Unequally yoked - an open letter/eisegesis

[SirKenin]

As many of you already have seen, I have always had an interest in what the Bible says about Christians being "yoked" to unbelievers. Not content with the status quo, I endeavored to set out and find out for myself what the Bible says. After much research, I have come to some interesting conclusions. I would like to encourage you to read in full what I have to say, then add facts of your own to either support or disprove my conclusions. Please, let's leave bias, agendas and dogma at the door.

I think I will break this up into a couple of posts, as it promises to get rather lengthy. First, I must put a new CD on, though, as music helps me to think.

HISTORY

Jesus did not address the issue of unions between Christians and non-Christians, so as such Paul, being led by the Holy Spirit, addresses this issue in his letter to the Christians in Corinth in 1 and 2 Corinthians.

When Paul left Athens, he came into the town of Corinth where he met Aquilla and Priscilla. He stayed with them there, making tents. During his stay, he brought them to Christ and started church services in their home. Word spread out across the city, and soon the new converts became members of this church. This small church became Paul's favorite church, although it was a church riddled with it's fair share of problems, considering the influences around it. Allow me to explain.

Corinth was a major trading center with two ports from where they traded with Asia and Italy. As such, the city had great wealth, but was given to the pursuit of the arts, worldly wisdom and sins of the flesh, in particular fornication. Such was their debauchery that the term "korinthiazein, korinthiasesthai" meaning "to play the Corinthian" meant to indulge in whorish inclinations, or play the harlot.

The city of Corinth had a temple to worship the goddess of love, Aphrodite. The worship of Aphrodite included sexual relationships in their ceremonies. The temple priestesses then, more than 10,000 of them, were nothing more than harlots.

Concerned, the Corinthian church wrote to Paul, seeking answers to the problems that plagued the church.

Paul addresses their two-fold problems. That of carnality, and that of spirituality.

CARNALITY

BEING UNEQUALLY YOKED.

This is perhaps one of two most misunderstood passages regarding unions in the entire New Testament, and is addressed in 2 Corinthians 6:14.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (KJV)

In the Greek, key to understanding of this verse, it reads as follows:

un ginomai heterozugeo apistos tis gar metoche dikaiosune kai anomia tis de koinonia phos pros skotos.

The key word here, subject to bias, agendas and dogma, is heterozugeo (2086), literally translated "unequally yoked together". What does it mean though?

Heterozugeo, according to Thayer's Lexicon, means "to have fellowship with one who is not an equal: 2Cor 6:14, where the apostle is forbidding Christians to have intercourse with idolaters"

Paul, then, is quite literally forbidding the Christians to join ranks with the idolaters in the temple of Aphrodite. They are forbidden to participate in the ceremonies, and as such sexual relations with the temple harlots. It has nothing to do with marriage to an unbeliever.

That leaves two more passages in 1 Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 7:12-24 and 1 Corinthians 7:38. I shall address these in my next post.

 

[SirKenin]

1 CORINTHIANS 7:38

This passage is prone to bias, agendas and dogma as evidenced in the discrepencies between versions. Witness the following:

A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. (NIV)

The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. (KJV)

In the Greek, monon en kurios, or "only in the Lord".

Why the discrepency? The agenda of the translations. What does it mean to be "only in the Lord" as stated in the KJV and the original Greek? Quite simply, it means that a woman can remarry after prayerfully considering her new mate. She is to be open to the direction of the Lord. Open to his leading and his will for her life, acting in the fear of God, and by the laws of God.

The problem is, Jesus never spoke to unions between Christians and non-Christians. So, the only place one can turn for clues in the New Testament is in Paul's directions in 1 Corinthians 7:12-24.

1 CORINTHIANS 7:12-24

Paul, guided by the Holy Spirit, takes on the task of addressing unions between Christians and non-Christians. The new Christians in Corinth wanted to be placed under a set of laws to guide them, but Paul gingerly side-steps this request and instead asks a question.

