The following article contains material of an explicit sexual nature, though this has been kept to the barest minimum. If you are not married, or are offended by such material, we respectfully ask you to read no further. The target audience for this article is single or married bisexual women, or married heterosexuals who are interested in ministering to such.

---

This article is my response to numerous emails and posts I have received, or been pointed to, from bisexual Christian/Messianic women who are living in a polygamous marriage. Though I have already addressed this subject in an earlier article, The Rising Trend of Lesbianiasation in Christian Polygamy, and though we already have a homepage orientated towards bisexual woman, I made a promise in our Bisexual Club that I would made a more thorough examination of the subject. It is also my purpose to give bisexual women a voice in this article so that those of us in the Christian/Messianic polygamy community can understand what it is these women are struggling with and their unique problems in an enviornment very different from that of the secular bisexual milieu. I realise this subject, along with homosexuality and lesbianism arouses passions, because of the potential for spiritual harm: indeed, one man in the Christian/Messianic polygamy movement, whom I have known now for a very long time, was so afraid that I would become corrupted by this issue that he refused to supply me information on the biblical exegesis used by bisexual women apologists so that I could get their point-of-view! And whilst I am sure he meant well, he was in fact not only insulting my intelligence and experience but also my spiritual covering also. Since I have obtained the information I wanted from elsewhere, he may consider himself absolved of any responsibility for the conclusions I draw in this essay.

The thesis of many of the bisexual women in polygamy I have talked with and whose essays I have read says, or implies, that female bisexuality is not, in some way, the same as male bisexuality and cannot be categoriesed in the same bracket, as we shall see from their writings. The arguments they use are, for the most part, rational and convincing, but betray a hidden spiritual agenda which even they are not aware of. Scriptural exegesis aside, it really boils down to this: if female bisexual behaviour is acceptable to Yahweh, then the only way it can be expressed is in polygyny. If the female bisexual condition is natural, then monogamy must, by definition, be unnatural for them. And if they cannot be fulfilled in monogamy, because of their 'need' for a female partner in addition to a male one, then monogamy must in some way be defective. It means, in effect, that all bisexual women are called into polygamy ... without exception ... since this is the only way they can be fulfilled, and as marriage - monogamous or polygamous (since they are one and the same biblically-speaking) - is supposed to provide all the companionship and physical intimacy that a man and woman need.

The bisexual thesis must therefore posit that there are two kinds of women - heterosexual and bisexual - with different needs and expectations. Polygyny therefore becomes for them not so much a challenge (as it invariably does to heterosexual women) but their means of liberation, since they can never find the wholeness they claim to need which monogamy denies them. Thus some of the spiritual challenges (if I could call them that) would be very different for heterosexual and monogamous women - indeed, they would be opposite. If female bisexuality were natural, and indeed if there have been bisexual women since the founding of the Israelite State, then you would have expected to find some sort of provision for them, and especially in the New Testament. For, because of their unique sexual needs, Christian/Messianic men would have been admonished specifically to marry more than one wife to take care of them and give them the fulfilment they needed. You would have expected treatment of this subject in at least one place in the Pauline epistles, since at least in the gentile communities homosexuality was rife and there must have been many bisexual women. But there is not a word. True, argument from silence can work in both directions, but it is a point worth making. Finally, Talmudic Judaism, which has always condemned male homosexuality but turned a blind eye to lesbianism (though expressing disapproval), might well be used as a source of confirmation for bisexuals, until you remember that the Talmud frequently compromises the morality of Torah by justifying pedophilia, infant marriage, abortion, prostitution, vow-breaking, etc.. Unlike the New Testament, which repudiates so much of the Talmud and tightens up moral laxity, the Talmud goes in the opposite direction. On balance, then - the silence in the New Testament and the immorality of the Talmud - the case for a female bisexual exception clause is weakened, not strengthened

Now at this stage of the argument I am not passing any judgments but making some simple observations of logic. I believe, as I think most of you do too, that all that Yahweh decrees as His law is purposeful, loving, and intelligent. We know, too, that sin has a tendency to be led by feelings, to rationalise itself and to spin ingenious webs of intellectual self-justification. It is natural to human beings, being an instinct placed there by the Creator, to define our inner universe and to harmonise it with the one outside ourselves in order to attain inner peace. There is nothing quite as debilitating to the soul than to live a contradiction. We are impelled by an invisible power to either change or rationalise ... every one of us. But if we are honest (and that is what all Christians/Messianics are under mandate to be), we are obliged to change our habits and rationalise our thinking so that they are in perfect alignment with Elohim's (God's) Word, the Bible.

But there are inevitably problems there too, especially, in the case of the bisexual issue, the Bible only condemns lesbian behaviour in one passage which understandably becomes the object of a microscopic exegesis. For whereas male homosexuality is roundly and unapologetically condemned in numerous places, the female equivalent receives mention only once. We shall, of course, therefore, be forced to analyise this passage in some depth, and at the same time try to determine whether the anti-homosexual passages are not, in fact, also gender-inclusive as so many scriptures are. Thus, for example, whilst the Ten Commandments only condemn a man commiting adultery, it is understood by everyone that women are included in this statute, for the pure and simple reason that there are always two guilty parties in any case of adultery. Though one could try to twist this issue by claiming that one of the two offenders may only be commiting fornication (an unmarried woman sleeping clandestinely with a married man), the fact of the matter is that if a married woman sleeps with either an unmarried man or a married man she is an adulteress. This statute, though only mentioning men, is so obviously inclusive of women.

