[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

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 His response to them was NOT that they were pontificating about a law that was outdated.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?

I do believe that the Law was applicable all the way up to the death and resurrection of Christ. Of course, the Jews continued on in obeying the Law even after Christ fulfilled it for the sake of the elect. So, I can see your point regarding Jews practicing polygamy throughout the period. I had read about rabbinical opinion prohibiting polygamy at one point. However, upon revisiting that, I discovered that it was far later (like between the 1000's and 1200's) that this was the case. Side note, in revisiting this I discovered that there is actually a movement right now among certain rabbinical scholars to revive polygamy in modern day Israel. Their logic is that single women outnumber men significantly, and marriages to Arab men appear to be rising. They're concerned that they will lose their homogeneous identity if the trend continues. Their logic is... by allowing Jewish men to marry more than one woman, and encouraging the practice, they can reduce the number of single Jewish women who have no other option than to marry non-Jewish partners. In addition, it will boost distinctly Jewish birth rates Of course, traditional Jewish authorities are aghast at the notion. I just thought it was interesting seeing that demographically some have voiced concern over birthrates among Americans rates and the growing Islamic demographic presented by Muslim immigrants. Wouldn't it be ironic if having a couple side-chicks saved Western civilization? LOL

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.

I assume you realize that this interpretation implies that polygamy (and even perhaps concubinage) could be acceptable among the laity. I've heard the case for Christian polygamy, but I'm in disagreement. According to my interpretation being the husband of one wife (Greek: "man of one woman") would rule out:

Polygamy
Concubinage/Mistresses
Remarried Divorcees

So, I believe the more expansive interpretation guards from more than one abuse of power and protects the reputation of the church by keeping leadership above reproach.

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.

In contemplating this, I've noticed that general crimes (drugs, theft, and even murder) do not involve a one flesh relationship with another human being. I'm sure this can be elaborated upon, but I do see it as a unique element to having more than one wife (sequentially or currently) that distinguishes it from other sins such as theft and even murder.

If you really are interested in having the TRUE true answer, you might ask Esaias. I'm pretty sure he knows everything.