How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. (1 Cor 7:16,17 NIV)

One is to approach the idea of marriage seeking the direction of the Lord. It is clear in this passage that we don't know if God called us to lead our partner to Christ. A somber task, but if there is even a small chance of success, it is worth the pursuit, as Paul states elsewhere. Regardless, we are to stay on the path the Lord has called us to when we became Christians, whether in a marriage or not.

In the next post, the conclusion.

 

[SirKenin]

CONCLUSION
As Christians, we are not bound to the Law, and Paul refused to place new Christians under the Law. If you are under the Law, you are no longer under grace.

So, Paul gave us the Law of Liberty, with which he links to the Law of Love, and the Law of Expediency.

The Law of Liberty is that everything is legal. Nothing is wrong in itself. Every capability and capacity in the human being was not created by the devil, but by God Himself, and God does not create anything wrong. The Law of Love is that you are free to do something, but if it causes someone else to stumble, you will not do it. The Law of Expediency is that everything is permissible for a Christian, everything is legal, but not everything is helpful.

As such, it is entirely possible for God to call you to marry a non-Christian and entirely permissible for you to do so. However, the decision must be made prayerfully, as God calls us to live in peace (1 Cor 7:15) God does not desire marriage to be a burden, but a blessing. God will not lead us down the wrong path and God has not created any capabilities within us that are wrong.

The Bible does not teach us to refuse to marry an unbeliever. This is man's bias, agenda and dogma at it's finest. As a Christian, however, you are required to examine whether marrying your non-Christian partner will be helpful to you in every aspect and whether it will cause someone else to stumble.

I urge you, as does the Bible, to approach your marriage carefully and prayerfully, and may God bless you in your search for His divine will.

 

[charligirl]

Interesting research. From experience I have seen only a couple of situations where God can and does lead people to marry unbelievers in very rare and specific circumstances... but have also seen many where the marriage was ill advised and not God's plan at all!

Please hear what I am saying, I don't mean that believers should meet and fall for someone then pray it all works out, but rather that God specifically calls them to that person knowing that they will be saved in the future. So it is the exception rather than the norm and it does not mean that christians can suddenly abandon all reason and wisdom and start dating unbelievers.

To be married at all is a challenge that needs God as your source, but to be married to an unbeliever is a very hard and specific challenge that has to be God ordained for it to work out. The believer has to have a very strong faith and probably not be called to very evangelistic or public ministry that requires the prayerful support of a spouse, and they need to have a special grace from God to walk the walk alone in faith for their partner.. which can take years (30 in one of the cases I know of!)

So I guess I am agreeing that it can be so but also saying that it is only in rare and very specific God ordained situations.

 

[Maccie]

This is all very erudite! But what about a woman who becomes a Christian after years of marriage to a non-Christian? I became a Christian after 28 years of unhappy marriage. He was very hostile indeed to my faith. We have worked things out a bit better now, but it is not easy. You can count out any social events at church, as he won't come, and to go by myself would be like a red rag to a bull! Nor can I get too busy at church, especially now we are both retired. He wants me there 24/7 - anything else is a threat to his security.

Yes, I do stand up for myself, I refuse to be a doormat any more. But believe me, it is not easy. And few people, unless they are in a similar situation, understand.

Maccie

 

[charligirl]

Maccie

How hard for you. Praise God that you now have Him to get your strength from after 28 unhappy years. The bible does allow a believer to leave their partner if the partner will not accept their faith, not sure if that helps at all, and I do think it is a last resort.

Have you come across the book 'The Power of a Praying Wife' by Stormie Omartian? Brilliant!! Prayer is so powerful and it does work (even on angry demanding hostile men!) because God is for you.

 

[SirKenin]

Yes, maccie, from the research I did (It was very late, 3am. I could have put in more, but I was bushed), if your unbelieving husband desires to leave, let him do so. God calls us to live in peace.

Good luck to you, and I hope you do find the peace you seek.

 

[SirKenin]

Interesting research. From experience I have seen only a couple of situations where God can and does lead people to marry unbelievers in very rare and specific circumstances... but have also seen many where the marriage was ill advised and not God's plan at all!

