Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: JAKraig

Even that can be confusing because it does not say only one wife,


I understand what you are saying, I have tried it three different ways and the only reason I go with the assumption of only one wife is because many of them had more than one wife in the OT.

The second option would be if a man was divorced and remarried but since Jesus said that would be adultery I doubt they would be a Church member, much less an elder but only a member of the congregation.

The third option would be if a man lost his wife through death and remarried and I don`t see how that would disqualify him.

Your guess is as good as mine.


71 posted on 11/06/2014 2:58:46 PM PST by ravenwolf (` know if an other temple will be built or not but the)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]


To: ravenwolf
The third option would be if a man lost his wife through death and remarried and I don`t see how that would disqualify him.

Keep in mind there was a provision for divorcing a wife that a man had married when he was a pagan if she left him when he converted. (Actually, that option still exists.) Paul may have intended to exclude such men.

There is also considerable evidence that the ancients were not impressed with a man who was widowed and remarried in mature years. It was viewed as a sign of not being able to control one's appetites.

The "husband of one wife" clause had nothing to do with polygamy, which was equally unknown among Greco-Roman pagans, Jews, and Christians in Paul's day.

75 posted on 11/06/2014 4:24:10 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson