Tag Archives: 2 Corinthians 6:14-18

“What has happened in the course of redemptive history that has made a practice that at one time was utterly repugnant to God now something that would be pleasing to Him?”

One of the troubling positions held by Christian leaders when it comes to divorce being forbidden for the unequally yoked believer is the fact that this position is 180 degrees off of God’s clear teaching for believer’s in the Old Testament era.  We have selected a few quotes from the Puritan Matthew Henry’s commentary on Ezra 10 showing the unexplained change in direction based on a single verse in First Corinthians that should have been interpreted in the light of the rest of Paul’s two letters to the Corinthian churches as well as the rest of scripture, but inexplicably this verse has been understood so as to turn God’s law upside down hence dragging the body of Christ down into a horrible position.

He (Shechaniah) advises that a speedy and effectual course should be taken for the divorcing

of strange wives. The case is plain; what has been done amiss must be undone again as far as

possible; nothing less than this is true repentance…As to us now, it is certain that sin must be

put away, a bill of divorce must be given it, with a resolution never to have any thing more to

do with it, though it be dear as the wife of thy bosom, nay, as a right eye or a right hand, other-

wise there is no pardon, no peace. What has been unjustly got cannot be justly kept, but must

be restored; but, as the case of being unequally yoked with unbelievers, Shechaniah’s counsel,

which he was then so clear in, will not hold now; such marriages, it is certain, are sinful, and

ought not to be made, but they are not null. Quod fieri non debuit, factum valet–That which

ought not to have been done must, when done, abide. Our rule, under the gospel, is, “If a

brother has a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her

away, 1 Cor. vii. 12, 13.

To this we must ask the question, “What has happened in the course of redemptive history that has made a practice that at one time was utterly repugnant to God now something that would be pleasing to Him?” Since God is immutable it falls upon these Christians, who have heretofore failed to explain this reversal, to faithfully answer the question: What transpired during the 400 years between the Old and the New Testaments to cause God to change His mind on divorce for His children married to unbelievers?  We would like to think that the church’s answer would be that nothing has changed and we repent of our position, but that has not happened.  Perhaps it is not happening because nobody has pressed the issue, because nobody is asking the question that R.C. Sproul asked in a sermon titled The Tyranny of the Weaker Brother regarding any number of God’s laws no longer being dutifully obeyed.  The question:  “What has happened in the course of redemptive history that has made a practice that at one time was utterly repugnant to God now something that would be pleasing to Him?”

In the Old Testament Law unequally yoked marriages were forbidden as God’s law states, “Furthermore, you shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons.  For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you…Therefore, you shall keep the commandment and the statutes and the judgments which I am commanding you today, to do them” (Deuteronomy 7:3-4, 11).  In the New Testament these are also forbidden marriages as God’s Word proclaims, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?  Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever (2 Corinthians 6:14-15)? 

Those who teach that God’s will has changed use the biblical analogy of marriage as a picture of Christ’s relationship to His bride the church, which is of course a beautiful picture.  But are not Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah and all the Old Testament saints also part of Christ’s church? The point is made that just as Christ’s union to the church is eternal so also must the union between husband and wife be eternal.  However, in making this claim do they not ignore the biblical teaching that Christ has no union with Belial nor has He any union with the sons and daughters of Belial.  If Christ is not the husband of the unregenerate, then should the saints be married to the unregenerate? Paul taught the Corinthian churches that the believer is forbidden to be bound to the unbeliever. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said that this passage specifically refers to marriage, but the vast majority of Christian leaders say, “We know that 2 Corinthians 6:14f does not apply to marriage because of Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.” The very point we see Matthew Henry making above.