Let us now hear the story from the woman bisexual's point-of-view through the exchange of a couple of emails. The names and circumstances of the enquirer have (as usual) been changed to preserve anonymity. 'Celine' writes:

I have read Eros made Sacred and got great comfort from it. I am not a academic or a Biblical student but am a bisexual female. I know that the Bible speaks against male homosexuality but is there anything about females having sexual intimacy with each other?

I would appreciate your advice.

Celine

I replied by asking her to study our Bisexual Page and to come back to me if she had any questions. She replied:

I am married polygamously and I have now read Ms Haavikko's story. The comment is made in this person's writing is that every person has a diffferent story and this is true of me and my wife sister. I would like to make the following points...

• Neither of us wives were sexually mistreated whilst young. We had both normal (as anything is normal) upbringings and childhoods.
• Our husband is head of our household, and there is [no] doubt in this. We are subserviate to him in all things.
• We both love him dearly, as he loves us.
• Marlene and I both love each other dearly.
• Marlene and I express our love to our dear husband sexually and with great joy
• Marlene and I express our love to each other sexually and with equal joy.
• Our husband understands our need but as stated earlier, his need is paramount but he has great joy in observing our love with each other.
• Both Marlene and I are very feminine and as far as we can know, are very unlikely to change.
• We have been in this happy relationship for close on two years and are blissfully happy and fulfilled.

  I cannot and will not argue with such as great an authority on these matters as yourself but I cannot believe a merciful and loving God would damn me and my sisterwife to an unfulfilled life. I cannot say more than this.

  With respect

  Celine

That this is an example of a family which shows polyfidelity (i.e. not sleeping around) cannot be denied and obviously commenting on the contentedness of people in an intimate relationship is also beyond my sphere of interest or authority. I know of homosexual couples who make similar claims and who advance the same arguments about how they cannot believe that a loving Elohim (God) would wish to make them unfulfilled by wanting them to dissolve their union. But really these are not the issues. Two people living in adultery may be blissfully happy and fulfilled but this does not make what they are doing right. Yahweh's standards of righteousness are not our own. Furthermore, we must remember this: if Yahweh establishes a Law, He not only does so for sound reasons, but if men and women flout them, then the devil automatically has legal grounds to make trouble. The adversary may indeed not do anything at all at first and be content merely to make his legal claim when this life is over and those who are living willfully outside His laws are accused by him. What, then, can Yahweh do? He cannot overturn His laws or Satan would topple him from His throne (which, of course, is his intent). Yahweh is bound by all His laws, and Satan knows that, and exploits men's rebellion against them. This is the ultimate issue. A pair of so-called 'Christian' or 'Messianic' homosexuals, who know their Bibles, may consider themselves to be blissfully happy but what happens when this life is over? What defence do they have before the Throne of the Almighty when they are callenged as to their faithfulness to His Word? What does any Christian/Messianic say who has knowingly rebelled against His commandments in order to justify an erotic urge?

You see, the issue is not just one of felicity to Yahweh's Word (though this is beyond question the most important consideration), but whether these are flesh- or spirit-centred. If you look at people's justification for ignoring Yahweh's sexual standards of behaviour, you will find that the primary justification is the flesh with scriptural exegesis being subtended to this (and resulting in twisting, as a rule). So the question must be asked: What is the primary deciding factor in justifying a sexual proclivity? Is it Yahweh's Word or personal desire? For if personal desire is admitted, then the person concerned is admitting to having his ir her life steered, not by Yahweh, but by that most unreliable cocktail of forces which are feelings and physical impulses? And what sinner has not, at some point, justified his sin because of these? This quagmire is not a healthy place in which to try and discern the Almighty's will. Such can only be done when such things are laid aside and a soul meditates on Yahweh's Word solely on its own merits and apart from human appetite and perceived need. For I assure you that 'appetites' and 'needs' change as one moves in, and is changed by, the Holy Spirit.

But feelings are strong. Sexual appetite is strong. And many a soul has been spiritually marooned because (s)he has been steered by such forces. Many a person has shipwrecked his salvation because he has trusted in his own flesh and instincts before the clear Word of Yahweh.

We do, I think, need to review carefully that sole passage of scripture which addresses same-sex attraction and activity for both men and women. We shall begin by taking a look at several versions of the Bible and then making a detailed analysis:

"For this reason Elohim (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" (Romans 1:26-28, NKJV).

The first observation we must make is that the unnatural sexual attraction and intercourse of women with women is compared directly to the unnatural sexual attraction and intercourse of men with men. The question mark most commonly aimed by polygamous bisexuals is at the word 'natural' which they claim can also be rendered 'procreation'. Since bisexual women are not abandoning their call to be mothers (procreators) because of the sexual union with their husband, they somehow believe that they may in addition enjoy one another having fulfilled that mandate. But even if we insert 'procreational' instead of 'natural', we are still left with the unnatural same-sex lust or attraction:

"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the procreational use [of sex] for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the procreational 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" (Rom.1:26-28).

