Most people that use that as a matter of fact against PM completely skip over 1 Timothy 2:9-15.. when asked if they follow that teaching in their church you will hear a bunch of reasons why that no longer applies to this age and once they do that any point they were trying to make with the verses that come right after are lost. That of course is using their own logic against them.. But the truth is That verse leads one to assume PM was accepted in Paul's teachings and the churches he set up. First off, they were talking about picking members of the believers to be the church heads so obviously there were members of the church (believers) that had multiple wives. Paul talked about the husbands having to care about the things of their wives and it makes sense if a man had 2 wives he would have less time to take care of the business of the church so it would be a better choice to pick a man that only had one wife because he would have more time for the church..
Secant, Paul himself said it is better that a man not marry at all and be as he was because men that were married have to also care for the wife and those that aren't can devote all their time to God.. Obviously there is logic in that but Paul himself said the women would be saved through childbearing so clearly he seen a need in that and besides that, if no one married then before long there would be no need for a church at all because there would be no people. So he was not truly advocating all men should not marry, he was talking about a specific station in the church and what would best feel that station.. also it should be noted that Paul went on record a few times stating he was offering "his" opinion on matters.. So was this his opinion or was it an order from the Father? He starts out Chapter 2 saying "I Exhort..." and remember the chapters were not in the original scrips, the translators added them so its not like what was said at the first of chapter 3 was not in context of verse 1 from chapter 2. You can read it for yourself and decide the context of his statement..
here is where it gets fun and those using this verse against you will realize they are in over their head, Notice the word "ONE WIFE" the same person using this verse will tell you WIFE means singular as in there can only be 1. So why would there be a need to say "ONE wife"? Then ask them if they know the Hebrew and Greek words most translated into WIFE is also the same Hebrew and Greek words translated into "WIVES". Meaning it had a plural and singular meaning. In English we have 2 separate words so the translators had to use the context of the text to translate into the right English word. When it was clear they were only talking about 1 person it would be wife and when it was clear they were talking about more then one they would say wives.. So which word do you think was chosen when it wasn't clear? You guessed it.. Wife! Truth is half the verses used to say, "see it says wife, not wives" could have just as easily been translated into wives because the word had both singular and plural meanings. Like when it says "a man should leave father and mother and cleave unto his wife" it could have been just as easily been translated into saying "a man should leave father and mother and cleave unto his wives" that is a general statement, there is no context to say it had a singular or plural meaning but as I said, with no clear context of a plural meaning they always used the root English word and that is wife.
