Introduction

“I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture.” These bold words, reportedly penned by the Reformer Martin Luther in 1524, capture the provocative thesis of this work. At first glance, the defense of Biblical polygyny – the marriage of one man to multiple wives – seems to challenge prevailing Christian norms. Monogamy has become a near-universal assumption in modern Christendom. Yet a careful, polemical inquiry into Scripture and historical theology reveals a more nuanced picture. This book argues that plural marriage, as found in the Bible, is consistent with God’s law and was embraced or at least permitted by many of the faithful in biblical history.

Theonomic Presupposition: We write from a theonomic perspective – presupposing that the laws given by God in Scripture (especially the Old Testament Law) reflect enduring moral principles unless explicitly modified by further revelation. In other words, what God’s Law allowed or commanded in the Bible carries authoritative weight for ethics. Since God’s moral character does not change, and His Word is truth, we examine polygyny under the assumption that if it was sanctioned in the Law or by God’s chosen leaders, it cannot be inherently sinful. This stands in contrast to purely cultural or legal arguments; our focus is theological and historical, grounded in Scripture. We also adopt a non-denominational Christian framework, drawing from various traditions (early Church Fathers, medieval scholastics, Reformers) to build our case. This is not about advocating any modern cult or fringe movement, but about re-examining the biblical and historical evidence on its own terms.

Scope and Aim: This work is historical and exegetical in scope. We will journey through the Old Testament narratives and laws that involve polygynous relationships, then into the New Testament teachings to see if or how the paradigm shifted. We will engage the writings of the Church Fathers and great theologians across church history, from Augustine to Aquinas to the Reformers, to understand how and why monogamy became the exclusive norm – and to challenge whether those reasons are truly biblical. By avoiding modern legal and cultural debates, we instead immerse ourselves in the world of the Bible and the early church. The tone is intentionally polemical: we seek not merely to inform, but to persuade – to mount a robust defense of Biblical polygyny as consistent with God’s law, and to question whether the absolute monogamy stance is as firmly grounded in Scripture as commonly assumed.

Definitions: For clarity, polygyny refers specifically to one man having more than one wife at the same time (a subset of polygamy). The Bible records polygynous marriages (never polyandry, where a woman has multiple husbands). Our defense of “Biblical polygyny” means those instances and regulations of plural marriage that appear in the biblical text. This is distinct from promiscuity or adultery. In biblical law, adultery is a sin defined in relation to a married woman (a man having sexual relations with another man’s wife, or a married woman with a man not her husband – cf. Lev. 20:10). Notably, having more than one wife was not equated with adultery in Scripture. As we shall see, many holy figures had multiple wives without rebuke, and specific laws governed those unions just as monogamous ones.

Before proceeding, it is important to state what this book is not: It is not a call for unrestrained polygamy in contemporary society, nor a social commentary on modern cultures that practice polygamy. We deliberately avoid modern legal questions. Instead, our mission is to contend that from a biblical and theological perspective, polygyny was a lawful form of marriage under God’s covenant, and that the blanket condemnation it receives today may not be as scripturally solid as presumed. In doing so, we aim to cultivate a Berean spirit (Acts 17:11) – searching the Scriptures to see what is truly taught, no matter how unfashionable the conclusions might be.

Let us begin, then, at the beginning – in the pages of the Old Testament, where many of the fathers of faith were polygynists. By understanding the biblical foundations of polygyny, we lay the groundwork for its theological defense. Subsequently, we will trace how the early church grappled with these precedents, and examine whether the New Testament introduced a new mandate of monogamy or merely affirmed an existing cultural preference. Through it all, we hold fast to the principle that God’s Word is the ultimate authority. If polygyny is indeed consistent with God’s law as revealed in Scripture, then it behooves us to acknowledge and defend that truth, even if it challenges deeply ingrained traditions.

“The law of the Lord is perfect” (Psalm 19:7). Those laws once included directives for polygamous marriages. The question before us is: Can the church legitimately forbid what God’s law permitted? This volume contends that the answer is no – and invites you to consider the evidence and arguments that have led to this conclusion. Let us proceed with an open Bible and an open mind, guided by the spirit of truth.

1. The Biblical Foundations: Polygyny in the Old Testament

The Old Testament is replete with examples of polygyny, involving some of the most revered figures of the faith. Rather than hiding these accounts, Scripture presents them in a matter-of-fact manner, with God’s interactions and laws often assuming the reality of multiple-wife marriages. To build a defense of Biblical polygyny, we must carefully examine these foundations. We will see that not only did the patriarchs and many Israelite leaders have multiple wives, but that the Law of Moses explicitly regulated polygynous marriages without condemning them. This implies divine sanction or allowance. As Augustine observed, regarding the Old Testament saints: “it was not a sin to have several wives when this was the custom, because by no law was it forbidden”. In this section, we explore why and how polygyny was practiced in biblical history, and what God’s attitude toward it was according to the text.

1.1 Polygyny in the Patriarchal Era

The practice of one man marrying multiple women appears early in human history as recorded in Genesis. The very first mention comes only a few generations after Adam. Lamech, a descendant of Cain, took two wives, Adah and Zillah (Genesis 4:19). While Lamech’s character is portrayed negatively (he was violent and boastful), the text does not explicitly link his polygamy to his downfall. It simply notes polygamy’s existence in the antediluvian period. This sets a precedent: polygyny was part of the human experience from early on, without an immediate divine rebuke recorded.

Moving forward to the righteous lineage, we encounter the patriarchs – the forefathers of Israel, revered in Scripture. Notably, Abraham, the father of faith, had more than one woman in his life. His marriage to Sarah was primary, but at Sarah’s own urging he took Hagar as a secondary wife or concubine, and had a son, Ishmael, by her (Genesis 16:1-4). Later, after Sarah’s death, Abraham took another wife named Keturah, who bore him several sons (Genesis 25:1-6). The chronicler of Genesis presents all these offspring as Abraham’s legitimate children, and God in fact promises to make Ishmael a great nation too (Genesis 17:20), indicating no moral illegitimacy attached to Ishmael’s birth. The pivotal covenant line was through Sarah’s son Isaac, but Hagar’s status as a sort of wife to Abraham is acknowledged – she is never called an adulteress. In fact, Genesis 16:3 refers to Hagar as “Abraham’s wife” once Sarah gave her to him. God cares for Hagar and Ishmael, further underscoring that this union, though polygynous, was within the scope of His providential plan.

Next, Jacob (Israel), grandson of Abraham, famously had four wives (two primary and two secondary). Jacob fell victim to a deception by his father-in-law Laban and ended up married to two sisters: Leah and Rachel. Additionally, each of these wives gave Jacob their maidservants as concubines/wives (Bilhah and Zilpah) to bear children on their behalf (Genesis 29:23-30; 30:3-13). Thus, the twelve sons who became the twelve tribes of Israel were born from four women in a polygynous household. Far from being considered “illegitimate,” these sons’ names emblazon the tribes of God’s chosen people. As John Milton incisively observed, “Either therefore polygamy is a true marriage, or all children born in that state are spurious; which would include the whole race of Jacob, the twelve holy tribes chosen by God.” Milton rightly calls the idea that Israel’s tribal patriarchs were the product of sin “absurd in the extreme, not to say impious”. Clearly, God himself did not view Jacob’s polygynous family as adulterous or invalid. He blessed Jacob, established His covenant with him, and even worked through the rivalries of Jacob’s wives to build the nation of Israel. Rachel and Leah are both honored as matriarchs. In Ruth 4:11, the people bless Boaz’s marriage by saying, “May the Lord make the woman who is coming into your house like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel” – a telling tribute that acknowledges two women jointly as the ancestral mothers of Israel.

Throughout Genesis, then, we find no command restricting a man to one wife. Instead, we see multiple examples of God-fearing men with multiple wives: Abraham, Jacob, and also later figures like Esau (Genesis 36:2) and many of Jacob’s sons took multiple wives. Even Job, described as the most righteous man of his time, is implied to have had one wife at a time (his narrative doesn’t mention polygamy), but significantly, God’s rebuke in the Old Testament is always directed at sexual immorality, violence, idolatry, etc., never at polygamy per se. When Abraham and Jacob erred, it was not in having additional wives, but in other matters (e.g. Abraham’s lack of faith leading to Hagar’s situation, Jacob’s partiality among his sons). The silence of condemnation is important – as Milton notes, to “account as sin what is not such in reality” is unjust and dangerous. The narrative implies that polygyny was a culturally accepted practice that God accommodated among His people.

1.2 Polygyny Under the Law of Moses

With the establishment of the Mosaic Law at Sinai, one might expect a definitive moral stance on marriage practices. If polygyny were a violation of God’s design or moral will, the giving of the Law would have been the opportune moment to forbid it among God’s holy people Israel. Yet, what we find is quite the opposite: the Law of Moses explicitly makes provision for polygynous marriages, regulating them to ensure justice, rather than prohibiting them. This is a powerful point in our defense – it shows that God’s own Law treated polygyny as a legitimate institution.

Consider one of the clearest examples, Exodus 21:10-11. In this passage, the law addresses the situation of a man who has a wife (specifically a servant-wife in context) and then takes another wife. It commands: “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights”. In other words, if a man marries an additional wife, he must continue providing the first wife with full support and conjugal rights. Failure to do so gives the first wife grounds for freedom (she could go free without debt). Several critical observations can be made here:

• The Law assumes polygyny will happen (“if he takes another wife”), and rather than condemning it, the Law’s concern is to protect the rights of the first wife. God’s justice ensured that a first wife would not be neglected or abused if her husband married again.
• The phrase “her food, her clothing, and her marital rights” covers material support and emotional/sexual relations – effectively commanding the husband not to treat the first wife as lesser. This shows God’s care for the women in such arrangements, implying that polygyny itself was allowable provided the husband remained responsible and fair. It is presented as a regulated practice, not as sin.
• Notably, this command is given immediately after laws about servants and marital arrangements, as part of God’s covenant code for Israel. It carries the same authority as other social laws. If polygamy were immoral, we would expect instead a law saying “thou shalt not take another wife” – but we find the contrary: a lawful way to do it.

Another key law is Deuteronomy 21:15-17, which addresses inheritance in a polygamous family: “If a man have two wives, one beloved and another unloved, and both bear him children…he may not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the beloved wife in preference to the son of the unloved who is the firstborn”. Here again, the scenario of “a man with two wives” is treated as a real and acceptable situation, and the law’s focus is on justice – the firstborn’s rights must be honored regardless of the mother’s status. Implicitly, both wives are legitimate, and both sets of children are legitimate. The law seeks to curb the natural human tendency to favor the preferred wife and her children, by upholding the principle of the firstborn’s inheritance. The existence of this statute demonstrates that God’s law gave legal recognition to polygynous households. A polygamous man was still considered in proper standing within the community, such that his children’s inheritance needed orderly regulation under God’s decrees.

