Does the Bible address polyamory/swinging?
An open marriage is generally defined as a marriage in which one or both spouses are allowed by the other spouse to have sex with other people. The two primary types of open marriages are polyamory and swinging. Polyamory is when the extra-marital affairs purportedly involve emotional love. Swinging is when the extra-marital affairs only involve recreational/casual sex.
No, the Bible nowhere explicitly addresses polyamory, swinging, or the idea of an open marriage. The idea that one spouse should consent to the other spouse having sex with other people is absolutely foreign to the Bible. The Bible speaks of sex within marriage as pure (Hebrews 13:4). The Bible speaks of sex outside of marriage as immoral and adulterous (1 Corinthians 6:13, 18; 10:8; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3).
The question is sometimes raised as to whether a polyamorous relationship should be considered adultery if the other spouse allows, approves, or even participates in it. The answer is an unequivocal yes! God is the one who defines what marriage is and what adultery is. God, in His Word, has declared sex outside of marriage to be adultery (Exodus 20:14). A spouse’s giving permission to sin does not overrule God’s Law. We do not have the authority to create exceptions to what God has declared to be sinful.
Aside from the biblical declarations that they are sin, polyamorous relationships cannot fulfill what the Bible says a marriage is to be. A married couple cannot be “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24) if multiple “fleshes” are involved. A married couple cannot fully love one another if that love is divided among other people. There cannot be true intimacy if what is supposed to be intimate is shared with others. Polyamory is not marriage. In no sense is a marriage supposed to be open to sexual activity outside of the marriage.
Polyamory is, in reality, “poly-lust-ory.” There is nothing loving about it. This perversion of marriage is confirmation that “every intention of the thoughts of our hearts is only evil continually,” and that, without God, “everyone does what is right in his own eyes” (see Genesis 6:5 and Judges 21:25).
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lol, poly-lust-ory? Look it’s one thing to insist on a biblical definition of marriage, but this doesn’t give you license to comment on the actual psychology of polyamory. It’s practitioners may fall outside the norms you advocate, but this gives you no insight into their lives or feelings. Your pretense to the contrary is not a function of scripture. It’s just hubris. No more and no less.
LikeLike
Hello, Daniel;
I wish to apologize for taking so long to respond to your comments. I trust you will forgive me.
Your presumption I have no insight into a polygamists life or feelings is, in itself, hubris on your part.
A man would take multiple wives and serve as the provider and protector of all of them. While definitely not ideal, living in a polygamist household was far better than the alternatives: prostitution, slavery, or starvation. It is not so much God’s disallowing something He previously allowed as it is God’s restoring marriage to His original plan. Even going back to Adam and Eve, polygamy was not God’s original intent. God seems to have allowed polygamy to solve a problem, but it is not the ideal. In most modern societies, there is absolutely no need for polygamy. In most cultures today, women are able to provide for and protect themselves—removing the only “positive” aspect of polygamy.
I thank you for your comments, Daniel; they are greatly appreciated.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless you and yours.
Michael
LikeLike
And how about true polygamy or, theoretically, polyandry? Not at all uncommon in reference in the Bible and never condemned.
Just wondering. I’m “poly” but functionally polygamous and the three of us are quite loving and intimate – of one flesh as it were. Then, to be fair, we live together under one roof and sleep and love together in one bed, which is considered odd in the “poly” community – odd, to the point of being some sort of “poster children moment.”
LikeLike
Hello, Jonolan;
I am sorry for not returning a response until now. I hope you will find it in your heart to forgive me.
You are correct in saying that polygamy (not so much polyandry) was legal and binding in the Old Testament and was not over all condemned by various communities. The Torah contains a few specific regulations that apply to polygamy, such as Exodus 21:10: “If he take another wife for himself; her food, her clothing, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish”. Deut 21:15–17, states that a man must award the inheritance due to a first-born son to the son who was actually born first, even if he hates that son’s mother and likes another wife more; and Deut 17:17 states that the king shall not have too many wives.
The Torah may distinguish concubines and “sub-standard” wives with the prefix “to” (e.g., lit. “took to wives”). Despite these nuances to the biblical perspective on polygamy, many important figures had more than one wife, such as in the instances of Esau (Gen 26:34; 28:6-9), Jacob (Gen 29:15-28), Elkanah (1 Samuel 1:1-8), David (1 Samuel 25:39-44; 2 Samuel 3:2-5; 5:13-16),[41] and Solomon (1 Kings 11:1-3).
