Genesis 19 contains one of the most infamous episodes in Scripture. Two angels—appearing in the form of men—visit the city of Sodom one evening to investigate reports of grave sin (Gen 18:20–21; 19:1). Upon their arrival, Abraham’s nephew, Lot, invites them to lodge in his home overnight (Gen 19:2–3). They accept Lot’s offer of hospitality, but all the men of Sodom subsequently surround his home and demand he surrender the visitors so the crowd can “know” (from עדַיָ) them (Gen 19:4–5). Lot discourages his neighbors from carrying out their evil designs and offers his two daughters, who have not “known” (from עדַיָ) men, to the crowd in the angels’ stead (Gen 19:6–8).Rather than receive Lot’s daughters, though, the Sodomites threaten to harm him and his visitors and attempt to forcibly enter the home (Gen 19:9). The reports of wickedness being confirmed, the angels blind the men of the crowd and permit Lot and his family to escape to nearby Zoar (Gen 19:10–22). The next morning, God rains sulfur and fire from heaven and decimates Sodom, Gomorrah, and the neighboring cities in the valley. He utterly destroys the region and its inhabitants, sparing only Lot, his two virgin daughters, and the city of Zoar (Gen 19:23–25). Lot’s wife is turned into a pillar of salt when she violates the angels’ instruction by looking back toward Sodom during the family’s flight (Gen 19:17, 26).

Despite the episode’s notoriety, scholars offer different understandings about the precise classification of the offense that prompts God’s wrath and the consequent lessons readers are expected to draw. The traditional Christian view that homosexuality is the chief sin of Sodom is often challenged by modern scholars, who typically posit that either inhospitality or an attempted breach of natural-supernatural boundaries is the crime that ultimately brings fiery ruin for Sodom and its neighbors.

This article does not attempt to settle the classification controversy. Instead, it questions the propriety of an argument that has recently been levied against the traditional Christian view. Whatever the merits or limitations of the contention that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is a divine condemnation of homosexual intercourse, the argument is not of historically recent vintage—and ostensibly less credible—as some suppose. The discussion here proceeds in four parts. First, it addresses the use of Sodom and Gomorrah as archetypes of wickedness and divine condemnation. Second, it surveys the principal positions scholars take regarding the sins that precipitate the cities’ destruction. Third, it briefly considers the influence of Second Temple literature and traditions on 2 Peter and Jude, both of which reference the Genesis 19 narrative. Last, it summarizes the antiquity of the traditional Christian view.

1. Sodom and Gomorrah as Archetypes

The fiery destruction of the cities of the valley occupies a prominent place in both Jewish and Christian thought.1 The Hebrew Bible (HB) often uses Sodom and Gomorrah, in particular, as archetypal depictions of evil (see, e.g., Deut 32:32–33; Isa 1:10; 3:9; Jer 23:14) and presents their fate as an exemplar of consequent divine judgment (see, e.g., Isa 1:9; 13:19–20; Jer 49:17–18; 50:39–40; Lam 4:6; Amos 4:11; Zeph 2:8–9).2 Ezekiel 16:46–50, for example, employs this motif in discussing the city of Jerusalem and its wickedness:

And your elder sister is Samaria, who lived with her daughters to the north of you; and your younger sister, who lived to the south of you, is Sodom with her daughters. Not only did you walk in their ways and do according to their abominations; within a very little time you were more corrupt than they in all your ways. As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it.3

Typological references to Sodom also occur in Second Temple literature. For instance, Jubilees—typically dated in the second century BCE—describes the Sodomites as “great sinners” (13:18 [Wintermute]) and warns, “Just as the sons of Sodom were taken from the earth, so (too) all of those who worship idols shall be taken away” (22:22 [Wintermute]). From the first century BCE, 3 Maccabees says the men of Sodom “acted insolently and became notorious for their crimes,” so God “burned them up with fire and brimstone and made them an example to later generations” (2:5 [Anderson]). Wisdom of Solomon, also dating to the first century BCE, describes Sodom and the surrounding cities, in their continuing state of demise, as “a testimony” and “a memorial of their foolishness” (10:7–8 [Brenton]).

