Monogamy-Only Fallacy: A Forensic Dissection

Written by Abrie JF Kilian. Moderated by Pete Rambo. (Rambo on Youtube) Monogamy-Only Fallacy

There are few things in Christendom more tenaciously clung to, more staunchly defended, and yet more horrendously unsupported by Scripture than the claim that "God intended for a man to have only one wife." It is recited with the mechanical conviction of an overplayed Gregorian chant—yet when subjected to the bright and merciless scrutiny of Biblical law, history, and logic, it collapses faster than a house of cards in a hurricane.

Like a weary general leading his troops into a doomed battle, the monogamy-only proponent fights with admirable but hopeless tenacity, armed with only one solitary verse (Genesis 2:24), a handful of misinterpreted Pauline statements, and an unshakable faith in Greco-Roman tradition masquerading as divine decree.

But today, dear reader, we set the record straight. With the sword of Scripture in one hand and the shield of reason in the other, let us march into the fray, slicing through misconceptions and dismantling theological absurdities with the precision of a legal scalpel.

The Five Pillars of This Argument

This article will examine the claim that monogamy is the only Biblical model by applying five critical tests:

The Witness Principle – Does Scripture meet its own standard of evidence for the claim that monogamy is the only valid form of marriage?
Divine Law – Does YHWH regulate, permit, or even command polygyny in certain circumstances?
Jesus & Paul’s Teachings – Did they prohibit polygyny or remain silent?
Historical Context – Is the idea of monogamy-only Biblical, or is it a Greco-Roman invention?
The Final Indictment – Does the monogamy-only claim violate YHWH’s standard for truth?

The Fallacy of a Lone-Witness Doctrine: Where Are the Other Witnesses?

A court that convicts a man without evidence is a kangaroo court, a mockery of justice, and an insult to reason. The Bible, however, is no such court—it upholds justice, fairness, and truth with the immutable principle of multiple witnesses.

Deuteronomy 19:15 – "A single witness shall not suffice... Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established." This principle is not optional; it is divinely mandated and reaffirmed throughout Scripture:
Matthew 18:16 – "Every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses." (Jesus Himself upholding the standard).
2 Corinthians 13:1 – "Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses." (Paul reinforcing the necessity of corroboration).
1 Timothy 5:19 – "Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses."

This God-ordained principle is so vital to divine justice that it extends beyond judicial matters—it applies to doctrine itself. If we are to establish a theological truth, especially one with moral and social implications, it must stand on at least two or three clear Biblical witnesses.

Now, let us apply this divine standard of proof to the claim that "Monogamy is the only valid marital model in God's eyes."

A Deafening Silence

Where, then, are the two or three witnesses prohibiting polygyny? The entire weight of the monogamy-only argument rests precariously upon one solitary verse:

Genesis 2:24 – "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

This verse is misapplied, misinterpreted, and misused, like a lone, trembling soldier forced to hold an entire battlefield alone.

Now, let us put this verse through the Biblical Witness Test:

Does Genesis 2:24 prohibit polygyny? No.
Does it command that a man must have only one wife? No.
Does it say that polygyny is sinful? No.

If Genesis 2:24 is the backbone of the monogamy-only doctrine, then we must ask a damning question:

Where are the supporting witnesses? Where are the verses that say:

"Thou shalt not take a second wife."
"A man with multiple wives is an abomination before the Lord."
A man shall be married to only one woman, lest he commit sin."

They do not exist. Not two witnesses. Not three. Not even one. And yet, despite this glaring absence, monogamy-only proponents insist on imposing a restriction YHWH Himself never gave.