Moreover, the Mosaic Law contains specific scenarios that could result in polygamy by duty. One is the levirate marriage law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). If a man died without a child, his brother was obligated to marry the widow to produce offspring for the deceased brother’s lineage. Importantly, the law does not exempt a brother who is already married – he was still supposed to take his brother’s widow as an additional wife. This means the Law itself could command a man to become polygamous for the sake of family duty. Far from polygyny being seen as sin, it was sometimes a righteous responsibility. The classic example is Boaz (though Boaz himself was apparently not married prior, the concept stands) or earlier, Judah’s sons in Genesis 38 – when Onan refused to fulfill this duty, God punished him (Genesis 38:8-10). Had Onan performed his obligation, he would have taken Tamar as another wife. The levirate law shows that multiplying wives could be a matter of obedience to God’s command in Israel.

Another case of law: Deuteronomy 17:17, addressed to future kings of Israel, is sometimes cited as evidence God frowned on polygamy. It says of the king: “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.” This is not a general command to all men but specific to kings, warning against excesses. The key word is “multiply.” Most commentators understand this as a prohibition on the king collecting an excessive harem (particularly foreign wives who could influence him to idolatry, as indeed happened to Solomon). It does not say “the king shall have only one wife,” but rather not to acquire many. In fact, it is placed in parallel with not multiplying horses or gold – things kings would accumulate in pride. As Milton observes, this verse “expressly allows” polygamy in a qualified way, imposing the same restraint on multiple wives as on horses or treasure. The implication is that a king might have more than one wife, but should not let lust or political alliance-building lead him to dozens or hundreds of wives, lest they turn his heart. We see this play out: King David had multiple wives (Michal, Abigail, Ahinoam, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah – 2 Samuel 3:2-5 lists sons from six wives, and later he married Bathsheba; also 2 Samuel 5:13 notes David took more wives and concubines in Jerusalem). Yet David is never condemned by the biblical text for the number of his wives. In fact, the prophet Nathan, rebuking David’s sin with Bathsheba, speaks for God saying: “I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms…” and then chastises David for murdering Uriah and taking that one wife unlawfully. This is striking: God himself reminds David that He had given David Saul’s wives (implying David could rightly marry them), and if that wasn’t enough, God would have given more. The sin was in stealing another man’s wife and committing adultery and murder, not in having multiple wives. David’s polygamy is treated as a blessing from God, whereas his adultery is denounced as evil. And regarding Deuteronomy 17:17 – David’s heart was not said to be led astray by his wives (they were mostly Israelite women). It was Solomon, who “multiplied wives” to an extreme (700 wives, 300 concubines, many foreign), and “his wives turned away his heart” (1 Kings 11:3-4). So the warning of the law was vindicated in Solomon’s case. But again, note that the narrative criticizes Solomon not simply for having many wives, but specifically for taking foreign wives who led him into idolatry. The polygamy is intertwined with idolatry in Solomon’s fall. Polygamy per se is not singled out as a transgression; rather, unwise polygamy with ungodly partners is the issue. This nuance is important – the law in Deuteronomy was not a blanket moral condemnation of plural marriage; it was a guideline for the king to remain faithful to God. Indeed, polygyny continued among later kings: for example, Joash had two wives given to him by the priest Jehoiada (2 Chronicles 24:2-3), and this was seen as positive enough to record.

In summary, the Mosaic law’s treatment of polygyny can be summed up in two points: (1) Regulation implies legitimacy – laws like Exodus 21:10 and Deuteronomy 21:15 treat polygamous marriages as valid and enforce proper behavior within them. God’s law never regulates what is intrinsically immoral (there were no laws on how to “properly” worship an idol, for example, because idolatry was outright banned; but there are laws on how to properly manage having two wives, indicating the practice itself was lawful). (2) No explicit prohibition – there is no commandment “Thou shalt not have more than one wife.” On the contrary, notable figures under the Law, including Moses himself (who likely had at least two wives – Zipporah and the Cushite woman mentioned in Numbers 12:1), were polygamists. If polygyny were sinful, we would expect the prophets to rail against it. Yet, as Milton again points out, “it appears…throughout the whole law [of Moses]; nor even in any of the prophets…is there the slightest evidence of their interdiction of polygamy”. The prophets often rebuked Israel for various sins (idolatry, injustice, adultery, etc.), but never for having multiple wives. This silence is telling. The only possible hint is in Malachi 2:14-16, where God condemns Israelite men for treacherously divorcing “the wife of your youth.” Some interpret the phrase “Did he not make them one?” in Malachi 2:15 as advocating monogamy, but the context is divorce and unfaithfulness, not an indictment of polygamy. Indeed, Malachi would be an oddly “late” place to introduce a new moral law if polygamy were truly to be forbidden. The more straightforward understanding is that Malachi was calling men to honor their covenant with their first wife instead of discarding her for another, which aligns with God’s hatred of divorce, not necessarily a prohibition of plural marriage if the first wife remained cared for.

Thus, under the Old Covenant, polygyny was a lawful form of marriage. God incorporated it into the story of His people and gave commandments to ensure it was practiced with justice and compassion. The theonomic significance of this cannot be overstated. If we believe, as Scripture attests, that “the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12), then we must acknowledge that a law code which made room for polygyny cannot be declaring polygyny an evil. The holy God would not give laws condoning sin. As the early Christian writer Tertullian conceded regarding the patriarchs: “among our ancestors, and the patriarchs themselves, it was lawful not only to marry, but even to multiply wives”. He goes on to say that changes came later with the Gospel, but he does not deny the legitimacy of the practice under the Law. Likewise, Augustine in The Good of Marriage wrote that the fathers used the gift of multiple wives “not in lust but in obedience to the duty of begetting children,” and that in those times this was not sinful, though in his current time it was no longer practiced. We have established, then, a firm biblical foundation: Polygyny in the Old Testament was part of God’s ordained life for Israel, governed by His laws and often exemplified by His blessed leaders.

Before moving on, we should address a potential objection: Wasn’t monogamy God’s original design in Eden? Genesis 2:24 states, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” Some argue this verse prescriptively limits marriage to one man and one woman, as if to say “one flesh = one wife.” However, we must interpret it in light of all Scripture. First, the text is describing the origin of the marriage bond between Adam and Eve. It does not contain a prohibitive “only.” As Milton cleverly noted, if we apply the singular terms as rigid limits, then by the same logic, Exodus 20:17 (“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house…nor his manservant, nor his maidservant…”) would imply no one can have more than one house, or one servant. Obviously, the singular in such commandments is generic. Genesis says “a man…his wife” in the generic sense – each marriage unit forms one flesh. It does not forbid a man from repeating the process with another woman in an additional union. In fact, Milton argues and we concur that if a man has multiple wives, he becomes “one flesh” with each of them in the relational sense. The proof is in Paul’s writing: “Do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For ‘the two,’ He says, ‘shall become one flesh’” (1 Corinthians 6:16). Paul applies the “two become one” phrase even to a man’s union with a prostitute – even though that man might later unite with another, each union makes “one flesh.” Therefore, “one flesh” describes the intimacy and bond of a marriage, not an arithmetical limit on number of partners over a lifetime. Genesis 2:24 establishes that marriage is a union of male and female into a one-flesh relationship. It does not explicitly decree that a man can never form more than one such union (and clearly many did in Scripture). God’s original institution of marriage certainly shows the ideal of a loving pair (Adam and Eve), but it is a logical leap to say anything beyond that is immoral. If polygyny were morally wrong from the beginning, we would have expected God to correct or condemn the patriarchs – but He did not. Instead, as we have shown, He incorporated their polygamous relationships into His redemptive plan.

In conclusion to the Old Testament foundation: Biblical polygyny was a reality endorsed (or at least permitted) by God’s directives. The patriarchs like Abraham and Jacob, far from being adulterers, were chosen recipients of God’s promises. The Law of Moses explicitly protected polygamous marriages, and Israel’s history is filled with polygynous families, including heroes of faith. As the 17th-century theologian John Milton summarized, after examining all the relevant scriptures: “there is nothing in the law, or the prophets, that forbids polygamy, either by any direct command or by implication”. The Old Testament thus lays an unshakable groundwork that polygyny, when conducted according to God’s statutes, was not considered sin. Any argument that polygamy is inherently evil must reckon with this fact. Our next step is to see how the coming of Christ and the teachings of the New Testament interacted with this heritage. Did Jesus or the apostles overturn this allowance? Or does the New Testament continue, perhaps in a quieter way, to permit plurality of wives? We turn now to the evidence in early Christianity.

2. Polygyny in the New Testament and Early Christianity

By the time of Jesus and the early church, monogamous marriage was largely the norm in Greco-Roman society (polygyny was uncommon in Roman law, although divorce and remarriage were frequent, and concubinage was practiced). The New Testament, written in this milieu, does not showcase any prominent polygamous Christian families – no New Testament saint is described as having multiple wives. However, absence of example is not prohibition. The crucial question is: Did the New Testament explicitly forbid polygamy for believers, thus marking a departure from Old Testament tolerance? Many assume that it did, often citing Jesus’ reinforcement of the Genesis “one flesh” teaching or Paul’s instructions on church leadership. In this section, we will carefully examine Jesus’ words on marriage and divorce, the apostolic teachings, and the practice of the early church. We will find that the New Testament continues to uphold the sanctity of marriage but never explicitly labels polygamy as adultery or immoral. The emphasis shifts toward monogamy as an assumed practice in the Greco-Roman context, yet the silence on condemning plural marriage is telling – especially in light of how vocal the apostles were against other sexual sins. Early church leaders, influenced by both biblical ideals and Greco-Roman culture, increasingly spoke against polygyny, establishing a monogamous standard. But as we shall see, their rationale often rested on practical and symbolic grounds rather than an unequivocal apostolic decree.

2.1 Jesus on Marriage: Restoration of an Ideal, Not a New Law

Jesus Christ spoke relatively little about marriage directly, but when He did, His words carried great weight in shaping Christian views. The key passages are found in the Gospels, particularly when Jesus was questioned about divorce. In Matthew 19:3-9 (and the parallel in Mark 10:2-12), the Pharisees ask if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason. In His reply, Jesus takes them back to creation: “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matt. 19:4-6). When pressed why Moses allowed divorce, Jesus answered that it was due to the hardness of hearts, but “from the beginning it was not so,” and then He forbids divorce except for sexual immorality.

What can we glean from this about polygamy? Jesus is clearly emphasizing the lifelong, inseparable nature of the marriage bond as God intended in Eden. He quotes Genesis 2:24 about the two becoming one flesh. Some interpret His phrase “they are no longer two but one” as implicitly excluding any third party. And indeed, Christ is certainly extolling faithful monogamous union – one man, one woman, united for life – as the ideal pattern “from the beginning.” This is taken by many as an indirect disapproval of polygamy: if God’s original plan was a two-person union, then later plural marriages fall short of that ideal. There is truth in noting the ideal. However, it is critical to observe what Jesus does and does not say. Jesus does not explicitly mention polygamy at all in these passages. The context is divorce (one man putting away his one wife). Christ’s concern is stopping the rampant divorce culture of His day, which was leaving women discarded. By pointing to Genesis, He reminds them that marriage was meant to be permanent and exclusive in commitment. This actually supports an argument against frivolously taking multiple wives or abandoning one for another – but it is not the same as saying taking a second wife while keeping the first is adultery. In fact, Jesus defines adultery in this context: “whoever divorces his wife, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9). Notice the assumption: the adultery occurs because he divorced his first wife in order to marry another, thus breaking the “one flesh” with the first improperly. It is the wrongful separation (“let not man separate”) and then remarriage that equals adultery (because in God’s eyes he’s still bound to the first wife). But suppose a man did not divorce his first wife, and married another (polygyny)? Jesus did not directly address that scenario. By Old Testament law, that man would not be committing adultery, as long as the first marriage was intact and the second was a bona fide marriage. Jesus’ silence on that precise configuration suggests that His teaching on divorce was not intended as a blanket new prohibition of plural marriage, but as a reinforcement that you cannot serially discard partners. It’s noteworthy that Jesus invoked “what God has joined, let not man separate.” Polygamy does not separate; rather, it joins an additional person. The spirit of Jesus’ words upholds honoring one’s marriage vows and not treating them lightly. A polygamous marriage could still honor the first union (as the Law required).

