polygamy or divorce?

Sorry Mate, I didnt vote, I am not sure what you are driving at.

Yes Deacons are allowed only one wife, as is any Christian, 1Cor 7:2 "Nevertheless, because of sexual immoralitylet each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband". So the Biblical model is a one wife model.

The Israeli Government are paying for Jews in all nations to return to Israel. In very few instances some Jews, due to culture related reasons have more than one wife. They are still accepted, but Jews are not permitted more than one wife in Israel. Prior to conversion is an exception to the rule.

The same in the Christian church. No christian can go out and marry multiple wives. A person who has multiple wives and gets saved has a responsability to his family and must care for each of them.

 

Gary, I also didn't vote. The question is not that simple - not that "black and white." Many feel that, in regard to what the Bible, especially the NT, has to say about divorce, that a person is considered married as long as the spouse is still alive. In this view, a person who is divorced and remarried would still be a bigamist despite having a divorce decree.

 

How about neither?? I believe it is talking about the character of the man in question ... a one woman type of man. One characterized by fiathfulness and integrity rather than looseness and flirtation.

As for Keith's comments regarding marriage continuing after divorce, Deut 24 indicates that such was not the case since a remarriage could not be contracted to the original spouse. A divorce ends a marriage, whether rightly or wrongly.

 

Jesus clearly stated in Luke that remarriage while the divorced spouse is alive is, in fact, adultery.

Using this standard, one must reject such practicing adulterers as Ronald Reagan and Betty Ford.

 

Really?? That would be news to the vast majority of people who read the NT. In Matthew, he clearly gives an exception for those whose spouse commits adultery and in 1 Cor he clearly gives an exception for those who have been deserted.

 

And if the divorce is for grounds other than unfaithfulness, what then??

Did Charles Stanley cheat on his wife? or her on him? Doubtful.
I KNOW Dottie and Buck Rambo divorced for reasons other than adultery. (I know him and Reba and Donnie personally)

You stated "[except for divorcing her for her marital unfaithfulness]"
Ummm what version is that?

True, some synoptics give an excuse, but Luke does not. Do we use the synoptic we like and ignore what we don't?

[ January 08, 2003, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: jonathanbensaul ]

 

I think we can easily step into confusion here in addition to disagreement here. Can't help the disagreement, but we should become less confused. Most of the time we do not deal with someone who is deciding to divorce or not, and that would be the time to discuss with them the scriptural grounds for divorce. More likely, we are faced with someone who has divorced. And perhaps has remarried. We might look back and decide that was a sin the way they did it, but we cannot unmarry them! The question is, then, does that particular sin disqualify a candidate for pastor or deacon? In my mind, ANY unrepentant sin could be disqualifying, but what is "unrepentant" in this context? Certainly not another divorce! Another wrong does not make things right.

If a person currently has an appropriate attitude towards family and marriage, and currently has only one wife, I don't view this scripture as referring to past marriages. To interpret it that way is adding to scripture what is not there.

 

I am moving this thread to the Theology Forum as it has nothing to do with the translation issue and everything to do with the interpretation issue.

 

For the Greek experts:

If God had intended to specify only one marriage within a lifetime for a pastor or deacon, could Paul have used the aorist instead of present tense of the relevant verbs? If so, and God did not specify only one marriage in a lifetime then the divorce exceptions should apply, shouldn't they?

 

None of the above. The "one-woman man" is a character trait, not merely a headcount of his wives, whether in series or parallel.

Naturally, a polygamist would be disqualified either way.

 

I also believe it to be a Character issue. Check verse 11 dealing with wives, it says "not slanderers". Does that mean NEVER had slandered, or living a lifestyle that does not practice slandering?

 

Sorry to be long in getting back to you, Scott.

The phrase "Husband of one wife" is not a verbal and therefor the aorist/present distinction has no bearing on that phrase. The only relevant verbs (dei ... einai [necessary to be] for pastors/estosan (from eimi) for deacons) are both present tense imperatives referring to the present state of a man's life.

 

So basically, the language doesn't help to resolve the interprettation debate?

Thanks, Pastor Larry.

 

Also didn't vote - not enough choices. Another one should be "both."

 

My thoughts, too, rl on the divorced, only if remarried . But then, if divorced, he hasn't ruled his house well.

[ January 20, 2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: TheOliveBranch ]

 

Has anyone considered the possibility of digamy?
Surely, Paul rules out polygamy and bigamy. A word study of the word "one" is interesting. Of course, context is the key.

Rufus

 

What if a man was out of fellowship with the Lord ; divorced, and later on remarried a good christian woman and became faithful to serving the Lord and was called into the ministry. should he be allowed to pastor a church? remembering that God forgives us of our sins when we confess them to him

 

What if a man was in fellowship with the Lord but his wife rebelled against God, cheated on him, deserted him, divorced him and remarried, and then later he married a good christian woman and continued to be faithful to serving the Lord and followed a calling into the ministry. should he be allowed to pastor a church?

Of course.