Meanwhile, Polygyny Has Multiple Witnesses

While the monogamy-only position starves for evidence, polygyny, on the other hand, is well-fed with divine testimony:

YHWH commands polygyny in certain cases – Deuteronomy 25:5-6.
YHWH regulates polygyny – Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 21:15-17.
YHWH metaphorically compares Himself to a polygynous husband – Jeremiah 3:6-10, Jeremiah 31:31-34, Jeremiah 33:24, Jeremiah 2:2, Ezekiel 23:2-4 and Isaiah 54.
Many righteous men practiced polygyny with divine approval – Abraham, Jacob, David, Moses.

We see not one, not two, but numerous witnesses testifying to the legitimacy of polygyny in Biblical law, history, and metaphor.

YHWH regulates Polygyny?

If monogamy were the only divine standard, then it stands to reason that YHWH would have prohibited polygyny outright. Instead, we find something profoundly inconvenient for the monogamy-only advocate: YHWH not only regulates polygyny, but in certain cases, He explicitly commands it and metaphorically engages it.

Let us examine three damning pieces of evidence—each a direct decree from the Almighty Himself.

A. Deuteronomy 25:5-6 – The Levirate Law: A Command to Take Another Wife

If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies without a son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband's brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel."

This is not a suggestion—it is a direct command from YHWH. And if the surviving brother is already married? He must take her anyway.

There is no exemption for a man who already has a wife. There is no clause stating, "Unless, of course, you are monogamous, in which case you may disregard this command." The obligation is binding—not only to preserve the family lineage but to ensure the well-being of the widow.

Thus, if monogamy were the divine ideal, why would YHWH command a previously married man to take an additional wife?

B. Exodus 21:10 – The Regulation of Multiple Wives

If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights."

Here, the Bible does something the monogamy-only advocate dreads—it speaks of a man taking an additional wife and regulates the practice to ensure her well-being.

Notice that YHWH does not prohibit polygyny—He regulates it. Regulation implies permission. YHWH regulates commerce, warfare, inheritance, and debt forgiveness—none of which are inherently sinful. If polygyny were sinful, it would have been outlawed, not legislated.

Again, we must ask: Why would YHWH regulate polygyny instead of forbidding it, if it were inherently wrong?

C. Deuteronomy 21:15-17 – The Rights of Sons Born to Multiple Wives

If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him sons... he may not treat the son of the loved wife as the firstborn in preference to the son of the unloved wife, who is the firstborn. But he shall acknowledge the firstborn, the son of the unloved, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first fruits of his strength. The right of the firstborn is his."

Here, we find YHWH explicitly protecting the inheritance rights of children born to multiple wives. YHWH does not condemn the man for having two wives. Instead, He sets up laws ensuring fairness between children from different wives—implying divine recognition of polygyny as a legitimate marital structure.

This is a damning contradiction to the monogamy-only claim. If polygyny were against YHWH’s will, we should expect a divine prohibition—not inheritance laws specifically for polygynous families!

D. The Unavoidable Conclusion

Here we have, beyond any shadow of doubt, three clear instances where YHWH regulates or commands polygyny:

Deuteronomy 25:5-6 – YHWH commands a man to take an additional wife if his brother dies.
Exodus 21:10 – YHWH regulates polygyny to ensure the well-being of all wives.
Deuteronomy 21:15-17 – YHWH protects inheritance rights in polygynous families.

This presents the monogamy-only advocate with an impossible dilemma: Either YHWH endorses polygyny, or He contradicts Himself by regulating something that is inherently sinful—which is theologically untenable.

In fact, YHWH Himself refers to having had two marriage covenants.

YHWH: The Divine Husband of Two Wives

If polygyny were contrary to YHWH’s divine nature, then we should expect the Almighty Himself to set the precedent by having only one bride. And yet, the pages of Scripture paint a dramatically different picture—one in which YHWH Himself declares that He was married to not one, but two wives: Israel and Judah.