The archetypal use of the judgment narrative continues in first-century CE writings. Consistent with earlier characterizations, Pseudo-Philo calls the Sodomites “very wicked men and great sinners” (Biblical Antiquities 8:2 [Harrington]). Second Esdras invokes the cities of the valley as a warning of future judgment for others: “Woe to you, Assyria, who conceal the unrighteous ones within you! O evil nation, recall what I did to Sodom and Gomorrah, whose land lies prostrate as lumps of pitch and piles of ashes. Just so will I do to those who have not listened to me, says the Lord Almighty” (2:8–9 [Myers]).

The NT presents the cities’ demise as a portent of future judgment as well. For instance, Jesus notes that people who fail to receive his disciples—presumably as the Sodomites fail to receive God’s messengers in Genesis 19—will endure harsher punishment than Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt 10:14–15). His most extended reflections on the narrative are recorded in Luke 17:28–32:

Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, let the one who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away, and likewise let the one who is in the field not turn back. Remember Lot’s wife.

Here, Jesus emphasizes that Sodom’s destruction illustrates the sudden and overwhelming nature of God’s judgment on sin and the need for unswerving commitment in escaping it. The authors of Jude and 2 Peter similarly cite the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah as evidence of judgment awaiting ungodly people in their own age (2 Pet 2:6; Jude 7).4

2. Common Views of Sodom’s Sins

Sodom, Gomorrah, and the ruined cities of the valley are depicted as quintessentially evil in Jewish and early Christian literature, and their demise is consistently presented as the inevitable consequence of the inhabitants’ grievous sins. Yet, within these broad parameters, modern scholars offer widely divergent interpretations of the Genesis 19 narrative.5 Among other things, they disagree about the specific nature of the sin(s) that provoke divine judgment. As Scott Morschauser explains, “Opinion has divided over the major emphasis of the vignette: whether the denizens of Sodom are being condemned for aberrant behavior, or for their violation of a universally ‘sacrosanct’ code of ‘hospitality.’”6

2.1. Homosexual Intercourse

Multiple dynamics are apparent in the account, but exegetes traditionally view the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as one of the most prominent condemnations of homoeroticism in the HB.7 For instance, in recounting the narrative, Josephus explains, “Now when the Sodomites saw the young men to be of beautiful countenances, and this to an extraordinary degree, and that they took up their lodgings with Lot, they resolved themselves to enjoy these beautiful boys by force and violence” (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 1.3.200 [Whiston]). According to Martin Luther,

The heinous conduct of the people of Sodom is extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which was implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.8

The unnatural desires are thought to involve homoeroticism.9 Derek Kidner agrees with Luther that “at this early point in Scripture, the sin of sodomy is branded as particularly heinous.”10 E. A. Speiser asserts that, for the writer of Genesis 19, “it was the city’s sexual depravity, the manifest ‘sodomy’ of its inhabitants, that provided the sole and self-evident reason for its frightful fate.”11

Among scholars who see homoeroticism as the chief impetus for Sodom’s demise, Lot offering his virgin daughters is considered clear evidence that the hostile crowd demanding to “know” the houseguests intend to have sexual intercourse with them. Andrew E. Steinmann explains,

Some have tried to argue that the demand of the Sodomites was not sexual, but simply an insistence that they be able to understand who it was that was staying in the city with Lot. This is belied by the fact that Lot begs them not to do this evil (v. 7) and then offers his daughters who have not been intimate [literally, ‘have not known’] a man (v. 8). Clearly, Lot understood their request as sexual in nature.12

Gordon J. Wenham similarly affirms that, in this context, the mob’s demand to “know” Lot’s guests in Genesis 19:5 must be sexual in nature. This conclusion is inescapable, he says, since Lot responds to the ultimatum by offering his virgin daughters, who have not “known” men, in Genesis 19:8.13 The sexual connotation in 19:8, at least, is clear.14

