Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible: What Ancient Manuscripts Actually Reveal

Key Takeaways

• The biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18-19 depicts God’s judgment on cities whose sin included systemic injustice, violence, and violations of sacred hospitality codes.
• Ezekiel 16:49-50 explicitly identifies Sodom’s primary sins as pride, excess, complacency, and neglect of the poor and needy, contradicting interpretations that focus solely on sexual transgressions.
• Archaeological evidence from sites like Tall el-Hammam reveals catastrophic destruction consistent with the biblical narrative, possibly caused by a meteor airburst that rained burning materials from the sky.
• Later biblical references to Sodom and Gomorrah, including those by Jesus and the prophets, primarily emphasize themes of injustice, inhospitality, and pride rather than sexual sin.
• The Sodom and Gomorrah narrative is often misinterpreted in modern debates by ignoring broader biblical context, conflating homosexual rape with consensual relationships, and overlooking ancient cultural understandings of hospitality.

The Sodom and Gomorrah Story in Genesis

Overview of the Sodom Story from the Old Testament

The Hebrew narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah spans Genesis 18-19, beginning not with fire from heaven, but with a profound theological question. In Genesis 18:20-21, YHWH (יהוה) says:

“The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me.”

Here’s what’s significant: the Hebrew term za’aqah (זַעֲקָה) translated as “outcry” appears elsewhere in Scripture specifically connected to injustice and oppression. The same word describes Israel’s cries under Egyptian slavery (Exodus 3:7) and the cry of exploited workers denied wages (Deuteronomy 24:15). Already, the text frames Sodom’s sin in terms of systemic injustice, not merely individual moral failings.

This story exists in a larger biblical pattern where God destroys through flood, fire, or conquest. In each case, Scripture presents wholesale corruption requiring divine intervention. Sodom and Gomorrah, along with “all the land of the plain” and “all those” who lived there, faced judgment so complete that Abraham would later see “dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace” (Genesis 19:28).

Major Characters in the Gomorrah Story: Lot, Angels, and Citizens

While God and Abraham discuss Sodom’s fate, two angels arrive at the city gate where Abraham’s nephew Lot sits. The Hebrew identifies them as mal’akhim (מַלְאָכִים), literally “messengers,” not the winged creatures of Renaissance paintings. Lot, recognizing something significant about these visitors, insists they come to his house rather than spend the night in the city square.

The central confrontation occurs when “all the men of Sodom, both young and old, surrounded Lot’s house” demanding: “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can know them” (Genesis 19:4-5). The Hebrew verb yada (יָדַע) translated “know” appears over 940 times in the Old Testament, only occasionally carrying sexual connotations. But, Lot’s response, offering his virgin daughters “who have not known (yada) a man”, confirms the mob’s intentions were indeed sexual.

What’s often missed is the collective nature of this assault. The text emphasizes that all the men participated, a detail suggesting not individual sexual preference but communal violence. This pattern of threatened gang rape against foreigners appears elsewhere in Scripture (Judges 19) where the same word yada is used, linking these narratives thematically.

Sequence of Events Leading to Divine Judgment

When the angels arrive in Sodom, several dramatic events unfold in rapid succession:

1. Lot insists the angels stay in his house rather than the city square
2. The men of Sodom, all of them, surround the house demanding access to the visitors
3. Lot offers his virgin daughters instead, a horrifying proposal revealing both ancient patriarchal values and the supreme importance placed on protecting guests
4. The angels struck the mob blind, revealing their supernatural identity
5. The angels urged Lot to gather his family because “the outcry against these people is so great that the Lord has sent us to destroy this place”
6. Lot’s sons-in-law thought he was joking and refused to flee
7. At dawn, the angels physically removed the hesitant family, instructing them to “Flee for your lives. Don’t look back…”
8. God rained burning sulfur on Sodom, Gomorrah, and all the plain
9. Lot’s wife looked back and became a pillar of salt
10. Abraham witnessed the destruction from a distance

The text states explicitly that “the Lord overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities, and also the vegetation.” This wholesale destruction mirrors the Flood narrative’s complete judgment, suggesting parallel theological meanings about God’s response to irredeemable corruption.

