REMEMBER

CLICK THE PIC

Unequally Yoked Together. Does 2 Corinthians Apply to Marriage

22

by Al Maxey

Some things in the world about us just don’t mix. Oil and water, for example. Their unique and individual molecular structures and properties are such that they simply do not meld naturally into one.

Yes, men can manipulate the various components of matter so as to impose a forced fusion, but such is unnatural and unstable. In time, nature will inevitably correct itself. The cute little kitten and the dog pictured here look precious together, but they were never intended to be mates. Indeed, nature will not allow feline-canine cross-breeding. They just don’t “mix.” Men were never intended to mate with other men, nor women with women. It is “against nature” (Romans 1:26). Man’s “suitable companion,” by divine design, is woman. Some people seek to “fool Mother Nature,” but their efforts are as contrary to God’s will as a dog mating with a cat.

Some things were just never intended to be! Although cats and dogs may well have close association, and may even evidence affection for one another on occasion, yet there is a depth of intimacy and oneness that is beyond their ability to experience. A cat and dog may associate, but they can never assimilate. This is also true for other vital relationships in life. The apostle Paul wrote the saints in Corinth, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14, KJV).

The above passage has generated much discussion, as one might imagine. One question that frequently arises is: Does the teaching of Paul have application to marriage? Specifically: may a believer marry an unbeliever? May a Christian marry one who is not (i.e., a Jew, a Buddhist, an atheist, etc.)? Does God recognize such unions as legitimate marriages? Does He forbid them altogether? If such persons marry, are these unions sinful in the sight of God? Must they terminate these unions to again be in fellowship with the Father? These are serious questions, the answers to which will obviously impact the lives of countless men, women and children (Christian and non-Christian). It thus behooves us to engage in some careful and prayerful reflection.

A rather conservative minister of the gospel from the great state of Georgia, whose paternal ancestors were leading figures in our own Restoration Movement faith-heritage, sent me the following email a few weeks back:

Brother Al, Greetings from Georgia. I have a favor to ask of you. Although I do not always agree with your conclusions about various matters (although sometimes I do), I do respect the fact that you are a careful student of the Scriptures. At the present I am in discussions with some brethren on the matter of a Christian marrying a non-Christian. While I do not think it wise, and caution against it, I have not come to the point of believing it to be a sin in every case. Their argument is based on 2 Corinthians 6 (among other passages), where Paul warns Christians not to be “bound” (NASB) or “unequally yoked” (ASV) with unbelievers. My own view on this is that the language in the text suggests that it is possible to be “equally yoked.” I know that many translations leave out the “unequal” part, but the Greek word heterozugeo suggests to me an unequal binding together.

The context there is not even talking about marriage per se, but I can certainly see where it could be included if I am contemplating a marriage (or a job) where I would be the weaker one, and would thus need to compromise my faith in order to be in that relationship. My brethren, of course, refer to Moses and the commandment not to marry foreigners, and how in Ezra’s time the foreign wives were put away, as well as Paul’s claim that he had the right to lead about a “believing” wife. But, if I cannot be yoked at all with an unbeliever, then I fail to see how I could even work for one. Moses, by the way, did give an “exception” to the marriage matter when he told how to treat a foreign captive whom one desired to take as a wife. Anyhow, I would appreciate your research and thoughts on this!

Examining the Text

The Greek word which the KJV renders “unequally yoked” is heterozugeo, which is a very rare word in biblical literature. It is found only here in all of the New Covenant writings, and is found only once in all of the Old Covenant writings (Lev. 19:19). It means to be “yoked unequally” with another. In the Law of Moses, many feel it had a clear reference to breeding or mating of animals that were unsuitable. “You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind” (Lev. 19:19, NKJV). The NIV renders this verse: “Do not mate different kinds of animals.” “It is the prohibition of mating animals under a different yoke, i.e., of a different species, like the ass and the ox” (Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 2, p. 901). Some scholars, therefore, feel that Paul may well have had mating in mind between believers and unbelievers (i.e., marriage).