Exegetes who perceive that sexuality is, in some respect, the primary evil in Sodom disagree regarding whether homosexual rape or homosexual relations more generally is condemned.15Assuming the mob intends to have intercourse with the ostensibly male strangers, they almost certainly intend to do so forcibly and without the visitors’ consent. This amounts to homosexual gang rape.16 Some scholars, then, suggest that the violence of rape provokes God’s wrath and no emphasis is made in Genesis 19 on the gender of the parties involved. James V. Brownson, for instance, declares the account “graphically portray[s] the horror of rape, [but] simply do[es] not speak to committed same-sex intimate relationships.”17 Under the circumstances, it is difficult to sharply distinguish between the homosexual and forcible aspects of the Sodomites’ contemplated crimes.

2.2. Intercourse with Supernatural Beings

While many scholars agree that homosexual intercourse—whether consensual or compelled—is the principal sin of Sodom, others contend that a different type of supposed aberration is in view.18 David A. deSilva, among others, posits that Sodom is destroyed because its inhabitants attempt to transgress “the boundaries between angels and human beings in regard to intercourse.”19 Bauckham insists the reference to “strange flesh” in Jude 7 cannot refer to homosexual intercourse. Instead, as the fallen angels—called “sons of God” in Genesis 6—have intercourse with human women, the Sodomites attempt to have intercourse with angels.20 The behavior of the men of Sodom, then, is somewhat of a reversal of events described in Genesis 6.

2.3. Failure of Hospitality

Most scholars agree the Sodomites’ sins are sexual in nature—even if they disagree about the specific aspect that is condemned as aberrant—but some modern exegetes contend the cities’ destruction has nothing at all to do with sexual relations. Among other things, they note that, despite numerous references to the fate of the Sodomites in Scripture, homosexuality is never explicitly identified as their sin.21 Instead, the people are specifically accused of various forms of violence and immorality. For example, some aver that Isaiah depicts the sin as injustice, Ezekiel describes it as selfish pride and prosperity that results in a failure to aid the poor and needy, and Jesus indicates that Sodom was destroyed for lacking hospitality and failing to repent.22 “Grounding our interpretation in Scripture,” theologian Shannon Craigo-Snell affirms, “issues of sexuality and sexual practices recede.”23

Scholars who deny the primacy of homosexual—or even sexual—sins in Genesis 19, increasingly contend that divine judgment was provoked by the Sodomites’ inhospitality to strangers. For instance, David M. Carr claims the episode tells of God’s “condemnation of a town that violated hospitality by trying to rape guests in one of its homes” rather than his judgment on homosexual behavior.24 John Boswell minimizes, or perhaps even denies, the episode’s sexual overtones. He credits the argument that, “When the men of Sodom gathered around to demand that the strangers be brought out to them, ‘that they might know them,’ they meant no more than to ‘know’ who they were, and the city was consequently destroyed not for sexual immorality but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers.”25 Similarly, Morschauser argues the implication of the verb “know” in Genesis 19:8 “is that the men be produced for interrogation: to discover (legally), and to ascertain their true identity—whether they are friends or foes; whether they truly deserve hospitality, or are to face hostility.”26

Exegetes who emphasize the failure of hospitality at Sodom sometimes argue the traditional concern with sexual sin is the consequence of late Christian re-imaginings. Boswell, for instance, asserts that a purely homosexual reading of the account is “relatively recent” and “the rise of homosexual associations can be traced to social trends and literature of a much later period. It is not likely that such associations played a large role in determining early Christian attitudes.”27 Likewise, Craigo-Snell posits that “the story of Sodom and Gomorrah did not convince Christians that same sex relations were wrong. Rather, when some Christians in the medieval period were convinced that same sex relations were wrong, they reinterpreted the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in line with their beliefs. Such mis-readings have caused concrete harm to God’s beloved LGBTQ children.”28

Scholars will undoubtedly continue to debate the extent to which the Sodom and Gomorrah periciope illustrates a divine rebuke of homosexual intercourse, forbidden relations between natural and supernatural beings, rape, inhospitality, or some combination of these behaviors. However, each element is clearly present in the account.29 The confluence of these factors is likely intended to illustrate just how far the cities of the valley have fallen and why the men of Sodom are “wicked, great sinners against the Lord” (Gen 13:13). Still, recent contentions that the traditional Christian emphasis on homosexual relations in Genesis 19 is misplaced deserve careful scrutiny. The arguments do not properly account for certain reflections on the pericope in the Second Temple period and NT literature like 2 Peter and Jude.