What the Sodom and Gomorrah Story Really Means

Examining Biblical Interpretation Beyond Same Sex Assumptions

There’s a remarkable fact that’s often overlooked in discussions about Sodom and Gomorrah: when later biblical texts reference these cities, they rarely mention sexual sin as the primary issue. Ezekiel 16:49-50 offers perhaps the clearest retrospective on Sodom’s sin:

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned: they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me.”

The Hebrew places the emphasis squarely on social injustice, pride, and neglect of vulnerable populations. Sexual transgressions (“detestable things”) appear last in the list, suggesting they were symptomatic of a deeper moral corruption rather than the core offense.

Isaiah 1:10-17 uses “Sodom” and “Gomorrah” as metaphors when addressing Judah’s religious hypocrisy, connecting these cities not with sexual sins but with empty ritual divorced from justice and compassion. Jeremiah 23:14 links Sodom with general moral corruption, particularly false prophecy. In each case, the ancient prophets invoked Sodom not primarily as a paradigm of sexual misconduct, but of systemic injustice, pride, and spiritual corruption.

Jesus himself references Sodom in Matthew 10:14-15 as an example of inhospitality, connected to rejection of his disciples, never mentioning homosexual behavior. Throughout the biblical texts, Sodom functions as a symbol of extreme wickedness, but rarely in the narrow sense modern readers often assume.

Justice, Hospitality, and Pride in the Sodom and Gomorrah Story

The ancient Near Eastern world placed supreme value on hospitality. In a desert environment without hotels or restaurants, refusing shelter to travelers could be a death sentence. The contrasting hospitality shown by Abraham (who prepared a feast for the divine visitors) versus the Sodomites (who threatened to assault them) would have signaled clearly to ancient readers which party stood in right relationship with God.

The attempted gang rape in Genesis 19 demonstrates not primarily same-sex desire but violent domination. Similar incidents appear in ancient conquest narratives where victors sexually humiliated the conquered as demonstrations of power. When all the men of Sodom demanded to “know” the foreigners, they violated sacred hospitality norms while attempting to assert dominance over outsiders, both grave transgressions in the ancient world.

Pride (ga’on in Hebrew) appears consistently in prophetic references to Sodom, suggesting the city’s arrogance toward both God and vulnerable people constituted its fundamental sin. This aligns with broader biblical themes where pride consistently precedes judgment.

Sodom’s story so emerges as a complex moral failure involving justice, hospitality, and pride, with sexual violence as a symptom rather than the root cause of their corruption.

How the Sodom Story Fits into God’s Plan in the Old Testament

The Sodom and Gomorrah narrative serves multiple theological purposes within the broader biblical narrative:

First, it establishes God as judge over nations, not merely individuals. Throughout the Old Testament, YHWH acts in history to both establish and remove peoples based on their collective moral character. Sodom represents an early example of this pattern, later applied to Egypt, Canaan, and eventually Israel itself.

Second, Abraham’s negotiation with God, pleading to spare Sodom if even ten righteous people could be found, establishes a crucial theological principle: God’s justice is tempered by mercy, and a righteous remnant might preserve a corrupted community. This theme reappears throughout prophetic literature.

Third, the narrative creates a stark contrast between Abraham (the father of faith) and the surrounding culture. Abraham’s hospitality, righteousness, and relationship with God stand in direct opposition to Sodom’s inhospitality, injustice, and rebellion.

Fourth, the Sodom story establishes a pattern repeated throughout Scripture: God warns, sends messengers, provides opportunity for repentance, rescues the faithful, and then executes judgment. This pattern appears in Noah’s story, the Exodus narrative, and prophetic warnings to both Israel and Judah.

Fifth, the destruction of these cities serves as a cautionary example. Jude 7 describes Sodom and Gomorrah as “an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire,” establishing a typological connection between temporal judgment and eschatological consequences.

In God’s plan, Sodom functioned as both historical event and moral archetype, demonstrating divine commitment to justice while establishing patterns that would shape Israel’s theological self-understanding for centuries.

Religious and Denominational Interpretations

Christian Denominational Views on Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible

Christian theological traditions have interpreted the Sodom narrative quite differently, often reflecting their broader hermeneutical approaches:

Catholic tradition, drawing on Thomas Aquinas, has historically identified Sodom’s sin as primarily unnatural sexual acts (vitium contra naturam), especially homosexual behavior. The Catechism states that “tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'” But, modern Catholic scholarship increasingly acknowledges the broader social justice dimensions of the text, with Pope Francis emphasizing that using this passage to condemn homosexual persons contradicts the Church’s call to dignity and respect.

