Unequally yoked - Command, or Suggestion?

[Guest]

I have a close relative who has just become engaged to a non-christian, and am not sure what to think.

2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship does righteousness have with lawlessness? And what partnership does light have with darkness?


To my mind, this & following verses always seemed to be primarily applicable to marriage (I realize other situations may also be in view).
Is this a valid assumption? And if so, is it to be regarded as a definite command, or good avice that Paul is reccommending to the Corinthians (and beleivers generally)?

I do know of strong christian couples where only one partner was saved prior to marriage, with seemingly no bad repercussions.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[Guest]

I will relate some personal observations with "unequally yoked" marriages which were very close to me.

I was raised in an "unequally-yoked" home. My father never did become a disciple. I saw the problems over the years --- some of them problems about the Christian life, and even my Christian mother made many mistakes in that area, often too forceful and not respectful enough toward my father.

One of my sisters married a religious man from the same denominational background, but who was not a true Christian. Problems ensued. But she was blessed in that he eventually became a Christian.

I have also been acquainted with cases where the non-Christian marriage partner has made a living hell for the other.

[Guest]

We tend to take everything Paul said as a command, and it is probably the safest policy to do so. However, Paul sometimes said that he was giving "advice" (2 Cor.8:10), and sometimes he was expressing his opinion or "judgment"—especially on issues related to marriage decisions (1 Cor.7:25, 40).

It is hard to say whether the exhortation not to be "unequally yoked" was intended as a divine command, so that its violation would be a sin (as, for example, his instructions about order in the church, in 1 Cor.14:37, are said to be). When Paul says not to be unequally yoked, he reasons from what we might call common sense—"what do light and darkness have in common," etc. This might lead to the conclusion that Paul is merely arguing for the reasonableness of his "suggestion," rather than from the authority of a commandment of God. On the other hand, he does also say, "what agreement does the temple of God have with idols? For you are the temple of the living God..." This seems to argue from the standpoint of covenantal faithfulness and purity.

I think that a Christian who desires to marry a non-Christian is wrong-headed in several ways:

1) He/she is assuming self-ownership, rather than seeing himself/herself as God's sanctified temple and Christ's purchased possession—and thus obliged to follow God's plan for marriage, not one's own desires;

2) He/she is short-sighted, not realizing that a religiously divided home is being created for the rearing of their children. It is hard enough to rear godly children in this seductive world, even when both parents are pulling together for Christ. When one is apathetic or hostile toward Christ, it greatly reduces the likelihood of winning the children to radical commitment to the Lord;

3) The choice reveals that Christ is not everything to that Christian that He is supposed to be. If a person's life is completely dedicated to doing the will of God and serving Christ, where is there any overlap between that person's life and the life of a person to whom Christ means nothing? I have never been able to comprehend how anyone who loves Jesus as he/she should could ever contemplate—even for a moment—forming anything other than a Christ-centered home;

4) While there are cases of Christians winning over their non-Christian spouses, these cases are the minority among unequally yoked couples, and one who hopes to beat the odds is gambling in a game where the stakes are incredibly high, and the odds not good;

5) There is direct instruction in scripture forbidding marriage of a Christian to a non-Christian (1 Cor.7:39). If one is willing to ignore God's word on such a major decision, what grounds are there for believing that that Christian will honor God's instructions in any other area of life. In a home where one spouse is no Christian, and the other is a professing Christian, but willing to violate God's instructions whenever they are undesirable to obey, where is the spiritual backbone going to come from that will influence the children toward God?

When one is this wrong-headed with respect to Christian values, it is very difficult to imagine what grounds one has for wearing the label of Christian at all. Doesn't the label refer to a disciple of Jesus Christ?

Can such a couple end up happy together? Possibly, so long as the one calling him/herself a Christian never decides to get serious about the things of God. If that should happen, and he/she should wake up to the fact that they are trapped in a bond formed in disobedience to God, I would think that the regrets could greatly dampen the happiness of the marriage.

On the other hand, God may turn it to good. The spouse may be converted, and the children may grow up to embrace an uncompromising Christian discipleship. Who can say? They might also win the lottery.

[Guest]

thanks, Paidion & Steve.
a lot of food for thought.

[Guest]

Thanks, Steve. Your position is identical to my own. You have stated it very well, and have shown it to be grounded in Paul's teachings.

[Singalphile]

Would the advice here be any different if the two unmarried people were going to have a child together?

Example (a real, current one): A Christian woman got involved with a man who is sort of a God-believing type of nice guy. The woman conceived. She has repented and confessed it to her family, friends, church, etc. The man has asked the woman to marry him. The two do actually like each other, but the guy's faith in Jesus remains very questionable.

Should they get married? Should she wait and see? I suppose the baby could be given up for adoption.

I would like to hear you all's thoughts, if any. Thank you!

[Singalphile]

By the way, the two mentioned in the previous post are almost certainly going to get married. That seems to be the advice of most of my family, and I'm okay with it. We will work it and pray for the best!

[backwoodsman]

By the way, the two mentioned in the previous post are almost certainly going to get married. That seems to be the advice of most of my family, and I'm okay with it. We will work it and pray for the best!

That seems to me to be a really bad idea, for all the reasons Steve listed above. So now there's a kid involved -- that makes everything harder, but how does it change the equation of a Christian marrying an unbeliever? In fact, it might be seen as all the more reason not to -- in my observation, where only one parent in a home is a Christian, the kids are usually not Christians after they're grown. Why should they be? "Christianity is fine for Mom, but she must think it's fine not to be a Christian too -- after all, she married one."

[Singalphile]

Thanks, backwoodsman. I would agree with you if the man (in this case) were definitely a professing non-believer. However, this case is more complicated in that the man has professed to be a believer. As mentioned, there is pretty good reason to doubt it, but on the other hand, he seems to be handling this situation pretty responsibly and seems to be trying to clean up his act, or so I"m told. Ah ... it is just a bit complicated.

I guess that any spouse could renounce the faith after marriage or after having children, and that's certainly a very sad thought.

I am not certain that the right decision is being made, but I'm trusting my family member's decision (though acknowledging the poor judgment already demonstrated) as is most of the immediate and extended family. The parents of the young lady are the least certain, I think.

It is a difficult matter. Those of you dating or mingling with a member of the opposite sex, guard yourselves, please!

[Paidion]

There's a sense which they did marry when they had intercourse. Indeed, the Greek word translated as "marry" has that as one of the meanings.

I think that if both of them want to legally marry, they should do so. They have produced a child, which together with its parents constitute a family. I think it would be wrong for the man to forsake the woman now. When there is intercourse, the two become one flesh. This is true even when one is joined to a prostitute (1 Cor. 6:16). I think it is wrong to divide that one flesh in two.

"So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:6)"

Yes, I know. Some will say that God did not join this couple together. Tell me how you KNOW that? How do we know when God joins a couple or when He doesn't? I don't think legal marriage has any relation to the matter. Legal marriage is a relatively modern concept.

In the early days a wedding was a celebration of a marriage which had already taken place. As I see it, the marriage has already taken place in this case. Now it would be fitting and appropriate if the couple were to announce a wedding celebration.