3. Second Temple Traditions in 2 Peter and Jude

Second Peter and Jude discuss similar subject matter and share the same general purpose—to warn against false teachers or subversives while encouraging faithfulness. Moreover, the epistles have a clear literary relationship since they share common vocabulary, present parallel material, and have similar introductions and conclusions.30 The modern consensus is that 2 Peter incorporates portions of Jude. The strongest arguments in favor of Jude’s priority are that its Greek is less difficult and its writing is more succinct than 2 Peter. Those who favor the primacy of 2 Peter tend to (1) believe the unity of style in 2 Peter makes it unlikely the author borrowed wholesale from Jude; (2) emphasize the future tense of predictions of false teachers in 2 Peter compared with the present tense in Jude; and (3) argue the improbability that Peter would borrow from Jude.31 A conclusion regarding priority—which Michael Green calls “one of the most enigmatic [questions] in New Testament studies”—is necessarily hypothetical and tentative.32

Whatever one’s conclusions regarding the relationship between these epistles, each draws on Second Temple era traditions in citing three OT examples to demonstrate the inevitability of divine judgment on false prophets. Second Peter references God’s condemnation of the Watchers, the flood of Noah’s day, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (2:1–8). Jude invokes God’s judgment on the people of Israel in the wilderness after God delivers them out of Egypt, the fall of the Watchers, and the ruin of Sodom and Gomorrah (4–7). Notably, each of these episodes potentially involves a strong sexual element. For instance, Jubilees states that the flood was brought about by fornication, pollution, and injustice (7:20–21a), and the Bible affirms that Israel’s fornication in the wilderness draws God’s ire (Num 25:1–9; 1 Cor 10:5–8).33

3.1. The Fall of the Watchers

Extrabiblical traditions influence the references to divine judgment in these epistles. For instance, Jude 6 states that certain angels did not remain in their original positions of authority. Instead, they left their proper dwelling and were consequently restrained in darkness until an occasion of final judgment. Second Peter charges them generally with sin and affirms they are bound in darkness until the judgment (2:4). These are presumably allusions to events recorded in Genesis 6:1–4, which describes “the sons of God” procreating with “the daughters of man,” but the details in Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 are not described in the OT.

Intertestamental literature often identifies these “sons of God” as angels.34 First Enoch, for instance, asserts that angels defile themselves with women (8:8–9; 12:1–6), take human wives and sire giants (7:1–6), and are confined in darkness until the day of judgment when they will be destroyed in fire (10:3–4, 11–15). Jude, who quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 in Jude 14–15, knows and follows this tradition.35 The author of 2 Peter is almost certainly aware of it also.36 Jubilees similarly alleges the Watchers fornicated with the daughters of men and “made a beginning of impurity,” producing murderous sons and prompting the flood (7:21–25 [Wintermute]). In the final centuries of the common era, then, Jewish tradition typically identifies “the sons of God” in Genesis 6 with angels and ascribes sexual sins as the reason for their condemnation.37

3.2. The Ruin of Sodom and Its Neighboring Cities

Despite their similarities, the epistles refer to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah with different emphases. Second Peter emphasizes God’s power to deliver righteous people while destroying the unrighteous. He saves Noah, “a preacher of righteousness,” while destroying the ungodly world in the flood (2 Pet 2:5), and he saves Lot—who is twice described as “righteous”—while overthrowing Sodom and Gomorrah (2 Pet 2:7–8). Having done so in the past, it is implied that God continues to deliver godly people while reserving ungodly people for punishment (2 Pet 2:9).

