One Final Word, Hopefully, About Polygamy.

When God created Adam, then formed Eve from his DNA as the first woman as a helpmate for him, God pronounced it very good. (Genesis 1: 31) Jesus continues the theme in Matthew 19: 4-6, and says,

“Haven’t you read that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

He then further clarifies his position with,

“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Now, my question is, “If God had not intended for man to practice monogamy, why then did Jesus add, ‘and [he that] marries another woman commits adultery.’”

The only logical reason is that he was already married, and to marry another woman would be to commit adultery—otherwise, it would not have been adultery. If the polygamous were right, marrying a hundred more wives would not constitute adultery. Just what part of “marries another woman” do the polygamous not get?

Now, furthermore and without going into great detail, since I have already dealt with the issue ad nausea, the usage of New Testament Greek in each of the 8 cases that the word is used in the New Testament clearly indicates the singular—at least the consensus of Greek scholars are committed to that translation of the use of the word μιᾶς as singular, meaning ‘one’ in the context of all 8 instances that the word in that form is used in the New Testament.[1]

So, when Paul continues the theme with his restrictions on plural marriages in his list of qualifications for elders and bishops in 1 Timothy 1: 1-13 and Titus 1: 1-9; why would we consider any other meaning than ‘one’?

1 Timothy 3:2 δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον σώφρονα κόσμιον φιλόξενον διδακτικόν—which, in English reads: The overseer therefore must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, modest, hospitable, good at teaching. Note, this is the same word, why make an exception?

Titus 1:6 εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα—which in English reads: “[I]f anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, who are not accused of loose or unruly behavior.” Note, this is the same word, why make an exception?

Let's look at some other examples:

"But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband." - 1 Corinthians 7:2-3 NASB (Contextually, a plurality is not suggested here.)

1 Corinthians chapter 7 discusses marriage and it is always in the context of "wife" (singular) and "husband" (singular). It does not make sense for the singular words to be used, if it is possible to have more than one wife. If it were acceptable to God to have more than one wife, then the word "wives" would have to have been used here. The wording of 1 Corinthians chapter 7 completely excludes the possibility of polygamy, in my opinion—unless, one applies a strange new hermeneutics.

Ephesians chapter 5 (verses 22-33) discuss marriage. Here again we do see the plural "wives" used. However, it is used because Paul is writing to the overall category of husbands and wives.

"Wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord." - Ephesians 5:22 NASB

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her," - Ephesians 5:25 NASB

Notice that in verse 23 his message becomes more personal:

"For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body." - Ephesians 5:23 NASB

Then I pointed out:

"Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride [the church] has made herself [not themselves] ready." - Revelation 19:7 NASB

Friend, since none of these indicates a plurality—unless you use an Old Testament polygamous paradigm as your hermeneutical tool. I choose to accept the contextual and New Testament linguistic approach.

Again, since in my opinion, the overwhelming use of the Greek points in the solid direction of monogamy and since we can easily deduct this from the context of the other examples, why should we make the only other exception that of relating to wives? It just does not make sense to me, otherwise.

In times past—as I have mention previously, God winked at such practices but he now calls all men to repentance.

Now, for a brief historical survey, it should be noted that polygamy as a part of Jewish the lifestyle had largely fallen out of practice during New Testament times, due largely some feel because it was proscribed by Roman law. However, it took until the year 1000 CE for the practice to be officially banned in a synod called by Rabbeinu Gershom.

Furthermore, polygamy among Christians in general never gained any significant traction. Christian theologians have bickered among themselves over the issue for centuries; although, polygamous marriages were virtually unheard of in the primitive church or for the first two centuries thereafter—the exception being, of course, that of a polygamous convert who embraced Christianity.

Ideally, it can be argued that monogamy is not only Biblical, but also as the Catholic Church has declared: 

"[P]olygamy is not in accord with the moral law. [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."[2]

If any man is contentious, all I can say, as Paul said, is that we have no other such custom, neither do the churches of God. 1 Corinthians 11: 16

[1] As pointed out, the indelible use of the word in the following instance is a prime example of how the word applies in each of these circumstances:

Luke 14:18 καὶ ἤρξαντο ἀπὸ μιᾶς πάντες παραιτεῖσθαι. ὁ πρῶτος εἶπεν αὐτῷ• ἀγρὸν ἠγόρασα καὶ ἔχω ἀνάγκην ἐξελθὼν ἰδεῖν αὐτόν• ἐρωτῶ σε, ἔχε με παρῃτημένον.

They all as one began to make excuses. "The first said to him, 'I have bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please have me excused.’…” Note: “I have bought one field, only—not two or three, only one …”

Luke 17:34 λέγω ὑμῖν, ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ ἔσονται δύο ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς, ὁ εἷς παραλημφθήσεται καὶ ὁ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται•

I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed. The one will be taken, and the other will be left. Note: “two in one bed, one taken, one left”

Luke 22:59 καὶ διαστάσης ὡσεὶ ὥρας μιᾶς ἄλλος τις διϊσχυρίζετο λέγων• ἐπ' ἀληθείας καὶ οὗτος μετ' αὐτοῦ ἦν, καὶ γὰρ Γαλιλαῖός ἐστιν.

After about one hour passed, another confidently affirmed, saying, "Truly this man also was with him, for he is a Galilean!"

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “About an hour …”

Acts 24:21 ἢ περὶ μιᾶς ταύτης φωνῆς ἧς ἐκέκραξα ἐν αὐτοῖς ἑστὼς ὅτι περὶ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν ἐγὼ κρίνομαι σήμερον ἐφ' ὑμῶν.

“[U]nless it is for this one thing that I cried standing among them, 'Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged before you today!'"

Adjective: Genitive Singular Feminine

"Note: “I am being judged for one thing only — not two or three, only one!”

Hebrews 12:16 μή τις πόρνος ἢ βέβηλος ὡς Ἠσαῦ, ὃς ἀντὶ βρώσεως μιᾶς ἀπέδετο τὰ πρωτοτόκια ἑαυτοῦ.

[Le]st there be any sexually immoral person, or profane person, like  Esau, who sold his birthright for one meal. "Note: “One meal” not two.

[2]  Catholic Cathechism, para. 2387 April 05, 2009, Vatican website

---