Marriage
itself is a divine institution. This is attested in Matthew 19:6 where Christ,
speaking of marriage, said, "What therefore God hath joined together, let
not man put asunder". This fact is clearly recognized even in the common
popular church conception of marriage, because at the very start of the
ceremony the minister usually says, "We are gathered here together in the
sight of God and in the presence of this man and woman..."
"Marriage
is honorable" (Heb. 13:4); but like many other things which are honorable
as well (for example, worship), it can be corrupted, and therefore can become
highly displeasing to God. An example of this is given in the same verse (Heb.
13:4), which reads in full: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed
undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge".
Marriage
is the closest of all contracts because it is described by God himself, in
Genesis 2:24, as "one flesh".
Marriage
is premeditated; it is within the scope of one's own will. Therefore it is no
argument whatever to say that one becomes so infatuated with someone else that
one must marry. It depends entirely on the individual. It was the Apostle
Paul's opinion that the single state was best of all from the point of view of
service to God.
While
we know that Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), still we know that the
Old Testament shows the mind of God on many subjects. Paul explicitly tells us
why the things
that happened to the children of Israel during the time they were in the
wilderness, occurred. "Now these things were our examples, to the intent
we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.... Now all these
things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition,
upon whom the ends of the world are come" (1 Cor. 10: 6,11).
This
instruction of Paul should end discussion on whether we should pay attention to
things which happened in the Old Testament or not.
The
following examples can throw much light on God's dealings with his people
regarding the marriage question.
Exodus
34:11-16: "Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I
drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the
Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. Take heed to thyself, lest thou
make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be
for a snare in the midst of thee: but ye shall destroy their altars, break
their images, and cut down their groves: for thou shalt worship no other god;
for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: lest thou make a
covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their
gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his
sacrifice; and thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters
go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their
gods.”
The
children of Israel were here commanded not to marry either their sons or
daughters with the Gentile nations outlined in verse 11.
Deuteronomy
7:1-4; "When the Lord thy God
shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast
out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the
Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the
Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; and when the Lord thy
God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy
them; thou shalt make no covenant with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give
unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn
away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the
anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly."
The
commandment here is that marriages are not to be contracted between the Gentile
surrounding nations and the nation of Israel. It is extremely important to
underline here the reason why God forbids this contract to be made. The reason
is: "They will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve
other gods". It is interesting to note what is not said here. It is not
said that they may turn away thy son from following me, but it is stated
that they will turn away thy son from following me. It is noteworthy that
no provision whatever is made for the case where such a marriage is contracted
and the Gentile partner at a later date becomes a proselyte.
Joshua
23:11-13: "Take good heed therefore unto yourselves, that ye love the Lord
your God. Else if ye do in any wise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of
these nations, even these that remain among you, and shall make marriages with
them, and go in unto them, and they to you: know for a certainty that the Lord
your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they
shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in
your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the Lord your God hath
given you."
Here
again marriage with the Gentile surrounding nations is strictly forbidden.
I
Kings 11:1-4: "But king Solomon loved many strange women...of the nations
concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in
to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your
heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love....For it came to
pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other
gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of
David his father."
On
account of the grievous sin which Solomon had committed, God took the kingdom
away from him. and this was the start of the downfall of the Kingdom of Israel.
"Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and
my statutes, which I have commanded thee. I will surely rend the kingdom from
thee, and will give it to thy servant (v. 11). This was the penalty for
Solomon’s sin in marrying the strange women of the surrounding Gentile tribes.
Read
the 9th chapter of Ezra and through verse 8 of the 10th chapter, and Nehemiah
chapter 13, verses 23 to 31. Two verses we would particularly like to note.
Nehemiah 13:27: "Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil,
to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives?" It is particularly
noteworthy that the marrying of strange wives was a transgression against God.
The other verse is Ezra 10:3: "Now
therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and
such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those
that tremble at
the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law".
So
serious was the marrying against the commandment of God in the eyes of Ezra
that he commanded those men who had married strange wives to put not only the
wives away, but the children that were born of them. This clearly indicates
that personal hardship was no excuse for the disobeying of the commandment of
the Lord.
Study
of the pertinent passages concerning marriage in the Old Testament would lead
us to the following conclusions:
1.
That
it was strictly commanded of the children of Israel that they should not marry
outside of the nation of Israel.
2.
That
it was a transgression and sin if an Israelite married contrary to the
above-mentioned law.
3.
That
the reason why God made the law so strict was that the purity of worship be
kept intact.
The New Testament Position
2 Corinthians 6:14-18: "Be ye not unequally yoked
together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with
unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord
hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of
the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I
will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among
them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and
I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and
daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."
