Q. Does God forbidding homosexuality but not lesbianism in the Old Testament have anything to do with polygamy? And how does Paul's condemnation of both factor into this question?

Defining Terms

A. Let's get a number of matters perfectly clear before we answer what is both a difficult and contentious subject:

• 1. The words 'homosexual', 'lesbian' and 'heterosexual' no more exist in either the Old or New Testaments than the words 'monogamy' and 'polygamy' do, just as little distinction today is made in modern Western culture between 'fornication' and 'adultery' (a reason most Christians fail to properly distinguish between them). As I don't want to repeat what has already been examined in great depth on this website, I will restrict myself to simple summaries today and leave you to research the website in depth yourself.

  But to remind you, adultery is defined in the Old Testament (which can only be properly understood by having a knowledge of Yahweh's polyyny laws...which is why most Christians get this wrong) as 'a man (married or unmarried) sleeping with another man's wife or a married woman sleeping with a married or an unmarried man'. Technically, a single woman cannot, therefore, commit adultery. Ever. But she can fornicate. Fornication is defined as unmarried persons sleeping together which must be understood in the context of a definition of biblical marriage, which is defined as one man being married to one or more women, with one or two exception rules (like the ban on a man marrying a woman and her daughter from a previous marriage.

• 2. There is no such thing biblically as 'homosexual/lesbian/bisexual marriage' or 'fornication' which are understood in the New Testament as being an "exchange" of male-to-female relations for same-sex relations. The verb is particularly important here because this 'exchange' is equated with "vile passion" and the exchange of the truth for a lie, "for this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting" (Rom 1:26-28, NKJV). Accordingly, there are different punishments in the Law:

  (a) Adultery (which presupposes marriage, which is only between one man and one or more women) which demands capital punishment; (b) Fornication (which was not a capital offense and required the man to 'do the honourable thing' and marry the woman he had slept with previously in a non-covenant relationship - if the man was in a covenanted monogamous marriage (that in the exchanged vows excluded the man taking on more wives) then the husband would be guilty of vow-breaking which, though not punished by death, was regarded by Yahweh as a sin and was attended by another punishment). An illustration of the voluntary limitation of wives a man can take would be the covenant Jacob made with his father-in-law not to take any more wives (Gen.31:50). Homosexual and lesbian relationships are regarded as both non-covenantal and sinful. But in the Old Covenant only the men involved in sexual relationships together were put to death, not the women.

Confusing to the Western Mind

The above is very confusing to the Western mind. Western and Ancient Near Eastern thinking are very different. We tend to view marriage in terms of sex but they primarily viewed marriage in terms of tribe and community. With Paul's instruction (the only one of its kind in the New Testament that specifically addresses same-sex activity), let's unravel this further.

Understanding Marriage Through the Lens of Law

The Old Testament explicitly forbids male-male sexual intercourse (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13) but never explicitly names or condemns female sexual contact. This silence is, in the first instance, generally attributed to the ancient Near Eastern legal focus on semen emission, lineage, and patriarchal rights, rather than an acceptance of female same-sex relations. In other words, the emphasis is different. All sex outside of marriage was regarded as impure and unacceptable. Sex within marriage is clean, and the "marriage bed undefiled" by virtue of the covenant (life-long commitment and agreement) between the parties. It was contractual - inside the contract = safe and legal, and backed up by the community, whereas outside the contract = unsafe and illegal and not backed up by the community. So anything outside the legal definition or marriage (one man married to one or more women) would be illegal and unclean, with punishments (from death to beatings and fines) a consequence of the violation of that covenant.

The Legal Polygamy Connection

The connection to polygamy is the only plausible explanation as to why 'lesbianism' is never addressed explicitly in the Law. Again, we must view this question through the lens, and in terms, of ancient social structure which is this: the Old Testament permits polygyny for men while strictly regulating female sexuality to ensure clear paternity for tribal inheritance. Because female-female relations did not disrupt traditional patrilineal property inheritance or involve the 'wasting' of seed, they went unmentioned in ancient Hebrew penal codes known as the Torah.

How Conservative Evangelicals & Liberals View These Matters

Before we take this further, I think it would be helpful to view the above through traditional conservative and modern liberal lenses without, in the first instance, agreeing or disagreeing with either. I am doing this in case the reader identifies with either of these explanations so that there is a context for a proper discussion.

