strong Number 166.  It is often translated in Latin, English and other translations as Eternal or Everlasting in many key verses.  And ultimately the enemies of Universalism are entirely dependent on that translation being accurate.

I don't want to get too deep into the linguistic arguments others have made, starting with how they come from Aion which means Age (Eon comes from Aion), which makes the use of it's Hebrew equivalent Olam in Daniel 12 the same issue.

That same Hebrew word for Eternal/Everlasting/Perpetual is used to describe how long the Aaronic Priesthood will last (Exodus 29:9, 40:13-15, Numbers 25:10-13).  But we know from the book of Hebrews that the Aaronic Priesthood has now been done away with and replaced with Jesus, Priest-King after the order of Melchizedek.

A better Hebrew word for Eternal would be Qedem (Strong number 6924) used of God in Deuteronomy 33:27. and Habakkuk 1:12.

The point today is to use Scripture to interpret Scripture, to show two places, two confirming witnesses, where Scripture uses this word in a way that in context totally contradicts it meaning eternal.  Naturally these verses aren't the occurrences of the word used to build the doctrine of Eternal punishment.

Romans 16:25 in the KJV.

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

In the Greek the last two words are Aionion and a word that means "kept secret".  Aionion is translated "since the world began".   The very next verse says "but now is made manifest".  Proving that it can refer to a time period that will expire.  There are other places where Aion is translated world rather then Age, like Paul calling Satan the "God of this World", it should be Age not World there as we know in the future Jesus will take ruler-ship of the Kosmos from Satan.

The other key verse is Jude verse 7.

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, 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.

"Eternal fire" there is Aioniou fire.  There it is used in the exact same form it is in Mark 3:29, John 6:68, Hebrews 6:2.

Obviously the fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah isn't still raging by the Dead Sea.

But also important is that Ezekiel 16:53 says that Sodom will be restored just as Samaria and Jerusalem are promised to be restored.  Sodom had no survivors, they considered Lot a foreigner living among them even on their last day, and Lot's descendants became their own nations, Moab and Amon.  And no one was a believer who perished in Sodom's destruction.  Sodom can only be restored if eventually Jesus shed Blood redeems even the Sodomites.

In Revelation 22, those who were cast into the Lake of Fire are now just outside New Jerusalem.

And in in the Sheep and Goats Judgment of Matthew 25, people overlook that neither the Sheep or Goats were those who believed in Jesus in this life.  We are the brethren.  Chuck Missler likes to say they are the Jews here (and argue this isn't the same judgment as the White Throne judgment).  But earlier in Matthew Jesus had effectively disowned His mother, brothers and sisters and said His real Brethren are those who believe in Him not biological relations.

Luke 3:6 says that all mankind will see God's Salvation.  Romans 5:18-19 says that as by one Man's Sin all are condemned, so by one Man's righteousness all men are Justified.   Romans 11:32 says all Men are bound to Disobedience so that he might have Mercy on ALL men.  1 Corinthians 15:22 says as in Adam all die so in Christ ALL shall be made alive.  And Peter tells us it is God's preference that none shall perish.

Hospitality is an important Biblical Value

While this might effectively just retread some of what I've said before, I want to talk about what the Sin of Sodom was as opposed to what it wasn't.

Because I feel, and have felt even way back when I held the traditional view, that even if you do think Homosexual acts are wrong and has something to do with why Sodom was so wicked.  It's really bothersome that many in the Church trivialize the Value of Hospitality, the Bible talks about it in way more then just 6 isolated passages.

But you shouldn't have to be in the Middle East to value it.

I really like the Hammer movie Scars of Dracula, staring the late Christopher Lee.  That movie often makes me think of Sodom.  I love the Irony, how the presumably Christian population of that small Eastern European town is constantly rude and unwelcoming to strangers who travel through it.  But the Prince of Darkness tries very hard as a distinguished nobleman to honor the old world concept of Hospitality, but fate keeps screwing him over.

It's not just when Sodom comes up The Bible is concerned with it.  God also repeatedly told the Israelites to be hospitable to strangers "Because you were once strangers in the land of Egypt".  Like in Leviticus 19.