It is also significant that Jesus chose not to condemn polygamy when He certainly confronted other marital sins. In John 4:18, He pointed out the Samaritan woman had had five husbands and was then with a man not her husband – essentially pointing out adultery or irregular relationships, not polygamy (she had them sequentially). In Matthew 5:32, He again condemns unjustified divorce and remarriage as causing adultery. So Jesus focuses on fidelity and permanence. One might say, by implication, adding another wife would violate exclusivity. But consider: if exclusivity in itself was the highest moral law, then even in Old Testament times polygamy would have been adultery – which it was not considered. Jesus never says “whosoever marries another while keeping the first commits adultery.” He was surely aware that the patriarchs had multiple wives; yet He venerates them in other contexts and never mentions their marriage practice as sin. If polygamy were going to be ruled out for His followers, one might expect a direct word, especially since polygyny did still exist on the margins of Jewish society (e.g., some Jews in Arabia or other places still practiced it, and certainly it was an issue in the early church mission field where they encountered cultures like some in Africa or Asia with polygamy – we’ll address how the church handled converts with multiple wives later).

In conclusion on Jesus’ teaching: He reaffirmed the beauty of monogamous, lifelong marriage as God’s design. This raised the ethical bar for His followers to move closer to the Edenic ideal – in contrast to the concessions of Moses on divorce. It is fair to say that the tone of Jesus’ words encourages singular devotion (one man to one woman). Christians therefore have historically understood that monogamy is the preferred state. Our defense of polygyny does not seek to deny that monogamy is the creation model or that it has advantages in simplicity of unity. However, we must differentiate between ideal vs. sin. Many things are suboptimal yet not sinful unless misused – for example, remaining single and celibate can be seen as an ideal for some (as Paul extols in 1 Corinthians 7 for the sake of ministry), yet we do not call marriage itself sinful for those who pursue that less “undivided” path. Likewise, monogamy might be seen as the ideal representation of Christ and the church, but polygyny was permitted due to human realities and can be practiced righteously. Jesus did not label polygamists as adulterers; He labeled those who break covenant and remarry as such. A polygamist who doesn’t break covenant with his first wife occupies a different category, one Jesus didn’t explicitly cover in admonition. Thus, there is no direct condemnation from Jesus of plural marriage – only an emphasis that one should not abandon a spouse. In fact, one could argue implicitly: if a culture allowed polygyny, Jesus’ teaching would demand that the man continue to be faithful and fair to his first wife (as Exodus 21:10 demands), rather than discarding her. In effect, taking an additional wife without abandoning the first could be seen as less egregious than divorcing one to marry another (which was the common practice Christ was fighting against). This does not mean Jesus encourages polygamy, but it demonstrates the nuance that His words addressed a different problem.

2.2 Apostolic Teachings: “Husband of One Wife” and Church Practice

Turning to the Apostles, we examine whether the Epistles impose monogamy as an absolute rule for Christians. Paul’s letters give much practical counsel on marriage, yet again we find no outright prohibition of having multiple wives.

1 Timothy 3 : 2 — mias gunaikos andra and the “first‑wife” reading

Paul’s famous qualification for an overseer—δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα—is usually rendered “husband of one wife.” The idiom, however, can equally (and plausibly) be read as “a first‑wife man,” i.e. a husband who remains loyal to the wife of his youth.

1. Greek grammar and epigraphic parallels

• Numeric vs. qualitative usage. The adjective mias (genitive of mia, “one”) can serve as a qualitative demonstrative—the first or the original—when the context already assumes singularity (cf. Luke 15 : 7, “over the ninety‑nine” = the rest).
• Hellenistic funerary inscriptions. Several Greek epitaphs describe a deceased man as μίας γυναικὸς ἀνήρ in the sense “a faithful husband to his first wife,” even when the inscription itself lists subsequent spouses. The phrase commends covenant loyalty, not arithmetic monogamy.
• Syntax. If “no more than one” were Paul’s sole point, the unmarked ἄγαμος (“unmarried”) or an explicit plural ban (μὴ ἔχειν πλείους γυναῖκας) would have conveyed it more forcefully. Instead Paul chooses a genitive construction already idiomatic for marital fidelity.

2. Resonance with Malachi 2 : 14‑15

Paul writes to churches steeped in the Septuagint; Timothy himself was reared on the “sacred writings” (2 Tim 3 : 15). Malachi’s oracle against covenant‑breaking husbands therefore forms a natural sub‑text:

*“The Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth … yet is she your companion and wife of your covenant… *And did He not make one? … that He might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed… and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.” (Mal 2 : 14‑15)

Key echoes:

• “Wife of your youth” ↔ “first‑wife man.” Both expressions highlight the original marital bond.
• “Deal treacherously” ↔ Paul’s concern for blamelessness (ἀνεπίλημπτος). An overseer must model covenant fidelity, not serial abandonment.

3. Practical import for the Ephesian setting

Ephesus, like the wider Greco‑Roman world, practiced easy divorce and remarriage, not simultaneous polygyny. Paul therefore targets sequential polygamy—men who discarded an aging wife to marry another. By requiring an elder to be mias gunaikos anēr, Paul insists he has not dealt treacherously with his first covenant wife, thus fulfilling Malachi’s admonition and safeguarding the church’s witness.

4. Harmony with the polygamy question

This reading does not create a numerical ban on plural marriage in every culture (Paul could have been more explicit if that were his aim); rather, it demands that a candidate honor his earliest lawful union. That interpretation sits comfortably with the Old‑Testament law, which regulates but never forbids polygyny, and keeps Paul’s standard laser‑focused on covenant faithfulness—exactly what Malachi condemned Judah for violating.

It’s worth noting that no apostle ever rebuked an individual for polygamy in Scripture. There were controversies about Gentile converts keeping the Law (Acts 15), about eating food sacrificed to idols (1 Cor 8), about various moral issues – but polygamy is never singled out. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 gave Gentile believers certain prohibitions (idol pollution, blood, things strangled, sexual immorality) – it did not say “and they must practice monogamy.” Sexual immorality (porneia) would cover adultery, fornication, incest, etc., but not the case of a legitimate polygamous marriage (that would not be termed porneia by Jewish standards). Early Jewish Christians, coming from a culture where polygamy was rare but not completely unheard of, did not impose a ban on it for Gentiles. This silence could be interpreted that they expected monogamy as the norm (since most Gentiles were monogamous by culture anyway). Yet the omission is still noteworthy: the Apostolic Church did not explicitly outlaw polygamy in its foundational decree for Gentile converts. This again underlines that the moral focus was elsewhere.

By the late first and early second century, Christian writers start reflecting on marriage norms. The Church Fathers (whose views we will detail in the next section) almost uniformly advocated monogamy for Christians, often in strong terms. This indicates that very early, the Church took a stand that Christian marriage should be one man, one wife, echoing the Roman societal norm and the perceived ideal from Genesis and the Lord’s teachings. Justin Martyr, around 155 AD, scolded the Jewish rabbis for still permitting polygamy: “if any one see a beautiful woman and desire to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob… and maintain that it is not wrong to do such things; for they are miserably ignorant in this matter,” he writes, exhorting them to follow God’s higher way. Justin clearly regarded Christian marriage as monogamous and viewed the ongoing Jewish acceptance of multiple wives as a blind spot. Tertullian (c. 200 AD) wrote vehemently that while polygamy was allowed for the patriarchs, with the coming of the Gospel it has been “either lopped off or modified” – the wide license of old was curtailed by Christ and His apostles, who “either cut off the redundancies or regulated the disorders” of those times. This shows the mindset in the early church: polygamy was seen as an Old Testament concession, now replaced by a higher Christian standard.

Yet, interestingly, even those Fathers often concede that the patriarchs were righteous. They usually argue something like: polygamy was lawful in its time but now under the Gospel it is not. This implies a change in disciplinary practice rather than the intrinsic moral nature of the act. Augustine, for example, reasons that polygyny was allowable to the Israelites for the purpose of procreation and because it was customary, but that now there is no such necessity, and the symbolism of one husband-one wife (Christ and Church) has become paramount. Augustine explicitly says the patriarchs did not sin by having multiple wives since no divine law forbade it in their time. However, in his time (4th century) Roman law forbade it and the church did as well, so he considered it no longer permissible. This suggests the Church’s opposition was not because the act suddenly became intrinsically evil, but because the covenant context changed and perhaps because the Church sought to uphold a certain spiritual symbolism and social order.

In practical terms, early Christians almost entirely embraced monogamy, and polygamy faded from the Christian community. We have scant evidence of any orthodox Christian in the first few centuries practicing polygamy. The novelty of the few who tried (if any did) was overwhelmingly rejected. One notable episode was that some heretical sects (like a certain group following Basilides or Carpocrates in the 2nd century) allegedly introduced “a plurality of wives” along with other immoral practices. Church Fathers like Irenaeus condemned them, associating polygamy with heretical indulgence. This unfortunately tainted polygamy by association with libertinism – those Gnostics were basically advocating free love and communal wives, which is a very different thing than an orderly plural marriage. But it made the idea of having more than one wife seem like a moral corruption to mainstream Christians. Theophilus of Antioch wrote, “temperance dwells [with Christians], self-restraint is practiced, monogamy is observed”, emphasizing how Christians distinguished themselves from both pagans (who might have mistresses or multiple divorces) and any sect that allowed multiple simultaneous wives.

Therefore, by the end of the apostolic age and into the patristic age, monogamy had become a firm norm in Christian life, to the point that polygyny was viewed as incompatible with Christian practice. The New Testament itself nudged the community in that direction (with high ideals and leadership requirements), and the early leaders cemented it with teachings. However, for our polemical defense, we stress that this was a disciplinary choice and interpretive development, not an explicit command of Christ or the apostles. The Bible texts do not say “polygamy = adultery.” That equivalence was drawn later by inference and preference. In fact, as late as the 16th century, the Reformers when pressed had to admit the lack of a biblical prohibition. We saw at the start Luther’s admission that Scripture does not contradict polygamy. Likewise, others like Philip Melanchthon and Martin Bucer in that era contemplated that polygamy was not intrinsically sinful (Melanchthon reportedly supported Luther’s stance to a degree, especially in the context of the Philip of Hesse case). They still counseled against it for practical and moral optics reasons, but they recognized the biblical data we have surveyed.