The apostle Paul informs the saints in Corinth that they must not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. Needless to say, this has raised some questions among believers. Does this signify no association with unbelievers at all? Or, is there some qualifier to the idea of an “unequal” union, with the implication being that some associations may be acceptable if they are not deemed “unequal”? If this is the case, what constitutes an “unequal” union? And what types of unions or associations are in view? Marital? Professional? Educational? Political? Social? These are serious matters with which many sincere believers have struggled for centuries, and scholarship is very much divided as to the answers, with diversity of dogma abounding.

It should also be pointed out at this juncture that not all scholars are agreed that the use of this word in the Law of Moses is sexual in nature. “Is it possible that the figure in Leviticus 19:19 is not sexual at all? More naturally it would forbid causing different animals to bear a load in such a way that it would be an unequal load under which they would fall. If this interpretation is adopted, the law would fit beautifully its parallel in Deuteronomy. Indeed, the LXX on Leviticus 19:19 can be read thus: ‘You shall not hold down your animals with an unequal yoke.’ The word ‘hold down’ is rare and is translated here sexually by some, but its derivatives usually refer to ‘restraint’ in general. The Greek word heterozugos (‘unequal yoke’ is used in the LXX only here and is probably alluded to by Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:14. We would suggest for Leviticus 19:19, therefore, something like, ‘Do not make your animals fall down with an unequal yoke'” (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 2, p. 606-607).

The other passage from the Old Testament writings that Paul most likely had in mind as he penned these admonitions to the saints in the city of Corinth was Deut. 22:10 (which was alluded to above) — “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together” (NASB). Actually, the word for “yoke” is employed in this verse. The NIV, for example, reads, “Do not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together.” Such would be an “unequal yoking” of two animals. They would not be of equal strength, disposition and ability, thus the plowing of the field would be made far more difficult than was necessary. It’s possible one would fall under the unequal burden. To offer an even more dramatic illustration, if a large horse and a small goat are yoked together, it is highly unlikely that the farmer will be able to plow a straight furrow in his field. His team is clearly “unequally yoked,” thus one member will easily and inevitably overpower the other, with negative results!

“The reference is to Deut. 22:10 which forbade harnessing an ox and an ass, a clean and an unclean beast, together to a plow. Paul uses this passage in a figurative way: the believer has been cleansed, the unbeliever has refused to be cleansed. What business have they under the same yoke? … What a picture: a believer with his neck under the unbeliever’s yoke! What business has he in such an unnatural, self-contradictory association?” (R.C.H. Lenski, Interpretation of First & Second Corinthians, p. 1078). “This is a prohibition against forming close attachments with non-Christians. Paul’s agricultural metaphor is based on the command of Deut. 22:10 that prohibited the yoking of an ox and an ass for ploughing, and also on Lev. 19:19 where the crossbreeding of animals of different species is prohibited. … The principle might be expressed thus: ‘Do not form any relationship, whether temporary or permanent, with unbelievers that would lead to a compromise of Christian standards or jeopardize consistency of Christian witness'” (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 10, p. 359).

David Lipscomb, in his commentary on Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians, wrote, “To be unequally yoked would be to be so connected with the unbeliever that the believer would be controlled by the unbeliever. Persons that do not harmonize in purpose, walk, and life should not be so bound together that the believer would be controlled by the unbeliever” (p. 93). Clearly, Paul is focusing on the idea of an unequal yoking. He certainly does not discourage all association with those who are outside of a relationship with Christ Jesus. This is not a passage suggesting exclusion and isolation from the world around us; cloistering ourselves in convents or monasteries is not in view here, although some have so taught. Paul clarifies this matter of Christians associating with non-Christians in 1 Cor. 5:9-10, indicating that if we were to pull away from ALL such associations with unbelievers, “you would have to leave this world.” Dr. Philip Hughes correctly notes, “It would be a serious mistake to conclude that Paul is here condemning all contact and intercourse with non-Christians; isolationism of this sort would logically necessitate departure from the world. In other words, it is a position of absurdity. The pharisaical attitude of exclusiveness was discarded by him once for all at his conversion” (Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 245).