That is why when Revelation 11 calls Jerusalem "Spiritually Sodom and Egypt" it is when they are celebrating the death of God's witnesses.

Also the Sheep and Goats Judgment.  Isn't that a Judgment that seems to be based on Hospitality?  Or the Parable of the Good Samaritan for that matter, hospitality is certainly part of the message of that.

When Jesus said "As the days of Noah were" and "As the days of Lot were", everyone wants to see that as an opportunity to read their conjectures about those days into it.  But Jesus explained what he meant, and there nothing about Sexuality or Nephilim.

It amazes me how some people will use other references to Sodom as references to homosexuality rather then reading the context of those references to see if they contradict their narrative about what the Sin of Sodom was.

Ezekiel 16:49 defines the Sin of Sodom.  But people tell me I'm ignoring verse 50 which uses the word Abomination.  The word for Abomination there refers to all idolatrous practices.  It is Biblically never a synonym for unnatural.

Then you got people who act like my argument about Sodom is inconsistent with itself, saying "So was the Sin of Sodom Rape or Inhospitably? Make up your mind?"

Okay, tell ya what, arrange for your town to gang rape two strangers passing through it and then ask them if they thought you were hospitable to them.

So, btw, I agree 100% that the Sin of Sodom is something modern America is highly guilty of.  My understanding of certain parts of Leviticus 19 has lead me to believe the Christian thing is to support open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens, the Hebrew and Greek words translated stranger are their words for aliens.

Update July 22 2016: I wonder if these two cities tendency towards hating aliens even applied towards each other.  I'm imagining now a politician in ancient Sodom saying.

"We're gonna build a Wall, and Gomorrah's gonna pay for it".

The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality: Sin of Sodom

Sodom and Gomorrah

Even back when I was still under the impression homosexuality was a sin, I never agreed with the view that homosexuality was "The Sin of Sodom". Neither did anyone in Pre-Christian times, absolutely no Jewish source or commentary (Philo is the only exception, he was a Platonist) would claim it was.

I don’t believe it’s accurate to label anything "The Sin" of Sodom, I see Sodom and Gomorrah as places where it world be easier to list what sins they weren't committing. But many Jewish sources, including the Talmud and Midrashim, see in-hospitality, greed, and selfishness as the primary issue in question. Hospitality was and is very important in Semitic/Middle Eastern cultures, far more then it’s ever been in the west, which is part of why Western readers today have trouble getting this part of the point. Twice when the Bible itself later refers to Sodom it’s with this concern.

"As I live, saith the Lord GOD, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters.  Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.  And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

Ezekiel 16:48-50, and Jesus himself, when he sends the Apostles out in Matthew 10:1-15 and Luke 10:1-12, compares to Sodom and Gomorrah those who are inhospitable to his disciples. (In The Book of Judges, 19-21, there is an account, similar in many ways, where Gibeah, a city of the Benjamin tribe, is destroyed by the other tribes of Israel in revenge for a mob of its inhabitants raping and killing a woman.)

Hebrews 13:2 which famously says "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." Is there to encourage Hospitality, and what Paul mainly had in mind was Genesis 18, which is part of the same narrative as Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. So that's two New Testament witnesses that Hospitality is what's in mind here.

Leviticus 19 also demonstrates how Hospitality was an important value in the Mosaic Law. It's funny actually how some modern politically conservative Christians want to impose Leviticus 18 and 20 on modern America, but won't mention the following passage of the in-between chapter when discussing Immigration. Verses 33 and 34. Verse 34 draws on the phrase from the earlier verse 18 that is the only Leviticus statement ever directly quoted by Jesus, it's what he labels it the second greatest commandment.

"And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God."

This notion of reminding the Israelites that they where strangers in Egypt is something God often does when telling them to be kind to their strangers. This is why Egypt is paired with Sodom when Jerusalem "spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt" in places like Revelation 11, where they celebrating he martyrdom of God's two messengers.   God is condemning Jerusalem for it's in-hospitality.