What is true of the lesbian is true of the male homosexual. Using this argument, then, we could justify male bisexuality since male bisexuals engage in procreation with women whilst engaging in sex with men, since they would not have abandoned the mandate to procreate heterosexually. This is the inevitable conclusion one must come to if one reads the passage as it stands. And if polygynous bisexual women want to still hold on to this interpretation, then they must acknowledge also that bisexual men may engage in polyandry and even multiple polyamory. But to make this passage mean what they want it to mean they must engage in the most spurious kind of twisting of words. It is the fact that lesbian activity is linked to, and made equivalent to, homosexual male activity, which removes any possible 'reinterpretation' of this passage.

What is the purpose of sexual attraction anyway? Why did Yahweh put it there? It was, as we have maintained at this ministry, dual in nature:

• (1) For procreation; and
• (2) for the binding together of spouses ... and in that order.

For the same sexual drive which is found in all animals has as its express purpose the propagation of the species. Homosexuality mitigates against nature ... which is the whole point of Paul's reasoning. And whilst nature is indeed fallen, and there are examples of a kind of 'homosexuality' in animals as a result, it is not to this nature that Paul is appealing, but to the original intended order. We are, throughout Scripture, taught to resist fallen nature, human and bestial, and elevate our spiritual consciousness to the pristine purity of the original intent of Elohim (God), and for which we are aided by the Holy Spirit.

"For this reason Elohim (God) gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error" (Romans 1:26-27. NASU).

"Because of this, Eloah (God) delivered them to the passions of shame. For the women changed the use of their sex and did that which is not natural. And also their men thus forsook the use of women and ran riotously in lust for one another. And man with man, they behaved in disgrace and the reward thst was just to their error, in themselves, [they] received" (Romans 1:26-27, HRV - based on the Hebrew and Aramaic MSS).

Even if one argues that Yahweh is speaking only of lesbians and homosexuals, is still doesn't answer the issue of male bisexuals. The fact of the matter is, however, that bisexuality is not something 'different' from homosexuality or lesbianism - it is merely a degree of it. A bisexual would, in biblical parlance, be regarded as a homosexual or a lesbian. The fact that they slept with the opposite sex some of the time would not make them non-lesbians or non-homosexuals simply because they engaged in same-sex some of the time. A man who sleeps with his wife some of the time and then sleeps with another man's wife some of the time is as much an adulterer even if he forsook his lawful wife all the time. And it really doesn't matter who gives their consent or not. What matters is whether Yahweh gives His consent. Do you see what I am trying to say?

How would one, then, classify female bisexual sex in a polygynous relationship, even if the husband gives his consent? Is it adultery or fornication? Or something else? Does it even matter? An adulterous relationship is wrong and can never be legalised. Fornication, on the other hand, is not adultery but sex outside the covenants of marriage. A man or woman caught in fornication is obliged to marry. Since two women fornicating cannot be compelled to marry (since there is no direct marriage of woman to woman), the bisexual sex can only be adultery because it cannot be legalised in Yahweh's eyes. There are no biblical statutes that would make female-female marriage a proper 'marriage' of which sexual union is a natural expression, for it is the sexual union which characterises marriage as opposed to friendship or other spiritual/emotional ties.

Because female bisexuality is just a degree of lesbianism, there are bisexuals who have different 'attraction quotients' when it comes to the same or opposite sex. Thus some may be more attracted to women than men, or vice versa. Thus one bisexual woman in a polygynous marriage was able to say:

"As a bisexual, it's not like I'm 'incomplete' if I don't have a woman and a man both around. I'd like to have a woman in my life but I don't want to finish my life not having had that relationship".

Others, who lean more to the same-sex side, would probably feel desperate not to have a lesbian relationship with another woman. But what, in actual fact, do such 'longings' have to do with natural, healthy relationships? Do not bisexual men have identical feelings? And if that is so (as it is), then how can the claim be made that there is a difference between male bisexuality and female bisexuality, as though it were an entirely different category of orientation?

The same bisexual woman, who lives in a polygynous relationship, wrote to another minister (not connected us):

"I'm actually slightly more attracted to older women, but the last person I fell in love with was young Cynthia. Unfortunately, Shaun wasn't attracted to Cynthia, and following the rules of our relationship (we'll only get sexually/relationship/romantically involved with someone we can both be involved with) I wouldn't attempt to advance that affection to any physical plane".

Apart from the fact that such relationships are obviously not steered by the Holy Spirit but by the flesh, the dysfuntionality is glaringly apparent. These are classical lesbian sentiments that come about as a result of unnatural and spiritually harmful psychological inversions. What we also see is a relationship where, on the physical level at least, there are two heads who must come to a mutual agreement before a relationship can be entertained. This is not patriarchy, but a form of patri-matriarchy. The direction of psychic and spiritual flow is all wrong. Surely the correct principle, as taught in the Bible, is that Yahweh leads couples together and a polygamous household is built on that basis? Isaac and Rebekah never met each other but Yahweh brought them together and their relationship - on all levels - grow out of that divine will, sanction and blessing.