Obviously, we can’t remove ourselves from association with the world about us. One day the Lord will do that for us, but that day is yet future. Until then, we are to be in the world (physically), but not of the world (spiritually). On the night of His betrayal and arrest, Jesus prayed to the Father, “I do not ask Thee to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one” (John 17:15). Paul’s advice is along these same lines. We cannot avoid association with the worldly-minded people of this planet. Indeed, some association will be necessary if we are to be a leavening force for change. We must mingle with them so as to share the positive message of God’s grace. What Paul, and Jesus Christ, discourage is: allowing ourselves to become involved in associations where we will be under the negative influence, power, and control of those who are opposed to God’s will, and who seek to transform us from the domain of light unto the domain of darkness. As Christians, we must never allow another this degree of control over us; we must avoid, or remove ourselves from, such “unequal yoking.” Our very salvation could hang in the balance!

Is Marriage to Unbelievers Prohibited?

In fairness, we must acknowledge that Paul, in the passage before us, does not specifically or directly refer to the marriage relationship. Nowhere will one find the command, “Thou shalt not marry an unbeliever.” Indeed, we find reference in the NT writings to such unions. Paul, in 1 Cor. 7:12-16, speaks to those who are married to unbelievers, encouraging them to stay together, working to bring their partners to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. The apostle Peter also encourages wives of unbelievers to work to win their husbands to the Lord (1 Peter 3:1-2). Obviously, religiously mixed marriages are not the ideal situation. In fact, there are serious problems involved with such unions, and many are destined to fail. Nevertheless, they do exist, and Christians who find themselves in such circumstances should do their best to bring a positive influence to these relationships.

Very few people will argue with the premise, however, that the ideal is for believers to marry other believers. This may very well be the intent of the apostle Paul in his instruction to widows — “if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39). This is about as close to an injunction against marriage to unbelievers that one will find, but even this passage is open to various possible interpretations, thus one should not be dogmatic regarding his personal perception.

Since Paul, in 2 Cor. 6:14, does not specifically relate his charge to marital relationships, I personally would hesitate to declare dogmatically that it is sinful for Christians to marry non-Christians. I have seen unbelievers brought to the Lord by believing spouses. Paul even alludes to such in 1 Cor. 7. I would personally never encourage such a union, and would strongly counsel against it, but I would never condemn it as sinful. It is my conviction, based on my study and my observation in years of counseling couples in religiously mixed marriages, that believers should NOT marry unbelievers. I feel very strongly that such unions will present some difficult challenges to both spouses; it is simply asking for trouble! One of the passages I quote in every wedding ceremony I perform is from the first epistle of the apostle Peter. He charged husbands and wives to be “heirs together of the grace of life” (1 Peter 3:7). When husbands and wives journey together toward their heavenly home, that is the IDEAL in marriage. That ideal is not realized when husbands and wives are traveling separate paths spiritually. They are “unequally yoked” … they are pulling in different directions. The tragedy is that many believers are pulled down the path to destruction by the unbelievers. That is the very real danger of being “unequally yoked” with unbelievers. This is especially true in the marital relationship.

“Paul does not state in specific terms just what he means by being unequally yoked with unbelievers, but already in the earlier epistle there are indications of some of the things he must have had in mind, namely, marriages between Christians and non-Christians” (Dr. Philip Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 245). “True Christian partnership is that which exists between genuine yokefellows (Philp. 4:3), and that can apply only to those who already are one in Christ Jesus” (ibid). “There is no question that it would be better for both husband and wife to be believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, although there is no evidence in the context to show that Paul had this subject in mind” (Dr. T.R. Applebury, Studies in 2 Corinthians, p. 126). “Saints should choose Christian alliances and associations. How can a believer in Christ have a close intimacy with one who is still under the dominion of the prince of this world?” (Dr. B.W. Johnson, The People’s New Testament with Notes, vol. 2, p. 144).

“Some apply this exhortation to pious persons marrying with those who are not decidedly religious and converted to God. That the exhortation may be thus applied I grant; but it is certainly not the meaning of the apostle in this place. Nevertheless, common sense and true piety show the absurdity of two such persons pretending to walk together in a way in which they are not agreed. A very wise and very holy man has given his judgment on this point: ‘A man who is truly pious, marrying with an unconverted woman, will either draw back to perdition, or have a cross during life.’ The same may be said of a pious woman marrying an unconverted man” (Adam Clarke, Clarke’s Commentary, vol. 6, p. 343).