The Conservative Monogamy-Only, Heterosexuality-Only Response

Conservatives (and I principally have conservative evangelicals in view here) argue that the omission of lesbianism from the Old Testament does not mean 'approval' - see my recent discussion in Is It True That God 'Disapproves' of Polygamy But Does Not Forbid It?. They hold that moral principles in the Law apply universally to both sexes. Accordingly, conservative evangelicals assert that Levitical prohibitions and creation models (Adam and Eve) define all same-sex behaviour as contrary to God's design. They furthermore note that the New Testament explicitly addresses female same-sex acts in Romans 1:26–27, closing any perceived loopholes gleaned from the Old Testament.

False Conservative Assumptions

All of this assumes a number of false suppositions which I deconstruct on this website based on the arch-assumption that the marriage monogamy-only position is the de facto correct one, limited a man to marrying only one woman. Period. Thus, they imply (another false assumption), Yahweh's 'tolerance' of polygamy officially ended on a certain day and time of the day, usually seen as the hour Christ died on the cross, the hour He was resurrected, or the hour at which the 'church was born' on the day of 'Pentecost'. Before that particular marker, ultra-conservatives evangelicals (who viewed polygamy as always a sin and twist the Old Testament to justify that dogma) and moderate conservatives (who viewed polygamy as 'permissive' as a concession to hard-heartedness or weakness until the New Testament) imply there to have been a change in God's morality. As a Bible believer, who believes its testimony that God never changes (Mal.3:6; Jas.1:17), but is "the same yesterday, today and forever" (Heb.13:8), I find huge inconsistences and contractions in this position that are only resolved by monogamy and polygamy being permanantly recognised and affirmed by Heaven as both 'good' and permanent.

Liberal Responses

Liberals have an entirely different world view to conservatives and to people like myself who regard Scripture as absolutte and consistent truth throughout the ages. Liberals accept the literal silence of the Old Testament regarding lesbianism as evidence that ancient Hebrew society did not conceptualise or worry about it. They view biblical sexual ethics as historically conditioned by patriarchal norms and anxieties around procreation, rather than as timeless rules for modern relationships. Accordingly progressive theologians argue that the overarching biblical emphasis is on justice, fidelity, and love, making committed, modern same-sex unions fully compatible with faith. See What is a Liberal Christian? for a refutation of liberalism's claims.

The Pseudo-Conservatives

This ministry regagards the 'conservative' evangelical position on the subject material here to be something other than 'conservative' (pseudo-conservative) because they are not in the business of 'conserving' or preserving the literal truth of Scripture, but are dedicated to bending it where necessary in order to defend a preconceived Catholic dogma which is where the monogamy-only doctrine originated. If you're interested in the history of this, you will find a number of articles on the website. Peter Sachse, a non-practicing, polygamy-supporting German historian whom it was my privilege to know, wrote an article called, Polygyny and the Four Pillars of the Indo-European Social Order, which may be helpful to evangelicals examining this question. There are many more articles by myself and others on this subject.

Conclusion

One thing is absolutely clear, and it's that raw lesbianism had - and has - no place in either an Old Testament or Christian plural marriage setting. This has led a number of polygamy-positive Christians looking for loopholes to conclude that this nonetheless opens a safe door for bisexual woman wanting to practice polygamy. It doesn't. I have interviewed such women and given them free expression in a couple of articles. I have to warn you, though, that I believe this to be fundamentally wrong too and have created an entire sub-site called Bi Women that not only refutes this claim in depth but also answers your question more particularly in the two-part exposition called Echad Sexuality. This, in our view, is the only explanation (aside from the legal one analysed at the beginning of this FAQ) that does not violate a single Scripture in any way (including Paul's very clear teaching in Romans), maintains the heterosexual norm whilst allowing for a degree of intimacy between women plurally married together that does not violate Yahweh's laws of chastity or involve any 'exchanging' of moral laws. There is also a considerable amount of new material in my novel, Bouquet of Roses (2nd 2026 edition, which is soon to be published in paperback) that makes this subject less academic and more approachable for those women who want to take the echad route. I do recommend you read all three books rather than take the new material out of context and so likely misunderstand it. I invite you to take a look at this sub-site and come back to me if you have any further questions.

Author: SBSK