And now we come to the standard rationalisations and to a deeper revelation on why this woman believes as she does. Notice how sex defines almost everything. These I will comment on as merited. She further writes:

Clearly sexual intercourse between men is an abomination, scripture is EXPLICIT -the word "homosexual" refers to a man lying with another man as with a woman. Nothing is said in Leviticus or anywhere else in Torah concerning sexual intimacy between women, in fact, nothing is said anywhere in scripture other than the inferred interpretation in Romans 1:26. Jesus (Yah'shua) came to fulfill the Torah and said that not one jot or tittle of Torah would pass away. Therefore, Romans CANNOT introduce a new prohibition in sexual relations just as 'New Testament' cannot introduce monogamy[-only] ... Romans 1 refers to the sins in Leviticus 18 and 20 (including bestiality) NOT to sexual intimacy between the wives of one man ... It says NOTHING about sexual intimacy between the wives of one man who are, after all, already ONE FLESH with one another since they are both / all one flesh with the husband ... Scripture clearly indicates that there is no sexual sin WITHIN marriage (the marriage bed is undefiled). THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS TO ALLEGE THAT SCRIPTURE PREVENTS THE WIVES OF ONE MAN BEING SEXUALLY INTIMATE WITH ONE ANOTHER!

Furthermore, the false doctrine which prohibits sexual intimacy between wives requires that polygynous families practice ROTATIONAL MONOGAMY - the husband is sexually intimate with only one wife at a time while the other wives have to sleep alone and cannot experience the comfort and intimacy of being with their husbands OR sister wives - this is divisive and has no scriptural basis. Consider also that the implication of the argument against sexual intimacy between wives leads to a broad continuum of unspecified prohibition which must, by logical extension lead, to a Pharisaic conclusion that a man should not be in a room with more than one wife at the same time. This is clearly absurd.

Comment: The writer is right in saying that the New Testament cannot introduce concepts or statutes which contradict Torah. However, the New Testament does modify statutes by elevating them to a higher moral and ethical plane in several places. Repeatedly, the move is towards higher and higher standards until the ordinary disciple is exceeding the righteousness of the Pharisees.

The Torah says nothing against anal intercourse (one of the beloved practices of lesbians, homosexuals and bisexuals alike) but common sense alone tells us that this is 'against nature' and medically we know that this is one of the surest ways of spreading sexually- transmitted diseases (STDs) like AIDS because of the ripping of the anal lining that takes place. The whole drive of the New Testament is to make a distinction between that which is natural and unnantural, and to point the disciple towards spirituality and away from fleshiness and crass materialism.

There is a perverse spirit (demon) which lies behind all forms of homosexuality and lesbianism which leads to immoral behaviour of many kinds, even in a polyfidelity situation. Even heterosexual couples can engage in sexual perversion. The Bible does not give carte blanche to every and any kind of sexual activity. Some forms of oral sex would (without going into detail) defile the image of Elohim (God).

At this point I want to introduce a controversial topic without justifying or repudiating it, in order to generate some thinking. I wish to posit the suggestion that two women may have some sort of 'sexual contact' (without defining that at this point) which does not involve bisexuality. I wish to propose, for the sake or argument, the following, and then later test the model to see whether it is true or not biblically:

• 1. There is a kind of sexual contact permitted between sister-wives in a polygynous marriage;
• 2. There is another kind of sexual contact between women, in or outside of marriage, which may be said to be 'bisexual' and sinful.

I will develop this contrast as we go along. The idea is to create two categories which I believe are confused by the bisexual. So in a way I am agreeing that the Bible does not forbid intimacy between sister-wives BUT I am going to qualify that by saying that such is (a) not bisexual; and (b) does not involve much, or any, of the intimacy which bisexuals seek after.

In commenting on what the Torah says about homosexuality and lesbianism, I pause to take a look at some Talmudic commentators. Whilst I do not regard the Talmud as an authority, and regard much of it to be perniciously evil, there are some useful observations which I think we may gain from it. The key word I would like to examine, mesolelot, is explained in the Soncino edition of the Talmud, as referring to "women who practise lewdness with one another". The word appears to be from the Pi'el of the root SLL, to which Jastrow assigns the meanings of "to sport," or "to commit lewdness"; in Kal the root means "to swing". It is Rashi who, in his commentary to this talmudic passage, identifies the term as lesbian sexual practice: "As in intercourse of male and female, they rub their femininity [genitals] against one another." Bavli Shabbat 65a-b has the term referring to young girls, who are prohibited from sharing a bed for fear of their becoming accustomed to an "alien body"; according to Rashi, this implies that they would become dependent on having relations with men in unsuitable circumstances. A third use of the term appears in Tosefta Sotah 5:7 (as well as Gittin 8:8 and Sanhedrin 69b), referring to a woman who is mesolelet with her young son. In characteristic fashion, contemporary orthodox responsa discuss the term mesolelot with reference to questions of artificial insemination, and debate the validity of R. Yitzhak ben Nathan's definition, without dealing with the issue of lesbianism per se.

What this shows, if nothing more, is that the Rabbis considered what the Torah taught about homosexality and, as a result of their own exegesis, concluded that there was qualitatively no difference between it and lesbianism.

The Torah has much to say about uncleanliness. Menstrual flow, vomit and excrement are considered unclean or "filth" (e.g. Proverbs 30:12; Isaiah 28:8). It follows, simply from this, that unclean sex can and does take place in a monogamous or polygynous marriage bed. So say that "anything goes" within the marriage bed is a perversion of Torah, as this bisexual woman is attempting to do in order to justify bisexual behaviour. Does she deny that having sex during menstrual flow is wrong? The Torah is most explicit about it. There is it calculatedly wrong to claim that the marriage bed is undefiled no matter what is done. Clearly it can be defiled even in monogamy.