In Jeremiah 3:6-14, YHWH explicitly describes Israel (the Northern Kingdom) and Judah (the Southern Kingdom) as two wives, both of whom He entered into covenant with. Israel, the elder of the two, was faithless, playing the harlot with other gods. Eventually, in Jeremiah 3:8, YHWH, like a wronged husband, issued her a certificate of divorce and sent her away. Yet, Judah remained in covenant with Him, despite her own treachery. This is not the language of metaphorical monogamy; this is an undeniable declaration of divine polygyny.

The same imagery is used again in Ezekiel 23, where the two kingdoms are depicted as Oholah (Samaria, representing Israel) and Oholibah (Jerusalem, representing Judah). In Ezekiel 23:4, YHWH states unequivocally: “They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters.” The imagery is explicit—YHWH married them both, they bore children (the people of their respective nations), and they both betrayed Him through spiritual adultery.

But lest one assume that this was some fleeting metaphor, we find in Isaiah 54:5-6 that YHWH continues to refer to Himself as a husband to His people. More than that, in Jeremiah 2:2, He recalls “the love of your betrothals (plural),” confirming that from the very beginning, Israel and Judah were both brides of YHWH during the Exodus period.

This reality is further cemented in the New Covenant passage of Jeremiah 31:31-32, where YHWH acknowledges that Israel and Judah were in a marital covenant with Him, and yet, they broke it—forcing Him to establish a new one.

Thus, by YHWH’s own words, He entered into two covenants with multiple brides. If monogamy were the only acceptable form of marriage, we must ask:

Why does YHWH, the perfect and holy Elohim, repeatedly depict Himself as the husband of two wives?
Why does He not rebuke Himself for violating His own supposed marital law?

The answer is clear: He does not rebuke it, because no such law exists.

This revelation leaves the monogamy-only advocate in an impossible dilemma. If polygyny is immoral, then they must accuse YHWH Himself of engaging in an impure marital relationship. But if YHWH—who is without sin—openly declares Himself to be polygynous, then who are we to declare otherwise?

Addressing the Common “Anti-Polygyny” Proof-Texts

Since the monogamy-only proponent lacks two or three witnesses against polygyny, they often attempt to weaponize isolated, misinterpreted passages to attack Biblical polygyny.

1. Let us put these misused verses to rest.
1. Leviticus 18:18 – The “Sister Wife” Argument "You shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive."
2. Misinterpretation: Some claim this verse prohibits all polygyny.
3. Actual Context: This verse only forbids a man from marrying two biological sisters AS RIVALS. If a man does not marry a woman as a rival wife to her sister, plural covenants are permitted and known as sororal polygyny.
Deuteronomy 17:17 – The “King Shall Not Multiply Wives” Argument "The king shall not multiply (rabah) wives for himself, lest his heart turn away."
1. Misinterpretation: This is used to argue that polygyny is forbidden.
2. Actual Context: In the first instance this verse only applies to kings, not all men. Secondly, verse 16 states that kings are not to multiply horses and gold. Should a king only have one horse and one piece of silver or gold?
3. The command is not against polygyny itself, but against excessive accumulation of wives for political and idolatrous reasons. Replying on political alliance rather on YHWH. (see Solomon's downfall in 1 Kings 11:1-4).

The Bishop’s One-Wife Requirement: A Restriction on Leadership, Not a Universal Law

One of the most frequently misused passages in the monogamy-only arsenal is Paul's instruction that a bishop must be "the husband of one wife" (mias gunaikos aner, 1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 1:6). However, a careful exegesis of the Greek text, combined with logical reasoning, quickly exposes that this is not a prohibition against polygyny for all believers, but rather a standard of marital faithfulness specifically for church leaders.

1. The Greek Text Does Not Mandate Monogamy

The Greek phrase mias gunaikos aner does not mean "a man must have only one wife." It is more accurately translated as "a one-woman man" or "a faithful husband." The emphasis is not on numerical restriction, but on moral character—that the man is devoted to his wife, not a womanizer, adulterer, or man of ill-repute. Neither a man who plays musical chairs with covenants, marching to Mendelssohn and practising a spelling bee with Tammy Wynette.