When Herod the tetrarch was in a forbidden marriage to Herodias John the Baptist did not hesitate to demand that Herod repent of his sin by divorcing Herodias.  “It is not lawful for you to have her” (Matthew 14:4).  The forerunner of Christ had no difficulty recognizing that God’s institution of marriage does not mean that God has joined together every husband and a wife.  Herod was uncovering the nakedness of his own brother by marrying his brother’s wife (Mark 6:17).  Those who marry against the will and law of God are not bound together by God.  They are bound together by man and since man bound them together man must draw them asunder in order to get right with God. 

Since God instituted marriage, He has the right to forbid certain marriages.  Those who enter into these forbidden marriages are not bound by God’s institution but rather are in sin through their unholy union.  But somewhere along the line the church usurped God’s authority over His institution and began to acknowledge every marriage union as legitimate and permanent.  Reading the Old Testament book of Ezra chapter 10 leaves no doubt that God desires divorce for marriages that yoke His children to unbelievers.  “We have been unfaithful to our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land; yet now there is hope for Israel in spite of this (Ezra 10:2). 

The average Christian, whose current understanding of marriage was founded upon marriage being a sacrament, would say that the hope these Israelites had must have been that they could take their forbidden marriages and use them to glorify God by loving their godless wives and showing them the love that God has put in them.  The Church’s position says that Christians must honor God’s institution of marriage by remaining in these unlawful marriages until death parts them because the wife is the husband’s body and the husband is the wife’s head.  The two have become one flesh and what God has joined together let no man separate.  Oh what a beautiful picture!  But is it really so beautiful since it is not the biblical picture? The biblical picture: Israel’s hope was shown in the following verse, “So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law” (Ezra 10:3). 

God’s people, led by the eminently godly leader Ezra, made a covenant with God to divorce their unbelieving wives.  What, how can this be?  Divorce for the unequally yoked is God’s will because God forbids marriages between His children and the children of this godless world.  Why?  God instructed His people that marriage to unbelievers pulls the people of God toward the false gods of the nations. For this reason God desires that his children be bound together with one another.  God knows that the godless will drag His children into sin.  God knows that there will be no peace in the home of a believer married to an unbeliever, that the children will be heavily influenced by their unbelieving parent as they too are not yet in Christ, that the believer’s sanctification will be seriously held back, that Christian couples will not fellowship with an unequally yoked couple and that partnership, fellowship, harmony, congruity and agreement cannot exist in an unequally yoked home (2 Corinthians 6:14-16).  As our Lord Jesus Christ said, “…a house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Again we ask the Church leaders, tell us what has happened in the course of redemptive history that has made a practice that at one time was utterly repugnant to God now something that would be pleasing to Him?  Their answer is that 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 made marriage for the Christian permanent.  We have two major problems with this answer: First, it does not answer the question “what has happened in the course of redemptive history that has made a practice that at one time was utterly repugnant to God now something that would be pleasing to Him?”  Second, they incorrectly interpreted Paul’s teaching causing it to be in stark contrast to everything else he said to the Corinthians, and making it contradictory to the rest of God’s revelation on unequally yoked marriage. 

To discover the proper interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:12-16, one that agrees with 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 and with the rest of scripture, see our article titled, “1 Corinthians 7:12-16 Properly Interpreted Strengthens the Case for Unequally Yoked Divorce Found in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1


1 Corinthians 7:12-16 Properly Interpreted Strengthens the Case for Unequally Yoked Divorce Found in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1

Continuing to answer the oft asked question: “Can a Christian divorce an unbeliever?”

In Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians with words too powerful to be ignored, Paul commands every believer to get out of all unequally yoked relationships.  Note: He does not simply prohibit becoming bound together with unbelievers but he prohibits being bound together with unbelievers.

“Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?  Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with and unbeliever?  Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?  For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, ‘I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.’  Therefore, ‘COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE,’ says the Lord.  ‘AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN, and I will welcome you.  And I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to Me,’ says the Lord Almighty.  Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”  II Corinthians 6:14-7:1

How any believer can read, study and meditate upon this biblical mandate and still be uncertain about where God stands on His children being bound together with unbelievers in any relationship is incomprehensible.  Nevertheless, most Christians do seem to equivocate in their understanding and obedience to Paul’s command here.  With such strong and convincing language how is this possible?  Certainly for every relationship other than the marriage relationship the only answer can be that sin continues in the believer and they simply fail to fervently obey God’s command to their own shame and great loss.  Repentance is called for on a daily basis.

