No, Jesus Was NOT Polyamorous

No, Jesus Was NOT Polyamorous November 19, 2018

If you’re still not convinced that there is heresy creeping into the Christian church, here’s exhibit #483.

It would seem there are those that would rather we overlook some of the corruption that is being passed off as “Christianity,” these days, but the loving thing to do is stand on Biblical truth and point out error.

It’s not just loving – keeping in mind that the hope is to reach those who will hear, and spare them the sure destruction that follows when this life ends – but it is a requirement for Christians to stand on the Word of God and protect the reputation of the church.

This goes for those who claim to be of the evangelical segment of the church, who have made politics a tenet of their faith, as well as those who distort and mock the Word with their worldly practices and false interpretations.

With that said, let’s talk about Brian G. Murphy, a “gay Christian activist” who co-founded a site called “Queer Theology.”

In a recent video, he proclaimed Jesus Christ to be “polyamorous,” and suggested Christians could follow that lifestyle as a Biblical model.

Polyamory, of course, is the act of being in a love relationship with multiple partners.

No. This is not Biblical.

“I’m a Christian and I’m polyamorous. I’m also kind of a sl*t. The reclaimed empowering kind of a sl*t -like Jesus,” Murphy declares in a new video while adding that Jesus’ polyamory goes beyond the “personal relationship idea.”

“Jesus is polyamorous. We know this already if we don’t think about it or put it in those terms. If you’re one of those Christians who believe in having a personal relationship with Jesus, well Jesus is having personal relationships with billions of other people. He’s kind of a relationship sl*t,” Murphy argues.

Disgusted, yet?

Murphy wants Christians to take hold of what he proposes in the video, as a means of coming out to their churches as being “polyamorous,” in order to change minds in the church about relationships.

Where Mr. Murphy is stepping into error is in thinking that the relationship between Jesus and the Church is carnal.

No one who is not of a carnal mind would go there.

He uses Ephesians 5 to make his point.

“In Ephesians 5, Paul specifically uses the word ‘marriage’ to refer to Jesus’ relationship with us. Repeatedly, Paul reminds us that Jesus gave himself for us. Us. The church, which Paul describes as the whole body of believers. In this marriage, Jesus isn’t married to one person. He’s married to the entire body of believers. Jesus is in a pan-sexual, polyamorous relationship with us. And so of course Christians can be polyamorous. It’s a biblical model of relationships,” he continued.

No, Sir.

The comparison in Ephesians 5 that Murphy is likely referring to is Ephesians 5:25-27, where husbands are called to love their wives in the same way Christ loved the Church (the Body of Christ).

25 Husbands, love your wives [seek the highest good for her and surround her with a caring, unselfish love], just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify the church, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word [of God], 27 so that [in turn] He might present the church to Himself in glorious splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy [set apart for God] and blameless.” (AMP)

The Word of God sees the Church as a spiritual gathering of many, but working as one, united body.

And while Jesus Christ loves each of us personally, knows our hurts, our cares, and our triumphs, being the kind of God that embraces us, it is not a lustful, physical relationship.

Murphy is stuck on eros, when he needs to focus on the agape love of God.

Eros, the root word of “erotic” is based in the dying soil of the flesh. It is fleeting, and conditional, at best. In fact, it is the lowest of the four loves described in the Bible (eros, storge, philia, and agape), precisely because it is based on the physical attraction.

Agape, on the other hand, is selfless, sacrificial, unconditional, all-consuming, and divine. It is the kind of love that led Jesus to the cross, to stand in as a sacrifice for a sinful, hateful world that rejected him.

Even before our first sin was committed, agape love made a way for us to be one with our Father God, to escape the grave, and to escape the punishment due for our sins.

“We already recognize that God’s love for us, isn’t diminished by God’s love for others and that each of us can have a unique transcendent relationship with the divine …. You know how you feel when something good happens to someone you care about? When your friend, child, neighbor, co-worker connects with the divine? That’s how I feel when my partners date or meet someone new or are just head over heels for someone else. How beautiful, how majestic that they get to have more love in their life?” he said. “And how exciting that someone else gets to experience the amazingness of my partner.”

Remember what I said about the carnal mind?

Galatians 5:17 (CEB) – 17 A person’s selfish desires are set against the Spirit, and the Spirit is set against one’s selfish desires. They are opposed to each other, so you shouldn’t do whatever you want to do.”

And a lustful heart too often leads even devoted believers away. Sadly, the enemy is always at work, and is using others, full of false doctrine to appeal to itching ears, drawing many away from the truth.

