Why does the Bible not have an explicit condemnation of women laying sexually with other women as it does with men laying sexually with other men in multiple passages?
Before we look at what the Bible has to say about lesbianism let’s first look at the definition of the word.
A lesbian is a woman who ONLY engages in sex with other women. A woman who has sex with both men and women is not by definition a lesbian, she is a bisexual.
In the Old Testament book of Leviticus God speaks to all sorts of practices which he deems to be violations of his design for sex.
Leviticus 20:10-14 gives us some context around a verse we want to examine:
“10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
11 And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.“
God condemns a men for having sex with other men’s wives (vs 10), he condemns the practice of men laying with their father’s wives (vs 11), he condemns men for laying with their son’s wives (vs 12) and he condemns men for taking a wife (literally – a woman) and her mother. The Bible allows polygamy (see my complete series on the Biblical allowance for polygamy starting here) so we understand verse 14 to be God condemning a man for marrying a woman and her mother. And then throughout the rest of chapter 20 God condemns men from having sex with any close blood relative like aunts, sisters and daughters.
So then we find verse 13 right in the middle of all these condemnations which states the following:
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”
Why does God only condemn men laying with men as with women but not make a parallel condemnation of women laying with women as with men? This would have been the perfect place to put such a condemnation if women laying with women was strictly forbidden.
God goes on in several other passages including Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27,1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10 specifically condemning man having sexual relations with men but again he never specifically condemns women laying with women.
Many Christians cite Romans 1:26 as a specific condemnation of women laying with women as with men:
““For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:”
But again, there is no specific language regarding women laying with women in that verse. It simply says “their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature”.
We cannot understand what the phrase “the natural use” is referring to without the verse which follows it. When we take Romans 1:26-27 together then we better understand what God is communicating here:
“26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”
Romans 1:27 tells us the natural use in verse 26 is referring to the natural use of the woman. One of the reasons, but certainly not the only reason God created woman was to be used by man for his sexual pleasure.
If you find that last statement shocking and sexist let me give you a few other Scripture passages which back up what Romans 1:27 says about sex being the natural use of the woman by man.
In 1 Corinthians 11:9 says “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.
Proverbs 5:18-19 says “18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.”
1 Corinthians 11:9 teaches us the larger biblical principle that God created woman for man and not man for woman. In other words, he did not create men and women for each other as we often hear in churches today. That does not mean men and women don’t need each other or complement each other – because they do. But they were NOT created for each other, she was created for him. And even though God does call husbands and wives to serve one another in different ways the fact remains that man was not created to serve woman, but rather woman was created to serve man.
And God commands a man to satisfy himself with his wife – the word in Hebrew does not mean “be content with” but rather “to drink one’s fill” and it goes on to say a man should be “ravished” – literally sexually intoxicated by his wife. This requires both the participation of the husband and wife. The husband must “use” his wife (Romans 1:27) to satisfy his God-given sexual desires and the woman should make herself ravishing (sexually intoxicating) to her husband.
The phrase “the natural use” in Romans 1:27 is referring to what God intended – that women should allow their husbands (not just any man) to use them for their sexual pleasure in the marriage bed.
But again we are left with the nagging question, why does God not match the language of Romans 1:26 to Romans 1:27? Why does he not condemn women with women as he does men with men in the very next verse?
The answer is found in God’s blessing(Gen 30:19) of, his giving(2 Sam 12:8) of and allowance(Ex 21:10-11) for polygamy.
Proverbs 5:18-19 makes it clear that men are to satisfy their sexual desires with their wives and be ravished by them – what could be more ravishing to a man then to take several of his wives together or for him to watch them pleasuring each other?
Now some will respond with “Proverbs 5:18-19 speaks of a wife in the singular – that a man is to let his WIFE, not WIVES satisfy him sexually”. But such an argument fails when we apply it to passages like Proverbs 22:6 where it states “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it”. Since the word child is used in the singular – does this mean a man can only have child? Or that he can only train one of his children at a time or can he train them as a group?
Others may contend that “The Bible never mentions polygamist husbands laying with their wives at the same time – it only mentions them laying with them individually” and that is absolutely true. But that is an argument from silence which is really no argument at all.
The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 10:23 “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.”
1 Corinthians 10:23 teaches us the Biblical principle that we all start at a default position of freedom – God has granted us great freedom in this world. But that freedom must be exercised within the bounds of God’s law.
So whenever we seek to go about any activity in this life we must give that activity a three part test:
-
- Does this activity violate God’s law? Is it something God said we cannot do?
-
- Is it helpful (expedient) for us?
-
- Does it build us up, is it edifying for us?
And if that activity passes those three tests – then we can do go about such activities with a clear conscious before God.
So let’s apply this to the issue of a man having sex with two of his wives at the same and even having them touch each other as he touches them.
-
- Does it violate God’s law? The answer is no – God gives no specific condemnation of women laying with other women.
-
- Is it helpful to the man – the one who is commanding it of his wives? Yes – it helps him to fulfill God’s command to satisfy his sexual desires with his wives and to be ravished by them and it also helps him to feel closer to his wives. This is a major factor. Men feel closer to wives who sexually satisfy them and they feel more distant from wives who refuse to satisfy them.
-
- Does it build him up? Absolutely this builds his marriages to both wives and helps them to understand they serve their husband together.
