Same-Sex Marriage in Biblical Times

Same-sex marriage existed in Rome in the latter part of the New Testament period. Or at least, authors from back then speak of it. It may not have been legally recognized. And how much to believe is open to question, depending on whether Suetonius and Tacitus the historians, or Martial and Juvenal the comedians, are the sources. But in an empire that was in some ways more gay-affirming than we are, such a development was virtually inevitable.

There is already ample evidence that the New Testament writers did know of loving, mutual same-sex erotic behavior, contrary to claims by progressives in the sexuality debate. Many in the Biblical period believed that same-sex desire was ordained by God, such as Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposium, where Aristophanes speaks of men who are “born” to be “the willing mate of a man” (192B), and when two such men find each other, “the two of them are wondrously thrilled with affection and intimacy and love, and are hardly to be induced to leave each other’s side for a single moment,” and if Hephaestus should offer to weld them together forever to share a single life both here and in Hades, the two would gladly consent, this being what they had always yearned for (192D-E). Aristophanes concludes that the way to happiness is “to give our love its true fulfilment: let every one find his own favourite, and so revert to his primal estate.” (193C)

During Roman times, Callicratidas makes a speech worthy of “Brokeback Mountain,” where he pledges lifelong undying love for his male lover, and calls for their ashes to be mixed together after death:

“I pray that it for ever be my lot to sit opposite my dear one and hear close to me his sweet voice, to go out when he goes out and share every activity with him. But, if…illness should lay its hold on him, I shall ail with him when he is weak, and, when he puts out to sea through stormy waves, I shall sail with him. And, should a violent tyrant bind him in chains, I shall put the same fetters around myself…Should I see bandits or foemen rushing upon him, I would arm myself even beyond my strength, and if he dies, I shall not bear to live. I shall give final instructions to those I love next best after him to pile up a common tomb for both of us, to unite my bones with his and not keep even our dumb ashes apart from each other.” (Pseudo-Lucian, Erōtēs 46.4–10)

But none of the above examples involved marriage. Here are three examples of actual same-sex marriage spoken of in Rome. While the writers are all writing around 100 AD, they illustrate a trend that begins in the New Testament period:

“Bearded Callistratus as a bride wedded the brawny Afer in the usual form as when a bride weds a husband. The torches shone before him, a wedding-veil disguised his face, nor were the words of your song, O Talassus [god of marriage], unheard. A dower was even arranged. Do you not think, O Rome, this is enough? Are you waiting also for a birth announcement?” (Martial, Epigrams 12.42, LCL modified). These words were written by a comedian who heartily endorsed and practiced bisexuality with social equals.

“Nero, who polluted himself by every lawful or lawless indulgence…stooped to marry himself to one of that filthy herd, by name Pythagoras, with all the forms of regular wedlock.  The bridal veil was put over the emperor; people saw the witnesses of the ceremony, the wedding dower, the couch and the nuptial torches; everything in a word was plainly visible, which, even when a woman weds darkness hides.”  (Tacitus, Annals 15.47, Adler)  Suetonius tells of what may be the same marriage (6.29), although he gives the name as Doryphorus; he also tells of a previous marriage to a castrated slave named Sporus, complete with “dowry, bridal veil, and all” (6.28).

“Graccus gave a dowry of four hundred thousand sesterces to a trumpeter – or maybe he performed on a horn that was straight. The marriage contract was signed, the blessing pronounced, a huge crowd came to the wedding banquet, and the new bride reclines in her husband’s lap…He’s wearing the bride’s ruffles, long dress, and veil…Look: a man illustrious in family and fortune is handed over in marriage to another man… ‘Tomorrow at sunrise I have a ceremony to attend in the valley of Quirinus.’ ‘What’s the occasion?’ ‘Oh, just a friend of mine marrying a man, and he’s invited a few guests.’ If we are allowed to live just a little longer, those marriages will take place, they’ll take place openly, they’ll even want to be reported in the news. Meanwhile, the fact that they can’t give birth and use their babies to hang on to their husbands is a huge torment which these brides cannot escape.” (Juvenal, Satires 2.117–138, LCL modified).

Two observations from the above evidence: 1. These same-sex marriages in ancient Rome are the product of popular demand for committed, mutual, same-sex erotic unions, which again contradicts the myth that the New Testament had no concept of loving, mutual, lifelong homosexual relationships. 2. Even a culture like Rome with more homosexual freedom than our own, a culture that saw same-sex intercourse as normal and healthy, thought that same-sex marriage was crossing the line. Juvenal (above) asks how the god Mars can stand by and watch these weddings without pounding his spear into the ground.

Even enthusiastic practicing bisexuals in Rome seemed to sense that same-sex marriage did not fit the template of a phenomenon that was inherently heterosexual. Their hesitancy mirrors the objections of modern gays to same-sex marriage (see http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/28/im-gay-and-i-oppose-same-sex-marriage/).

What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? Would the real Jesus ever affirm, what even the pagan world recoiled from in horror? Let’s be honest: the answer is an emphatic no. Can a teacher who likens divorce to adultery, bless such a fundamental violation of the Torah? One can reject his teaching and claim that we know better and have a more advanced form of compassion than he did, but one cannot legitimately put his blessing on such a departure from his teaching.

The sexual ethic of Jesus and his authorized spokesmen (the apostles) was counter-cultural. But now today, revisionists want us to throw that counter-cultural ethic away. We are free to do so if we choose. But we are not free to call it Christian, by any stretch of the imagination. It is a huge departure.