The godly pattern for marriage was set up from the beginning, with Adam and Eve. Experts with an organization called have explained how it is impossible to be in a polyamorous relationship, and still be in a Christian relationship.

“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,” the experts wrote.

“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),” the site added.

This is solid teaching.

Mr. Murphy offers nothing but shifting sand.

I have a real fear for those who continue to push such notions. There will always be weak believers who fall for these heresies, simply because they’re “easy” and require no one to deny their flesh. They invite the flesh, even.

These are the teachings that are creeping into church pews, with some churches completely open to exploring “alternative” interpretations of Scripture, all for the sake of what they call “tolerance.”

This is not tolerance. This is a death of spirit, and it is tragic.





"God told those people to spread out across the planet. They disobeyed, and lived in ..."

Christians More Dangerous Than Nuclear Weapons? ..."
"I too have missed you Susan. Please keep writing."

Christians More Dangerous Than Nuclear Weapons? ..."
"Wow, someone read a far different Bible than I was taught in CCD and high ..."

Christians More Dangerous Than Nuclear Weapons? ..."
"Good to see you back, Susan, was concerned on long absence between posts. Sure the ..."

Christians More Dangerous Than Nuclear Weapons? ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • 92JazzQueen .

    Man, anyone can get anything published today with the right connections.

  • Brian Orion

    We’re seeing yet another great separation of the wheat from the chaff. True saints will never fall for this crap.

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    Do you have anything that actually pertains to the story above, or are you just making random comments around the internet?

  • chemical

    Your comment is hilarious, but maybe not for the reason you think.

    92JazzQueen gets shouted down a lot and/or banned for trolling the liberal atheist blogs on Patheos. Then, like 1 comment here, and a mod is already suspicious.

    The left and right come together and decide 92JQ sucks. Bipartisanship!

  • captcrisis

    There’s nothing about New Testament teaching that precludes polygamy. In fact it was accepted. Paul told his bishops to have only ONE wife. The clear implication is that for others in the church, it was o.k. to have more.

  • 92JazzQueen .

    It does. I am saying that anyone can get anything published, even when it’s complete bunk. Like this guy.

  • kenofken

    That surprises you? This has been the pattern since at least the early 1500s when the Reformation and movable type printing freed ideas from the tight monopoly of monks and kings. A free press and marketplace ideas is one of the core defining features of the West.

  • kenofken

    Heresy in any religion is like history: It is defined by the victors. Heresy is defined and suppressed by whoever has the force of politics, numbers and weapons to do so. The precise delineation of heresy in Christianity does not concern me as I’m not a heretic, I’m an apostate. There is certainly plenty of polyamory to be found in the Old Testament. To say that Jesus was poly I think is a far stretch and I don’t get why people with libertine instincts feel the need to try to bend Christianity so far to justify their actions. If you want to be polyamorous, then do so without apology. I’m Pagan and polyamorous, deeply happy with both, and I need no permission from Christian theology to do so. I also have no desire to try to re-write someone else’s religious tradition to suit me.

  • kenofken

    You don’t need much in the way of “right connections.” Anyone with a bargain basement throwaway smart phone or rented time at an Internet cafe has the right connection to publish anything. People who don’t have access to shoes or running water have the right publishing connection these days.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    I think the reason behind why the post is question from both sides is that it is so ambiguous.

    Since the post was derogatory in nature, but could not be definitively identified as derogatory toward either Susan or toward the guy she was writing about, BOTH “sides” had reason to criticize and object to the wording.

    Likewise Susan was completely correct in her reading that the post was trolling her because the post could not be definitively determined to be otherwise (“definitively” being the key word.

    If 92JazzQueen wants to post without blowback, perhaps being more specific, identifying the references of “her” pronouns (perhaps even replacing the pronouns with actual names), would assist readers in understanding “her” intent (assuming 92JazzQueen is a “her”).

    True trolls love to make ambiguous statements that can be easily mis-understood because once they get blowback, they can then come back with their “alternate” interpretation and attempt to make the blowback look foolish.

    Then again, the state of education in US schools is such that so many people have lost (or never had) the ability to form proper, clear, complete English sentences.

  • 92JazzQueen .

    I know, but you have people like this getting published and I have a feeling some people will fall for this trash hook, line, and sinker.

  • 92JazzQueen .

    Actually every story about polygamy in the Bible has a negative light to it. It wasn’t an implication that people should have more and this is why the church should put its foot down on certain things, or heretical ideas will take hold.

