Divorce and remarriage

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by coksiw

2. Regarding "polygamist", wasn't that already prohibited in the Roman empire at the time Paul wrote that letter?

3. That becomes a little bit subjective especially for those that divorced being already Christian. It could be actually that way, depending on the result of other bishops judging the reason for divorce. Think of someone that came to Christ, and the spouse divorced them as result. Or someone that was in Christ and the spouse, being initially converted, then departed back to the world.

Actually, I found out that polygamy was "prohibited" according to the legislation of Justinian however the punishment was "infamia", which basically prohibits the person from political and public rights.

If that's the case, maybe Paul's words are literal, and that's it: a bishop can't be someone that is in the current status of "infamia" in the society for reasons like polygamy. Another reason for being in "infamia" was prostitution, and stuff of that nature.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

2. Regarding "polygamist", wasn't that already prohibited in the Roman empire at the time Paul wrote that letter?

https://www.christian-thinktank.com/polygame.html

"Polygamy was not practiced in the Roman world outside Palestine, though illegal bigamy and certainly adultery were. [EBC: in.loc. 1 Tim 3]

There is evidence of the practice of polygamy in Palestinian Judaism in NT times (cf. J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period, 1969, 90, 93, 369f.). Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.) had ten wives (Josephus, Ant. 17, 19f.; War 1,562) and a considerable harem (War 1,511). Polygamy and concubinage among the aristocracy is attested by Josephus, Ant. 12, 186ff.; 13, 380; War 1, 97. The continued practice of levirate marriage (Yeb. 15b) evidently led to polygamy, which was countenanced by the school of Shammai but not by that of Hillel. [NIDNTT:s.v. "Marriage, adultery, bride, bridegroom"]"

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/peop...enistic-period

"Polygamy remained legal in the Hellenistic period. Ben Sira, who wrote his book of wisdom ca. 185 BCE in Jerusalem, recognized the problems of disharmony and jealousy between wives and their negative impact on the family: “a woman jealous of another woman is but heartache and grief, and the scourging tongue affects everyone” (Sir 26:5-6; see also Sir 37:11). Josephus, in the first century CE, records a few cases of polygamy in the royal house and justifies them by appealing to the old Israel tradition. In his account of the marriages of Herod and his relatives, Josephus states: “For it is our ancestral custom that a man have several wives at the same time” (Ant. 17.14; J.W. 1.477). Some cases are also attested among the priestly families (Life 75). Philo describes a man who had two wives (Virtues 22.115) and another who had children by three wives because of his hope of multiplying his race (Virtues 38.207). Rabbinic writings mention polygamy in legal discussions (m. Ketub. 10:5; m. Ker. 3:7) and permit eighteen wives for kings (m. Sanh. 2:4). Some cases of bigamy in well-off families are also recorded (t. Yebam.1:10; Sukkah 27a).

However, given that the practice of monogamy is recommended in many rabbinic texts and that not a single case of bigamy is attested among the rabbis themselves, it may be assumed that monogamy was the widespread norm. Prohibitions against the practice found at Qumran support this assumption (CD IV, 20–V, 2), but evidence found in the Babatha archive, in Naḥal Ḥever near the Dead Sea, suggests otherwise. For instance, a second century CE Greek papyrus describes disputes between Babatha and Miriam, the two wives of Yehuda, after his death. Moreover, polygamy was declared illegal among Jews by the emperor Theodosius I in 393 CE, which suggests that the practice was still prevalent at the time, even if it was outlawed thereafter."

3. That becomes a little bit subjective especially for those that divorced being already Christian. It could be actually that way, depending on the result of other bishops judging the reason for divorce. Think of someone that came to Christ, and the spouse divorced them as result. Or someone that was in Christ and the spouse, being initially converted, then departed back to the world.