While the Wisdom of Solomon calls Lot “a righteous man” who “escaped the fire that descended on the Five Cities” (10:6 [NRSV]), the affirmation in 2 Peter 2:7–8 that he is both righteous and constantly vexed by the wickedness of Sodom has no parallel in Genesis 19. The author of Wisdom classes Lot with heroes like Noah (Wis 10:4), Abraham (10:5), Jacob (10:10), and Joseph (10:13). Later, 1 Clement 11:1 affirms Lot is delivered specifically because of his hospitality and piety. These references confirm a tradition among Jews and early Christians that casts Lot in a positive, even heroic, light.38 While 2 Peter merely alludes to Sodom’s wickedness, it expands on the dynamics of Lot’s life there in a way that reflects pseudepigraphal influence.39

A different kind of expansion occurs in Jude 7, which says “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” Most scholars disagree with Boswell, who flatly declares “there is absolutely no justification” for interpreting this verse as a homosexual allusion.40 For instance, Ben Witherington III opines, “While Old Testament scholars debate what the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was, there is no doubt in Jude’s mind that it involves sexual improprieties of a severe sort, not only of a heterosexual but also of a homosexual nature.”41 If Jude does intend to indict the cities of the plain for homosexual sins, he is not alone among first-century CE writers. Philo of Alexandria declares the Sodomites engage in “unlawful forms of sex,” including adulterous heterosexual relations and “men ha[ving] intercourse with males, the active partners having no respect for the common nature shared with the passive partners” (On the Life of Abraham 135 [Birbaum and Dillon]).

Moreover, several sources generally attribute sexual aberrations to the inhabitants of Sodom. For example, according to the Testament of Benjamin, potentially dating to the second century BCE, the patriarch warns his descendants, “From the words of Enoch the Righteous I tell you that you will be sexually promiscuous like the promiscuity of the Sodomites and will perish, with few exceptions. You shall resume your actions with loose women, and the kingdom of the Lord will not be among you, for he will take it away forthwith” (9:1 [Kee]). Jubilees, written during the same period, describes the inhabitants of the ruined cities as “polluting themselves and … fornicating in their flesh … [and] causing pollution upon the earth” (16:5 [Wintermute]). The document also portrays Abraham forthrightly warning his children against fornication and impurity. There, Abraham alleges the Sodomites died “on account of their fornication and impurity and the corruption among themselves with fornication” (Jub 20:5 [Wintermute]).

Second Peter’s reference to sexual sin in Sodom and Gomorrah is implicit while Jude’s is explicit, but the likelihood that each is referring to sexual sins is strengthened by association with their respective triads of historic judgments.42 Jude, especially, seems to agree with the pseudepigraphal traditions because, in the same context, he embraces the tradition that the Watchers were guilty of sexual sins.43 As Darian Lockett explains, “the apostasy of Jude’s three types are all associated with rejection of God’s order: in the case of the wilderness generation they rejected God’s purposes and order for taking the Promised Land (Num 14.11), the rebellious angels and Sodom and Gomorrah are both extreme cases of sexual perversion marking an outright rejection of God’s created order.”44 Jeremy F. Hultin agrees that sexual transgressions are emphasized in Jude’s references to the Watchers and Sodom and Gomorrah. He explains,

Although Jude’s parade of previously punished sinners includes many familiar faces, Jude seems to evoke a rather particular, and not so common, unifying theme: namely, sexual transgressions that involved the mixing of two categories of beings. For instance, although reference to the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah was common, Jude is among a minority who specify that their sin was of a sexual nature, and he is virtually unique in likening their transgression to that of the Watchers. In Jude’s depiction, both instances involve sexual acts (or attempted acts) between different orders of beings: the angels “did not keep their rule” and “left their own dwelling”; the Sodomites “went after strange flesh” (Jude 6–7). This presumably means that just as the Watchers sought intercourse with human women, the Sodomites sought to have sexual relations with the angels.45

For Jude, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are sexually immoral and pursue “strange” or “different” flesh. Since they do not know the visitors are angels rather than mere men, their intentions, at least, are homoerotic. The potential harms, though, are aggravated by the true identities of Lot’s houseguests.46

4. Antiquity of the Emphasis on Homosexuality in Sodom

In light of the contexts in which 2 Peter and Jude cite the ruin of Sodom and Gomorrah and the influence of extrabiblical traditions on the epistles, it is unlikely that Christians only began associating the cities’ destruction with divine condemnation of fornication and homosexuality as late as the medieval age. Scholars who allege only a historically recent association fail to carefully consider critical evidence.