Multiple marriage was considered a realistic alternative in the case of famine, widowhood, or female infertility like in the practice of levirate marriage, wherein a man was required to marry and support his deceased brother’s widow, as mandated by Deuteronomy 25:5–10. Despite its prevalence in the Hebrew Bible, scholars do not believe that polygyny was commonly practiced in the biblical era because it required a significant amount of wealth. Michael Coogan, in contrast, states that “Polygyny continued to be practiced well into the biblical period, and it is attested among Jews as late as the second century CE”.
It must be noted too that women of the era had no rights (as men did) and were subject to many ill fates. Without a man to feed, clothe and protect her she often fell into selling herself to slavery or took up prostitution in order to feed herself and her children. Today women can work, purchase and protect themselves and do not require a man to provide every detail of survival. As you are most likely aware bigamy and polygamy are illegal in all 50 states of the United States.
I find it hard to believe, here in America, you are wed to two different men. I surmise you are living in a threesome arrangement of which everyone involved are content to do so…. Most Christian theologians argue that in Matthew 19:3-9 and referring to Genesis 2:24 Jesus explicitly states a man should have only one wife: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”
The Bible states in the New Testament that polygamy should not be practiced by certain church leaders. 1 Timothy states that certain Church leaders should have but one wife: “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach” (chapter 3, verse 2; see also verse 12 regarding deacons having only one wife). Similar counsel is repeated in the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus. I’m certain His message would remain the same concerning polyandry.
I would not be so in a hurry to claim a “poster child moment” yet. Judgment has not yet fallen upon you and your multiple mates.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless you and keep you.
Yours in Christ;
Michael
LikeLike
In no particular order:
I’m married to two women, not two men. I’m the man, a straight one at that. Hell! I don’t get along with other guys well enough to have them as roommates, much less husbands. 😆
We’re not Christians, so any judgement that may come our way at our deaths will probably be such that our family status is rather immaterial if you Christians are actually right.
As for married – not to both under secular law but to both as far as our religion is concerned. Frankly, I could care less about what secular authority says about such things. Well, up until they – no matter which way it goes – try to tell any clergy “right from wrong.”
As for “poster child” – I was speaking of – and not kindly – the attitudes of others in the poly lifestyle.
Frankly, and I don’t know if this is hypocritical or merely sane discernment, I rather agree with your premise as applied to the majority of the poly community and ALL of the swingers – who BTW the poly people don’t particularly like either. The majority seem to conflate sex with relationship or accept a hierarchy of relationships that is against my personal beliefs and which I could never be part of.
And finally, forgiveness is against tenets of my faith but you did me no wrong whatsoever, sir. Indeed, I would have wronged you to expect, much less be angered by its lack, for you to respond to my comment at anything other than your own leisure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Once again, welcome, Jonolan;
I have taken the time to review your correspondence several times and seemingly find you conflicted or generally “having or showing confused and mutually inconsistent feelings and/or thoughts pertaining to your life. I in no way mean this to be judgmental ( I assure you ).
For example: “you say you are living in a homosexual relationship, with two additional women, wherein your role is the male or man. Yet, you go on to mention that you are [the] “straight one at that”. This implies to me that under it all you are heterosexual. Or, do you mean this to imply you are monogamous to your spouse; yet, trying to show no partiality to either.
Your comment “Hell! I don’t get along with other guys well enough to have them as roommates, much less husbands.” In this regard I see you as a “feminist”. A modern view of feminism, the ever so common feminist mantra in our misandrist society is “men bad, women good.” And, because you are emotionally and psychologically identified as a male; you are in direct competition with your male counterpart.
To put it another way: men are inherently bad by nature, and women are inherently good by nature. If a man or boy ever displays a positive trait, or if a woman or girl ever displays a negative trait, it’s then identified as a social construct. In the mind of a feminist, and someone who believes feminism, women are the embodiment of everything good about the human species, and men are the embodiment of everything bad.
Feminists switch between believing that all human behavior is socially constructed, and believing that there is innate human behavior, depending on whether the belief will support the “men bad, women good” mantra. They deny that there may be any innate positivity in males, or any innate negativity in females, by psychologically projecting any negative female traits onto males, and any positive male traits onto females. This way, they can continue to take down males.
Whenever someone who possesses male genitalia (that is quite literally the one and only requirement, a male personality isn’t even needed) displays a negative trait – it is a male trait. When someone with that same genitalia gets angry, it is “male aggression.” When a male does something stupid, it is because males are stupid.
This does not just apply to traits that are actually associated with maleness. The trait does not even have to actually be masculine for it to be seen as a typical male trait. As long as it is negative, and the person is male, it is a male trait. Even if it is equally likely to be displayed by females, it is still viewed as male behavior. In fact, it could even be a typical female trait that is rarely displayed by a male, and feminists and other gynocentric will still view it as a male trait, simply because it is something they don’t like. The negative trait, whether it is typical male behavior or not, gets attributed to the male gender. Even if it is only one person who has displayed it.
