Riddle me this one you wise and gentle people. The words ascribed to Jesus regarding marriage only make sense in terms of a monogamous relationship, one man and one woman.

Now we jump to Timothy wherein the character requirements for wannabe bishops and deacons are described. (n.b., this is where Protestants note priests are not mentioned) They cannot be drunks. Their children must be well behaved, i.e. he controls his family. It lists the sort of thing we generally expect of a politician as an upstanding member of the community. And then there is a zinger. He may only have one wife.

If that is a requirement which must be named to fit into the image of a good Roman, i.e. pagan, family does that not mean the Judeans of the time were still into polygamy? Today Islam, the LDS and ultra-orthodox Jews point to the OT as the foundation of polygamy. Israel ignores polygamy among the ultra-orthodox better than the LDS ignore it.

So what does it mean? When reviewing anything in the bible, OT or NT, consider polygamy was the natural state of affairs. It was some time later that Christianity adopted the Roman idea of monogamy and "penciled in" the words of Jesus in support of the pagan marriage standard.