There are two interpretations of God’s reasoning in destroying the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah. The more commonly heard interpretation is that God destroyed the Sodomites for their, well, sodomy. After my latest column, in which I urged tolerance of homosexuality even among those who believe it to be a sin, I received a few responses from folks referencing this interpretation. This, however, is a very narrow reading of the events depicted in Genesis that ultimately avoids the larger moral.

Everybody knows at least the outline of the story. In Genesis 19, two strangers venture into Sodom. Lot greets them and invites them into his home. When the strangers decline and ask the way to the town square, Lot gets a little pushy, so the strangers say “whatever” and agree to spend the night. Lot feeds them and sends them to bed, but before they can lie down an angry mob made up of the entire town of Sodom surrounds the house and demands that Lot send the strangers out so that the mob “may know them.” Lot then offers his two daughters up to the crowd in place of the strangers, but the mob refuses. The strangers, having seen enough, strike the Sodomites blind. The next day, the strangers, having revealed themselves as angels, send Lot’s family away and destroy the city.

Even in this rather decontextualized version of events, an anti-homosexual interpretation seems a stretch, hanging as it does entirely on two short verses: the one in which the crowd demands to “know” the strangers and the one in which the crowd refuses the daughters as substitutes.

“Know” is a rather ambiguous word (some versions are more explicit), but let’s assume it implies sex. Let’s also assume that the mob refuses the daughters out of homosexual lust, though I’m going to provide an alternative possibility in just a moment. Even with these assumptions, the violent homosexuality depicted in this story is so wildly different from the homosexuality that exists in the United States today that the connection is rather tenuous. After all, the Sodomites’ would-be use of homosexual sex is a display of power, not love; it has more in common with prison rape than with gay marriage.

Furthermore, considering the mob’s apparent objective is gang rape, does the sex of the mob’s victims matter that much in determining the Sodomites’ sexual immorality? There is a similar story in Judges 19, in which an unruly mob in the city of Gilbeah does accept a concubine as a substitute for the stranger it came to collect. The mob rapes and abuses her all night, leaving her dead at the doorway. Is this story less harrowing? Is the gang rape of a female servant somehow less evil than the gang rape of a male visitor?

The answer to that question probably used to be yes, actually, for two reasons. The first one is the fortunately antiquated notion of women and servants as second-class citizens. A concubine just wasn’t a terribly valued member of society. (Even so, her rape and murder was shocking enough that, lacking photography, her master somewhat gruesomely cut her body into 12 pieces and sent them throughout the land to remind people that evil still existed in Israel. Indeed, it was so shocking that it was the apparent impetus for a brief civil war.)

The second reason is that kindness to strangers was very highly valued by the Israelites, as well as most of the other cultures of that general era and area. This bleeds into the other less commonly heard interpretation of Sodom’s destruction, which holds that the Sodomites’ great sin was not homosexuality, but rather, their extreme inhospitality. The context of the Sodom and Gomorrah story supports this interpretation.

In Genesis 18, three strangers wander by Abraham’s tent. Upon seeing them, Abraham gets up and runs to greet them, bows down before them, and offers to wash their feet and feed them (though, hopefully not at the same time). They would later reveal themselves to be angels, but to this point, Abraham did not know that; to him, they were just three nomads passing through.

Abraham’s hospitality in this chapter sets the standard for how strangers are supposed to be treated. Situated as it is, it provides a stark contrast to Genesis 19, in which the Sodomites greet two of the same strangers with an angry mob. Indeed, the angels recognize Lot as a person worthy of protection because of the way he still respects standards of hospitality.

This interpretation also provides an alternative explanation of why the Sodomites reject Lot’s daughters as substitutes: their objective was not sexual satisfaction, but to run the strangers out of town, punishing them for even having the temerity to visit in the first place. The mob’s reaction to Lot’s offer of his daughters (The Sodomites sneer, “This fellow came here as an alien, and now he would play judge!”) also reeks of xenophobia.

The New Testament in general supports this interpretation as well, with its constant emphasis on hospitality and servitude. In Hebrews 13:2, Paul seems to invoke Abraham and Lot when he writes, “Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by this some have entertained angels without knowing it.” In Matthew 10:14-15, Jesus even refers specifically to Sodom and Gomorrah when condemning inhospitality. The few times Paul mentions homosexuality, on the other hand, he always seems to be referring back to Leviticus, not Genesis 19. Jude does write about the Sodomites’ sexual immorality, but he could just as likely be talking about their gang-raping tendencies as homosexuality. Jesus never does mention homosexuality.

The question now becomes, if the interpretation emphasizing the Sodomites’ inhospitality has so much more support, why has the interpretation emphasizing homosexuality become so much more prevalent? Part of it may have to do with changing attitudes toward or among homosexuals, but I think it has more to do with changing attitudes toward hospitality. We simply don’t value hospitality the way Jesus and Abraham taught us.

Indeed, in our society, people often fear strangers. We don’t pick up hitchhikers because they might be axe-murderers. We don’t trust our kids with strange men because they might be pedophiles. We certainly don’t invite vagrants home for supper because they smell bad and will probably steal. We don’t like Mexicans crossing our borders because they’re a drain on the system. And we don’t want to see Arabs in planes coming to America because they’re most likely terrorists.

Sure, we don’t form angry mobs and gang-rape any of these people. Good for us, I guess. But we don’t offer to feed them and wash their feet, either.

Condemning the Sodomites for their inhospitality would force us to face some unpleasant realities in our own behavior. It’s a lot easier to condemn Sodom for homosexuality, to blame acceptance of the Other for the breakdown in their society. To do so, however, rather ironically misses the point.

Justin Fowler is a student at University College of Bangor. He may be reached at justin.fowler@verizon.net. Voices is a weekly commentary by Maine people who explore issues affecting spirituality and religious life.