Evangelical Protestant interpretations often maintain that homosexual acts constitute Sodom’s primary sin, citing Jude 7’s reference to Sodom’s pursuit of “strange flesh” (sarkos heteras in Greek). This phrase has been interpreted as condemning same-sex relations, though some scholars suggest it refers to the inhuman/angelic nature of the visitors rather than homosexuality itself.

Progressive Protestant denominations generally emphasize the social justice and hospitality aspects of the narrative. They note Ezekiel’s explicit statement that Sodom’s sin was primarily pride, gluttony, and neglect of the poor, with sexual violence representing the symptom, not cause, of their corruption.

Eastern Orthodox theologians, drawing on patristic sources like John Chrysostom, have traditionally viewed Sodom’s sin as encompassing multiple transgressions, pride, inhospitality, and sexual immorality, with less emphasis on extracting a single “primary sin.”

Jewish Commentary on the Sins of Sodom

Rabbinic interpretation offers fascinating insights into how ancient readers understood this text. The Talmud and midrashic literature focus overwhelmingly on Sodom’s cruelty and economic injustice, not sexuality.

Pirkei Avot 5:10 identifies four types of people, including those who say “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours”, labeled as “the manner of Sodom.” This suggests the rabbis viewed extreme individualism and refusal to share resources as the essence of Sodom’s sin.

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 109a) preserves traditions about Sodom’s systematic cruelty: “They said: Since bread comes forth from our earth, and it has the dust of gold, we have everything that we need. Why should we allow travelers to come to us, seeing that they come only to deplete our wealth?” One story describes a Sodomite court that would force visitors to sleep in a special bed, stretching those who were too short and amputating limbs of those too tall.

Rabbinic texts repeatedly characterize Sodom as a wealthy society that instituted laws prohibiting charity and hospitality. They describe a young woman executed for secretly feeding a starving person. These traditions suggest that ancient Jewish readers understood Sodom primarily through the lens of social justice and communal ethics rather than sexual morality.

Islamic Understanding of the Gomorrah Story and the People of Lut

The Qur’an recounts the story of Lot (Lut in Arabic) and the destroyed cities in multiple surahs, offering important comparative perspective on how these narratives were understood in early Middle Eastern tradition.

Surah 7:80-84 states: “And [We had sent] Lot when he said to his people, ‘Do you commit such immorality (fahisha) as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds? Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people.'”

While the Qur’anic account emphasizes sexual transgressions more explicitly than some biblical texts, it’s significant that the Arabic term fahisha encompasses numerous forms of egregious immorality, not exclusively sexual sins.

Surah 26:160-175 adds details about the people’s response to Lot: “They said, ‘If you do not desist, O Lot, you will surely be of those evicted.'” This suggests themes of exile and rejection paralleling the inhospitality motif in Genesis.

Islamic exegetical tradition (tafsir) generally identifies the people’s primary sin as homosexual acts, but also emphasizes their highway robbery, inhospitality to travelers, and public indecency. Like rabbinic tradition, Islamic sources describe the systematic nature of Sodom’s corruption, where evil practices were institutionalized and righteous behavior punished.

Classical Islamic interpretation so aligns with aspects of both traditional Christian readings (emphasizing sexual sin) and Jewish interpretations (focusing on systemic injustice and inhospitality), suggesting a complex understanding of Sodom’s transgressions across Abrahamic traditions.

Evidence and Theories: What Really Happened

Archaeological Evidence for the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah

The search for physical evidence of Sodom and Gomorrah has challenged archaeologists for centuries. While definitive identification remains elusive, several intriguing possibilities have emerged.

Tall el-Hammam, a site in modern Jordan near the Dead Sea area, has become a leading candidate. Archaeological excavations revealed a prosperous Early Bronze Age city destroyed around 1700 BCE by what appears to be a catastrophic high-temperature event. Analysis shows evidence of extreme heat, pottery surfaces vitrified, mud bricks melted, and building materials showing signs of temperatures exceeding 2000°C. Such destruction is inconsistent with normal warfare or conventional fires.

Some researchers have identified mineral deposits suggesting the ancient city was destroyed by a cosmic airburst, essentially, a meteor exploding above the settlement. This would align with the biblical description of “burning sulfur” raining from the sky. The destruction layer contains unusual materials including tiny diamonds, melted metals, and shocked quartz, consistent with meteor impact remains.