Thank you I found it interesting myself to do it. I found it answered a lot of questions that I had. Everything seemed to fall into place once I figured out what the history was. Context is everything

Please hear what I am saying, I don't mean that believers should meet and fall for someone then pray it all works out, but rather that God specifically calls them to that person knowing that they will be saved in the future. So it is the exception rather than the norm and it does not mean that christians can suddenly abandon all reason and wisdom and start dating unbelievers.

To be married at all is a challenge that needs God as your source, but to be married to an unbeliever is a very hard and specific challenge that has to be God ordained for it to work out. The believer has to have a very strong faith and probably not be called to very evangelistic or public ministry that requires the prayerful support of a spouse, and they need to have a special grace from God to walk the walk alone in faith for their partner.. which can take years (30 in one of the cases I know of!)

So I guess I am agreeing that it can be so but also saying that it is only in rare and very specific God ordained situations.

Yes, it's mandatory that you approach the situation prayerfully and carefully. Make sure that it is God's perfect will for your life, not yours. Not that it's going to be the wrong thing to do, but it could prove to not be helpful to you in your walk with God.

Can you handle the burden that will be yours by dating/marrying an unbeliever? Serious soul searching and prayer will reveal the answer to you.

 

[DaveKerwin]

I find marriage to be the highest human relationship on Earth. I find a union with our creator to be the highest relationship period. As such, God comes first, wife comes second. My relationship with God is so foundational to who I am, what I desire, the direction I am going, and who I will become, that I cannot imagine finding "equal" things with an unbelieving woman. For these reasons, in addition to the charges in scripture, I chose to marry a believing woman. As you have pointed out, the Bible tells us to avoid fellowship with one who is not equal. What qualifies something to be equal? The Hebrew word meyshar is described as: evenness, uprightness, straightness. This beggs the questions..

What is even about a romantic relationship with an unbeliever?
What is straight about a romantic relationship with an unbeliever?
What is upright about a romantic relationship with an unbeliever?

As far as I see it, lightness and darkness do not meet on any of those levels.

 

[KleinerApfel]

maccie,

God must be so delighted with you! Becoming a Christian against opposition from your husband is wonderful, but so hard for you. (I'm blessed that my husband is at least understanding of my needs, even though he is very atheistic.)

You have weathered the storms for so many years, still keeping your faith even though your opportunities for fellowship are minimal.

By staying with your husband as the Bible says, and serving him even when your own need for Christian fellowship is unmet, you are a bright light to him, whether he acknowledges it or not.

Don't worry about not being free to serve God elsewhere - this dear man is your "mission field", and the Lord knows how hard your task is.
I do hope he will allow God's grace to touch him eventually.

Charligirl - Read that passage again, we are told NOT to leave our unsaved spouses:
1 Cor. 7:10 says Christians should remain with their unbelieving spouse, but if the unbeliever wishes to leave, we allow them freedom to do that (1 Cor.7:15).

drfeelgood - what is your interest here, are you in an UY relationship or contemplating one?

DaveKerwin, you make some good points.

God bless you all, Susana

 

[SirKenin]

I find marriage to be the highest human relationship on Earth. I find a union with our creator to be the highest relationship period. As such, God comes first, wife comes second. My relationship with God is so foundational to who I am, what I desire, the direction I am going, and who I will become, that I cannot imagine finding "equal" things with an unbelieving woman. For these reasons, in addition to the charges in scripture, I chose to marry a believing woman. As you have pointed out, the Bible tells us to avoid fellowship with one who is not equal. What qualifies something to be equal? The Hebrew word meyshar is described as: evenness, uprightness, straightness. This beggs the questions..

What is even about a romantic relationship with an unbeliever?
What is straight about a romantic relationship with an unbeliever?
What is upright about a romantic relationship with an unbeliever?

As far as I see it, lightness and darkness do not meet on any of those levels.

Dave, I see what you are saying, and I appreciate your attempts to use logic, facts and reason.