In summary, the New Testament encourages monogamy and elevates it as the standard for church leadership and general practice. The thrust of the gospel – returning to the purity of Eden’s ideal, and modeling Christ’s exclusive devotion to His Church – provided a rich basis for the Church to eventually renounce polygamy. Yet, strictly speaking, the New Testament does not abrogate the Old Testament allowance in explicit terms. It is an argument from implication and theology, not from direct command. Thus, a theonomic perspective could argue that since Christ did not explicitly nullify the Mosaic civil permissions on marriage, those permissions remain at least in the realm of Christian liberty (though not necessarily advisable). The early Church’s move to ban polygyny can be respected as a counsel of wisdom and unity with prevailing culture, but from a Sola Scriptura standpoint, one can question whether it was an absolute moral requirement or an ecclesiastical decision.

To fully understand the Christian opposition to polygamy, we must engage the writings of the Church Fathers and historic church commentators in more detail. These are the voices that shaped Christian doctrine and practice after the Bible. In doing so, we will appreciate their reasoning (much of it sound, some arguably debatable), and also uncover that even they preserved the memory that polygamy was once lawful under God’s economy. This sets the stage for us, in later chapters, to challenge whether the post-biblical consensus against polygamy should be seen as a binding moral truth or as a developed tradition that might be open to question.

Before moving on, let us recap: The New Testament does not explicitly label polygyny as sin. It emphasizes love, fidelity, and the symbolic unity of marriage. Early Christians overwhelmingly chose monogamy, seeing it as consonant with Jesus’ teachings and apostolic guidance. But this was a trajectory of practice rather than a new divine command carved in stone. As one Reddit discussion aptly put it, the idea that Paul “seemingly allowed polygamy in some cases except for bishops” is in direct conflict with later Church Fathers’ stance – showing that the interpretation evolved. The seeds of monogamy’s primacy are biblical, but the outright rejection of polygyny was a result of the Church’s growth in understanding (as they saw it) and interaction with culture. We now turn to those historic voices to see how they defended monogamy and what they conceded about polygamy.

3. Witness of the Church Fathers and Theologians

Having grounded our discussion in the Scriptures, we now survey how leading lights of Christian tradition addressed polygamy. The Church Fathers (second to fifth centuries) and later theologians (medieval scholastics and Reformers) provide a rich commentary. Almost unanimously, these writers uphold monogamy as the proper form of Christian marriage. Many of them strongly condemned polygamy in their context – some going so far as to call it adultery under the Gospel. However, it is crucial to note that in doing so, they often took pains to justify God’s allowance of polygamy in the Old Testament. This means that even the Fathers acknowledged a sort of dual dispensation: polygamy was once lawful and not sinful by God’s tolerance, but now (for reasons they articulate) it is no longer to be practiced. This historical perspective actually bolsters our argument, because it shows that the early church did not claim polygamy was inherently evil from the start, but rather that its propriety changed with the times and covenants. A theonomic viewpoint might challenge whether humans or church authorities have the right to declare such a change absent a clear word from God.

In this section, we will highlight key testimonies from: Early Church Fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Augustine; Medieval Doctors like Thomas Aquinas; and Reformation voices such as Martin Luther and others. We will see that, while these authorities generally argue against polygamy as a Christian practice, their arguments often concede the Scriptural legitimacy in prior eras and sometimes reveal assumptions worth questioning. We will treat their statements with respect but also subject them to critical analysis in light of the Bible.

3.1 Early Church Fathers on Polygamy: From Tolerance to Prohibition

The Apostolic Fathers (the generation immediately after the apostles, e.g. Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp) did not specifically address polygamy in their extant writings – likely because it was not a pressing issue in the communities they wrote to (mostly Greco-Roman cities). But by the mid-2nd century, in dialogues with Judaism and in defining Christian morality against paganism, the topic emerges.

Justin Martyr (100–165 AD) provides one of the earliest Christian criticisms of polygamy. In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin debates with a learned Jew and contrasts Christian practices with Jewish ones. He expresses shock that some Jewish teachers of his day still permitted multiple wives by citing the patriarchs. Justin writes: “it is better for you to follow God than your imprudent and blind masters, who even till this time permit each man to have four or five wives; and if any one see a beautiful woman and desire to have her, they quote the doings of Jacob… and maintain that it is not wrong to do such things; for they are miserably ignorant in this matter.”. Justin’s tone makes clear that by his time, mainstream Jews in some quarters allowed polygamy (indeed, polygamy was technically legal in Judaism until at least the medieval period for certain communities). Justin, speaking for Christians, calls this wrong – “miserably ignorant.” His reasoning earlier in the dialogue roots back to Genesis 2: “And sitting each under his vine, i.e., each man possessing his own married wife. For you are aware that the prophetic word says, ‘And his wife shall be like a fruitful vine.’”. He uses the image of peace under one’s vine and one’s wife (from Psalm 128) to extol monogamy. Justin thus argues that the Old Testament itself (in prophetic ideal imagery) and the teachings of Christ move towards one man-one wife, and he criticizes Jews who still follow the patriarchal example literally.

From Justin’s witness, we learn that Christians distinguished themselves by requiring monogamy, in contrast both to any polygamous Jews and to Greco-Roman elites who often had one official wife but could have concubines on the side. The Christian stance was one wife only and fidelity to her – an ethic appealing in its integrity.

Irenaeus (130–202 AD), the bishop of Lyons, also weighed in. In his work Against Heresies, while discussing heretical sects, he mentions that certain Gnostic libertines “have introduced promiscuous intercourse and a plurality of wives”. He clearly labels this as immoral, aligning Christians with strict monogamy and chastity. Irenaeus doesn’t parse biblical polygamy in detail; his concern is to distance the orthodox church from any group that practices plural wives in a lustful, lawless manner. The fact that he mentions it shows that by the late 2nd century, orthodox Christians saw polygamy as belonging either to past times or to aberrant groups, not to themselves.

One of the most influential early Fathers on this topic is Tertullian (c. 160–225 AD) of Carthage. Tertullian wrote a treatise titled “To His Wife,” and in Book I, Chapter 2, significantly called “Marriage Lawful, But Not Polygamy.” He explicitly tackles the question of why Christians do not practice polygamy even though the patriarchs did. Tertullian’s response is theological history: “We grant, that among our ancestors, and the patriarchs themselves, it was lawful not only to marry, but even to multiply wives. … But although the Church did come in figuratively in the synagogue, yet (to interpret simply) it was necessary to institute certain things which should afterward deserve to be either lopped off or modified.”. Here Tertullian acknowledges the factual allowance of plural marriage in the patriarchal age. He then suggests that with the progress of revelation (“the Law” and then “the Gospel”), God instituted changes – effectively, that some practices were permitted for a time to serve a purpose, but later were either removed or adjusted by Christ. He continues, “Therefore, by means of the wide licence of those days, materials for subsequent emendations were furnished beforehand, of which materials the Lord by His Gospel, and then the apostle in the last days… either cut off the redundancies or regulated the disorders.”. This is a fascinating rationale. Tertullian sees polygamy as part of a “wide license” God allowed in Old Testament times – not because God delighted in it, but because it would serve as a material for teaching when Christ came to “lop off” what was not needed. In plainer terms, he’s saying God allowed polygamy in the past, but later the excess (having many wives) was trimmed away by the Gospel’s higher demands, or any disorderly aspects were corrected by apostolic guidance. Tertullian doesn’t accuse the patriarchs of sin; he frames it as different stages in God’s plan.

This line of thought became a common refrain: polygamy was a temporary allowance. We must point out from a polemical angle: Tertullian is basically admitting that God Himself instituted monogamy-only as a rule only in the New Covenant. There was no such rule before (“by no law was it forbidden” as Augustine would later echo). Tertullian even uses the term “fas” (divine law) to describe how it was indeed divinely lawful for the patriarchs. Thus, those who argue polygamy is inherently immoral face the challenge that God never declared it so initially – and Tertullian acknowledges that. His justification for change rests on the concept of progressive revelation and teleology (God’s plan moving toward an ideal). A theonomist might counter: unless we have clear biblical declaration of such change, we should be cautious to declare something “lopped off” that God never explicitly rescinded. Tertullian assumes the Gospel and apostle “cut off” polygamy – but as we have seen, the New Testament evidence for this is implied rather than stated. Nonetheless, Tertullian’s influence made it virtually unquestionable in the Church that polygamy was no longer allowed.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215) also provides insight. In his Stromata (Miscellanies), Book III, Clement discusses marriage. He acknowledges that in former times God “no longer allowing several marriages (for at that time God required it when men had to increase and multiply), [now] teaches single marriage”. Here Clement echoes the idea that early humanity needed polygamy for fulfilling “be fruitful and multiply”, implying a pragmatic reason – to populate the earth. But now that purpose is past, so God is said to teach one-wife marriage for managing household affairs properly. Clement, in the same book, comments on the “husband of one wife” requirement, saying a bishop’s household must be well-managed with one wife. He also interprets Lev 18:18 (“do not take a wife in addition to her sister…to vex her”) as effectively forbidding taking another wife to cause jealousy – which he takes as an Old Testament hint against polygamy’s worst effects. Clement’s stance is that the practice has ceased since the times of the prophets. He sees a divine pedagogy: first polygamy tolerated for procreation, then phased out as purity and discipline increased.

Origen (c. 185–254), though not directly quoted here, in his writings also upheld monogamy and saw deeper allegorical meanings in one bride, etc., in the Song of Songs (where one bride represents the church). The general consensus among Greek and Latin Fathers was aligned: polygamy was permissible for the patriarchs but forbidden for Christians. None of them says the patriarchs sinned by it; rather they were dispensed or allowed due to circumstances.

Augustine (354–430 AD), the great Latin Father, weighed in systematically on this in De Bono Conjugali (On the Good of Marriage). He defends the goodness of marriage and addresses polygamy’s status. Augustine writes, “That the thing itself – marriage with more than one wife – was no crime [for the patriarchs], is proved by the Scripture, which nowhere condemns it…Therefore, it was lawful then; now it is not.” Paraphrasing his argument: plural marriages were used by God’s people to increase offspring lawfully when it was culturally acceptable. “For if it was wicked, it would not have been allowed to the righteous men of old,” he asserts. However, he says now in the Roman world, a man doesn’t take another wife even if his first is barren, because we are in a different time. He adds a theological reason: Christian marriage symbolizes the union of Christ and the Church, which is one-to-one in his view (Christ one bride, the Church – albeit composed of many believers, Augustine treats it collectively as one). So he felt having two wives would muddy that symbolism of monogamous union. Augustine famously stated: “As regards having several wives at one time, the question does not pertain to the condition of marriage but to the lust of the flesh…However, in regard to the fathers: their use of this was not in lust, but in obedience to the custom, for the sake of begetting children, and it was righteous in its time.”. He also argued that what was done under the Old Covenant was “not contrary to the commandment” since no law forbade it – exactly aligning with our earlier observation.

From Augustine, we get a clear articulation: Polygyny was not intrinsically evil (“not a crime”) when done for duty and offspring in the old times, but it became inappropriate under the new dispensation because (1) the Church has grown such that natural increase no longer necessitates multiple wives, and (2) the sacramental sign of marriage points to a single union. Augustine’s views strongly influenced the medieval church – the idea that marriage is a sign of Christ and Church (from Ephesians 5:31-32) became central, and since Christ has only one Bride (though here one might quibble: Christ’s bride is singular, but it comprises a multitude – still it’s one body of believers), marriage was ideally uno uno (one husband, one wife). The Catholic Church later enshrined monogamy into canon law firmly, even making it an impediment to second simultaneous marriages.