My own studied conviction on this whole matter is perhaps best expressed by brother David Lipscomb in his commentary on the passage in question: “While I would not say that this passage is an absolute prohibition of the marriage of a believer to an unbeliever, it certainly discourages it. The whole drift and tenor of the Scriptures, both of the Old and the New Testaments, is that in the close and intimate relations of life the children of God should seek the companionship of servants of God, that they might help and encourage each other in the service of God. When both are working together, man in his weakness often becomes discouraged; it is greatly worse when the nearest and dearest one pulls from Christ and duty. Then, too, when people marry, they ought to consider the probability of rearing children. It is the duty of Christian parents to rear their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. How can one do this when the other sets the example of unbelief and disobedience to God? This passage certainly forbids persons tying themselves to unbelievers in any business or any relation by which the believer is influenced or controlled by the unbeliever. How can a relationship be found that does this more effectually than the marriage relation?” (p. 93-94). Discuss this article on our Christian message forum.

CLICK THE PICTURE OF THE SITE ON THE RIGHT AND YOU WILL BE THERE..AND ONCE YOU ARE THERE CLICK THE JMG LOGO AT THE SIDE AND YOU WILL BE BACK HERE

Bobbi Kristina Brown Looks To Distance Herself From Her Dad Bobby Brown By Changing Her Name To Kristina Houston
Posted by rgbtekco on March 11, 2012 at 1:28pm
Send Message View Blog

The rift between Bobby Brown and his daughter Bobbi Kristina Brown appears to be widening.
Bobbi is Brown’s only child with late singer Whitney Houston. TMZ is reporting that the 19-year old wants nothing to do with him and that includes having his name.
According to the report, Bobbi has wanted to change her name for some some time, but her mother wouldn’t let her. Now that Whitney is gone Bobbi is free to do as she pleases and wants to be known simply as Kristina Houston.

ps

Hey everyone! Its been a whirlwind of a week. I haven’t had time to stop and thank you for your encouraging word and the prayers you’ve offered for my strength since the news broke. Please know that as always I appreciate each of you for your support and I thank you for your concern and your prayers. They are needed and I feel them. Please continue to uphold the Houston family in prayer. Please continue to pray for Bobby Brown who also lost his dad the day after Whitney passed. He will need to be strong and focused for Bobbi Kris now. God knows what we don’t know. I really do love u for real and for free
Kelly

‘I want a hype funeral for my daughter’
Mom of 13-year-old victim, others express anger and grief after Denham Town shootings
BY COREY ROBINSON Sunday Observer staff reporter [email protected]
Sunday, March 11, 2012