Another candidate site, Bab edh-Dhra, located near the Dead Sea, shows evidence of a fiery destruction during the Early Bronze Age. The excavated cemetery contains over 500,000 burials, suggesting a substantial population center. Intriguingly, the ruins reveal a layer of ash several feet thick, with evidence the city burned from the top down, consistent with fire falling from above.

Geological studies of the Dead Sea region confirm that the area experienced significant seismic activity and possibly petroleum-based explosions or fires in the period roughly corresponding to Abraham’s era. The Dead Sea itself sits over a major fault line where bitumen (naturally occurring asphalt) and natural gas deposits could fuel intense conflagrations if ignited by earthquake activity.

While none of this definitively proves the biblical account, the archaeological evidence demonstrates that catastrophic, fire-based destruction occurred in urban centers near the Dead Sea during the approximate timeframe of the biblical narrative.

Scientific Explanations for the Cataclysm

Multiple scientific theories have been proposed to explain the kind of destruction described in Genesis 19, where God rained “burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah.”

The meteor airburst theory has gained significant traction in recent years. Scientific analysis suggests a Tunguska-like cosmic event, where a meteor explodes in the atmosphere before impact, could create a superheated air blast reaching temperatures over 2000°C. This would rain down burning debris and sulfurous material across a wide area, matching the biblical description of fire and brimstone from heaven. A 2018 paper published in Nature Scientific Reports examined evidence from Tall el-Hammam, concluding the destruction layer contains materials consistent with cosmic impact debris.

Geological explanations focus on the unique properties of the Dead Sea region. The area contains substantial subterranean deposits of natural gas, sulfur, bitumen, and petroleum. A major seismic event could release these combustible materials, creating explosive, incendiary conditions. Ancient observers would perceive such natural phenomena as divine judgment, fire literally raining from the sky.

Volcanologists note that while no active volcanoes exist in the immediate Dead Sea area, distant volcanic eruptions can produce ash clouds and pyroclastic material that travel significant distances. The biblical description of Abraham observing “dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace” aligns with volcanic phenomena.

Hydraulic theories suggest liquefaction during an earthquake could destabilize the soft sediments of cities built on the plain, essentially causing them to sink or be swallowed by the earth. Combined with released combustible gases, this could create the impression of cities being consumed by fire and disappearing.

While these theories attempt to explain the physical mechanisms behind the described destruction, they don’t negate the theological interpretation of divine causation, ancient Near Eastern thought readily attributed natural disasters to divine action without distinguishing between primary and secondary causes.

Ongoing Debates Around Historical Accuracy and Symbolism

The Sodom narrative continues to generate vigorous debate across several domains:

Historicity debates center on whether Genesis 18-19 describes actual historical events or functions as theological narrative. Archaeological evidence, while suggestive, remains inconclusive. Conservative scholars argue that destruction layers at sites like Tall el-Hammam provide compelling evidence for the essential historicity of the account. Critical scholars often view the narrative as etiological, an origin story explaining the unusual, barren landscape of the Dead Sea region.

Textual scholars debate whether the current version of Genesis 19 represents an edited composite of multiple traditions. The story contains some narrative tensions: Were there two angels or three visitors? Did God know about Sodom’s sins before investigating? These questions have led some scholars to identify multiple sources merged by later editors.

Geographical uncertainties persist about the precise locations of the “cities of the plain.” Genesis places them in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, but whether they were situated at the southern end (traditional view) or northern end (supported by some recent archaeological evidence) remains contested.

Theological debates continue about how to integrate natural explanations with divine causation. Most ancient Near Eastern accounts attributed natural disasters to divine action without our modern distinction between supernatural and natural causation. The text clearly presents God as the agent of destruction, regardless of the physical mechanisms involved.

Interpretive approaches vary significantly, from strictly literal readings to those seeing the narrative as moral instruction using heightened, symbolic language. Even among those who accept the account as historical, questions remain about which elements might employ hyperbole or narrative convention rather than journalistic precision.

The tension between historical and symbolic readings continues to shape how various communities approach this text. What remains consistent across interpretations is the narrative’s function as a paradigmatic account of divine judgment against extreme wickedness, regardless of how literally one takes the fire and brimstone.