However, even the Catholic Church in practice had to face real-life situations: for instance, what to do with a man who converted to Christianity with two wives already? The typical solution (endorsed by Augustine in one letter, and seen in later practice) was not to ask him to divorce one (that would create an illicit divorce and harm to the woman), but he could not take any new wives and could not be in clergy. So there remained an understanding that polygamy was not something to retroactively punish if it came into the church from outside, but it was not to be continued or initiated within.

Summary of Patristic Testimony: The Church Fathers provide a consistent narrative: Polygamy was lawful for the patriarchs; it is not allowed for us. They supply various reasons: necessity of multiplication, hardness of hearts, foreshadowing and later fulfillment, symbolic meaning of marriage, etc. But crucially, none of them asserts that God’s Law always forbade polygamy. On the contrary, they frequently assert the opposite to defend the honor of the patriarchs and of Scripture. Tertullian said polygamy was part of divine law for the patriarchs; Augustine said it violated no commandment since none was given against it. This reinforces that our theonomic presupposition (that what God’s law allowed remains morally permissible unless God Himself disallows it later) is actually acknowledged by the Fathers – they just believe God disallowed it later (though implicitly). Our contention might diverge by questioning the certainty of that “implicit” disallowance.

3.2 Medieval and Reformation Perspectives: Continuity and Controversy

As we move into the Medieval era, Christian Europe was thoroughly monogamous by both church law and civil law (which was heavily influenced by the church in matters of marriage). Polygamy largely became a non-issue internally, though it would arise in encounters with other cultures (e.g., during crusades or missions). The scholastic theologians mostly echoed Augustine.

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), in his Summa Theologiae, addresses polygamy in the Supplement (Q.65). Aquinas grapples with whether having several wives is against natural law and whether it was ever lawful. He concludes that by primary natural law (the fundamental ideal), one man one woman is best for the partnership of parenting; yet, he acknowledges secondary natural law could adapt to circumstances. Aquinas famously states: “They did not disobey the commandments of the law, since it was not forbidden by any law.”, explicitly citing Augustine. He reasons that God gave a special dispensation in the Old Testament for polygamy, when it was needed for populating the people of God. Aquinas argues that polygamy is contrary to natural law’s secondary precepts (like the good of exclusive companionship) but not contrary to the primary purpose of marriage (procreation). Therefore God could permit it for a time to prioritize the primary end (multiplying offspring of the faithful). Once that necessity was fulfilled and with the coming of Christ, Aquinas holds that polygamy is no longer dispensed; now it would be contrary to both divine law (Gospel) and natural reason for harmony in marriage. In his Reply to Objection 2 in the Summa article, he clarifies: God as author of nature can grant an exception (dispensation) without contradicting Himself, as long as it’s for a higher purpose. Aquinas thus upholds the inherited doctrine: polygamy was “never lawful without dispensation received through Divine inspiration”, and that dispensation was operative in the patriarchal era. After that, no more. So for Aquinas, polygamy now would be a sin (and indeed the Church would treat it as such), but he does not retroactively condemn the Bible saints.

We see by Aquinas’ time the concept of dispensation – effectively a temporary divine permission that expired. This is a slightly different framing than the Fathers (who didn’t use the term dispensation in the same technical way, but the idea is similar).

Moving to the Reformation (16th century), one might expect the Reformers to simply continue the monogamous line. Generally, they did, because they saw the abuses in the Roman Church differently (like forbidding even second marriages after a spouse’s death, which some anabaptists accused the Catholics of implicitly doing by venerating virginity). The Reformers strongly endorsed marriage and generally in monogamous terms. However, there were a few notable incidents that tested their commitment to sola scriptura vs tradition on this point:

• Martin Luther, as we mentioned, when confronted with real-life polygamy issues, gave surprising answers. In 1531, when a man (Philip of Hesse, a powerful German prince) sought counsel about taking a second wife due to his first wife’s inability to be a true companion (and he didn’t want to divorce her), Luther and Melanchthon cautiously allowed a secret bigamy as a less evil alternative to divorce or mistresses. They based this counsel partly on the lack of explicit Scriptural prohibition. Luther’s private advice was not meant to be a public endorsement, but it shows that he didn’t view polygamy as absolutely against divine law—just against the current civil law and good order. More openly, earlier in 1520s, Luther had commented in writing (possibly in response to rumors of sects like the Anabaptist example or Karlstadt’s ideas) that he personally could not find Scripture against a man marrying multiple wives. The famous quote we have from Luther: “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. … In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.”. This statement, recorded in a collection of Luther’s letters or opinions (De Wette II, 459), basically aligns with our entire thesis: Luther admits there is no biblical chapter-and-verse forbidding plural marriage. He adds that one must be sure in conscience it aligns with God’s Word (implying it might in certain cases), and that if so, the government shouldn’t interfere. However, Luther tempered this by also saying “I would not like to see it introduced commonly among Christians” (from the continuation of that letter as cited by later authors). He appeals to self-restraint and the ability to be continent with one wife, and that Christians shouldn’t grasp every freedom for personal advantage. This is an important nuance: Luther acknowledged the liberty in theory, but discouraged its use in practice. He feared the chaos or scandal it could bring (“it does not beseem Christians to seize greedily on everything their freedom allows” he says).
• Other Reformers like Philip Melanchthon co-signed Luther’s private counsel and similarly had no theological objection in extraordinary cases, though they upheld monogamy as the norm. John Calvin, on the other hand, was more strict in his public stance: he considered polygamy a deviation from the creation ordinance and not fitting for Christians. Calvin in his commentary on Genesis and in sermons labeled polygamy a corruption that entered due to sin (pointing to Lamech’s case as negative). He acknowledged the patriarchs did it but saw it as a tolerated infirmity, not something to emulate. Calvin also had to respond to Catholic polemics that Protestants were soft on polygamy due to the Philip of Hesse incident; he firmly denied that the Gospel would allow it. Thus Calvin aligns more with the Fathers in prohibiting it outright for the church.
• A curious figure is Martin Madan, an 18th-century Anglican clergyman (so later than Reformation, but pre-Victorian). In 1780, he published Thelyphthora, a treatise that argued for polygamy as a remedy for societal ills (particularly prostitution and the plight of unmarried women). Madan marshaled scripture heavily, pointing out everything we have – that it was allowed in the Bible, not forbidden in the New, etc. He faced huge backlash and was essentially ostracized. This shows that even in later Christian history, some brave (or rash) souls revisited the issue by going back to the Bible. Madan’s work echoed many arguments of Milton and the earlier thinkers like Clement that we already mentioned – including that monogamy was more a church rule than a clear scriptural mandate. Though Madan was condemned by his contemporaries, his thorough scholarship stands as a testament that the biblical case for polygyny can be and was made even within Christendom.

Returning to more mainstream voices: John Milton (1608–1674), though a poet, also wrote a theological treatise discovered later (De Doctrina Christiana). Milton’s analysis on marriage concluded that polygamy was not forbidden by Scripture. He extensively refuted those who tried to use Genesis 2:24 or other verses to claim it was inherently unlawful. We have already quoted Milton’s compelling logic regarding Jacob’s children and the “two become one flesh” issue. Milton flatly states that nowhere in Scripture is polygamy condemned, and he even interprets Deuteronomy 17:17 not as a ban but a limitation. Milton considered polygamy licit in principle, though he didn’t advocate its practice for his time (like Luther, he likely saw it as a permissible thing that might not be expedient). He was in a sense one of the only systematic theologians of the post-Reformation era to openly say polygamy is lawful because the Bible says so. This stance was unique and daring – Milton’s treatise wasn’t published in his lifetime likely because of how controversial some of his views (like this, and his views on divorce) were.

The Historic Church’s Commentary on relevant Scripture consistently took an anti-polygamy line after the New Testament period, but often with the understanding of a contextual shift rather than a static moral absolute from Eden. The prevailing interpretation was that polygamy, while not ideal, was permitted by God in Old Testament times and produced legitimate offspring (e.g., as Milton notes, the whole nation of Israel). But with the coming of Christ, either due to a restoration of the original ideal or due to a new symbolism of marriage, the Church determined to reject polygamy.

From a polemical standpoint, we can appreciate the wisdom and goodness of monogamy that the Fathers extol – one need not dismiss their genuine concerns. Polygamy can indeed lead to strife (as seen in stories of Abraham, Jacob, Hannah and Peninnah, etc.), and monogamy better embodies singular devotion. Paul calls marriage a “mystery” that mirrors Christ and the Church (Eph 5:32), and that one-to-one mirror is beautiful. The Fathers feared that endorsing polygamy could indulge lust or injustice. We do not deny these potential pitfalls. But our critical observation is: the Church’s prohibition of polygyny was based on a preference for an ideal and a desire to avoid problems, rather than on an explicit command of God calling polygamy sin. At times, the rhetoric blurred the lines – by the Middle Ages, many treated polygamy as simply obviously sinful (often equating it with adultery). Methodius of Olympus (d. 311) wrote that from the time of the prophets polygamy was “done away with” as people were gradually led to chastity and monogamy, “until it removed entirely the inclination”. The idea of a progressive purification culminating in celibacy (for some) and strict monogamy for others is a theme in early ascetic Christian thought.

However, it’s notable that even as late as the 6th century, under certain circumstances the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian had to address polygamy among barbarian converts. And the Eastern Orthodox Church historically allowed a second marriage for a man if the first wife could not conceive or was chronically ill, etc., but not simultaneous. Still, some Orthodox authorities (like in the case of Prince Vladimir of Kiev’s conversion in 988, who had multiple wives) allowed him to keep one and put aside the others upon baptism. The mission principle often was: no new polygamy, and try to reduce existing ones to one if possible without injustice. This shows pastoral sensitivity but also an acknowledgment of reality.

In light of all this, what do we conclude from the historic commentary? Essentially, the weight of Christian tradition sides against polygamy in practice. But importantly for our defense, the same tradition upholds the biblical validity of Old Testament polygyny. The Fathers and theologians vindicate God and the patriarchs – they never accuse God of allowing sin, and thus they don’t call Abraham or Jacob adulterers (they’d shudder at the thought!). Instead, they justify those marriages as righteous then. For us, operating on the principle that God’s moral law is consistent, this raises the question: Did God truly rescind that allowance, or did the Church decide to voluntarily adopt a higher standard? If the latter, is it within Christian liberty, theoretically, to practice polygyny without sin, even if the Church may not approve organizationally? Our position is that biblical evidence leans toward polygyny being morally permissible, though perhaps not always advisable, and that the blanket condemnation lacks strong scriptural footing. The historical church’s reasons (symbolism, ideal, avoiding lust, social harmony) are understandable but are they binding as law?

The polemical thrust now will turn to synthesizing these insights. Having seen that polygyny was lawful under God’s law and that the New Testament does not explicitly outlaw it, and observing that even Church Fathers admitted its prior lawfulness, we can assert: Biblical polygyny is consistent with God’s law. The challenge is to address common counter-arguments and show that the perceived contradictions (like with monogamous ideals) can be resolved. In the next section, we will mount a direct defense, answering objections and articulating why defending Biblical polygyny matters – chiefly, to uphold the honor of God’s Word and law, and to challenge the church to base its doctrine on Scripture first.