When a woman or girl displays a negative trait, unlike a man or boy, it is viewed as a social construct. For example, if a female ever perpetrates any kind of violence, it is always because a man wound her up (even if it is something stupid like not getting her the right gift, it is still the man’s fault.) Some feminists even blindly blame negative traits displayed by females on patriarchal discrimination. Negative traits displayed by females can also be portrayed positively. For example, when a female attacks a male, even for a stupid reason, it is sometimes considered perfectly acceptable, and in our society where everyone has been poisoned with misandrist views, it is assumed that the male deserved it.
When a male and female are in an argument, the female is usually the one believed by default. Why? Because according to feminists, females are never wrong, only males are. If the female is reacting negatively, it must have been because the male did something very bad, whereas if a male is reacting negatively, it’s his nature. Some feminists even consider any male who dares say no to a female to be a misogynistic woman-hater.
I do not totally believe you are a lesbian; but rather, a feminist acting out her belief in the feminist mantra described previously. This is what keeps you in a constant state of conflict with the male gender. I believe were you to have a change in your dynamics; or the forces or properties that stimulate growth, development, or change within a system or process: then you might be able to shift away from the conflicts of your life and your relationship with males.
You go on to state: “We’re not Christians, so any judgement that may come our way at our deaths will probably be such that our family status is rather immaterial if you Christians are actually right”. I disagree, Jonolan, your current family status is very much material. Hebrews 9:26-28 tells us:[26] “Otherwise, He would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself. [27] Just as man is appointed to die once, and after that to face judgment, [28]so also Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many; and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await Him.…” Your eternal soul, and the souls of your homosexual partners, are truly at risk of a second death.
One of the passages that describes what the second death is can be found in the New Testament, the book of Revelation 21:8 “The cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars – their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur”.
“Homosexuality is an abomination according to the Bible (Leviticus 20:13). An abomination is a sin that disgusts God. Sin is the violation of God’s commandments. Romans chapter one goes into depth explaining the progression of wickedness that leads to a homosexual lifestyle. Homosexuality goes contrary to nature as well as the Word of God.
No one is born gay, because God doesn’t make mistakes. If someone were born gay, then God failed to give them the ability to reproduce and have children as such. That would mean that God is imperfect. That is not the case at all. God didn’t make any mistakes. It is man’s evil heart that causes him to behave like animals. God has created mankind upright; but sin has destroyed humanity.
I might go on to say: The word “gay” and the rainbow symbol have been stolen by the homosexual community to represent their sinful agenda. The only truly “gay marriage” is between one man and one woman, the way God intended for it to be. The Bible calls homosexuals “Sodomites.” This word carries the implication of judgment with it, for God destroyed Sodom for their wickedness, which included homosexuality (Genesis 19:1-13). Thus, it should not come as a surprise that all modern corruptions of the Bible have completely removed the word “sodomite” from the Scriptures. This is evil (Romans 1:25).
The rainbow is a token of God’s promise never to destroy the earth by flood. And moreover, that God keeps all His promises. Homosexuals should fear misrepresenting the purpose for which God gave the rainbow to us. The very symbol which they cherish will be their undoing, for God has promised to punish the wicked in Hell (Psalm 9:17). And, that’s for all of eternity.
I welcome you to the Christian Community and I pray you will accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. All that is required is you believe in God’s Son (Christ); that He lived, died and was resurrected on the third day and reigns in Heaven. Seated at the right hand of the Father. That He loves you more than you can ever imagine.
I want to share a short video with you and ask that you listen to it to the very end. It is entitled “God’s Love Letter to You.”
Thank you again for your correspondence, your comments and for being so open and honest with me. All of which I appreciate deeply.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless and keep you and yours.
Yours in Christ;
Michael
LikeLike
Sadly in this perverted world we live in this needs to be addressed. I pray God uses this post for those who are searching for the biblical answers.
LikeLike
Hello, slim;
Thank you for your comment and acknowledgment of perversions in this modern world. We can, in most cases, thank the Liberal (Socialists / Communist / atheist) agenda for this appalling outcome. Our educational system, under Liberal authority and mind sets are leading generation after generation in the wrong direction.
It is my hope and prayer I am able to continue to fight against ignorance concerning Biblical truth and help lead others in their search for the same.
Thank you once again, slim, for your comments. They are always greatly appreciated.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob continually bless you and yours.
Yours in ‘Christ;
Michael
LikeLiked by 2 people
God bless you Michael!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, slim… much appreciated.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob truly bless you and yours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amen !!!
LikeLiked by 1 person