  • 92JazzQueen .

    I wasn’t trolling. What I wanted to say fully is that it’s a shame that such heretical ideas get published, and even worse people without any Biblical education will accept their lies as fact.

  • 92JazzQueen .

    There is a difference between trolling and stating an opinion that other posters don’t like. For the most part, I didn’t troll at all.

  • captcrisis

    By the same token, the New Testament is very anti-sex. Paul only grudgingly allows for it as an unpleasant necessity. One wife might be better than two, but zero is best.

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    Ok. So I agree with that.

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    Well, I think the problem is she needs to be more concise and clear with her point. I had no idea what she was getting at, at first. The comment was vague and needed clarification.

  • kenofken

    There’s no idea that someone won’t fall for. Were that not the case, popes and televangelists would be forced to get real jobs.

  • chemical

    Heretical ideas aren’t necessarily bad ones — the following were all considered heretical at one point:
    * The Earth orbits the sun
    * Lightning is electricity and not God smiting stuff
    * Disease is caused by tiny things living inside you, and not demons or lack of faith

    “Jesus was polyamorous” is an idea that shouldn’t be published due to lack of supporting evidence, not because it goes against church teachings.

  • 92JazzQueen .

    It ain’t anti-sex. There is a difference between that and being against polygamy, because throughout the Bible you see examples of polygamy always failing.

  • 92JazzQueen .

    Actually those weren’t considered heretical. People got in trouble more for church heresy than science. Galileo got in trouble for back talking the pope, when he was supporting him in his discoveries. A lot of those ideas about the medieval folk being ignorant comes from biased views from the enlightenment. Jesus being polygamous is a heretical idea due to both no evidence and going against church teachings.

  • TinnyWhistler

    We also have explicit instructions on how to do it properly and legally. If a man died without a son, his brother was strongly encouraged to marry his widow, regardless of the brother’s own marital status. There’s a whole procedure for publicly humiliating the brother if he doesn’t want to do it.

    God had absolutely no problem outright forbidding lots of different types of marriages. Polygamy was not one of them.

  • 92JazzQueen .

    God created divorce, but even then he didn’t like it in principle. He might have allowed polygamy, but often times he instructed that monogamy was the way. He even told kings not to multiple wives.

  • TinnyWhistler

    It says “many,” the same word used to talk about how he should not have “many” horses in the same passage. It also talks about not accumulating great quantities of gold and silver.

    Reading the entire passage, it seems like God’s directing the kings to not focus on accumulating status symbols. In a society where polygamy was the norm and is explicitly allowed for, two is not “many.”
    In general, two is not “many”

    We have an example given in the text of a king who we’re told was led astray by his “many” wives: Solomon. Solomon had 700 wives. That sounds like “many” to me.
    No comment is made on David’s accumulating of wives, except for when he kills another man to steal that man’s wife. David was “a man after God’s own heart” and frequently asked God for guidance on even such things as “Should I do this today?” When David did something that God disapproved of, it’s made into a BIG deal in the text. Taking on more than one wife was not one of those things. Bathsheba was only a big deal because of the murder-and-theft bit.

    Again, the writers of the Bible have no problem pointing out when a king having “many” wives in opposition to the law led him astray, but do not care about David having at least the 7 that are mentioned explicitly.

    The line between a normal amount and “many” is not between 1 and 2.

  • 92JazzQueen .

    And you guys say evangelicals misinterpret things to suit their own agenda.

  • 92JazzQueen .

    The problem is you see many times in the Bible emphasize one man and one wife. Me thinks that people are justifying polygamy in order to okay other questionable behavior.

  • TinnyWhistler

    All I’m trying to say is that the Bible doesn’t offer anything close to an explicit “don’t do it” with regard to polygamy, setting aside examples given of 700 wives being too many, until the New Testament, which tracks with what we know of how Jewish customs and culture changed over time.

    Your assertion that the Bible always shows polygamy failing just isn’t true. It actually has more to say about Ahab’s monogamous marriage leading him astray than Solomon’s massive harem. As with most things, you can use the Bible to argue both for and against polygamy depending on what nits you choose to pick. All I’m trying to get at is that the trend toward one or the other and certainly the vehemence with which that trend is expressed have as much to do with the history of Christian culture and law as they do with a look only at the text itself.

  • 92JazzQueen .

    And people just go from there and try to do it anyway, because they think the Bible doesn’t cast a negative light on it despite the many examples of how polygamy causes issues in the Bible.