In Genesis 19, a sexual act is threatened in the narrative, but it's an act of rape, gang rape specifically, and is thus sinful regardless of the genders involved. Rape back then as now is more about Power then Sex, male on male rape particularly is about humiliation.  That's the reason for Prison Rape, those men aren't actually of a Homosexual orientation.

Yet I have critics of my view then asking me with a mocking tone"so what it Rape or In-Hospitality".  And I just rolls my eyes.  Can they really not figure out that raping a guest in your home or visitor in your town is the ultimate in-hospitality?

In various key verses of Genesis 18 and 19 the word you see translated "men" is actually 'enowsh (en-oshe') Strong # 582 (in it's plural form). Enosh is not actually a gender specific term, if the author wanted to be gender specific here he’d have used either iysh or zakar. Enosh is closer to how Adam is used, as a references to all humans. Enos was the name of an ancestor of Noah in Genesis 4 and 5, in other words we are all descendants of Enos just as we are of Adam. Elsewhere even the KJV simply translated it "persons". The Sodom and Gomorrah narrative uses it both of the angel visitors and those who seek to attack them. Genesis 19:4 says “the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:” The italics are Enosh, as seen by what I put in bold, it’s clearly NOT just the males doing this. I think it’s very conceivable it’d have been just the women actually screwing them and the men would have just watched, some people are into that sort of thing.

I've recently read some of Ken Johnson's material ('Ancient Post-Flood History: Historical Documents That Point to Biblical Creation' and 'Ancient Paganism: The Sorcery of the Fallen Angels'), he has a fixation on the so called "Book of Jasher" (which he also has an entire book dedicated to, which I don't have yet but I'm sure he makes the same statement). He believes the medieval Midrash Jasher is the "Jasher" mentioned in Joshua and Samuel, but I the real Jasher we don't have. But at any rate, when mentioning what Chapter 18 of this Pseudo-Jasher has to say about Sodom and Gomorrah, he unfortunately shoehorns homosexuality into it. Not even the text as he quotes it say anything emphasizing a homosexual nature to the men of Sodom, but instead do give many details testifying to their evident heterosexuality. Jasher 18, verses 13 and 14 reads

"And all the people of Sodom and Gomorrah went there four times in the year, with their wives and children and all belonging to them, and they rejoiced there with timbrels and dances. And in the time of rejoicing they would all rise and lay hold of their neighbor's wives, and some, the virgin daughters of their neighbors, and they enjoyed them, and each man saw his wife and daughter in the hands of his neighbor and did not say a word." Reading from verse 16 onwards however, the emphasis is on in-hospitality; it's discussed far more than any sexual issues. Verse 16 "the people of these cities would assemble, men, women and children, young and old, and go to the man and take his goods by force". And it lists many other examples of their ill treatment of visitors.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/18.html
This isn't the only thing he gets wrong either. His scholarship is horrible and I absolutely would not recommend his books to any young Christian not already well informed on these subjects.

Another extra-Biblical source would be Clement of Rome, besides the Didache perhaps our oldest extra-Biblical Christian document.  He too refereed to Sodom when discussing Hospitality.

Jude verse 7 is often cited by Chuck Missler and others as confirming the sin of Sodom was sexual in nature. I’m a fan of Chuck’s but we have disagreements, and here I’m actually going to use some of Chuck’s own arguments against him. The sin Jude is concerned with does have a sexual nature to it, but it’s not homosexual.

Here are both verses 6 and 7 as they read in the KJV “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, 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.”

I have put "strange" in bold for a reason. The irony of trying to say this is condemning Homosexuality is that the word translated strange here is Heteros (het'-er-os) Strong # 2087, which is the word the hetero part of the word Heterosexual comes from. Homios means the same kind while Heteros means a different kind. In New Testament times neither was combined with a word meaning sexual to imply orientation, that is a modern development. Both words are commonly translated "another". Chuck Missler will often make points about there being 2 different words for "another" in Greek, Homios meaning "another" of the same kind, while Heteros means another of a different kind. But he fails to acknowledge that they're not always translated "another", and that Heteros is used here.