I would have to agree with the Talmud when it says that the rubbing of the genitals together of two females is an abomination. It is contrary to nature, for it can lead to no conceptus, nor does it arouse in such a way as to lead to fertilisation; and whatever bonding it forms must therefore be ungodly. Genital-to-genital stimulation between women is wrong: only married men and women may do this between themselves.

The writer then introduces a new concept called "rotational monogamy" which is both a fallacy and misnomer because it reduces marriage to merely sex. Rotational sex would be a better description. A better use of the term "rotational monogamy" would be if a patriarch has wives in separate homes and rotated between them whether he engaged in sexual activity or not. To suggest that all the wives not sleeping in one bed is just a variation of monogamy is a deception, because the essence of the marriage covenant is, in any case, spiritual and not physical.

Conversely:

• 1. There is no scriptural prohibition on a man being in the same room as all his wives;
• 2. There is no prohibition on him touching or holding hands with two or more wives at the same time;
• 3. There is no prohibition on him kissing / being kissed by more than one wife at the same time;
• 4. There is no prohibition on him being naked together with more than one wife (also naked) at the same time;
• 5. There is no prohibition on him having sexual intercourse with one wife in the presence of his other wives;
• 5. There is no prohibition on his other wives caressing him while he makes love to one wife;
• 6. There is no prohibition on his other wives caressing the wife to whom he is making love;
• 7. THERE CAN BE NO PROHIBITION ON THOSE WIVES BEING SEXUALLY INTIMATE WITH ONE ANOTHER, whether in the presence of the husband or NOT!

Comment: Points §1-6 are indisputable but §7 does not automatically follow from them. Just as there are prohibitions between monogamous husbands and wives, so there are prohibitions between polygamous husbands and wives, and between sister-wives in a polygamous relationship.

In Arabia men commonly hold hands. This is not, however, an indication that they are homosexuals. Such is a sign of friendship in that culture. In Slavic countries, and particularly in Russia, men kiss each other on the cheeks. Yah'shua (Jesus) was greeted with a kiss by the traitor Judas - there was nothing homosexual or wrong with this kind of kiss, for it was acceptable behaviour between men (in Judas' case, it was insincere and murderous). They do the same in France and Italy. But this is not considered to be homosexuality. Similarly, women hold hands, put their arms around each other, and kiss each other on the cheeks and mouths without any hint of lesbianism. There are some kinds of physical intimacy (such as these) which are not only not homosexual or lesbian but which are not sexual either. That is not to say that the same intimicy cannot be sexual as we know from homosexuals, lesbians, heterosexual perverts and pedophiles. The most harmless kind of contact can be harmful. As society has become more and more sexualised, so even the most limited forms of physical contact - previously accepted in cultures before the rapid decline in morals - have become risky.

The first Christians/Messianics greeted each other with a "holy kiss" (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 15:20; 2 Corinthians 16:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:26) but this was later discontinued because of sexual abuses. It is understood that this was a mouth-to-mouth kiss. How this practice arose we are not told and we only know it was in practice because of the Pauline writings. There are few churches/assemblies who admit to this practice today, and wisely so in view of the licentiousness that is everywhere.

It is time that we recognize that lovemaking by a husband with all his wives at the same time can be AND IS a beautiful experience in which ALL are more greatly stimulated, pleased and fulfilled and in which ALL are involved and NONE are excluded and in which NONE are required to spend the night alone in bed!

Comment: As I have commented elsewhere, there is no reason why patriarchal families should not live this way if they wish. There is nothing in Torah or the B'rit Chadashah (New Covenant) to forbid them. At the same time, I have also said, there are grave risks, and that such unions should never be expected or forced but be a matter of free choice. That bisexual women would not only be attracted to such unions but actually preferentialise them to the point of mocking those who chose not to live this way as being "rotational monogamists" betrays an unhealthy hidden agenda. In view of the licentiousness which both men and women are coming out of to be Christians/Messianics (and then to enter polygamous marriages), I would strongly discourage such practices for all the obvious dangers that they pose. That bisexuals would see in such practices not only something desirable but superior ought to be sending off alarm bells. Later on I will examine some of the sleeping arrangements that some polygamous families have.

Since writing the document 'Sexual intimacy between wives', it has come to my attention that not only is there plenty of empirical evidence that sexual situations involving one man with several women generate greater sexual intensity AND capacity, there are also reports which indicate that such activity generates considerable SPIRITUAL energy - in fact, group sex is reportedly used by those who serve Satan to generate enhanced spiritual energy - this appears to be the reason why Satan has gone to such lengths to deceive the church into denying the legitimacy of a man and his wives being sexually intimate together.

Comment: There is a dangerous admixture here of truth and occultic falsehood. Her observations as to what satanists do is correct: sexual perversion is one of the easiest and surest ways to get demonised. As a deliverance minister, I encounter this problem all the time. The creation of ungodly sexual bonds creates deep demonic problems. Notice that the writer mentions nothing about the demonic problem - probably because she is unaware of it, and because to raise it would be to disturb the demonic problem which she herself has without realising it. When someone uses satanic group sex to justify lesbian sex in polygamous marriage, you know that something is seriously wrong. Satan does not encourage such activity to push Christians/Messianics away from it - he does so because it is such an effective form of demonisation. Indeed, to my horror, I came across a 'Christian' website encouraging group 'sacramental' sex, and which tried to twist the Bible into saying that the Christian agapé feasts were just this! There are many occultic groups who do this (for example, the late and notorious satanist and antichrist Aleister Crowley) and who would applaud such a suggestion! Without realising it, the writer has betrayed the spirit she is coming out of!