"Be
ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers." This verse is perhaps
one of the most contended over in the New Testament, and an examination of it
is in order. What is the Scriptural meaning of the word believer? In Greek the word "belief" is pisteuo,
and the word "believer" is pistos. New Testament usage of the word "believer" denotes one
who believes and who accepted the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Example
(1), 1 Timothy 6:2: "And they that have believing (pistos) masters, let
them not despise them, because they are brethren". It is clearly
implied in the next verse that the brethren referred to are the brethren of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and they are the ones who are believing.
Example
(2), Acts 5:14: "And believers (pistos) were the more added to the
Lord". "To the Lord" is what the Apostle calls elsewhere:
"in Christ", or "in the Lord". We can conclude therefore that the New Testament usage of the
word believer denotes one who is baptized into the saving name of Jesus
Christ.
What is the Scriptural meaning of the word translated
"unbeliever"? It is well known in the Greek language that when the
letter "a" is prefixed to a word it has the force of the English word
"not". For example, the Greek word for God is "Theos"; when
the letter "a" is placed before this Greek Word we have the word
"atheos". It is from this word that we get our word
"atheist", and it means, not God.
Now
the Greek word apistos can be translated in English by several words;
namely, unbeliever, disbeliever, misbeliever, etc., but all that the Greek
implies is that they are not believers.
The contrast in this verse is between believers, in
the Lord, that is, pistos, and not believers, not in the Lord, apistos;
and that is all there is to it.
It does not matter whether we translate apistos
by unbeliever or misbeliever, it simply means that the party in question is not
a believer.
What
is the meaning of the word "yoke"? If you will refer to Webster's New
International Dictionary, revised (Merriam edition), you will find this:
"To couple; join; link; hence figuratively to marry, for example 'Be ye
not unequally yoked together with unbelievers' - 2nd Cor. 6:14". It is
rather striking that Webster uses this very verse to illustrate his meaning
that the figurative use of the word yoke is to marry! The Greek word from which
the word yoke is translated in this verse means, according to Dr. Young,
"to be yoked with another kind". This Greek word contains in it the
Greek word "to plough", which clearly links this word with the verse
in Deuteronomy 22:10, which says, “Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass
together".
The injunction is therefore, "Be ye not therefore
joined together with not-believers" (apistos). Does this joining
together include marriage? If it be allowed that the injunction includes any
kind of joining, it would be difficult to construe the meaning to exclude the
joining together in the form of marriage, since by all odds this surely is the
closest form of joining extant, being described as "one flesh".
While it is freely admitted that the injunction does
not confine itself to marriage-joining, it must also be admitted that it
most certainly cannot be allowed to exclude marriage. It is significant that Webster (op.
cit.) uses this very verse to illustrate this meaning for yoke, to
include marriage, and it is also significant that the Aramaic translation of
this verse is: "Do not unite in marriage with unbelievers, for what
fellowship has righteousness with iniquity, or what mingling has light with
darkness?"
But it is contended that Paul in this verse was
contrasting believers on the one hand with idol worshippers and pagans on the
other. And it is contended that it is preposterous to class idol worshippers in
Paul's day with kind, loving, morally impeccable, honest members of Christendom
of our day.
Why is it preposterous? Are these members of
Christendom pistos (believers) or apistos (not-believers)? This is the crux of the problem. All other
arguments are outside the scope of Paul's reasoning in these verses.
Obviously the members of modern Christendom are
included in the group, apistos. The injunction, therefore, to be not
joined clearly applies to them. This is the issue stripped of all varnish. This
is the only fundamental issue involved.
The difference between pistos (in Christ) and apistos
(not in Christ) cannot be over-emphasized. Peter in his first epistle, chapter
3, verses 18-22, gives us a remarkable illustration. His comparison is this: Just
as the occupants of the ark were saved from death by water, so now by a like
figure, baptism by water saves us. The people in Noah's day were either
in the ark or they were not.
Those in the ark of God were saved. Those not in the
ark were drowned. So in our day. People are in Christ or they are not. If they
are not, they are described as apistos or misbelievers, "without
Christ…aliens from the commonwealth of Israel…without God in the world"
Eph. 2:12). Such are hardly fit mates, one would think, for people who rejoice
in exclaiming, "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed on
us, that we should be called the sons of God"!
The word apistos is used in another place which
we might examine, namely 1 Timothy 5:8. Here apistos is translated
"infidel” as it is in 2 Corinthians 6:15.
What does Paul say here about apistos people?
He says that those who fail to provide for their own house have denied the
faith and are worse than infidels (apistos).