As I said, exceptions might be possible but obviously would require some exceptional circumstances. Your statement applies to the other qualifications also, regarding sobriety, lack of greed, hospitality, etc. Which is probably why "not a novice" is included, to give time for the brethren to see the extent of positive difference between the preconversion and postconversion life.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Actually, I found out that polygamy was "prohibited" according to the legislation of Justinian however the punishment was "infamia", which basically prohibits the person from political and public rights.

If that's the case, maybe Paul's words are literal, and that's it: a bishop can't be someone that is in the current status of "infamia" in the society for reasons like polygamy. Another reason for being in "infamia" was prostitution, and stuff of that nature.

Yes, the "above reproach" would include not being in "infamia", or even an illegal bigamist, or one of the Jewish sectarians who practiced polygamy. All of those would bring reproach to the overseer and by extension to the church.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by coksiw

"one wife for one life": that's a very straight forward and simple interpretation. I like it. Yet, I wish it were that straight forward and simple.

"Most safe and conservative view": I honestly don't care much about having a hard line position on a topic to draw acceptance and praises from some group. That means nothing to me.

Amen to that.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by coksiw

"one wife for one life": that's a very straight forward and simple interpretation. I like it. Yet, I wish it were that straight forward and simple.

"Most safe and conservative view": I honestly don't care much about having a hard line position on a topic to draw acceptance and praises from some group. That means nothing to me.

And I see the liberal, unscriptural views as very popular, drawing acceptance and praises from the masses, and leading to churches where adultery is common.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Weed out the Bible believers.
That is easier to try to justify now that they are using all sorts of corruption versions.

What were the marriage-divorce-remarriage doctrines of the oneness believers c. 1920-1940?
That would be a helpful study.

Remember, there are some extra considerations.
Is there a covenant spouse, alive, for either the man or woman? Often the questions are over-simplified.

Who says the extreme view is the Biblical one? Enough evidence has been shared in this thread to cast severe doubt on the so-called "conservative" views.

"Covenant spouse alive"? That is the point. A bill of divorcement ends the covenant. They are n longer a spouse biblically.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

1 Corinthians 7:32-33
32......But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33......But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

Scriptures like this make me doubtful of “the rule” against the unmarried. Paul commends people who are giving their life wholly to God, but then disqualifies them from specific ministries in the church?

1 Timothy 3:4-5 KJV
One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; [5] (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

How does a never married man "ruleth well his own house having his children in subjection with all gravity"? Paul states a requirement of an overseer is to know how to manage his own household. A never married man doesn't really have such experience.

1 Corinthians 7:26 KJV
I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

The context of Paul's earlier statement in Corinthians is general advice for people during a time of distress. The statement in Timothy is a specific requirement for oversight of a congregation. So I see no contradiction. Otherwise, the married would be prohibited from being a bishop (the Roman Catholic position).

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

And I see the liberal, unscriptural views as very popular, drawing acceptance and praises from the masses, and leading to churches where adultery is common.

This is true. There is a ditch on either side of the road we have to be wary of.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This is true. There is a ditch on either side of the road we have to be wary of.

That is what makes this discussion so difficult. On the one hand, it is obvious that God does not want rampant divorce in his church. We, of all people, should be able to save our homes and marriages through Christ. But on the other hand, reading "perpetual adultery" and "invalid second marriages" into the words of Christ in Matthew 19 as a way to scare people not to remarry is not the way to go.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by coksiw

"one wife for one life": that's a very straight forward and simple interpretation. I like it. Yet, I wish it were that straight forward and simple.

"Most safe and conservative view": I honestly don't care much about having a hard line position on a topic to draw acceptance and praises from some group. That means nothing to me.

Has nothing with drawing acceptance, but the only way marriage should be viewed by all involved. I understand that anytime people are involved that problems arise. I was raised in my grandparents home and they where married for about 60years before my grandmother passed. There was many hard times and mistakes made, but they had a sense of duty to one another and to their. children. 99.99% of divorcement today is nothing but selfishness. There is really never an innocent party in a divorce.