Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
Tithe,
Good points. You've given me some things to think about.
I'll share my initial thoughts, but obviously this is worth me looking at the issue again. So, bear in mind, these initial thoughts may prove to be in transition.
If the Jews were still practicing polygamy, which is permitted by the Torah, by permission from Rome, why would Paul prohibit it among Christian leaders? Why wouldn't Paul permit polygamy in accordance to Torah?
I believe the story of the woman with seven husbands who had died was only a hypothetical to demonstrate a point about the resurrection, not evidence that polygamy was still being practiced.
My ex would definitely deny still being my wife. Lol But I'm more concerned about what God might think.
I believe that death terminates the marriage bond. Widowers would be eligible, remarried or single.
If 1 Timothy 3:2 is a prohibition against polygamy, it only applies to bishops and deacons. Wouldn't this imply that polygamy would be acceptable for those uninterested in the office of Bishop or deacon?
But you're post gives some good food for thought. I'm going to study it out more.
Would you be willing to elaborate on your take regarding 1 Timothy 3:2?
God bless,
Chris |
As far as the seven brothers, I do believe that the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. His response to them was NOT that they were pontificating about a law that was outdated. It is for this reason that I believe it was still being observed. My post was perhaps a little TIC but it does provide food for thought doesn't it?
As for the verse you are referencing, I believe it is a prohibition for bishops to be polygamous, just like it says. It may mean never divorced but I don't believe so. BTW deacons are held to the same standard regarding polygamy later in the chapter. It is perhaps significant that these instructions appear to be specific to leadership. This is further proof that all are NOT held to the same standard. To whom much is given, much is required.
Just another thought. The Originalist, I believe referred to the trend that someone in their past life can be a drug dealer, alcoholic, horse thief etc. and still be a pastor. (I am ad-libbing, maybe not his exact words.) If however, he has been married before he is not qualified. Somehow it seems that he is not a "new creature". I'm pretty sure there is something wrong about this inequity. Not saying what, just something.
If you really are interested in having the TRUE true answer, you might ask Esaias. I'm pretty sure he knows everything.