Let us convert this into a syllogism.
1.
People
who fail to provide for their own house have denied the faith and are worse
than apistos.
2.
People
who fail to provide for their own house have denied the faith and are (at
least) as bad as apistos.
3.
Therefore
apistos people are as bad as people who have failed to provide for their
own house and who denied the faith.
It is clear from this verse that faith-deniers
are no better in God's sight than apistos (misbelievers). This is
exactly what you would expect, even if this verse were never written. Now,
without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). It is difficult to see, therefore, how the
Almighty would be pleased with a one-flesh union between one who is faithful
and one who is a faith-denier. No doubt this is just another reason for the
injunction, "Be ye not unequally joined together with apistos".
1 Corinthians, chapter 7. This chapter is in answer to
a letter written to Paul by certain of the Corinthian brethren, about which
they apparently were exercised. For he
writes in verse 1, "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto
me".
Paul speaks some things by commandment; example, verse
10. Apparently he had solicited God's answer to certain vexing problems and had
received that answer in the form of a commandment.
Paul speaks other things by what he calls permission;
example, verses 6, 12, and 25. It has been argued that since Paul speaks here
by permission, that at best what he says is mere advice which may be heeded or
not, according to the whim of the reader.
This
approach contains some flaws which must be well pondered before the words of
the Apostle are set aside. Even where Paul speaks in the absence of a
commandment, he makes it clear by what authority he speaks: (1) "Yet I
give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be
faithful" (v. 25); (2) "I think also that I have the Spirit of
God" (v. 40); (3) Paul was given special revelation regarding the mind of
Christ; example, Galatians 1, verses 11 and 12, (4) "All scripture is
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness."
We
can conclude from this that we are no more at liberty to set aside the inspired
writings of Paul than we are those of any other writer of Scripture.
Those
called to be saints will, therefore, accept the inspired words of Paul as a
true reflection of the mind of the Spirit, and will take heed thereto. "He
that heareth you (the Apostles) heareth me", said Christ (Luke 10:16).
So
much for preliminary remarks. Now let us look at the chapter itself.
What
were the things about which the Corinthian brethren had written to Paul? We
have not, of course, access to the original letter, but we are able to infer
from Paul's answer what the content of the letter was. From Paul's answer in
verses 1 to 11 we can infer that the question was whether marriage was
permissible at all. Paul’s
reasoning throughout the whole of this chapter is that it is better for one to
remain unmarried, because "he that is unmarried careth for the things that
belong unto the Lord, how he may please the Lord" (v. 32). However, Paul
sees that the unmarried state is not best with many people, and therefore he
says, "Let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn" (v.
9).
It
is important to notice that in the first eleven verses of this chapter the
question under discussion is not whom we are to marry, but whether marriage
itself is permissible; and Paul's answer to this question is in the
affirmative.
The
portion of the chapter from verses 12 to 24 has often been cited as proof that
marriage with the unbeliever is not only permissible but even sanctified. Does
not Paul say in verse 14, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by
the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband"? Actually
the reasoning in these verses points exactly in the opposite direction.
Let
it be first noted that in verse 10 Paul is speaking to people who are already
married: "And unto the married I command…" What the people who
were already married wanted to know from Paul was whether they should continue
living with their unbelieving mates after they had come to a knowledge of the
Truth. Undoubtedly there would be many cases where only one partner of a
marriage contract became a believer, and the question was whether they should
continue living in a married state with their unbelieving partner.
The
very fact that such a question arose at all is proof positive of the
seriousness with which these believers viewed the marriage question. Is it
reasonable to suppose that believers who were prepared to depart from their
unbelieving mate would sanction the marriage of a believer with an unbelieving
person?
From
verse 25 to verse 40 Paul gives his conclusions concerning both virgins and
widows (the part about widows begins at verse 39). In this passage he says that
he does not speak by commandment of the Lord; yet he says very clearly: "Yet I give my judgment, as one that
hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful” (v. 25). The import of his
reasoning in this passage rules that if a virgin marry she hath not sinned; but
he urges them, because of certain reasons that he gives, that they remain even
as he; that is, in an unmarried state. He urges them to remain unmarried
because he believes they can serve the Lord much better in an unmarried state
than in a married state. But he makes it clear that in given circumstances they
do not sin by becoming married.
It
is particularly noteworthy that in the verses from 25 to 38 there is no mention
at all about who the virgin is to marry should she decide to do so. This
subject is not under discussion in any fashion whatever in these verses. The
only subject under discussion is whether a virgin should or should not become
married; that is, whether the institution of marriage is or is not desirable
for a virgin.