It is imperative that those who have a revelation of the truth about Polygyny do NOT carry forward monogamous false doctrines into the practice of Polygyny, in particular, if one does not desire to explore the full sexual potential with which Jehovah has blessed us and has personal objections to the thought of sexual intimacy between wives, it behooves NOT to seek to impose that personal choice on others by Pharisaic reasoning.

I think it it rather ironic that the writer should almost prophetically refer to the true Elohim (God), Yahweh, as being "Jehovah", for the latter, apart from being a non-biblical construction, has the unfortunate honour of meaning in the Hebrew, "Jah is perverse". And indeed this lady's "Jehovah" is perverse.

The emotional whipping boy she uses is the same used by homosexuals and lesbians to justify their practices. Whatever the faults of the monogamy-only mindframe may be, monogamy is not itself wrong. However, monogamy is most definitely wrong for practicing bisexuals in Christian/Messianic polygyny - it has to be, because they cannot possibly be fulfilled in it. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that in defending their own lifestyle, they unintentionally, perhaps, demonise monogamy too. Whatever intimacy sister-wives may enjoy between one another (and this I am not denying) it is NOT bisexual. Any relationship propelled by bisexual desires is a relationship propelled by lesbianism, which is the same as homosexuality: and all three are propelled by demonic influences which praise satanic group sex and stigmatise monogamy. True Christian/Messianic polygyny does not have a problem with monogamy! Indeed, it insists that all marriage must start with monogamy, and be found to be natural, satisfying and fulfilling. The fact that a bisexual female, with few exceptions, cannot find these in momogamy is testimony in itself that she has a spiritual problem that needs addressing in the same way as any kind of lesbianism and homosexuality. In short, she needs DELIVERANCE.

Jehovah is a JUST GOD, He does not expect us to infer a sin from one oblique interpretation of one passage of scripture (Romans 1:26) which goes beyond the numerous scriptures which confirm and reinforce Leviticus 18 and 20. The issue in 50 AD was wholesale promiscuity, fornication, bestiallity, male-male sex, etc NOT sexual intimacy between the wives of one man!

Unfortunately for the writer, there is nothing oblique about Romans 1:26. Whilst a certain amount of intimacy between sister-wives in a polygynous relationship is not forbidden, it is definitely not of a lesbian nature where the two women are sexually attracted to each other and seek union in the same way as a man seeks union with a woman and vice versa. Sexual enjoyment and procreation are inextricably linked together - women seeking orgasms together for themselves and apart from their husband is not in the divine purpose and contradicts the natural function of the sexual act. Under such circumstances, sexual energy is released non-productively into the surroundings where is is parasitised by demons.

If it does not appeal or it offends just say so, and admit that at worst, scripture is SILENT! Do not seek to pervert scripture to support that personal choice!

Comment: The New Testament is silent about many things (such as polygyny) because it is already clearly stated in Torah and does not necessarily need repeating. At the same time, it is vocal about lesbianism where the gender-inclusive statements in the Torah give the appearance of not condemning lesbianism. Hence the needed clarification. And no amount of twisting of this passage can alter the fact that lesbianism and homosexuality are directly equated as being of the same spiritual pedigree.

... if one woman is ONE with her husband and another woman is ONE with the same husband then by definition they have to be ONE with one another - the spirits of both women are welded to the husband's through sexual intercourse. Genesis 1:24 indicates that 1+ 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 etc = 1. One flesh is NOT physical it is SPIRITUAL.

Comment: Indeed, one flesh is spiritual though it is mediated by the physical - it is through intercourse that husband and wife are welded together and become one. True, they become one on other levels or planes too which are not physical, just as Christians/Messianics become one bride in Messiah. However, the making of this matrimonial oneness is through the husband - it is he who penetrates and welds by his spirit, not by the women in mock penetration of each other in addition to that of their husband. Were the writer speaking the truth, then the only true polygynous marriages would be bisexual ones! It is a subtle form of matriarchy, distributing the power of patriarchy to the bisexual women ... which is why I call it "patri-matriarchy". Whenever lesbianism enters a polygynous marriage, patriarchal principles are eroded and 'shared'. Paul says quite clearly that the husband's body belongs to the wife through Christ, and vice versa. He makes no allowances for the body of a sister-wive to belong to another sister-wife through sexual union which is an oxymoron.

Now I happen to know about a cult which believes in this very thing and they are of the opinion that all women are basically bisexual. This they claim as it is needed to justify their warped theology and demonic practices.

The writer continued to wax eloquent on her beliefs but I do not reproduce them further as they are basically repetitive. What I propose to do now is share extracts from a conversation between women involved in polygyny. As only one of the interviewees gave us permission to include her views, we have been forced to delete the others. The interviewee is one of four wives in a non-bisexual polygynous marriage.

---

... 'celestial sex' means when there are intimate relations between the husband and more than one wife simultaniously. Those who have read some of our modest contributions to this forum know that while we have not said so specifically, we hardily approve of the practice. We also love the term - 'celestial sex' because celestial sex can almost BE celestial. This is a subject we generally avoid, exposing the secrets of the marriage bed, but there are a couple of things we would like to add to this very fruitful discussion ... We just wanted to add a few observations of our own:

1. Biblically while sexual relations between men is condemned in the strongest possible terms, there is no condemnation of sexual intimacy between women... While we may not necessarily approve of it, there is absolutely no reason to disapprove.