Allow me to address your point, then. You say the Bible tells us to avoid relationships that aren't equal. As I pointed out in the first post, what the definition tells us is as follows:

to have fellowship with one who is not an equal: 2Cor 6:14, where the apostle is forbidding Christians to have intercourse with idolaters

Thayers Lexicon further defines what unequal fellowship that Paul is telling us to avoid. We must pay attention to the qualifiers of the definition, "forbidding Christians to have intercourse with idolaters". That fellowship is a church fellowship with idolaters. The fellowship that occured when Christians went to the Temple of Aphrodite and participated and worship to the goddess Aphrodite, having sex with the temple priestesses in worship. That is the relationship being talked about, not loving relationships between two (future) spouses.

What it is saying then, is that there is nothing even, straight, or upright about sexual relations with priestesses, not even for the purpose of worship (in this case, to an idol, hence defining worshippers as idolaters).

I need to ask you something further. How are non-Christians brought to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ? And how can we profess to know God's will and how He will use us as a vehicle to bring a callen individual to Himself?

 

[SirKenin]

drfeelgood - what is your interest here, are you in an UY relationship or contemplating one?

My interest was brought on by the amounts of misinformation that I perceived floating around both here and elsewhere on the internet.

It was further brought on by my desire last night to sit down, listen to some Bach and examine a passage of the Bible in depth. That one, while flipping through, was the one I felt led to address.

 

[charligirl]

Charligirl - Read that passage again, we are told NOT to leave our unsaved spouses:
1 Cor. 7:10 says Christians should remain with their unbelieving spouse, but if the unbeliever wishes to leave, we allow them freedom to do that (1 Cor.7:15).

Yes, you are right, I was remembering incorrectly

I find this an interesting topic, personally I would not have married a non christian however when I met my husband he was not saved, and was only saved a few months before we got engaged. My parents were a different case. God clearly told my Mother to marry my Father and he was not a christian, he had christian values and morals and a belief in the 'christian God' but no faith or relationship of his own. He wanted their children to be raised a christians and trusted my mothers 'intuition' (ie: holy spirit) It took years, but after 30 years of marriage he now has his own faith.

I also know of a girl who met a man and feel in love, he was unsaved. She knew God had told her to marry him and that he would be saved very soon. Her church asked her to leave because of her decision to marry him! But marry him she did, and he was saved, spirit filled and really on-fire within 6 months of their marriage.

In both cases the relationships were conducted in a chritsian manner with clear boundaries and no sex before marriage so there was none of the usual 'dragging down' that you see with christian and non christian relationships.

However, I would not counsel someone to marry an unbeliever I think you need to have a VERY clear and unmistakeable call from God to do so and it is not just something you choose to do because you are in a relationship with an unsaved person and hope it will all work out.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Excellent post charligirl, and some encouraging examples.

God bless, Susana

 

[DaveKerwin]

Dave, I see what you are saying, and I appreciate your attempts to use logic, facts and reason.

Allow me to address your point, then. You say the Bible tells us to avoid relationships that aren't equal. As I pointed out in the first post, what the definition tells us is as follows:

to have fellowship with one who is not an equal: 2Cor 6:14, where the apostle is forbidding Christians to have intercourse with idolaters

Thayers Lexicon further defines what unequal fellowship that Paul is telling us to avoid. We must pay attention to the qualifiers of the definition, "forbidding Christians to have intercourse with idolaters". That fellowship is a church fellowship with idolaters. The fellowship that occured when Christians went to the Temple of Aphrodite and participated and worship to the goddess Aphrodite, having sex with the temple priestesses in worship. That is the relationship being talked about, not loving relationships between two (future) spouses.

What it is saying then, is that there is nothing even, straight, or upright about sexual relations with priestesses, not even for the purpose of worship (in this case, to an idol, hence defining worshippers as idolaters).

I need to ask you something further. How are non-Christians brought to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ? And how can we profess to know God's will and how He will use us as a vehicle to bring a callen individual to Himself?

I am stubborn, but everyone has their breaking points, I decided to play by your rules. Perhaps you can do the same when I ask you questions you do not want to answer? Did you ever consider that the lexicon you use may not be entirely accurate? What credibility does Thayers have?