Greek scholars confirm this:

Simpson and Graham state that mias gunaikos aner is best understood as a moral qualification for church leaders, emphasising faithfulness and integrity in marriage rather than imposing a strict marital rule. While often translated as “husband of one wife,” a more accurate interpretation is “a one-woman man”—one who is sexually faithful to his wife. The phrase does not explicitly prohibit polygyny but rather ensures that overseers are morally upright and above reproach in their relationships. The focus is on character and fidelity rather than marital status, ensuring that church leaders exemplify a high ethical standard.
Christopher Hutson agrees that mias gunaikos aner emphasizes sexual fidelity rather than mandating marriage or excluding women from leadership. It underscores moral integrity and self-control rather than enforcing rigid gender or marital status requirements.
Philip B. Payne states that mias gunaikos aner is best understood as "a man of one woman", meaning one who is faithful to his wife, not one who is prohibited from having more than one wife.

If Paul had intended to ban polygyny, he would have used the Greek word "monos" (only, alone) to explicitly state, "the bishop must have only one wife". But he does not.

2. Logical Implication: If Leadership Is Restricted, the Congregation Is Not

If, for the sake of argument, one insists that bishops and elders must be monogamous, then logically, this restriction applies only to leadership—not to the general congregation.

Paul does not say "a Christian must be the husband of one wife."
He only applies this restriction to bishops and elders.
If monogamy was a universal law, why limit the command to leaders?

By this reasoning, monogamy is a qualification for a specific office, not a mandate for all believers. The only reason to make monogamy a qualification for leadership is if polygyny were an accepted and lawful practice among the congregation—otherwise, the rule would be redundant.

3. Early Church Context: Polygyny Was Lawful

Paul’s Jewish contemporaries—including Josephus (Antiquities 17.1.2)—testify that polygyny was lawful and widely practiced in first-century Judaism. If the early Church were suddenly forbidding polygyny, we would expect:

A direct command banning polygyny for all Christians—but none exists.
A recorded dispute among early believers, as seen with circumcision (Acts 15)—but again, history is silent.

The absence of controversy proves that polygyny was neither prohibited nor viewed as sinful.

Final Verdict: A Leadership Standard, Not a Universal Rule

The monogamy-only argument collapses under its logic. If Paul’s instruction was a universal ban, then all Christians must also be married since bishops are also required to be married men who manage their households well (1 Timothy 3:4-5). Yet, Paul promotes celibacy (1 Corinthians 7:8)—showing that leadership requirements do not dictate universal laws.

Thus, 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 are qualifications for bishops, not a divine decree against polygyny for all believers. If monogamy-only proponents insist that leadership must be monogamous, they must also admit that the congregation is left free to practice polygyny—or abandon their position entirely.

Historical Context: Monogamy-Only is a Roman, Not Biblical, Idea

If monogamy were YHWH’s only marital standard, then we would expect to find an unbroken chain of theological consistency from the Law of Moses through the teachings of Messiah and the Apostles. Yet, the historical record exposes a different reality—one in which monogamy-only Christianity emerges not from divine revelation, but from the legal decrees of pagan Rome.

A. The Jewish Context: Polygyny Was Lawful and Practiced

In Second Temple Judaism, the prevailing understanding of marriage included the legitimacy of polygyny. The Mosaic Law, which Yahshua ha'Messiah and Paul upheld, never prohibited a man from having multiple wives. The great Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37–100 AD) confirms this in his writings, stating:

Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 17.1.2"For it is the ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time."

This is a critical admission, as Josephus was not some obscure commentator, but a leading Jewish historian and Pharisee—and he makes it abundantly clear that polygyny was an accepted practice among the Jews during the very time of Messiah and the Apostles.

If polygyny were truly against YHWH's will, then Yahshua ha’Messiah and Paul—both steeped in the Law of Moses—would have been morally obligated to condemn it. And yet, they did no such thing.