But for the marriage relationship, Paul’s instructions on the topic of Christians in unequally yoked marriages found in his first letter to the Corinthians chapter seven are universally misunderstood so that they contradict what Paul says here.  This too is a sin, yet it has been effectively obscured by one simple phrase being applied to this text.  This phrase is among the most damnable phrases ever to be formed by the tongues of otherwise godly preachers who would never knowingly speak against the Word of God.  But out of an ignorance of the truth they open their mouths and proclaim the following, “We know that Paul’s command in II Corinthians 6:14, against being bound to unbelievers, does not apply to existing marriages because of what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 7 verses 12-16”.

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones begs to differ as he taught that 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 is directly applicable to marriage and only to marriage, so certainly he strongly disagreed with the commonly held view.  But he is just one preacher.  Why is Lloyd-Jones assumed to be correct while the multitudes are considered wrong?  The interpretation of the multitudes creates a contradiction in God’s Word, and Lloyd-Jones understood this and was willing to take a stand against the throngs so that he would not be guilty of this critical error.  The contradiction does severe damage to both texts.  I remember the exact occasion, it was in an adult Sunday School session, when I quoted Paul’s words to the Corinthians, “Bad company corrupts good morals.”  My assistant pastor literally said the words, “but it doesn’t have to” as he was defending his unbiblical argument.  My dear friend forgot the four words preceding this biblical truth, “Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company corrupts good morals.'”  Whether it is the truthful statement that “bad company corrupts good morals” or the command, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers” we must not contradict the Word of God by saying, “but it doesn’t have to” or “not true for every believer”.  Sadly, with such illogical reasoning, some have argued that since Paul does not mention marriage in this passage it cannot be applied to unequally yoked marriages.  Such logic would necessarily mean that the passage does not apply to any relationship since no specific type of relationship is mentioned.  Lloyd-Jones understood this passage to apply directly to marriages because it is marriage above every other relationship that binds two people together to become one complete person.

So the proper understanding of 2 Corinthians 6:14f, in the light the ubiquitous presence of such commands in the Old Testament, is this overarching rule or command that God prohibits his children from being bound together with unbelievers. One cannot simply exclude marriages but should, as Lloyd-Jones has done, argue all the more so in marriages.  Sooner or later the believer must fearfully obey God’s command and importune the unbeliever for release.  As Christians they must do so in the most loving and kind way, but importune for release they must.  Therefore, since God’s ubiquitous command in the Old Testament, which has been carried forward into the New Testament by Paul, cannot properly have any normative exceptions it is Paul’s teaching in First Corinthians 7:12-16 that must be understood in such a way so as not to contradict the unassailable command in the second letter.

Now the time has come to take note of a sharp contrast between the biblically ubiquitous command of 2 Corinthians 6:14 and the entirely unique doctrine in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.  We understand that Paul’s teaching here is unique because he introduces these instructions with the phrase, “But to the rest I say, not the Lord…” (1 Corinthians 7:12; Bold mine).  Paul makes it clear that the instructions he is giving here are not from the Lord’s direct teaching during the time when Paul was taken up into the third heavens, nor did he find these instructions anywhere else in the scriptures.  Nevertheless, Paul’s instructions, introducing a new doctrine, are inspired by the Holy Spirit, which means that they are divine in origin.

