Even in today's middle eastern culture, they allow multiple wives. I believe this is what the Apostle Paul was addressing. The Muslims of today allow multiple wives, and they even maintain them when they come to America (as long as they never become a citizen it is possible...). Many of the Native American tribes allowed multiple wives; many African tribes allowed multiple wives, and do not condemn adultery or fornication. The bible-believing Missionary has to teach them these biblical truths, and has to fight that battle constantly in his work. Even in the OT, we saw this same problem - Jacob, David, and Solomon are the glaring culprits in my view.
The NT teaching reaffirms the OT teaching of Genesis - One man, one woman for a lifetime. God allowed the Israelites to have the option of divorce "for the hardness of their hearts." This could mean many things:
1. Two people who are not serving the Lord marry. So they are already out of the will of God. Let's say one of them gets right, wants to serve God, and the other doesn't. Enter I Cor. 7 - the unbelieving is NOT bound. The Christian is commanded to let them depart. I Cor. 7 does not differentiate between pastor or church member. Therefore, it would be adding to the word to say that it ONLY applies to the church member.
2. Two married people can't get along so they want a divorce. THere is no NT teaching to allow for this behavior, and therefore, I believe this is wrong.
3. One person cruelly beats his wife and children. His heart is hardened. THe woman can and should report him to the police, and remain faithful IF POSSIBLE. It may be that the only possible protection for her is divorce.

There are many other reasons that could fall under the definition of "for the hardness of your heart." I am only attempting to demonstrate that it is not so cut and dried as many make it to be.

Further, if a man has a problem with dumping his spouse for any old reason, committing adultery, fornication, etc., and has multiple wives, there is reason to wonder.
If a man does everything he is suppossed to do to love his wife and provide for her, and she runs off, then what? If this same man continually promotes ONE marriage, is anti-divorce, counsels AGAINST divorce, and demonstrates openly and publicly his love, support, protection, provision, and care for his current wife, then I don't see the need to throw stones at that particular man, especially in the circumstance where the first marriage started when they were both lost or backslidden.

These are two different scenarios, and in my view demand two different responses.

The pharisaical attitude of many fundamentalists reek on this one: Many fundamentalists who have a high profile will condemn one man for not "being the husband of one wife" (ie divorced and remarried), but they allow wanton fornication and adultery in their churches, even amongst staff members.

In Christ,