4. Theonomic Ethics and the Defense of Biblical Polygyny

At this juncture, we pivot from historical and biblical survey to theological argumentation. We have amassed evidence that polygyny was practiced by godly men in Scripture with God’s approval (tacit or explicit), and noted that no biblical command categorically reverses this. Now we will frame a polemical defense rooted in theonomic ethics – the idea that the moral commands of Scripture (especially the Mosaic Law) remain just and good, and should inform Christian moral judgments. The key assertion: What God did not call sin under the Law, man should not call sin without clear New Testament warrant. As Jesus admonished the Pharisees, “Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matt 15:3). If the Church’s insistence on exclusive monogamy is more a tradition (albeit with good intent) than a command of God, we must be careful not to condemn where God has not condemned.

Our defense has several facets:

• Appeal to God’s Law and Character: The Law of Moses, given by God, permitted polygyny (with regulations). We hold that God’s Law is an expression of His justice and righteousness. Psalm 119:137 declares, “Righteous are You, O LORD, and right are Your rules.” Therefore, one cannot say polygyny is unrighteous without accusing God’s Law of injustice – a blasphemous implication. As the Summa cited Augustine: “by no law was it forbidden”, hence no commandment was violated. It follows that polygyny in itself is not a transgression of the moral law.
• Adultery Redefined? Some argue that Jesus essentially redefined adultery to include polygamy by emphasizing “one flesh.” We have countered this by exegesis: adultery in Scripture always specifically involved violating an exclusive claim (usually another man’s wife, or a wife being unfaithful). In a polygamous union, each marriage bed can still be kept undefiled (Heb 13:4). Exodus 20:14, the seventh commandment, did not say “Thou shalt not have more than one wife.” It said not to commit adultery. And God Himself explained adultery’s meaning in the case law: a man having relations with a married woman, or a married woman with a man not her husband (Lev 18:20, Deut 22:22). Nowhere is a man who marries an additional wife called an adulterer by biblical definition. We insist on using biblical definitions: “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). If no law was transgressed, there is no sin. Thus, calling polygamy “adultery” is unbiblical. Even modern dictionaries define adultery as consensual intercourse by a married person with someone other than their spouse – in a polygamous context, that definition shifts since the “other” becomes a spouse too. Indeed, one Quora respondent correctly noted that polygamy is not technically adultery in a biblical or even many legal senses. This may shock modern Christians, but truth is truth: David’s taking of Abigail after her husband died was not adultery; nor was his taking of Bathsheba (after having Uriah killed) defined as adultery once she became his wife – the adultery occurred when he slept with her while she was Uriah’s wife. His sin with Bathsheba was adultery and murder, but his marriage to Bathsheba afterward was lawful (though it began in trauma). When Nathan rebukes David, he doesn’t say “and you had many wives, that was wrong” – he says God gave you those wives, and you then took the one wife of another man (2 Sam 12:8-9). So, in a theonomic view, adultery and polygamy must not be conflated. One can commit adultery within monogamy (cheating), and one can be sexually faithful within polygamy (not going beyond his wives).
• The Example of God Himself: An intriguing theological argument comes from analogy. Scripture sometimes uses marriage as a metaphor for God’s relationship with His people. In the Old Testament, God is depicted as the husband of Israel. When the kingdom split into two (Israel and Judah), prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel use the imagery of God as husband to two sister nations. For example, Ezekiel 23 allegorically describes Oholah (Samaria) and Oholibah (Jerusalem) as two wives of God, both of whom were unfaithful. Jeremiah 3:6-14 portrays God as having put away faithless Israel (giving her a certificate of divorce) but still married to Judah, and pleading for Israel’s return. Now, one must be cautious with analogies – this doesn’t mean God literally had two covenant peoples in the same way as wives; yet the metaphor is telling. If polygamy were inherently immoral, depicting God in such terms would be unfitting. The prophets could have easily just said Israel and Judah are like one wife and an adulteress friend or something, but they actually frame it as two sisters married to one God (who in the metaphor eventually loses patience with the unfaithfulness). God’s willingness to use a polygamous marriage as a metaphor for His relationship suggests that the concept itself was not viewed as intrinsically evil. It’s an argument a fortiori: if even an allegory would ascribe something to God, it cannot be a moral evil. Likewise, in the New Testament, while Christ is always said to have one Bride (the Church), that Church is composed of many individuals – an analogy some have cheekily described as “collective polygamy” (though really it’s one bride composed of many). The point is, unity in plurality is a biblical concept. Under the Old Covenant, Israel was one but later became two and God was in covenant with both for a time – almost a form of divine “polygamy” in covenant (to use human terms very guardedly). This is not a primary argument, but it reinforces that polygamy was not seen as so shameful that God couldn’t even be analogically associated with it.
• Pragmatic and Pastoral Reasons: While our main defense is scriptural/theological, it’s worth noting that polygyny, when practiced justly, can be a remedy or lesser evil in certain situations – something even some Fathers acknowledged indirectly (like necessity of offspring, care for widows, etc.). In times of war when women greatly outnumber men, polygamy can provide honorable marriage for women who would otherwise remain unmarried or be mistresses. Augustine himself noted the custom’s purpose was to provide children and perhaps to provide for women who would thus not be left single. This is not to advocate widespread adoption of polygamy, but to show that it’s not a system of pure lust and chaos as detractors paint it. Biblical polygyny was often about family building, social duty, or survival of lineage. Moses’ law ensured the first wife was not harmed, which is far more humane than the modern situation where a man desiring another woman will often divorce the first (leaving her devastated) to legally marry another. Under polygyny, the first wife remains provided for; under enforced monogamy in a sinful world, you often get serial monogamy (divorce and remarriage) which Jesus explicitly spoke against. It’s an ironic observation: by banning polygamy, societies often increased divorce or infidelity. Many 19th-century Christian writers pointed out that in cultures where polygamy is illegal, wealthy or powerful men still take multiple women – just unofficially (mistresses, concubines, series of affairs). Would it not be better to allow a second wife and give those women a honored status and rights, rather than being mistresses in the shadows? This was Martin Madan’s argument in Thelyphthora: that polygamous marriage is better than prostitution or serial fornication, which was rampant in his society. Of course, the ideal is one man and one woman, both faithful. But in a fallen world, polygyny can be the lesser of two evils or even a positive good in some scenarios. The Law of Moses seems to reflect this ethical realism. Theonomic ethics would argue: better to legalize and regulate a morally permissible thing than force people into immoral arrangements.
• Answering the “Original Plan” Objection: We have touched on this, but it’s a mainstay objection: “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Beth.” True – but God also made humanity with the ability to multiply and fill the earth. At the dawn of humanity, one man one woman was not a command, it was just a fact (there was only one of each!). Later, God chose not to restrict people to that arrangement. Some will say, “But every man in Genesis who took multiple wives had trouble.” Yes, many did – but many monogamous marriages in Scripture had troubles too (e.g., Adam and Eve themselves fell into sin and blame; one could jokingly say that turned out badly – but that would be a silly argument against monogamy). The narrative of brokenness (jealousy of wives, etc.) is a descriptive warning about how polygamy can be mismanaged or breed conflict, but narrative is not command. Abraham’s family strife with Hagar and Sarah did not result in God condemning polygamy; rather He had compassion on Hagar and still worked out His plan through Isaac. The strife came from human failings (favoritism, insecurity), not an inherent sinfulness of the structure. Similarly, Jacob’s wives competed – yet that was part of God’s plan to produce twelve tribes! We might even see divine Providence working through those messy dynamics. So one cannot simply say “those stories prove polygamy is bad.” They prove polygamy is difficult – which we’ll readily concede. But God often calls people to difficult arrangements (even monogamous marriage is difficult!). Difficult does not equal immoral. The question is, did God allow it and provide a way to live it righteously? The existence of laws to govern it shows He did.
• Monogamy as a Higher Calling – but not universal mandate: The pattern we see is that Christian tradition treats monogamy as an ideal and even as a matter of witness. A man devoted wholly to one wife reflects Christ’s devotion to one Church; it also prevents contentions and divided affections. In defending polygyny, we do not claim that polygyny is an equally optimal representation of the mystery of marriage. Perhaps it isn’t – Paul certainly only spoke of one husband and one wife in Ephesians 5. However, we question whether every marriage must reflect every aspect of the mystery fully. If polygamy were inherently incapable of symbolizing Christ and the Church in any way, why did God align Himself with polygamous patriarchs and call Himself the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” – each of whom had more than one wife? Some have drawn an analogy: Christ (the Bridegroom) has one Bride (the Church), yet within that, the Church is made of many members – similarly, one husband with multiple wives still constitutes one family, one unity in some sense. It’s not a perfect parallel, but it shows that unity and plurality can coincide. Regardless, even if one grants that monogamy is the most theologically fitting symbol, that doesn’t automatically render polygyny sinful; it might simply render it less aligned with the highest symbolism. The Church also teaches that celibacy is even more aligned in some ways (since the unmarried can focus solely on the Lord – 1 Cor 7:32-34). Yet we do not call marriage sin just because celibacy could be “higher.” Likewise, monogamy might be “higher” than polygamy, but it doesn’t make polygamy a sin. It could be classed under ** adiaphora ** (things permissible but maybe not beneficial to all). Paul said “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful” (1 Cor 6:12). A polygamous marriage might be lawful but not helpful for most people – this we readily concede. But our concern is with condemning it as unlawful, which scripture does not.
• Polygyny vs. Church Discipline: A theonomic perspective would not necessarily encourage polygamy in the church today, but it would ask the church to base its teaching on God’s commandments rather than cultural norms. One could maintain that while polygamy is not inherently sinful, the church requires monogamy of its members for practical and testimonial reasons. Indeed, the early church sort of did this (they tolerated converts with multiple wives but didn’t allow ongoing polygamy). That is a prudential regulation, which is different from declaring polygamy morally evil. Our polemic is that the latter – calling it evil – goes beyond Scripture. It fits into a larger issue: the Church should not label as “sin” what God calls lawful. Isaiah 5:20 warns, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil.” We often apply that to society approving sin, but it could equally apply to those who forbid good. 1 Timothy 4:1-3 prophesies that some will “forbid marriage” – in context likely an ascetic heresy. But interestingly, forbidding certain types of otherwise lawful marriage could fall under a similar category of overreach. If a man and two women all agreed to enter a covenant marriage, the church forbids it primarily because of tradition and a particular interpretation, not because of an explicit “Thou shalt not” of God. Some might say Acts 15:28’s decree “seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things” – notice polygamy was not laid as a burden. The church for its part imposed monogamy as a rule later, which arguably is a “greater burden” albeit well-intended. The question is whether that was a Spirit-led development or a human tradition. The polemic we present challenges the certainty that it was from the Spirit (since Scripture evidence is not explicit).