To clarify the issue further, the immediately preceding sentence (v. 10, 11) finds Paul prohibiting divorce for two believers bound in Christian marriages when he says, “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband…” (v. 10).  So Paul clearly states that the Lord directly and/or through scripture revealed to him the Christian rule that two members of the body of Christ must not divorce (short of pornia), but whether or not an unequally yoked Christian should divorce their unbelieving spouse and under what rules they must follow were not divinely spelled out prior to Paul’s passage here to the Corinthians.  Paul was equally clear that he was left to piece this issue together for himself using his knowledge of the Word, his wisdom and eminent logic to come to his conclusion, “But to the rest I say, not the Lord…”

So then, even with the great apostle’s candid, unguarded transparency much of the church has failed to realize that Paul was teaching the Corinthians that the same rule does not apply to both equally yoked and unequally yoked marriages.  Though this distinction is unmistakable in the text it has been almost entirely obscured, as I see it, by two monumental man-made doctrines even as our Lord Jesus argued against, “Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.  Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men” (Mark 7:7-8).  The two precepts of men that obscure Paul’s clear teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 are: Roman Catholicism declaring marriage a sacrament.  And secondly, the misappropriation of the scriptural use of marriage as an analogy for the relationships between God and Israel and Christ and His church.  Sadly, time does not allow elaboration here, but the following poem elucidates the horrible outcome:

False Doctrines Bloom from the repeated sowing of false seeds.

Seed by seed,

Garden by garden,

Pasture by pasture,

The lie spreads until it is unimpeachable.

UNDERSTANDING THE DISTINCTION HERETOFORE LOST FOR CENTURIES

In First Corinthians chapter 7 verses 10 and 11 Paul declares by divine decree that an equally yoked Christian couple is prohibited from a marital divorce (assuming fidelity/Christ’s pornia clause); if a separation occurs then reconciliation to one another is their only marital option.  Whereas in the case of the unequally yoked married couple no such divine decree exists–Paul makes this clear at the beginning of verse twelve.  Since this instruction is lacking elsewhere in scripture Paul provides it here for the Christian church.  Paul is not only inspired by the Holy Spirit, but he himself is uniquely qualified for such a task.

See article titled: What Is an Unequally Yoked Marriage?

Here in verses 12 through 16 Paul makes use of a conditional clause to instruct the unequally yoked believer as to the necessary condition to maintaining a marriage to an unrepentant person.  Paul says that the believer unequally yoked in marriage must stay married if, and only if, a specific condition is met.  The great tragedy is that the church, due to the tradition of men, has misunderstood the condition that must be met for the believer to stay in the marriage to an unbeliever.  It is monstrous to even consider that the church has historically forbidden what God permitted, even commanded, when the condition was unmet.

So then, having the letter-perfect understanding of this necessary condition is the key to knowing the heart and mind of God on this issue.  It will also bring both texts from First and Second Corinthians into perfect agreement unlike the heretical method that excludes existing marriages from God’s prohibition against being unequally yoked, which has been the fallback position of the vast majority of theologians on this doctrine.

THE CONDITION FULLY EXPLAINED

Paul’s condition, properly understood, must pacify God’s displeasure with the child who remains bound in marriage to an unbeliever, which without this condition transgresses God’s prohibition in 2 Corinthians 6:14f.  Also this necessary condition must be fully understood by ministers of the Word of God before they can faithfully and accurately apply it to the thousands of believers who must navigate these dangerous waters and who desire to land safely in the perfect will of their heavenly Father.

According to Paul, the believer must not divorce their unbelieving spouse as long as the following condition is met:

I Corinthians 7:12-13 “she/he (the unbeliever) consents to live with him/her (the believer)”.

And if this all important condition is not met:

Paul says in verse 15, “Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us/you to peace.”

So then, here is Paul’s condition: If the unbeliever consents to live with the believer, then the believer must not divorce the unbeliever.  By and large, people fail to ask the right question in order to actually know the heart and mind of God regarding the full meaning of this condition.