BEVERLY Kennedy is convinced that her daughter, Nickeita Cameron, was killed by a police bullet.
Thirteen-year-old Nickeita was one of six persons shot dead last Monday in Denham Town, West Kingston, in what the police said was a firefight with gunmen.
Beverly Kennedy cries as she reminisces on the death of her daughter Nickeita Cameron, one of six persons killed during an alleged gun battle between thugs and the police in Denham Town, West Kingston, last Monday. In her arms is her two-year-old grandson, Jermaine Kennedy. (Photos: Naphtali Junior)
1/4
The grieving mother is so convinced that the police are to blame for her daughter’s death, that she has already compiled a list of demands from the State.
“I want them to bury my daughter decent and nice; no poor people funeral. I want a hype funeral. I want her to get a nice sepulchre. I want there to be a (marching) band, and I want there to be video light,” demanded the 41-year-old mother, tears welling up in her eyes.
“I want her body to be driven in a chariot, because that’s what she was planning to carry me in when I die. And I want some help with her ‘nine night’ because I don’t have anything. I am a mother of six and I also take care of my mother and my grandson,” lamented the woman.
“I know all that won’t bring her back, but that is what I want for my daughter right now,” she continued, grimacing as she reflected on the loss of her fourth child.
Kennedy said the past week has been hell, adding that she has not eaten because she simply has no appetite; nor slept, because “as me close me eyes is Nickeita me a see”.
The ordeal, she said, is driving her insane, and remaining in the depressed ill-fated tenement yard at 88 Charles Street is only making matters worse, she said.
“I would like them to build me somewhere so I can move the rest of my children so that they (Government) don’t send them Government man come kill them. I can’t stay in this yard because there is just pure memories,” she moaned.
The memories of last Monday’s shootings were equally distressing for Craig Simpson.
Up to yesterday afternoon, he was still grappling with the reality that he would no longer see his father — 88-year-old Wesley Simpson — sitting on his small chair inside a passage in the dilapidated house.
Wesley Simpson, who had retired from years of making a living with his handcart at Coronation Market, was shot multiple times as he sat eating on his favourite chair. Yesterday, not even the bloody chair remained — it was taken for processing by investigators.
“Is just justice I want; that alone. I just want the police to stop acting like people are dogs; it wasn’t a shooting range that they were at,” said the younger Simpson. “Is a whole heap of children live in the yard, suppose they were shot, what would they say?” he asked.
“My father don’t have a trouble in the world. I work, cook, and make sure him eat food. From he stopped pushing cart is there him sit down; him eat there, sleep there, him don’t get up. And now them shoot him and kill him,” Simpson fumed, pointing to the spot from which he dragged his father’s lifeless body while ducking bullets during the incident.
Yesterday, anger consumed the more than 30 occupants of the dwelling, who on Monday wept openly as three of their own lay dead inside the narrow passage connecting their rooms. Next door, on Bond Street — outside 74-year-old George Edmonson’s house, where he and two youngsters were killed — the mood was similar.
Edmonson’s daughter, Ann Marie Clarke, has been pouring out her grief in tears.
“I really could not believe when I heard that my father was killed,” she said. “Although he was 74, my father has never been sick. So to hear that he is dead is really hard. My father was a very quiet person, he was very nice, gentle, and loving; everybody had him as a father. I am so angry I cry every 30 minutes.”
According to the police, the six were killed during a 40-minute running gun battle between them and armed thugs. The gunbattle, the cops said, started at the Charles Street premises and continued when they chased the marauding gunmen into an adjoining yard.
Three of the men — Romaine Stern, 20, also called ‘Tete Ras’; Shawn Tyrell, 25, also known as ‘Chinnie Man’; and Karlton Alvaranga; all of addresses within the community — were later identified by the cops as being wanted for murder, shooting with intent, and robbery, among other crimes. Four weapons were taken from the scene, police said.
But yesterday, while the residents did not dispute that the three men may have been wanted, they challenged the police’s allegation that there was a shootout.
The residents said the three, whom they claimed grew up at the Charles Street address, were among a group drinking liquor at the front of the premises when the police turned up. The residents said the cops immediately opened fire and the men ran into the passage where Simpson was having breakfast, and where Cameron and other teenagers were sitting.
Stern was shot in the back and died at the rear of the passage.
Tyrell and Alvaranga managed to climb into Edmonson’s house nearby, but after realising that they were surrounded, surrendered to the cops, the residents claimed as they insisted that both men were shot in cold blood.
Samantha Braker, 18, was shot in the ankle during that incident, while another resident, Errol Tracey, lifted his shirt to reveal wounds which he claimed he received when a policeman discharged his weapon during a curfew imposed in the area Monday night.
“There was no shootout; they (police) didn’t even come into the yard at first. They just stayed outside and started firing shots at the youths in the yard. They murdered them in cold blood,” protested Tanisha Stewart, Cameron’s aunt. “Everything that they came out and say about shootout is pure lies. They kill the people them and are now trying to cover it up.”
The incident has sparked much controversy between the Office of the Public Defender, human rights group Jamaicans For Justice (JFJ), and the Jamaica Police Federation.
Executive director for JFJ Carolyn Gomes has described the incident as very unfortunate, and said that proper investigations must be done to determine whether or not the policemen unnecessarily used deadly force during the operation.
In the meantime, Public Defender Earl Witter on Friday defended statements he made which questioned why no police officer was injured during the shootout.
After coming under heavy criticism from Inspector David White, general secretary of the Jamaica Police Federation, Witter, in a release, countered:
“The CCN’s (Constabulary Communication Network’s) version of events is that the killings took place in the course of an “intense and sustained running gun battle between policemen and gunmen lasting more than 40 minutes,” Witter said.
“This version is vehemently disputed by every member of that community interviewed by this office. The two old men were each killed inside their humble abode. Like the 13-year-old, none of them was ever accused or suspected of any criminal activity,” he continued.

Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/I-want-a-hype-funeral-for-my-daughter_11004403#ixzz1opaAWjsv

Hello Africa from UZI FILM on Vimeo.