Pederasty and Other Exploitation
The vast majority of homosexual affection in the ancient Mediterranean world was directed toward boys (pederasty) or young men.91 Greeks openly admired young men’s beauty,92 but it was held to decline with puberty and the attendant growth of facial hair and other specifically masculine characteristics. Some slaveholders, mocked by many of their contemporaries, tried to prevent masculinization by having hairs plucked or, worse, turning boys into eunuchs.93 Some remained objects of homosexual affection through their teens, and some, like Alcibiades, drew comments about their handsomeness much later. We do read of homosexual relations between fully mature men, but by far the predominant form of homosexual interest remained that of men toward prepubescent and adolescent males. The unequal status of the partners was compared to that of men with women (whose status had been notoriously low in classical Athens), with the dominant partner on top when intercourse occurred.
This interest often took the form of courting with gifts and interest, which many Greeks found entertaining. Although today any such behavior would be considered exploitive, Greeks counted only excesses, such as more blatant seduction or rape, as taking unfair advantage of a boy and inviting severe punishments. Even such crimes generated outrage only when committed against boys who were free; even aristocratic Romans by this period employed slave boys at banquets who, like female slaves and prostitutes, could be exploited sexually. It was preferred that they remain “effeminate,” a behavior counted undignified and mocked when practiced by free men. (Those whose masculinity was physically impaired, such as eunuchs, generally faced the same derision.) Men could also find sexual outlets with male prostitutes; whereas pimps could exploit slaves for this role without public protest, the voluntary involvement of free young men invited disrespect toward the latter.94 Teachers, conquerors, and emperors were all reputed to sexually exploit boys (as well as, when available, young women).
Views Regarding Homosexual Behavior in Antiquity
Some Gentiles criticized homosexual behavior, for various reasons. Some criticized it out of personal preference; some Romans considered it unmanly or un-Roman.95 Many Roman philosophers associated the pursuit of boys with excesses like gluttony and drunkenness. Some also criticized it as being against nature (a point we will address more thoroughly, given its relevance in 1:26–27).
More often, people regarded it as a personal preference or a common practice. Some even defended it as being preferable to heterosexual affection, which was said to be driven by animal passion rather than philosophic appreciation. Anal intercourse was common enough that men also used it at times with women (perhaps prostitutes), as attested on some of the many ancient vase paintings that would today be classified as pornographic.
Jewish people, however, unanimously rejected homosexual behavior. Some Diaspora Jews in contact with Greek culture considered it against nature.96 Contrary to what some have argued, Jewish people included homosexual behavior among Sodom’s sins. Most characteristically, Jewish people associated homosexual activity especially (and probably largely accurately) with Gentiles. Although Jewish sources report Jewish adulterers, johns, and murderers, Jewish homosexual practice was nearly unknown.97 The obvious contrast with ancient Greek culture suggests the prominent role played by socialization in sexual formation.
Interpreting Paul
Could Paul have envisioned the issue of gay marriage? This is not likely. Some time after Paul wrote Romans, it is reported that the young emperor Nero “married” both a boy (whom he had castrated) and another man (Suetonius Nero 28.1; 29; Tacitus Ann. 15.37). Even the reporters, however, offer these claims as examples of Nero’s moral madness; as polygamy was illegal and Nero married heterosexually as well, these other unions were not taken in the same way. Later rabbis mythically depict ancient Israel’s enemies as involved in such marriages (Sipra A.M. par. 8.193.1.7), but without relying on genuine historical information. Apart from rare exceptions like these (most of them meant to evoke horror), however, ancients thought of marriage as heterosexual unions designed especially to produce legitimate heirs, regardless of their views toward homosexual behavior. With a few exceptions, “marriage” by definition involved both genders (and an economic agreement between families).98 Those who engaged in homosexual romance, even in the rarer cases when it involved long-term sexual relationships into adulthood, would not have used the title “marriage” to describe it.
Most readers today would share Paul’s revulsion against the dominant forms of homosexual practice in his day: pederasty in both its voluntary and involuntary forms. Some scholars (especially Scroggs) argue that Paul opposed merely pederasty or other kinds of sexual exploitation. Critics of this proposal sometimes too readily dismiss the evidence for it: as we have observed, pederasty was in fact the dominant expression of homosexual activity in the ancient Mediterranean world.
But did Paul limit his criticism to simply those forms that remain most offensive in Western culture today? The dominant practice was not the only practice, and the word “pederast” was already available. More importantly, as most commentators (e.g., Jewett, Byrne) point out, he specifies lesbian as well as male homosexual behavior, and it is the same-sex element of the behavior that he explicitly targets.
The same criticism may be leveled against the view that Paul merely rejects homosexual behavior in the way that some philosophers did, as a failure to control one’s appetites (comparable to gluttony). Rather, Paul’s rejection of homosexual behavior belongs to his larger Jewish sexual ethic, which rejects all sexual behavior outside heterosexual marriage. His “against nature” argument echoes philosophic arguments that other Diaspora Jews had already applied to homosexual behavior in general. Readers today may agree or disagree with Paul, but some modern attempts, no matter how valiant, to make him more palatable to certain Western liberal values have failed to persuade a number of commentators, including this one.
At the same time, we must not exaggerate what Paul is saying. He uses the examples of idolatry and homosexual behavior because Jewish people recognized these as exclusively Gentile vices. This recognition plays into Paul’s strategy to expose all sin as deadly (1:28–32), hence all persons as sinners (3:23). Paul is not providing pastoral counsel here to believers struggling with homosexual temptation, and he is certainly not granting license to abuse those who practice homosexual behavior. (Nor would he grant license to denounce this vice while tolerating heterosexual behavior outside marriage, a condemnation that consumes considerably more space in his letters.) Given how common bisexual practice was, Paul undoubtedly worked closely with many believers who had come from this background (some of whom were still tempted by it; cf. the likeliest interpretation of arsenokoite¯s in 1 Cor 6:9–11). Paul’s message here would be more analogous to a preacher appealing to an audience on the basis of their shared values regarding homosexual behavior—then leading them to consider their own vices.
Various Vices (1:28–32)
For