In defending Biblical polygyny, we must clarify: This is not a call for chaos in Christian marriage norms. It is rather a call for biblical honesty and compassion. For example, what of cultures in Africa or Asia where polygamy was practiced and then people convert? Historically, many missionaries forced new converts to put away all but one wife – effectively causing divorce. This sometimes led the discarded wives and their children into poverty or shame. A more biblical approach, following the theonomic logic, would be to allow them to keep their families intact (no new wives after conversion, perhaps, but no breaking of existing bonds either). Indeed, in recent decades some mission organizations have reconsidered this, precisely because of the argument that it’s not explicitly sinful and that divorce would be worse.

Challenging Prevailing Interpretations: We respectfully challenge the mainstream interpretation that equates Christian marriage with exclusive monogamy as an absolute moral imperative. We have shown that this interpretation, while deeply rooted in tradition and idealism, does not perfectly square with the biblical data. It often rests on inferences (e.g., “two become one flesh” means no more than two, or “husband of one wife” implies zero tolerance for any other arrangement among anyone). These inferences, however widely accepted, should be reevaluated in light of the whole counsel of God. We have Milton and Luther as notable Christian voices who did reevaluate them and concluded polygamy is not forbidden by Scripture.

One prevalent notion to counter is that “polygamy was only allowed due to hardness of heart like divorce was, and Jesus ended that.” But did Jesus explicitly say “You have heard it was said you can have multiple wives, but I say unto you, not so”? No, He did not. He said that about divorce (implicitly, by saying Moses allowed divorce for hardness of heart, but from the beginning it was not so). He never says Moses allowed polygamy for hardness of heart. That is an extrapolation people make. It might be partially what Tertullian or Chrysostom later suggested, but Jesus Himself didn’t address it. So using Christ’s authority to strike down polygamy is an overreach. If it were so important, He or the apostles would have said it. Instead, as noted, the apostolic strategy was to quietly promote monogamy (especially among leaders) without stirring controversy over the patriarchs or Gentile converts’ situations. The earliest Christian writers, as we saw, confronted Jews on polygamy – but that was a later apologetic concern, not an apostolic decree.

In summation of our defense: Biblical polygyny stands as a practice that was lawful under God’s revealed law, utilized by God’s people, and not explicitly banned under the new covenant. The heavy presumption, therefore, is that it cannot be categorized as sin. It may be regulated by church policy (as it was by Paul for overseers), and often it will be unwise or impractical (especially in cultures that abhor it). But that falls under church order and wisdom, not universal morality. The Church has authority to set house rules (1 Cor 14:40 – “let all things be done decently and in order”), but not to declare evil what God has called good. Where the line is crossed – and our polemic hits – is when polygamy is painted as inherently evil or akin to adultery. That, we assert, is inconsistent with God’s own Word and ironically undermines our witness of God’s righteousness in the Old Testament.

If one says “Sure it was allowed then, but now anyone who does it is an adulterer,” imagine the implicit insult to righteous figures if they hypothetically lived today. It’s akin to saying if Abraham were in our church today, we’d excommunicate him for having Hagar and Keturah. Is Abraham’s morality only relative to time, or is it that our rules are stricter than God’s revelation? Such questions should humble us. As Jesus said, Moses allowed some things – but Jesus only addressed divorce in that context. If we uncritically lump polygamy in with things like the ceremonial law (which Christ fulfilled and thus ended, such as sacrifices or dietary laws), we need a scriptural basis to do so. Polygamy is not a mere ceremonial regulation – it’s a social practice related to moral law (adultery, covenants, etc.). If anything, it falls under judgments (mishpatim) of how to manage society justly. Those typically remain unless superseded.

Finally, we reaffirm: this defense is not an encouragement for Christians to rush out and take extra spouses. “All things are lawful, but not all things edify” (1 Cor 10:23). In most contexts, polygamy could cause more harm than good and could bring reproach in societies that view it as backward or exploitative. The early church was wise to promote monogamy to avoid misunderstanding of Christian marriage as lustful. Tertullian had a point that the Gospel calls us to a higher discipline. However, our polemic insists on truth: if a brother in Christ were, for example, to be in a plural marriage (perhaps due to prior conversion circumstance or other unusual scenario), we should not label him an adulterer or sinner merely for that fact. We should apply biblical principles to ensure he cares for his household properly (like Exodus 21:10’s spirit), and perhaps exclude from leadership positions (per 1 Tim 3), but still regard him as capable of living a God-fearing life. In short, charity and fidelity to Scripture should guide our reaction, not knee-jerk condemnation.

Conclusion

In this polemical journey, we set out to defend the proposition that Biblical polygyny is consistent with God’s law. We began by unearthing the rich evidence from the Old Testament that multiple-wife marriage was practiced by God’s chosen, regulated by God’s law, and nowhere condemned by God in that era. We saw how the New Testament, while charting a course favoring monogamous ideals, stops short of explicitly reversing the old allowances. We traced how early Church Fathers wrestled with the issue – ultimately deciding to prohibit polygamy for Christians, yet continually acknowledging its prior legitimacy under divine sanction. Through the voices of theologians across history, even those opposed to polygamy’s practice conceded that God’s holy people of old committed no sin in having plural wives. This is a crucial admission: it means the inherent morality of polygamy is not evil, but its appropriateness may vary by covenant or context.

Our defense, rooted in a theonomic perspective, asserts that we must not call unclean what God has called clean (cf. Acts 10:15). Polygyny was “clean” enough for God to include in His law and to use in the lineage of Christ Himself (Jacob’s four-wife family produced Judah, ancestor of Messiah). If we outright condemn all polygynists as sinners, we risk standing in judgment over Abraham, Moses, Jacob, David – something no Christian would dare do knowingly. Rather, we can uphold monogamy as the prevailing Christian norm without anathematizing the concept of polygamy that God once permitted. This nuanced stance is often lost, but it is important for biblical integrity.

In closing, let us address why this discussion matters. It is not to encourage novel practices or sow dissension, but to champion the supremacy of Scripture over assumptions. Sola Scriptura demands that our doctrines and moral judgments derive from God’s Word. If the Bible does not universally label polygamy a sin, then neither should we. By making this case, we actually defend the consistency and righteousness of God. We show that God did not “change His mind” from Old to New (He allowed something and then suddenly calls it evil); rather, God allowed polygamy for wise reasons and later led most of His people toward a higher path of monogamous fidelity – without ever vilifying His earlier allowance. This understanding exonerates God from charges of inconsistency or injustice. As Augustine wrote: “they [the patriarchs] did not disobey… since it was not forbidden by any law”. God is not capricious; He is holy in all eras.

Furthermore, this issue has pastoral implications. In our global church, there are Christian communities grappling with this very topic (in parts of Africa, for instance). A biblical, non-Pharisaical approach can help integrate those believers without casting them out or forcing unbiblical divorces. It also helps us answer skeptics: atheists or Muslims sometimes accuse the Bible of inconsistency or Christians of hypocrisy on polygamy. We can respond that our own Scriptures acknowledge polygamy as a valid though not ideal form of marriage, and that Christianity historically moved to a monogamous norm not because polygamy was “like adultery” but because of wanting to mirror a higher spiritual truth and avoid problems. This honesty can actually be a witness. It shows we prioritize God’s actual words over later customs.

We also challenge ourselves: Are we willing to let the Bible speak for itself, even when it cuts against our cultural grain? This defense of biblical polygyny is a test case in Christian fidelity to Scripture over culture. In a culture where polygamy is taboo (ours), it is easy to simply assume “polygamy bad, Bible must agree.” But a true Berean will see that the Bible’s view is more complex. Upholding that truth, even if we don’t intend to practice polygamy, is part of intellectual honesty and submission to God’s Word. If we trust God, we trust that He had good reasons and that His allowances were not sin. Thus, we vindicate the righteousness of the patriarchs under God’s law, as Hebrews 11 does, listing polygamists among the heroes of faith without qualification.

In a polemical spirit, let us also turn the critique around: The modern church that reflexively condemns all polygamy should examine whether it has inadvertently gone beyond Scripture. In Mark 7:13, Jesus warned of “making the word of God of no effect through your tradition”. While monogamy-only has been a beneficial tradition for church witness, if it elevates to the point of negating clear biblical instances and principles, then tradition is encroaching on truth. Our hard stance against even acknowledging polygamy’s biblical legitimacy can cause cognitive dissonance and even faith crises in some (when they eventually notice the Bible doesn’t actually say what we assumed). Better to be forthright: “Yes, the Bible allowed polygamy. No, it isn’t adultery by biblical definition. Yes, Christian teaching has called us generally to monogamy to live the highest ideal. But those who had multiple wives in Scripture or even in rare cases today can still be considered righteous if they live according to God’s guidelines.” Such a position is more nuanced but more accurate.

In conclusion, we have defended Biblical polygyny as consistent with God’s law and character. We did so by thorough Scriptural exegesis, historical testimony, and theological reasoning. This defense doesn’t seek to normalize polygamy in contemporary churches; it seeks to normalize a truthful reading of Scripture. The polemic challenges prevailing monogamist interpretations not to encourage a change in practice, but to encourage humility in doctrinal claims. Just as Paul circumcised Timothy for the sake of mission (Acts 16:3) though circumcision was not required – the Church can uphold monogamy for good order without denouncing polygyny as sin.

The Word of God is a double-edged sword (Heb 4:12) – it often cuts our cultural presumptions. In this case, it cuts to reveal that God’s ways are not our ways. The same God who gave one Eve to Adam also gave multiple wives to David. We accept both as from the Lord. Thus, we uphold that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction (2 Tim 3:16) – including those parts dealing with polygamy. By defending Biblical polygyny, we ultimately defend the harmony and justice of God’s revelation.

Monogamy may well remain the standard counsel – and indeed, “let each man have his own wife” is a beautiful rule for most (1 Cor 7:2). But if ever confronted with someone in or considering a polygamous situation, we must respond as the Scripture guides: not with automatic condemnation, but with careful application of biblical principles. As our study has shown, a man could, in theory, have more than one wife and not violate any command of God – provided he loves, provides, and leads his household in the fear of the Lord. Such cases are few in most societies, but they exist. And the church must decide whether it will label that man a grievous sinner or receive him as a brother who perhaps walks a difficult road.

In defense of Biblical polygyny, we have made the case that it is not anathema but a historically and scripturally grounded practice – one which the church in her wisdom largely set aside, yet one which remains a part of God’s Word. As faithful Christians, we must speak where God has spoken and be silent where God has not clearly spoken. The polemic stance presented urges the Church to refrain from dogmatism beyond Scripture, and to acknowledge the full counsel of God on marriage. By doing so, we actually elevate the authority of Scripture and the sovereignty of God in defining right and wrong.

Let the final word be from Scripture itself, a fitting closing thought from Micah 6:8: “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?” In the case of polygyny, God’s Word has told us it was “good” or at least permissible in certain contexts. Let us do justice (not condemning those whom the law does not condemn), love mercy (in how we treat persons in non-standard marriages), and walk humbly with God (submitting our cultural biases to His revelation). In so doing, we honor God’s law and gospel together – defending the truth of the Bible in all its parts, to the glory of the one true God, the giver of all good laws and the designer of marriage in all its forms.

