From: Jonathan Robie (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 17 1998 - 12:01:52 EST
At 11:23 AM 2/17/98 -0500, Brrolan@ra.rockwell.com wrote:
>Jonathan Robie wrote:
>If it *does* mean "not polygamous", which I doubt, then it does not imply a
>requirement for all Christians, nor does it amount to a command to divorce
>all wives but the first one - after all, not all christians have to be
>bishops or deacons!
>I am sorry if I was ambigious. I did not mean to imply that Christians who
>were not bishops or deacons were allowed to be polygamous. What I was
>implying is that those who were burdened with the stigma and responsibility
>of a *formerly* polygamous relationship, (as any convert might have been),
>could not easily serve in a leadership position.
I guess what I don't understand is this: why do you think that this passage
implies that a convert who was polygamous at the time of conversion should
divorce all but one wife?
Is there a passage elsewhere in the New Testament that suggests polygamy is
an exception to the general teachings against divorce? 1 Cor 7:10-17 deals
with the issue of marriages to unbelievers, implying in general that these
happened before conversion, but it never raises the issue of polygamy.
Jonathan Robie email@example.com
Little Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine
Little Greek 101: http://sunsite.unc.edu/koine/greek/lessons
B-Greek Home Page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
B-Greek Archives: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek/archives
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:04 EDT