B. Yahshua Knew the Law—And Never Spoke Against Polygyny

Yahshua ha’Messiah was no passive observer of Jewish law. He was a teacher, a rabbi, a walking embodiment of Torah observance. When the Pharisees tried to trap Him with legal questions, He responded with precise legal reasoning, drawing from Moses, the Prophets, and divine intent.

And yet, despite His numerous teachings on marriage and morality, Yahshua ha'Messsiah never once condemns polygyny.

He speaks against divorce (Matthew 19:3-9)—but not polygyny.
He condemns adultery (Matthew 5:27-28)—but not polygyny.
He rebukes the Pharisees for their legal distortions (Matthew 23:23)—but never their acceptance of polygyny.

If polygyny were an affront to YHWH, why would Yahshua ha’Messiah miss the perfect opportunity to rebuke it?

C. Paul, the Pharisee of Pharisees, Also Remains Silent

Paul, a former Pharisee trained under Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), was a zealous defender of the Law. He wrote at length about Christian ethics, denouncing fornication, idolatry, and moral corruption—but never once condemned polygyny.

This is especially damning for the monogamy-only argument because Paul was writing to Gentile converts, many of whom came from Roman monogamous cultures.

If polygyny were forbidden under the New Covenant, we should expect explicit instructions forbidding it—just as Paul explicitly condemned homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27), fornication (1 Corinthians 6:18), and idolatry (Galatians 5:19-21).
Yet, in all of Paul’s moral exhortations, not a single verse bans polygyny.

Instead, he writes:

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 – "To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband... and the husband should not divorce his wife."

Here, Paul directly cites Yahshua’s words on marriage—and once again, polygyny is conspicuously absent.

If monogamy-only were a critical new moral law, Paul would have been the one to define and enforce it. That he does not, speak volumes.

D. The Pagan Roman Imposition of Monogamy

The real origin of Christian monogamy-only doctrine is not the Torah, not the Prophets, not Yahshua, and not Paul—but the Roman Empire.

Augustine, Church Father (354-430 AD):"Now indeed in our time, and in keeping with Roman custom, it is no longer allowed to take another wife in addition to the first."

Tertullian (c. 160–225 AD):"We do not condemn polygamy as if it were illicit, but we abstain from it because of Roman law and custom."

The early Church, eager to gain imperial favor, absorbed the monogamous ideals of Greco-Roman culture and retroactively imposed them on Christianity. But this was not a divine revelation—it was political expediency.

Thus, the question must be asked: Will we follow the traditions of men, or the Word of God?

The choice is ours. But let us make no mistake—the monogamy-only doctrine is a Greco-Roman invention, not a Biblical one.

The Monogamy-Only FALLACY Dilemma: If Polygyny Is Inferior, So Is Celibacy—And That Condemns Paul and Even Messiah

If monogamy is the exclusive ideal, the sole pinnacle of marital virtue, then what are we to make of celibacy? If the man with two wives is deemed to have fallen short of divine perfection, then must not the man with no wife at all be equally suspect? Surely, by this reasoning, the Apostle Paul, John the Baptist, and even Yahshua Himself were all lacking in YHWH’s design—a conclusion so ludicrously self-defeating that one is tempted to dismiss it outright.

And yet, what does Paul himself proclaim? 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 – "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

Here we have an apostle—not just any apostle, but the great architect of Christian doctrine—declaring that it is better to remain unmarried! If monogamy-only advocates insist that one must marry a single spouse to be fully aligned with YHWH’s design, then Paul’s words become deeply inconvenient, if not outright heretical to their position.

Thus, the monogamy-only advocate finds himself in a splendid theological paradox: either admit that polygyny and celibacy are both Biblically valid or condemn Paul for advocating a state supposedly less than ideal. Either polygyny is a lawful, acceptable marital choice, or one must accept the outrageous notion that Paul led countless believers into a "spiritually inferior" state by promoting celibacy.