Misconceptions, Blind Spots, and Misuse

Why the Sodom and Gomorrah Story is Often Misused in Modern Debates

The Sodom and Gomorrah narrative has become a reflexive reference in contemporary moral debates, particularly about sexuality, often divorced from its ancient context and complete textual witness. Several factors contribute to this problematic usage:

First, selective reading ignores the broader biblical commentary on Sodom’s sin. When Ezekiel explicitly identifies Sodom’s primary sins as pride, gluttony, complacency, and neglect of the poor, yet modern applications focus exclusively on the sexual dimension, we’re witnessing not faithful interpretation but cherry-picking to support predetermined conclusions.

Second, the narrative has been weaponized throughout history. From medieval justifications for executing homosexual persons to modern political rhetoric, Sodom has been deployed as a theological cudgel. This legacy makes it difficult to approach the text without importing centuries of interpretive baggage.

Third, our distance from ancient cultural contexts creates blind spots. The concept of sexual orientation as an identity category simply didn’t exist in the ancient world. The text depicts attempted gang rape within a specific cultural setting where sexual violence functioned as domination and humiliation, conceptually different from consensual same-sex relationships as understood in contemporary discourse.

Fourth, translation choices have sometimes reflected theological agendas. The Hebrew text uses broader terminology than some translations suggest, and English renderings often import modern understandings of sexuality into ancient contexts where such categories didn’t exist.

Common Mistakes in Linking Sodom Story Solely with Same Sex Themes

Several interpretive errors consistently appear when the Sodom story gets reduced to a referendum on homosexuality:

The most fundamental mistake is ignoring Ezekiel 16:49-50, which explicitly identifies Sodom’s sin as primarily social injustice and pride. This prophetic text, written centuries closer to the events than we are, provides the Bible’s own internal interpretation of the Sodom narrative. Dismissing this clear statement in favor of exclusive focus on sexual aspects represents selective reading at best.

Another common error involves linguistic imprecision around the Hebrew word yada (to know). While this term occasionally carries sexual connotations in the Old Testament, its primary meaning is cognitive knowledge. Context certainly suggests sexual intent in Genesis 19, but extracting a specific condemnation of homosexual orientation from this single narrative incident ignores the broader usage of the term throughout Scripture.

Perhaps the most prevalent mistake is conflating homosexual rape with homosexual orientation. The text depicts attempted gang rape, a violent act of domination and humiliation common in ancient warfare and xenophobic attacks. Using this text to condemn consensual same-sex relationships misunderstands both the narrative’s focus on violence and the ancient context where sexual acts were understood primarily in terms of power dynamics rather than orientation.

Finally, interpreters often ignore parallel passages that illuminate the Sodom narrative. The similar story in Judges 19, where men threaten to rape a male visitor but accept a woman instead (who is then raped to death), demonstrates that these narratives concern violent domination rather than same-sex attraction specifically. In both stories, the violation of sacred hospitality and violent treatment of vulnerable persons constitutes the central transgression.

The Impact of Shallow Biblical Interpretation on Cultural Dialogue

Reducing the complex Sodom narrative to a single-issue referendum has had profound consequences for both religious communities and broader cultural discourse.

Within faith communities, simplistic interpretations have often justified ostracism and condemnation rather than the radical hospitality the text actually advocates. When religious leaders invoke Sodom solely as condemnation of homosexuality, they participate in precisely the kind of inhospitality and mistreatment of vulnerable persons that the text condemns. The tragic irony is that some faith communities become functionally “Sodomite” in the biblical sense, placing ritual purity over justice and compassion.

In public discourse, shallow biblical interpretation has contributed to culture war polarization. When sacred texts become ammunition rather than wisdom literature requiring careful interpretation, both religious and secular voices retreat to entrenched positions rather than engaging in substantive dialogue.

For LGBTQ+ individuals, especially those from religious backgrounds, the weaponization of this text has caused profound spiritual trauma. Being told that one’s fundamental identity stands condemned by a paradigmatic story of divine wrath creates nearly insurmountable obstacles to spiritual wellbeing.

For biblical literacy broadly, reducing complex narratives to simplistic moral lessons undermines the intellectual credibility of Scripture. The Bible becomes perceived as a collection of proof-texts rather than a sophisticated literary corpus requiring contextual understanding and interpretive nuance.

