Exegesis failure. "Yoked" is not a term that was used to refer to marriages.

(Not that I disagree with the principle, but this is an exegetical disaster.)

I never said it specifically refers to marriage but it still applies regardless. If you take the whole passage 14-18 you would still apply it to marriage.

also exegetical disaster? really?

Yes. Paul clearly had an idea in his head when he wrote it. Do you believe that in the middle of this epistle that Paul would take a short couple sentences to talk about marriage AND refer to that marriage using the image of two bulls plowing a field? Especially when nobody else in antiquity EVER used that picture to refer to marriage, but often used it to refer to business agreements?

Exegetical disaster.

Edit: Just because it's a solid Biblical principle does not give Christians license to take any passage they want and say that this passage speaks to that principle.

Im not saying he is referring to Marriage. Just because hes not specifically referring to Marriage doesnt mean you wouldnt apply it to Marriage?

You would still apply what he said to other aspects of life. Why would you not apply that to Marriage?

the bolded is where you are wrong. taking liberties with the word of God and interpreting and using it however you see fit is the #1 problem with "Christianity" today.

Obviously that is true if your using it however you see fit, this is not the case I dont think. Im open to discussion and willing to be wrong here.

The word "yoke" means a coupling as when two oxen are coupled or yoked together by a pulling beam to do work such as plowing a field or pulling a wagon. So I only cant be yoked with a unbeliever when doing physical labor?

edit to add: Could it be referring to working with a person towards something, a goal of some sort? Would that not be what you do with your wife or husband?

I also want to add that I dont believe 2 people that are already married should get divorced or separate if one is a believer and one is not.

...

I would? How? When? How would I know when?

...

...

Some say that the following verse can rightly apply to money:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...38&version=NIV

If you understand why it is an error to say that this is a monetary lesson, then you'll understand why it is an error to say that the "yoked" passage should be applied to marriage.

I guess I should clarify myself. I made a general statement when I said that and it was misunderstood. I dont think you should apply it to other areas of life. I shouldn't have used those words.

Here is my thinking: If your arent to be unequally yolked with an unbeliever then you have to define yolked to determine what it means. I dont think the passage is specifically about marriage but marriage is a form of what he is talking about. Like I stated before, a yolk is attaching 2 oxen to work together. In a marriage you are working together at all sorts of things and one of them hopefully being ministry. So if in a Marriage your doing the same or simialar things why would it not apply?

sorry to sound rude or blunt, but your understanding/interpretation of that verse is amateurish and biased by your own worldview.

Aaron W is absolutely correct here (and we dont agree that often):

"Exegesis failure. "Yoked" is not a term that was used to refer to marriages."

It doesn't matter how much you think it *should* apply or if it "makes so much sense".

and? are you just repeating what i said?

Tbf, seems like a harmless error, and his interpretation surely works as a good "visual" for certain believers regardless of the actual meaning of the verse.

"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"

Is this a fair explanation of the passage discussed? Or if not can you explain to me exactly what the passage is referring to and in what way.


Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, because of your first statement about different degrees of Christians you made the statement above which I thought was about Christians, but it seems you were making this about non Christians like the op?

Just because you agree with the conclusion (and I repeat... I agree that Christians should not marry non-Christians), that does not justify the mishandling of the scriptures. You should not make verses say things other than what they were intended to say. I believe that doing so is unfaithful to the Scriptures.

Think of it this way: If someone quotes you out of context and claims that your words meant something completely other than the meaning you had intended, what is your reaction? Even if you would agree with the alternate interpretation of your words, I expect that you would still defend your position of "That's not what I meant."

This is my main point.

Suppose I told you, "Don't do business with those people. They do not uphold the same ethical standards that you value, and this relationship may cause you to violate your principles."

Then you came back later and said, "Well, you said the word 'relationship,' and since marriage is a type of relationship, I took it to mean not to marry anyone who doesn't value the same principles."

What would my response to you be? I might agree with your conclusion, but I would be baffled as to how you would ever concluded that this was what I had intended for you to learn.

I got your main point the first time. I just don't see it as a big deal, but i understand you see it differently.

I see it differently for a very foundational reason.

This is the same error that people make when they do the LOL @ Bible verse routine (where you get some verse that's quoted out of context and they try to say that it means something it doesn't).

It's unfair to criticize their methods of handing scripture while simultaneously giving the okay to others for doing the exact same thing, where the only distinction is that I prefer one conclusion to another. If I do this, then in what way am I affirming anything at all about the texts themselves?

Well i'm up against an infinite number of intepretations. After hearing jib and others try to justify the idea that atheists can get into heaven, im done trying to argue with christians over their intepretations of the bible. If they use a verse to cause harm to others, i might say something. Other than that, its a waste of time.

I agree, I would just like someone to explain what the verse exactly referring to so I can fully understand it and either conclude that Im either wrong or its what I think it is or possibly some other conclusion. Im not trying to twist scriptures eisegesisly and plan on discussing this with a few people in my life that I respect to get other point of views.

My thinking is I would obviously take your advice on the original people you said not to do business with but I would take that advice to use in the future when I see similar situations because we cant always have people holding our hands.

Maybe my mind set of knowing its extremely unwise to date/marry unbelievers is hindering me from getting past that.

The best way to do this is to do a study of the surrounding passages. How does this passage fit in the larger context of Paul's message to the Corinthians? What questions/issues is it likely that he's responding to?

A good book to read on this topic is "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth" (Fee and Stuart).

This is common. Because you already know your position regarding this particular situation (the unwisdom of becoming romantically involved with someone who does not share your foundational principles), it becomes easier to "see" it in the text when it's not there.

It will help to recognize that the chapter numbers that we have are not in the original text, and that it's extremely likely that 7:1 is a part of the same paragraph:

This sentence strongly indicates that the preceding is about breaking ties that exist. Therefore, it's unlikely that Paul was talking about starting new ties (or rather, warning against starting those ties).

[Notice that this sentence does not tie in well with what follows. Did Paul just shove this sentence into his letter at random? Of course not. This sentence is a concluding exhortation that bears upon what he just said.]

I hope this brings a little clarity.

Is this the only scripture that you think points to the wisdom of your position? If so, then one must ask whether it's really scriptural wisdom. But if not, then doesn't it make more sense to point to the scriptures that actually speak to the issue rather than co-opting other pieces of scripture to do that?

I don't really care what "unequally yoked" means anymore, but I've heard it enough times to swear off Christian boys forever. To be honest, I've only been dumped by one--all the other break-ups were "mutual"--but the one did dump me four or five times in the span of six months over religion. (And only once over his ex-fiancee! She's Christian.) I thought it sweet that he always struggled to be with me, taking me back after dumping me so he could try to convert me again. Yes, I was that stupid, but he was also that hot.

OP: In the end, I realized that while I don't object to my SO being Christian, he will never come to terms with me being not. It took half a year, a trip to Thailand and a dinner with the only non-religious guy I've ever dated (who picked me up in his M5 )for me to gain some perspective. Like you, I (still) don't think it's a big deal, but it clearly is to some, and I can respect that. That's the real reason why I've decided to never date a Christian again--to spare everyone the drama. (Well, to spare everyone that particular drama.)

It's been almost two years, and Non-Religious and I are still together. It's nice to finally argue about something other than religion... like whether or not he deserves the death penalty for farting in my face. You guys aren't allowed to vote on this until you've smelled one of his farts, because seriously, my nose hairs haven't even grown back yet.

Did u have sex with her? Not trying to be funny here, but if u did, her principles make little sense.

No were just on the discussion of this particular passage that I was trying to clarify. I appreciate the clarity and advice.