2. In the beginning a sisterwife (or two or more sisterwives) may find 'celestial sex' threatening but as she becomes more aware, she will find that in the long run it will have the unanticipated effect of reducing sexual jealousy among the women. Therefore a husband and his wives sharing a 'family bed' on a regular basis is an excellent idea. Needless to say there should be some private time.

3. She will begin to understand that her sisterwife has the same body parts (excuse us for putting it so clinically) as she does and the same needs and desires. Barriers between the sisterwives come down. It can be liberating. It is bonding. We never feel as united as a family as when we are all together.

4. We each have our own rooms but if one of us chooses to do so, we join our husband. We do so in his room. And if more than one of us 'visit' him at the same time, all the better. We have no jealousy; he simply has to 'work harder.' He doesn't seem to mind - and neither do we. Making love to more than one woman at a time is certainly one of the advantages a man may have in a loving poly marriage. But we feel that it is no less wonderful for us to have, at that moment of intimacy, one (or more) of our beloved sisterwives with us. Truly 'celestial sex' makes "the beloved campanions rejoice..."

5. 'Celestial sex' may not be for everyone, and we understand that, but we certain recommend giving it a try.

(reproduced with permission and thanks)

None of these women were, or are, bisexuals. They came as heterosexual women into a polygamous marriage and developed a non-lesbian bonding between each other. They probably went as far as it is permissible in a polygamous marriage and what we call echad sex.

In conversations between bisexual sister-wives that I have witnessed there is much theological confusion coupled with the standard liberal self-justifications of 'live and let live'. The beliefs expressed by women who have sexual contact with one another in a polygamous marriage varies between a form of intimate female:female heterosexuality (echad sex) to raw lesbianism/bisexuality. As Bible-believing Christians/Messianics what we are most interested in is not what 'works' between people (I am sure almost anything can be made to 'work' with sufficient will-power) but what is acceptable and unacceptable in Yahweh's eyes.

My understanding is this; any kind of female-to-female sexual attraction that does not require the husband to make it 'work' has, as its root, lesbianism, irrespective of whether such a woman is attracted to her husband also or not. Any kind of sexual relationship which effectively says: 'Yeah, I can enjoy/want/need sex with a sister-wife (or wives) alone', even if there is additional sex with the husband alone, or with the husband and the sister-wives, is lesbianism and is wrong. A woman who is 'in love' with a sister-wife in the same way as she is in love with her husband - and by 'in-love' I mean feels an erotic compulsion to unite with her sexually and suffers emotionally if she cannot - is in bondage to a female homosexual spirit. It doesn't matter whether such a enjoyment/want/need is formalised within a plural marriage or not because the root is still the same: female homosexuality isn't suddenly sanctified in a marriage relationship any more than paedophilia is sanctified by some formal arrangement whereby a child is 'married' to an adult whether of the same or opposite sex. You can't hide sinful behaviour behind covenants of fidelity and claim that the marriage bed suddenly makes it holy. It doesn't. And mutual consent doesn't necessarily make it right either. What makes a sexual relationship right or wrong is whether it is sanctioned by Yahweh or not. Righteousness is not predicated upon feelings, personal belief, or experience (that's called 'existentialism') but on what the Creator says is right ... and nothing else.

He says, quite clearly, that the only holy sex is that which takes place within life-long covenanted marriage. And He defines marriage as one man married to one or more women. To this He adds that men and women who exchange the natural procreative function of heterosexual sex for sex with each other (men with men - homosexuality; and women with women - lesbianism) are committing an abomination, and says quite specifically that such people will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

---

The diagram below illustrates what is, and what is not, permitted in simple terms. Men are represented by blue, women by pink. A solid black line connecting two spheres represents a full sexual relationship and a grey line represents a voluntary limited 'sexual' (in truth, it's something else) relationship that may be said to be non-lesbian. Just as polygyny begins with monogamy, so simple polygyny (multiple monogamy) evolves through a process of gradual acclimatisation into echad polygyny.

The best analogy would be the difference between an immature ego-centric Christian/Messianic and one who has matured into a Body of Christ-centred Christian/Messianic. There is a process of sanctification as one comes to love and know Christ better that involves the polishing off of the rough edges of character and egocentricity through living the Gospel Way. Echad polygamy is not primarily about sex as lesbianism tends to be, for the lesbian abberation - which is sexual at its root - defines everything else. Bisexuals 'enter' polygynous marriages seeking to realise themselves: there is no such thing as an 'echadian' (if I can call him/her that) who is looking to realise his/her "echadianness"! Echad polygamy is a result of a long process of gradual (sometimes more rapid) sanctification.

The thesis of this ministry is that we all start off in polygyny as multiple monogamists (simple polygamists) and grow into echad unity (if we choose to). There are always walls of egocentricty at the beginning. They have to be lowered voluntarily, without force, in order for the magic of echad to work. You can't leap into echad polygyny - those women who have been in it longer will, of course, inevitably have an advantage (in most cases) over those entering it for the first time. All relationships take time to build, and the deeper they are, the more struggling inevitably has to take place as ego issues are confronted and laid before the cross of Christ.