The way forward requires both scholarly honesty and pastoral sensitivity, recognizing that ancient texts arose in specific cultural contexts while acknowledging their continued spiritual significance. When we approach Sodom and Gomorrah with appropriate historical and literary awareness, we discover a story less about sexual orientation and more about how communities either welcome or abuse the vulnerable among them.

FAQs About Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible

What is the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah?

The biblical account spans Genesis 18-19, beginning with divine visitors meeting Abraham. God reveals plans to investigate allegations against Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham negotiates with God, securing a promise that the cities would be spared if even ten righteous people could be found.

Two angels arrive at Sodom’s gate where Abraham’s nephew Lot insists they stay in his house rather than the city square. That evening, all the men of Sodom, young and old, surround Lot’s house, demanding to “know” the visitors. Lot offers his virgin daughters instead, but the crowd threatens to attack him. The angels pull Lot inside and strike the mob with blindness.

The angels warn Lot to flee with his family because God will destroy the city. Lot’s sons-in-law think he’s joking. At dawn, the angels physically remove Lot, his wife, and two daughters from the city, warning them not to look back. God rains burning sulfur on Sodom, Gomorrah, and all the surrounding towns. Lot’s wife looks back and becomes a pillar of salt.

Lot and his daughters escape to the mountains. Later, believing they are the last humans alive, his daughters get their father drunk and conceive children by him, becoming ancestors of the Moabite and Ammonite peoples.

Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?

The biblical text identifies multiple factors in Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction:

1. Genesis frames the issue as “outcry” (za’aqah) against Sodom, terminology associated elsewhere in Scripture with oppression and injustice.
2. The attempted gang rape of visitors demonstrates violent rejection of sacred hospitality norms, a life-threatening transgression in ancient Near Eastern culture.
3. The narrative emphasizes that all men of the city participated, suggesting systematic corruption rather than individual sin.
4. Ezekiel 16:49-50 explicitly identifies Sodom’s sin as pride, excess, complacency, and failure to care for the poor and needy, with “detestable things” (likely including sexual transgressions) mentioned last.
5. Jude 7 in the New Testament describes the cities as giving themselves to sexual immorality and pursuing “strange flesh” (Greek: sarkos heteras).
6. Jesus references Sodom primarily as an example of inhospitality and rejection of divine messengers (Matthew 10:14-15).

Taken together, these passages suggest Sodom and Gomorrah exemplified comprehensive moral corruption, including but not limited to sexual transgressions, with particular emphasis on systemic injustice, pride, and violation of hospitality obligations.

Which angel destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah?

Contrary to popular assumption, the biblical text doesn’t attribute Sodom’s destruction to any particular angel. Genesis 19:13 has the two angels informing Lot, “We are going to destroy this place,” suggesting their involvement. But, Genesis 19:24 states explicitly, “Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens.”

This phrasing, where YHWH acts “from YHWH,” has generated significant theological discussion. Some Jewish interpreters saw evidence of divine plurality here. Christian commentators sometimes interpreted this as Trinitarian language. Modern scholars often identify it as emphatic repetition typical of Hebrew narrative.

What remains clear is that the text eventually attributes the destruction to God himself, with angels serving as messengers and rescuers rather than primary agents of destruction. This aligns with broader biblical patterns where angels announce judgment but God executes it.

What actually happened to Sodom and Gomorrah?

According to Genesis 19:24-25, “The Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens. So he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities, and also the vegetation in the land.”

The text describes complete destruction affecting five cities of the plain: Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboyim, and Zoar (though Zoar was spared at Lot’s request). The devastation was so thorough that Abraham, observing from a distance, saw “dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.”

Scientific theories propose several possible mechanisms for this destruction, including:

1. Meteor airburst: Evidence from Tall el-Hammam suggests destruction consistent with a cosmic impact event that would rain superheated material over a wide area.
2. Earthquake-triggered natural gas explosion: The Dead Sea region contains significant petroleum, sulfur, and natural gas deposits that could fuel catastrophic fires if released by seismic activity.
3. Volcanic activity: While no immediate volcanoes exist nearby, distant eruptions can project material substantial distances.

The biblical account focuses not on natural mechanisms but divine causation, presenting the destruction as direct divine judgment. The cities’ locations remain debated, with the strongest archaeological candidates being Tall el-Hammam and Bab edh-Dhra in the Dead Sea region, both showing evidence of catastrophic fiery destruction during the Early Bronze Age.