First, early Christians inherited the HB and read Genesis 19. The “overall tenor” of the chapter is sexual in nature.47 The judgment pericope depicts aggression by the male inhabitants of Sodom against what they believe are human male visitors, and Lot responds to their demands by offering his virgin daughters. While some modern scholars contend the Sodomite mob intends only to question the visitors in order to learn the foreigners’ identities and intentions, it is virtually undisputed that Lot’s response anticipates his daughters being sexually assaulted. Given the crowd’s demand to “know” the visitors and Lot’s immediate offer of his daughters in the angels’ stead, he seemingly understands the aggressor’s demands as sexual in nature.

Second, while the cities of the valley are charged with a variety of sins in the HB and homosexuality is not specifically alleged in many instances, homosexuality is still potentially referenced. For instance, Ezekiel 16:47 and 16:50 accuse Sodom of committing “abominations” (from הבָעֵוֹתּ). This term is applied to male-male homosexual intercourse in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, as well as adultery with the wife of one’s neighbor in Ezekiel 22:11. While it is also applied to deception (Prov 12:22; 11:1; Deut 25:16) and arrogance (Prov 16:5), among other things, deception is not implicated in Genesis 19 and Ezekiel 16:49 alleges arrogance separately. “Abomination,” then, can refer to sexual sin, including homosexual intercourse. In fact, it is used regarding sexual sin elsewhere in Ezekiel. Therefore, it is too much to declare that Ezekiel 16:46–50 says nothing about sexual sin or homoeroticism in Sodom.48

Third, Jude 7 plainly charges the inhabitants of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the cities of valley with “sexual immorality” and pursuing “unnatural desire.” Even if the allegation involves an unwitting attempt to sexually transgress the boundaries between natural and supernatural beings, the transgression necessarily involves conscious efforts to participate in male-male intercourse, and the Law of Moses prescribes capital punishment for such behavior (Lev 20:13). In light of the specific denunciations in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and the common gender of the parties involved, modern exegetes must not lightly or completely dismiss the possibility that Jude’s archetypal invocation of Genesis 19 concerns homosexual relations in some substantial part.

Fourth, the authors of 2 Peter and Jude are almost certainly aware of Jewish traditions affirming the sexual, even homosexual, nature of Sodom’s sins. There is a considerable tradition reflected in Second Temple literature charging the cities of the valley with sexual promiscuity, and numerous writings before the first century CE warn against fornication and sexual impurity using Genesis 19 as an exemplar. Moreover, writers like Josephus and Philo specify that the fornication and impurity are homosexual in nature. The authors of 2 Peter and Jude reflect the persistence of these traditions in the primitive Christian church.

5. Conclusion

Scholars will undoubtedly continue wrestling with the precise nature of Sodom’s sin because, among other reasons, the conclusion potentially impacts social views about homosexual intercourse and relationships. This article does not purport to conclusively isolate one sin. Instead, it argues that one of the recent arguments against the traditional view—that God destroys the cities of the valley, in large part, because of rampant fornication, including homosexuality, in Sodom—is overstated. Christians did not adopt this reading of Genesis 19 in some historically recent era. Second Temple literature demonstrates that the view predates the Christian church, and first century CE Christian writings, especially the Epistle of Jude, show the reading was accepted by at least some of Jesus’s early disciples. Consequently, in attempting to understand how Christians have historically understood Sodom’s sin and the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality, it is better to acknowledge all of the prominent elements in the ancient narrative, including the attempt to transgress natural and supernatural boundaries, rape, and inhospitality, without dismissing the emphasis on divine condemnation of homosexuality.