In
verses 39 to 40 the same reasoning is taken up regarding widows. Paul has
already stated, in verse 8, concerning widows, that "it is good for them
if they abide even as I"; that is, in an unmarried state. But even for widows,
marriage is permissible, as Paul states in verse 39: "But if her husband
be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in
the Lord".
We
know, therefore, from these passages, that neither virgins nor widows sin by
embarking on the institution of marriage, even though Paul would rather they
remain in a single state.
It
is admitted on all sides that there is a definite commandment that widows, when
they many, must marry "in the Lord". That is, they are not permitted
by any means to enter into a marriage contract outside the body of Christ.
Some, however, go so far as to say that this reasoning by Paul means
that the command to marry "only in the Lord" is confined to
widows, and that widowers and virgins and other unmarried persons are at
liberty to marry whomsoever they will, either in the Lord or outside the body
of Christ. This confines this verse to a restricted meaning which neither the
context nor common sense will allow.
If
there is any dispute about whether the verse 39 of 1 Corinthians 7 confines
itself to widows or not, it can be settled by the general injunction, "Be
ye not unequally yoked together with not-believers".
It
has been frequently pointed out that there have been many cases where a
believer married a not-believer, and subsequent to the marriage the
not-believer was converted. The supporters of this idea affirm that the end
result of such a marriage is good, and therefore the action is to be condoned.
Surely this is the weakest argument of all, and it properly dealt with by Paul
in Romans 3:8, where he condemns those who would assert, "Let us do evil,
that good may come". The problem of children in any marriage contract is
always a matter of great concern. Many
are the injunctions in the Bible that parents should bring up their children in
the fear of the Lord. A striking verse in this connection is found in Ephesians
6:4, where Paul said, "Ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but
bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord". It would be wise
to ask how an unbelieving father can be expected to adhere to this command. It
is freely admitted by all that it is exceedingly difficult to bring up children
in the nurture and admonition of the Lord in this day and age, even if both
parents are earnestly trying to do so. How much more difficult is it to follow
this injunction if one of the parents is openly not in sympathy with the
believer's position!
In
Ephesians 5, verses 22 to 33, Paul gives a discourse on the duties of wives and
husbands in the married state. In verse 22 the wives are enjoined to
"submit yourselves unto your own husbands as unto the Lord".
"The husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the
church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject
unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything" (vv.
23-24).
It is submitted that it is an impossibility for a wife
who voluntarily becomes married to an unbelieving husband to follow the
injunction that Paul outlines in these verses.
Later
on in this discourse Paul again emphasizes the close union that marriage is
between men and women, for he says in verses 31-32, "For this cause shall
a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they
two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ
and the church."
Paul
likens the one-flesh union between man and wife to the union between Christ and
his church, Christ being the bridegroom or husband, and the church being the
wife or bride. What a mockery the reasoning in this discourse is if Paul has
reference to a union between a believing party on the one hand, and a
not-believing party on the other! Clearly, Paul has in mind two people who are
both baptized believers and potential saints of Christ Jesus.
The
responsibility of the ecclesia as a whole, and particularly of the elders and
those who are looked to in the ecclesia, should not be underestimated. We know
that until the Kingdom of God arrives, there will be sins in many forms in all
ecclesias, and we cannot stamp them out. But the fact that we cannot eradicate
these evils in our midst is no reason whatsoever for condoning them. And it is
particularly important that those elders in the ecclesia not only do not do
these things, but that they have no pleasure in them that do them. It is one
thing for a brother or a sister to commit sin, but it is an entirely different
thing for the elders in an ecclesia to condone or support or wink at such evil
action.
So
also, it is one thing for a brother or a sister to commit the offence of
marrying an unbeliever; but it is an entirely different thing for the ecclesia,
by any of its actions or words, to lend support to such an action.
Even
though the action of marrying a not-believer is presumptuous and premeditated,
it is doubtful if the proper course of action is to dismiss such an offender
from fellowship, although this is the practice carried on by the vast majority
of Christadelphian ecclesias throughout the world.
It
is the belief of the writer that when a brother or a sister signifies his or
her intention to marry a not-believer, that the offending party-should be asked
to appear before the board of managers and the offence pointed out to them.
This would fix in the mind of the offending party the seriousness with which
the managers view their projected action. It is also the view of the writer,
that nothing should be done on the part of the managers, or the ecclesia
itself, to give the offending person the idea that their projected course of
action has the approval of the ecclesia; in fact, our action should be in the
exact opposite direction, if possible to put a brake on the parties' desire in
this connection.
E. W. Farrar
The Christadelphian
Advocate, October 1958 Pgs 218-224