Homios is part of what’s translated “like manner” to indicate this being the same kind of sin addressed in the previous verse. I personally would in this verse translate Heteros as Alien, “Alien flesh” (Some scholars have already suggested that before me). Essentially it can be taken to mean foreigner, and thus consistent with the issue being their in-hospitality to strangers.

Secondarily, if you believe the Angel view of Genesis 6.  We do know from various references to the Raphaim that the region where Sodom and Gomorrah was located was a center of Nephilim activity, the servants of Satan trying to repeat what they did before The Flood as explained in Genesis 6 which Jude alludes to in verse 6. 2 Peter 2:4-10 also mentions that and Sodom & Gomorrah together in the context of explaining the signs of the end times. Chuck talks about this subject a lot, including “As in the days of Noah” from the Olivet Discourse, but the Luke account of the discourse adds to that a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah in 17:28-30.

I don’t believe these were the first Angels the people of Sodom had encountered, just the first not fallen ones. And I believe Human and Angel interbreeding is what Jude was referring to. It was rather the opposite of homosexuality; it's how the intended victims were different from their attackers that is the concern.

The Testament of Naphtali refers of the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs 3.3.4-5 refers explicitly to the Women of Sodom having Sex with Angels, with terminology that is similar to Romans 1 interestingly.

But I'm not so convinced of the Angel view of Genesis 6 as I used to be.

Another common mistake on this passage, do not leave it with the conclusion that God approves of Lot offering his Daughters.  He has the key value the Sodomites do not, Hospitality.  But he goes about that in the wrong way.  Lot is NOT meant to be an ideal role model, he's consistently depicted as a worldly believer.  God never condones what Lot did here, in fact the Angels there as God's agents who clearly understand God's will better then Lot does made sure it didn't happen.

What is a Sodomite?

The word Sodomite, both singular and plural, often occurs in the KJV of the Hebrew Bible. This term derives from Medieval interpretations of Sodom and Gomorrah being about male homosexuality. The way it’s used in many verses in the KJV and some modern Bibles makes it look like the text is referring back to Sodom and Gomorrah. Problem is that’s NOT in the Hebrew text at all.

The first occurrence is Deuteronomy 23:17 “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.” The reason why this is such an obviously bad rendering, is that in the Hebrew the word rendered Sodomite (Qadesh (kaw-dashe') Strong # 6945) here is actually just the masculine form of the word rendered whore (Q@deshah (ked-ay-shaw') Strong # 4948) . And it’s the same word all 5 times Sodomite occurs, the other 4 occurrences are all in Kings. Once the same word is translated differently by the KJV, in Job 36:14 it’s rendered "unclean". The feminine form is also often rendered "harlot".

The feminine form is closer to being translated accurately but not quite. It doesn't refer to just any prostitute (there were other Hebrew words for that), but specifically to Temple prostitutes engaged in ritual prostitution in the cults of goddesses like Astarte and Qedeshtu. The root of the word is "Qedosh" which means "Holy". Every time you see "Holy" in the OT it's "Qedosh", and "Holy One" (a title of the God of Israel) is it's noun form. It derives from similar practices involved in the worship of Inanna in Uruk of ancient Sumer, who later became known as Ishtar in Babylon. The prostitute (male or female) in question played the goddess while a male played the goddess’s husband and they then engaged in ritual sex.

From my studies of the contemporary equivalents to this kind of pagan practice, I've coined my own word to be a translation of the term. "Hierogamist" from "Hieros gamos" (holy marriage). It means one who engages in a ritual goddess worshiping sex act.

But I will add for the most radical KJV onliers reading this, that in 1611 "Sodomite" and "Sodomy" did not exactly refer to what we today call Homosexuality or even specifically male Homosexuality. The term simply meant Anal sex and could include heterosexual anal intercourse. There will be more on that in the next part.

But regardless of how the word is translated. The context of it's occurrences in Kings tell us it's about Canaanite pagan practices. Because it's linked to the tearing down of the Groves (phallic obelisks, named after the goddess Asherah) and High Places.