Some websites only present one side of the story. That's where we help out...

7: Something Matthew Vines Got Right

The presenter does a good job of explaining why we cant draw strong conclusions about homosexuality from the story of Sodom. Many preachers portray the sin of Sodom as simply homosexuality, and in doing so the preachers are misleading. Although Jude 7 points out that Sodom’s judgement was due at least in part to sexual sin, collectively the various scriptures about it indicate that there were multiple sins that led to the severe judgement of Sodom.

Something the presenter doesnt raise though, is the similar storyline in Judges 19. That story, seems to me to suggest that a male raping a male is presented as being morally worse than a male raping a female. I note that if God considers homosexual relations to be okay, homosexual rape would be portrayed as morally equivalent to heterosexual rape.

The presenter also states a factual inaccuracy. He says –

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not originally thought to have anything to do with sexuality at all, even if there is a sexual component to the passage we just read. But starting in the Middle Ages, it began to be widely believed that the sin of Sodom, the reason that Sodom was destroyed, was homosexuality in particular.

This too is misleading. As Dr James White pointed out in his book, The Same Sex Controversy, long before the Middle Ages, St. John Chrysostom pointed to homosexual relations as being key to God’s cause for judgement on Sodom & Gomorra, in Homily IV of his Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans.


Postscript – after writing the above, I became aware that Gagon has suggested reason to conclude that the homosexual element of Sodom’s sin, was the dominant element of Sodom’s sin. Gagon points to Ezek 16:50 and details this argument in his classic book The Bible and Homosexual Practice, and it is cited and explained on page 35 of this ebook. I find this argument logical, but not 100% persuasive.

Ive also become aware that many English translations of 2 Peter, imply a sexual component to the sins of Sodom. See


Next topic in the Matthew Vines series

Stasis Online Contents Page for Matthew Vines

2 Comments on “7: Something Matthew Vines Got Right”

  1. A.H. says:

    It should be noted that the Jew Philo (~60AD) understood the sin of Sodom to be pedestry when he explains what “know them” meant.

    • stasisonline says:

      Thanks A.H. Thats odd though. Genesis 19:4 says the would be rapists were men “both young and old”. And verse 5 says the intended victims were “men”. What’s your reference?

Share your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s