And if the latter be true, then heaven help us!—for even the Son of Yah Himself, who took no wife, would stand condemned under the very standard they so vigorously defend.

The Final Indictment: The Monogamy-Only Claim Violates YHWH’s Legal Standard for Truth

A law without evidence is no law at all—it is a decree of tyranny, an invention of men draped in the robes of divine authority. And yet, this is precisely the predicament of the monogamy-only doctrine, which struts about the theological courts without a single Biblical witness to testify in its favor.

Scripture demands that no charge, no moral claim, no doctrinal standard be established without at least two or three witnesses. Yet when monogamy-only is placed on trial, not even one can be found. Not a single verse prohibits polygyny, nor does any command demand monogamy as the only acceptable form of marriage. Instead, YHWH regulates polygyny, commands it in specific cases, and even models it through His covenant with Israel and Judah.

And here lies the monogamy-only paradox—if polygyny is a deviation from divine intent, then so too must be celibacy. If a man with two wives is said to have fallen short, then so too must the man with no wife at all—which would condemn Paul for promoting a lesser path and accuse even Messiah Himself of failing to attain marital perfection. The argument folds in on itself, leaving its defenders scrambling for explanations that do not exist in Scripture.

Thus, we are left with two choices:

Either YHWH’s Word stands, and polygyny—like monogamy and celibacy—is a lawful and divinely sanctioned path.
Or we reject Biblical law, replacing it with the dictates of Roman legalism and cultural tradition, as did the early Church in its bid for imperial favor.

But before one hastily retreats into the comfort of man-made traditions, let us pause and ask: If Yahshua, Paul, and the Pharisees all knew the Law—and none of them prohibited polygyny—how then do modern theologians presume to know better?

Paul, wrote extensively about marriage, morality, and sexual ethics. He denounced fornication, adultery, and idolatry in the strongest terms. Yet, in all his writings, he never once condemns polygyny. If it were truly a corruption of YHWH’s design, then Paul—trained under Gamaliel, a “Pharisee of Pharisees,” and the most prolific law-teacher of the New Testament—would have been obligated to say so. His silence is not an oversight—it is a testimony.

Should we then discard the teachings of Yahshua and Paul and kneel before the legacy of Roman law?

For that is precisely what monogamy-only advocates have done. The early Church capitulated to Greco-Roman ideals, forbidding what YHWH permitted, elevating tradition over truth, and exchanging Biblical law for imperial decree. And thus, to this very day, the Christian world follows the customs of Caesar, not the commandments of YHWH.

So let us be clear: Matthew 6:33 – "Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you."

The righteous man does not chase after women, nor does he concern himself with the laws of men—he builds his home, his legacy, and his calling before YHWH, and what is due to him shall be added in due season.

Some men are called to remain unmarried, while others are called to one wife, as Isaac had Rebekah. Others are still called to raise many sons, build great households, and establish dynasties, as Abraham, Jacob, and David did.

What matters is not how many wives a man has, but whether he seeks first the kingdom of YHWH, walks in righteousness, and rules his house in accordance with divine law. Shall we then be judged by Rome, or by the Word of YHWH?

Let the fearful cling to tradition. Let the weak bow before cultural conformity. Let the timid theologians keep their silence. But as for us—the Kingdom Builders of YHWH—we stand upon the rock of Scripture, walking in the footsteps of the patriarchs before us, answering only to the Almighty King who reigns above.

Final Verdict: The monogamy-only doctrine is a theological farce, a relic of imperial Rome, an unBiblical fabrication that collapses under the weight of Yah’s own testimony.

Let the wise take heed. Let the brave speak boldly. And let the Word of YHWH—not the traditions of men—govern the way of the righteous.

“If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:15, NASB)

THE MONOGAMY-ONLY FALLACY: A FORENSIC DISSECTION OF A SACRED COW