It's exactly the same principle of the individual being born again in Christ and gradually discovering what it is to be a part of a spiritual family ... the Body of Christ. It is no accident that Paul describes the Christ-family as a Body which is differentiated into diverse organs all linked together into a whole. Finding your place in the Body (the local congregation) can take time and requires much readjustment.

A good example of the process of echad polygamy would be the metamorphosis of a caterpillar into a butterfly, an illustration I have used many times. The caterpillar is representative of an ego. In real life it just eats, and eats, and eats, much as a young spirit consumes at the expense of others, always wanting to be the centre of attention. In all early relationships there is much egotism and selfishness, the 'caterpiller-person' only being interested in what he or she can 'get' for him- or herself. Such people do become tiring and repulsive after a while, especially if they refuse to mature. Just as eagles push their young out of the nest to fly, so too are young spirits often forced by circumstances to grow out of their self-mode.

The next stage in the metamorphosis is called pupation. The caterpillar literally 'dies'. It becomes stationary, spins a cacoon around itself, and then starts to disintegrate. Not the individual, living cells but the organs. For the old organs of a caterpillar, designed as they were to be part of an eating machine, are quite useless to a butterfly. Every single cell in the body literally migrates to a new position and forms new organs and a new organism.

The transformation is amazing and is not at all unlike the kind of change that takes place when a carnal man is reborn into a spiritual one. The rebirth is not instantaneous but takes time. There is a hibernation period. The soul must pass through the winter of its discontent while everything within it is changed into a Christ-image.

The journey from simple polygyny to echad polygyny is exactly the same. Christian/Messianic polygamy is not, in its final form, about throwing several women together with a single man and just 'readjusting'. Anyone can readjust ... and often hate it. What is called for is nothing short of the complete reorganisation of the mental, emotional and physical processes that may have sustained us in either a single or a monogamous mindframe. The first obstacle is recognising it has to be done (many refuse). The second is patiently allowing either the husband (in an echad polygamous marriage) or Yahweh (in our spiritual growth to maturity as part of His uniplural allegorical echad Bride) to do his work.

The husband is described by Paul as the "head" in this illustration of the Body, just as Christ is "head" of the Church/Messianic Community. A healthy body consists of a mind in harmony with the rest of itself. A mind that is confused or unhappy leads to a sick body. Mental health is an absolute prerequisite to good body health. In the marriage analogy, the husband is the head (brain) and the wives are limbs or organs. Together they are one entity, and are intimately connected together. There is a shared nervous system, a shared blood stream, a shared immune system, and so on. In echad polygamous marriage there is intimacy of mind, heart, spirit and body -- all are connected.

Most Christian/Messianic polygamists I have met do not, in their heart of hearts, want this kind of thorough reorganisation leading to a new spiritual organism or entity.

In a bisexual arrangement there is deformity. When two women are having lesbian sex with one another, one must be 'head'. In all lesbian relationships there are dominant and submissive partners. This abnormal relationship requires a head. In love-making, there must be a male-head, not a female-head. The husband leads and directs the unification process. They accept, obviously, that some readjustments have to be made, but rarely want to go the whole way. The caterpillar wants to live on. And what you can't have in a true polygynous relationship is a baby's body with an adult head, or a baby's head and an adult body. Husbands and wives alike have to discover their place in the echad scheme and set their focus properly.

What does all this mean sexually? It means that, in its final form, echad polygamy is intimate on all levels. And yet it is not homosexual or lesbian in any way. It can't be. So what models can we turn to to understand the kind of physical relationship that sister-wives are ideally supposed to have? Think of two sisters who are very, very close to one another, and the kinds of things they do together that are not lesbian, and you come pretty close to the kind of sexual intimacy that is a part of echad polygamy in full bloom. Holding hands, stroking hair, light kissing, embracing, massaging, and so forth. These are the prime physical elements. They are sexual because they are physical and intimate, but they are not lesbian because their purpose is not a full sexual union with each other. That is entirely reserved for their husband on either a one-to-one basis or together. Like a deep sisterly relationship, it cannot be forced but must develop naturally. If one of the women tries to force it, she places herself in male position, thus usurping her husband's leadership rôle in such things.

The trouble with bisexual sex is that whilst it can create strong emotional attachments, it does not naturally bind spirits together, but creates an abnormality which give demons points of access to create strongholds. No bisexual should enter polygyny who (a) does not recognise that lesbian sex is wrong; (b) is not willing to cease sexual activity between females; and (c) who is not willing to undergo deliverance ministry. Whilst we welcome bisexual women with open arms at this ministry, this is a condition we insist on before they are allowed to enter polygyny.

The demons of lesbianism are always offended by such things. The reaction is exactly the same when resistant homosexuals are told of the requirements that Yahweh places on them. It is the same spirit, the same demonic oppression, the same offendedness and rage. It doesn't matter whether a polygynous husband accepts it or not - he is bound by the same heavenly laws as everyone else. And if he gets a kick out of watching his wives in lesbian intimacy, it is quite likely that he has a demonic problem himself too. If you are 'turned on' by anything that is not godly, then there is a lust-demon at work somewhere.

This is the summum bonum of what the Bible has to say about bisexuality. And it is the official position of this ministry.

See From Bisexuality to Echad Sexuality

Author: SBSK