You did not answer my questions about a romantic relationship with an unbeliever. Those questions tie into Paul's instruction when he said that all things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial. So adding a fourth question to that group... What is beneficial about a romantic relationship with a non-believer? (please answer all these).

Non-Christians are brought to a saving knowledge of Christ by the working of God and the working of his people (usually, the crossroad of the two). God can save folks however he wants. The question here is this: What TYPE of relationship should we, as God's ambassador's, have with unbelievers? I do not find it to be appropriate to have a romantic interest with them. This is because it seems to send a mixed signal. It seems to communicate that there is a concern for their soul, yet at the same time a desire for them physically. These are divided interests! "Missionary dating" is unwise. It leads to confusion and it reaps the consequences of being unequally yoked, however they flesh out (I am certain people who post often in this particular section can testify concerning that).

Why do you suppose Paul would bother giving instruction to people about staying with an unbeliever they are already married to? Paul gave them instruction based on their present circumstances. He found believers married to unbelievers when he visited, and instructed them to stay married. Perhaps this speaks of keeping a promise, the sanctity of marriage, etc. Regardless, you have to wonder how Paul's instruction may have changed if they were not previously married. This goes back to the question I already asked: Why would Paul bother with instruction to those married to unbelievers? If it mattered nothing that one spouse was a believer and the other was not, then Paul would not have bothered to make the big distinction. He even goes on to say that the marriage is not bound if the unbeliever leaves. Whoa. This distinction reveals a good deal about marriage to an unbeliever. Because Paul did address the current situations in the church, we know his instruction may have differed if they were not presently married. There is a big difference between honoring an existing marriage promise, and willingly entering into a marriage with the foreknowlege that the future spouse is unbelieving.


Here is that passage for review:
1 Cor 7: 10-20, NIV

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Good post Dave.

God bless, Susana

 

[SirKenin]

Dave, I'm kind of on the tense side right now and finding it hard to think straight, so I won't address your full post at the moment, but I will say that Thayers Lexicon and Strong's Concordance, both of which agree on the definition of that passage, are leading authorities in the translation of ancient Greek.

They are world renowned. I don't think attacking their credibility is either wise or a valid argument.

 

[SirKenin]

And yes, your attempts to use facts, logic, reason, etc. needs to be publicly applauded. I wish more people would make the effort like you are doing. That makes conversations that much more stimulating and worthwhile, IMHO.

Nice going Now, when I'm not so tense I will attempt to address the rest of your post.

 

[DaveKerwin]

I know strong's well, not too knowledgeable with how many lexicons there are out there, that was a question for my benefit, asked out of curiosity. I look forward to your detailed responce.

 

[SirKenin]

Ok, my head isn't so messed now. Grrrf. What a nuisance.

Anyways, I can now address your post based upon what I learned from my research. Let me put my Bach CD back on, and I'll go to work. lol. I will have to address your posts in a couple of posts, as I've found myself getting confused trying to fit it all into one post.

I am stubborn, but everyone has their breaking points, I decided to play by your rules. Perhaps you can do the same when I ask you questions you do not want to answer? Did you ever consider that the lexicon you use may not be entirely accurate? What credibility does Thayers have?

I don't just use Thayer's. I also use Strong's concordance. Strong's is the world's leading authority in Biblical understanding. When I research a passage, I use Strongs, cross-referencing with every known instance of the term I'm looking at in the Bible, Thayer's Lexicon, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and Stephens Textus Receptus (1550) for the source of the Greek. I have had the opportunity to compare STR with another Greek transcript, and for the most part find it quite accurate to earlier transcripts. For Biblical reference, I most often compare the NIV to the KJV, although sometimes I include other translations as well, as appropriate. Further, I consider six different commentators and a web search.

There is room for error, as the STR is a copy of a copy of a copy, but with all the other research, the margin of error is slim. I have found Thayers to be pretty much dead on. Again, I don't think that attacking Thayer's credibility is a valid argument, unless you are able to sufficiently prove to the contrary.