The Marriage Argument
Many Christians would use Hebrews 13:4 which states “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” to condemn the practice of women engaging in bisexual activity with their husband and his other wives.
The argument goes something like this:
“God only allows people are who married to have sexual relations and since the wives are not married to each other (because women cannot marry) the wives may never engage in sexual activity with each other under any context”.
But those who make such an argument miss the use of the word “bed” in Hebrews 13:4. The word bed in the Bible when speaking to marriage is not limiting sexual relations in marriage to a literal bed, but rather to a particular context.
When two women, whether they be sister wives or just single women are laying in a bed together there is no marriage context. Therefore it is sinful for women in this context to engage in any form of sexual activity with each other.
But as soon as the husband enters the bed with his two wives – that bed now becomes a marriage bed. And now any sexual activity that is done with the husband’s blessing and consent in that bed between the three of them – is now pure and holy before God.
Am I saying Lesbianism is acceptable with God?
Absolutely not! But we must make a clear distinction between women engaging in bisexual behavior in the context of pleasing their shared husband in the marital bed and women simply engaging in sexual activity together for their own pleasure apart from a husband in the marital bed.
Let me again remind you what the definition of a lesbian is. A lesbian is a woman who ONLY engages in sex with other women. A woman who has sex with both men and women is not by definition a lesbian, she is a bisexual.
When God condemns women who “did change the natural use into that which is against nature” in Romans 1:26 – he is condemning lesbianism, not wives who engage in bisexual activity with their husband in the marital bed to please and ravish him.
Conclusion
God never makes a blanket statement like “woman shall not lie woman as she does with man” in the way he makes such blanket statements against men laying with men as they do with women. Instead, in Romans 1:26 God makes a specific condemnation of women changing their natural use which is to be used by a husband for his pleasure in marriage. Romans 1:26 condemns lesbianism while leaving open the opportunity for men to enjoy their wives together in marriage bed.
And for those who think this is all theoretical or induced by a modern “porn society” think again. Since I started writing on biblical polygamy over the last decade I have had several Christian polygamist husbands reach out to me who actually sleep with their wives in the same bed and yes some even engage in sex with their wives at the same time.
This ancient practice amongst polygamist husbands is never condemned in the Scriptures. And if God does not condemn it, then neither should we.
Biblical Sexology 
Great article. I would posit two things:
Just my two cents on the subject, which I think I have discussed at some point as well.
LikeLike
SnapperTrx,
Long time no hear. Your interpretation is one I have heard before – specifically from some polygamist husbands in Africa. They are find with their wives engaging in sexual activity with one another when they are away on business. I personally disagree. I think it violates the natural use principle taught in Romans 1:26-27. Women were created to be used for the sexual pleasure of man, not the sexual pleasure of other women.
I also do not believe penile penetration of some sort is required for sex to occur between two people and I don’t see that limitation of what sex is in the Scriptures. From a physical perspective, the tongue or fingers can penetrate another’s body just as easily as a penis can thus joining the two together with one inside the other.
Let me put this another way – if a man found out that another man hand fingered or ate out his betrothed wife while still leaving her hymen in tact – would he be any less angry? I think not.
My point is I don’t actually believe women can have sex with each other in the same way men could through the use of their fingers or tongues to penetrate each other’s bodies.
And then we are only speaking of physical sex. Then you have virtual sex – if a man and woman or a woman and woman remove their clothes and masturbate while looking at one another even without touching each other – I believe they are sexually relating to one another, i.e. engaging in form of sexual relations.
Again lets go back to the example of a man with a betrothed wife in the Bible. Do we think a man would be fine with his wife masturbating in front of another man masturbating to her? They have formed a bond, a connection with another, a sexual connection, even if no physical penetration has occurred.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It has been a while, hasn’t it?
I think we must agree to disagree on these points, though I think I may not have explained myself properly. With regard to “women cannot have sex with one another” this doesn’t mean they cannot still fornicate with one another outside the bonds of marriage to a husband. This also doesn’t mean a woman cannot fornicate with a man who is not her husband, but adultery is the specific sex act, ie: penetration, which women do not have the apparatus to perform. Even using a foreign object or fingers/hands, whatever, is not biblically the act of “knowing” a woman. Absolutely a man would be angry if he found out his wife had fornicated with another man through oral or digital sex, but I don’t see where this counts as “adultery” as opposed to “fornication”. It has always been my understanding that adultery involves penile penetration, and anything less than that would be considered fornication.
As for the other subject, the term “abandoning the natural use” would, to me, indicate a complete and utter turning away from, ie: a woman who no longer wishes any sexual contact with a man. Though there is always the possibility of that happening between sister wives if they are engaging in sexual acts with one another, I don’t see it as any greater a danger than saying having alcoholic drinks will lead to becoming an alcoholic. Yes, there is the possibility, but the simple act of enjoying the activity of drinking does not ensure one will become an alcoholic. The possibility is always there, but its not a sure thing, so unless a man’s wives decide to kick him out of the picture altogether, they are not abandoning their natural use.
Of course, I speak these things as a guy who will likely never have to worry about or deal with having more than one wife, so maybe I am totally wrong on this and will never be able to provide any hard proof. I have enough trouble dealing with the one wife already. 😆
LikeLike