Sources Cited:

• The Holy Bible, passages from Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, Matthew 19, 1 Timothy 3, etc., as discussed throughout.
• Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, in Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.1, pg. 266 – condemning Jewish polygamy as ignorance.
• Tertullian, To His Wife I.2 – acknowledging patriarchal polygamy as once lawful and describing Gospel’s restriction of it.
• Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 3 – stating God allowed multiple marriages when needed to multiply, but now single marriage.
• Augustine, De Bono Conjugali (On the Good of Marriage) – asserting patriarchs did not sin as it violated no law.
• Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Supplement Q.65 – analyzing polygamy relative to natural law and noting God’s dispensation in Old Testament.
• Martin Luther, De Wette II, p. 459 (Letter to Chancellor Brück) – “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture…”.
• John Milton, De Doctrina Christiana – reasoning that polygamy is licit and not forbidden in Scripture, with extensive argumentation.

---

Bible Reference Index

(canonical order; § = section, ¶ = paragraph)

Reference	Locations
Genesis	2 : 24 §2.1 ¶1 · §4 ¶5 ‖ 4 : 19 §1.1 ¶2 ‖ 12 : 10-20 §4 ¶14
	16 : 1-4 §1.1 ¶4 ‖ 17 : 20 §1.1 ¶5 ‖ 25 : 1-6 §1.1 ¶6
	29 : 23-30 §1.1 ¶8 ‖ 30 : 3-13 §1.1 ¶8 ‖ 36 : 2 §1.1 ¶9
	38 : 8-10 §1.2 ¶4
Exodus	20 : 14 §4 ¶8 ‖ 21 : 10-11 §1.2 ¶1 · §4 ¶3
Leviticus	18 : 20 §4 ¶8 ‖ 20 : 10 §1.2 ¶2
Numbers	12 : 1 §1.2 ¶3
Deuteronomy	17 : 17 §1.2 ¶5 · §3.1 ¶6
	21 : 15-17 §1.2 ¶6 ‖ 22 : 22 §4 ¶8 ‖ 25 : 5-10 §1.2 ¶7
Historical Books	Ruth 4 : 11 §1.1 ¶10 ‖ 2 Sam 3 : 2-5 §1.2 ¶5
	2 Sam 5 : 13 §1.2 ¶5 ‖ 2 Sam 12 : 8-9 §1.2 ¶5 ‖ 1 Kgs 11 : 3-4 §1.2 ¶5
	2 Chr 24 : 2-3 §1.2 ¶6
Poetry/Wisdom	Ps 19 : 7 Intro ¶6 ‖ Ps 128 : 3 §3.1 ¶3
Prophets	Isa 5 : 20 §4 ¶10 ‖ Jer 3 : 6-14 §4 ¶11
	Ezek 23 (anal.) §4 ¶11 ‖ Mic 6 : 8 Conclusion ¶2
Gospels & Acts	Matt 5 : 32 §2.1 ¶3 ‖ Matt 19 : 3-9 §2.1 ¶1
	Mark 7 : 13 §4 ¶9 ‖ Mark 10 : 2-12 §2.1 ¶1 ‖ John 4 : 18 §2.1 ¶4
	Acts 15 §2.2 ¶6 · §4 ¶12 ‖ Acts 16 : 3 §4 ¶13 ‖ Acts 17 : 11 Intro ¶7
Epistles	Rom 7 : 12 §1.2 ¶2 ‖ 1 Cor 6 : 12 §4 ¶18; 6 : 16 §2.1 ¶5
	1 Cor 7 : 2 §2.2 ¶2; 7 : 32-34 §2.2 ¶4 ‖ 1 Cor 10 : 23 §4 ¶18 ‖ 1 Cor 14 : 40 §4 ¶17
	Eph 5 : 31-32 §2.2 ¶3 · §3.1 ¶5 ‖ 1 Tim 3 : 2 §2.2 ¶1; 3 : 12 §2.2 ¶1
	Titus 1 : 6 §2.2 ¶1 ‖ Heb 4 : 12 Conclusion ¶1 ‖ Heb 11 §4 ¶15
	Heb 13 : 4 §4 ¶8 ‖ 1 Jn 3 : 4 §4 ¶7

---

Index of Authorities

(alphabetical; sectional citations)

• Aquinas, Thomas §3.2 ¶2 (“Summa Theologiae” Suppl. 65)
• Augustine of Hippo §3.1 ¶5 (“De Bono Conjugali”)
• Calvin, John §3.2 ¶4
• Clement of Alexandria §3.1 ¶4
• Irenaeus of Lyons §3.1 ¶3
• Justin Martyr §3.1 ¶2
• Ken Graham §2.2 ¶5 (n.b. modern Catholic commentator)
• Luther, Martin §3.2 ¶1
• Madan, Martin §3.2 ¶5
• Melanchthon, Philip §3.2 ¶3
• Milton, John §1.1 ¶11; §3.2 ¶6
• Origen §3.1 ¶4
• Tertullian §3.1 ¶2
• Theophilus of Antioch §3.1 ¶4
• Methodius of Olympus §3.1 ¶4

---

Topical Index

(key subjects with principal sections; sub-entries indented)

Adultery §1.2 ¶2; §2.1 ¶3; §4 ¶8
Apostolic Church §2.2 ¶6
Biblical Law (Theonomy) Intro ¶4; §1.2 ¶1; §4 ¶2-4
Church Discipline §2.2 ¶6; §4 ¶13-17
Divorce §2.1 ¶1-3; §4 ¶8
Edenic Ideal §2.1 ¶1; §4 ¶6
Kings of Israel, polygyny of §1.2 ¶5-6
Levirate Marriage §1.2 ¶7
Mission & polygamist converts §2.2 ¶6; §4 ¶12-14
Monogamy creation model §2.1 ¶1; norm after NT §3 (esp. §3.1 ¶2-5)
Natural Law §3.2 ¶2
New-Testament Ethics §2 throughout
Patriarchs (polygyny) §1.1 ¶2-10
Polygyny (general) all sections; esp. Law §1.2, NT limits §2.2, defense §4
  • regulations §1.2 ¶1-7
  • leadership restriction §2.2 ¶1
Progressive Revelation §3.1 ¶2-6
Sacramental symbolism §2.2 ¶3; §3.1 ¶5
Tradition vs Scripture §3 (esp. §3.2 ¶4-6); §4 ¶9-12

---

ChatGPT o3: Write a polemical book defending Biblical polygyny from a theonomic and non-denominational perspective, grounded in historical theology. Rely heavily on scriptural exegesis, patristic writings, and theological arguments from throughout church history while focusing on the historical context and avoiding modern application.

---

Addendum

The explanation provided for 1 Timothy 3:2—specifically, the interpretation of mias gunaikos andra as “a first-wife man”—draws from a range of scholarly sources across biblical Greek grammar, epigraphy, Second Temple Judaism, and early Christian ethics. Here’s a detailed breakdown:

---

📘 1. Greek Grammar and Epigraphic Parallels

a. Greek Adjective Use (qualitative vs. numeric):

• Blass, Debrunner, and Funk (BDF): A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature – especially sections dealing with the qualitative uses of adjectives and numerals.
• Smyth’s Greek Grammar – addresses idiomatic and semantic range of numerals, especially “εἷς / μία / ἕν”.
• Luke 15:7 (μᾶλλον ἢ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐνενήκοντα ἐννέα) is a known example of “one” as a synecdoche or qualitative standout, not simply numeric.

b. Epigraphic Evidence:

• William M. Ramsay, The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia (1907) and other epigraphic collections – contain examples of funerary inscriptions using mias gunaikos anēr.
• Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (SEG) and Inscriptiones Graecae (IG): databases that catalog such inscriptions.
• Scholars like Bruce Winter (esp. in Roman Wives, Roman Widows) and David Instone-Brewer (on Jewish and Roman divorce practices) may also point to such usage.

c. Syntax Alternatives:

• If Paul meant “not polygamous,” he had clearer Greek options (e.g., μὴ ἔχοντα πλείους γυναῖκας, or ἄγαμον). The deliberate choice of the genitive construction (mias gunaikos andra) reflects a Hebraic idiom for fidelity.
• George W. Knight III, in his Pastoral Epistles commentary (NIGTC), notes the peculiar construction and discusses marital expectations of elders.

---

📖 2. Resonance with Malachi 2:14–15

a. Septuagint Background:

• Paul and Timothy’s knowledge of the LXX supports intertextual connections. Malachi 2:14–15 in the LXX has similar concerns about treachery to the “wife of your youth.”
• D.A. Carson, Andreas Köstenberger, and Douglas Moo all note Paul’s frequent engagement with Old Testament covenant theology in pastoral exhortations.

b. Thematic Echoes:

• “Wife of your youth” is a known Hebrew idiom (‘eshet ne’urekha) for covenantal loyalty.
• “Did He not make one?” has been interpreted by scholars (e.g., Walter Kaiser, Gordon Hugenberger) as support for covenant monogamy—but not necessarily numerical monogamy, rather fidelity to the first union.

---

🌍 3. Ephesian Context and Greco-Roman Divorce

a. Sequential Polygamy:

• Roman law allowed easy no-fault divorce, which became rampant among elites (see Susan Treggiari, Roman Marriage).
• Bruce Winter argues convincingly that Paul is writing to correct culturally acceptable but biblically unacceptable practices of serial monogamy and wife-abandonment.

b. Pastoral Application:

• The early church saw the marriage covenant as sacred. Elders were to be examples of this fidelity (see John Chrysostom’s homilies, and later Augustine).
• Ben Witherington III and Philip Towner also engage this context in their commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles.

---

🧩 4. Relation to Biblical Polygyny

a. Old Testament Background:

• The Law (e.g., Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15–17) regulates polygyny but never bans it.
• Many OT saints (Abraham, Jacob, David) had more than one wife without moral condemnation—though complications are shown narratively.

b. Paul’s Narrow Focus:

• The argument here aligns with theonomic readings and conservative scholarship that seeks to harmonize Paul with Mosaic Law rather than read him as abrogating it.
• James B. Jordan and R.J. Rushdoony write in this vein.
• Michael Marlowe and some Reformed theologians also maintain that Paul’s emphasis is on covenant loyalty, not a universal numerical restriction.

---

🔍 Summary of Source Types:

Source Type	Examples
Greek Grammar	BDF, Smyth, Wallace
Epigraphy	Ramsay, SEG, IG
Biblical Commentaries	Knight, Moo, Towner, Witherington
Second Temple & LXX studies	Kaiser, Hugenberger, Carson
Contextual Ethics	Bruce Winter, Susan Treggiari
Polygyny Law & Theology	Jordan, Rushdoony, Marlowe

📚 Bibliography

• Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
• Carson, D. A., R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, and G. J. Wenham, eds. New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.
• Hugenberger, Gordon P. Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994.
• Jordan, James B. The Law of the Covenant: An Exposition of Exodus 21–23. Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1984.
• Kaiser, Walter C. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1983.
• Knight, George W. III. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992.
• Marlowe, Michael. “Husband of One Wife: A New Testament Teaching on Monogamy?” 2000. http://www.bible-researcher.com/onewoman.html
• Ramsay, William M. The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895.
• Rushdoony, Rousas John. Institutes of Biblical Law. Phillipsburg, NJ: Craig Press, 1973.
• Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920.
• Towner, Philip H. The Letters to Timothy and Titus. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2006.
• Treggiari, Susan. Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
• Winter, Bruce W. Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.
• Witherington, Ben III. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1–2 Timothy and 1–3 John. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006.

---