The Husband of one wife.

What about 1 Timothy 3:2 which states that a "bishop" or "overseer" must be the "husband of one wife?" Isn't this a ban against polygamy in the Brit Hadashah?

Anti-polygamists are really trying to grasp at straws with this explanation. Because they cannot find a single verse of scripture which condemns polygamy, they attempt to use this verse as an implied command. When we look closer at this verse and read it in context, it becomes clear that it has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy.

1) CONTEXT - In 1 Timothy 3: 1-10 we see that Rabbi Sha'ul is giving the qualifications for a man to serve as overseer of the local assembly.

1Timmothy 3:1-10 "Trustworthy is the word: If a man longs for the position of an overseer, he desires a good work. An overseer, then, should be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, sensible, orderly, kind to strangers, able to teach, not given to wine, no brawler, but gentle, not quarrelsome, no lover of money, one who rules his own house well, having his children in subjection with all reverence, for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how shall he look after the assembly of Elohim? Not a new convert, lest he become puffed up with pride and fall into the judgment of the devil. And he should even have a good witness from those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Likewise attendants are to be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for filthy gain, holding to the secret of the belief with a clean conscience. And let these also be proved first, then let them serve, if they are unreprovable."

The first thing that must be pointed out is that if Sha'ul is banning polygamy for an overseer, it proves that there was polygamy in the assembly and further proves that it was NOT banned for all! Also, if a man must be monogamous to become an overseer, why is there not a requirement for him to REMAIN monogamous? Should he take a second wife, we would expect to see that he would thus loose his position. However, no such thing is mentioned.

But let's take a step back and find out what is being said here.

I must call your attention to the phrase "if any man desires the office of overseer, he desires a good work." People today have no idea what that means. When they hear the word "overseer" or "bishop" they immediately think of a modern day pastor sitting at the head of some congregation being honored and supported by his subordinates. Others may picture the televangelist with his hands covered in gold rings calling for people to donate to his needy ministry. That is NOT what this means at all! Being an overseer in the early assemblies was a very difficult job. Sha'ul implies as much by his "selling point" that the office is a "good work." The overseer was much the same as a modern sheriff or district attorney who functioned within the local assembly. It was an unpaid position, lacking the reverence we see given to modern pastors. Sha'ul then would not be banning an assembly overseer from being a polygamist in light of other assembly leaders in the TaNaK who were. Avraham, Dawid, Gideon, etc were all polygamist overseers of the congregation of Israel. Sha'ul would have no historical reference to make such a ruling.
Secondly, if this "implied ban" were required for ALL of the congregation then so would the other qualifications in this passage. By that logic, ALL who followed the way would be required to be married and have a family. If it is sinful for a congregation member to be a polygamist, it MUST THEN be sinful for him/her to be single and/or have disobedient children. You cannot have it both ways!

2) MEANING - What do the actual words in this passage mean? We have seen that an overseer is nothing like the modern wolf in sheep's clothing pastor. Let's define the other words in this phrase to get a better idea.
a) husband - "aner" simply means "man" or "male" it is translated "husband" when the context makes clear a married man is implied. However, there was no real word for "husband" at the time. This is a modern invention. So, to be true to the meaning we must translate this word as "man."
b) wife - "gune" is a more specific word which DOES imply a married female. (This is true the Scriptural context of a marriage) As opposed to "woman," "female" or "virgin" which are all status-distinguishing, a wife is a woman who belongs to a man (i.e. someone with whom sexual relations are forbidden to all but her "husband")
c) one - "mia" is an ordinal word meaning "first." I find it amazing that this word is used instead of the word "heis" which is the Greek numerical word for the singular value of one. That is the very word used in the same letter in 1 Timothy 5:9 to describe the "wife of ONE (heis) husband!" Almost the exact same phrase, but two different words are used for "one." The Israelite concept of marriage would mean that a man could have many wives, but a woman could have but ONE husband.

If we then construct the phrase according to the actual definitions of the words we get "a man married to his first wife." This sounds quite different than "the husband of one wife." To be an overseer, the man must know how to be responsible for his family. He MUST be a married man! It makes no difference if he has one wife or ten! If anything, this could be used to argue a ban on divorced men serving in the office of overseer. This falls perfectly in line with the other requirements which show the character of the man (as opposed to his marital status).

To further illustrate that Sha'ul wasn't banning polygamy, let's look at another verse:

1 Corinthians 5:1 "It is commonly reported that there is whoring among you, and such whoring as is not even named among the gentiles, so as one to have his father’s wife!"

Here, Rabbi Sha'ul is condemning someone in the assembly who was having relations with the wife of his father. This was prohibited in Vayikra 18:7-8. ‘The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you do not uncover. She is your mother, you do not uncover her nakedness. ‘The nakedness of your father’s wife you do not uncover, it is your father’s nakedness."

Notice that "mother" and "father's wife" are two separate people. Sexual relations are forbidden with either your mother or your father's wife. Sha'ul is condemning this forbidden act of fornication. Here is the perfect time for him to condemn polygamy (which was obviously going on the "New Testament") while addressing this reported concern, yet only the fornicating son is criticized. Nowhere is the slightest hint of the polygamist father being in the wrong in any way.

3) HISTORICAL - We have just seen a shining example of polygamy in the Brit Hadashah. The first century C.E. was when the sodomite Greeks and Romans began to make forced monogamy laws. This was because they saw that women were becoming more powerful with the freedoms they found in polygamous households. Women were viewed in these pagan societies as "a necessary evil to ensure procreation." In the Greek/Roman view, restricting a man to one wife would ensure him progeny while keeping the women as domestic slaves who would then be solely responsible for bearing and raising the children, cleaning house, washing, cooking, helping in the fields, etc. This was in sharp contrast to Israelite women who shared these duties with their sister-wives allowing them the time and freedom to pursue other endeavors. Love and romance would be found through homosexual relations with other Greek/Roman men. Forced monogamy has plagued this earth with untold misery and sin and has been the overwhelming force used to suppress women.

Some, such as pastor Don Milton, have pointed out that Sha'ul's seeming ban was actually a response to the Roman Lex Papia Poppaea edict of the first century.

We have seen that Rabbi Sha'ul was NOT banning polygamy to either the Overseers or the general assembly. The verse in question seems to be making the character of the potential candidate for the office come into question. For another view on this verse, I direct you to THIS article.