Allow a brief example: John 3:16 says, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”  Yet the very same Son of God said at the end of His Sermon on the Mount, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven…”for “I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’” (Matthew 7:21-23).  So then, the reader must ask a question of the biblical text in order to be certain that the meaning God intended is the meaning the reader understands.  Here is the question that would need to be asked of John 3:16: What does “whoever believes in Him” actually mean?  Until this is fully and biblically understood the otherwise simple phrase cannot bear the full force of the meaning intended by God, and a person may go throughout an entire lifetime taking their salvation for granted only to hear Jesus say at the great judgment, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.”  What an eternally tragic day that will be for perhaps millions of careless people.

In like manner, a very important question must be asked of the biblical text in which Paul provides a condition that, if met, means that a Christian is prohibited from divorcing their unbelieving spouse.  Here is the question that must be asked and answered fully to be sure God’s meaning is perfectly understood: What does ‘consents to live with’ actually mean?  Since verse 15 says, “if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases”, many have made the mistake of thinking that since the Word “leaving” marks the failure to keep the condition set forth, then “not leaving” must be the meaning of the condition.  Paul’s use of the phrase “consents to live with” is pregnant with meaning.   Jumping to the conclusion that “not leaving” is all that Paul had in mind is a catastrophic blunder.   To do so is also entirely unnecessary as Paul lays out in the immediate context just what this condition does actually mean.

So then, what does the condition “consents to live with” mean?  First, it must be clear what this condition does not mean.  The great Apostle does not mandate a negative condition but a positive condition, which is to say that the unbeliever cannot meet the condition simply by failing to do something (e.g. fail to leave) but he/she actually has to successfully fulfill a divine requirement (merely staying does not satisfy meeting a positive condition because it cannot be distinguished from the failure to act at all).  Thus the condition does not read: ‘If the unbelieving spouse refuses to leave or refuses divorce, then the believing spouse cannot do so either.’ No, no the unbelieving spouse must not merely be stubborn, unyielding or even virtually comatose in order to meet this condition, but rather he/she must do something.  How absurd it is to think the unbeliever can meet God’s condition by doing nothing.

So then, what does Paul’s condition mean?  Merriam Webster defines consent as being in concord in opinion or sentiment.  And concord is defined as ‘a state of agreement or harmony.  It is an agreement by stipulation, compact or covenant.’  So in essence, the old marriage covenant of two unrepentant sinners sharing their lives together has been ended by one becoming born-again (died and resurrected with Christ), and a new covenant being laid out here by Paul must take its place.  Death ends the marriage covenant, and the believer died in Christ.  It is no longer he/she who lives but Christ who lives in them.  If the unequally yoked marriage is to continue, then it must do so under a new marriage covenant set out here by Paul.

Therefore, the unbelieving spouse may consent to the new covenant, but is by no means required to do so.  Right minded people do not consent to covenants or agreements without first inquiring into the conditions of consent.  The reader will see that Paul provides the conditions that the unbelieving spouse must consent to in the immediate context.  On the other hand, the believing spouse is required by Paul’s command to abide by the decision of the unbelieving spouse.  If the unbelieving spouse consents to Paul’s conditions, then the believing spouse will have neither need nor divine permission to divorce the unbelieving spouse.  On the other hand, if the unbelieving spouse refuses or fails to consent, then the believing spouse has divine sanction and should divorce the unbelieving spouse in obedience to God’s command against unequally yoked marriage, and as Paul says here, “The brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace” (1 Corinthians 7:15).

Is this clear enough?  If the unbelieving spouse will not positively consent to this harmonious, distinctly Christian union, then the believer “is not under bondage in such cases.”  Can a Christian divorce their unbelieving spouse?  Yes, if he/she fails to give his/her consent as Paul lays it out so incontrovertibly in this text.  Note: It is the believing spouse who is not under bondage to the old marriage covenant if consent to God’s conditions are unacceptable to the unbelieving spouse.  In other words, God provides no option for either married partner to stay in the relationship if the unbelieving spouse refuses consent to God’s conditions, which are found in the immediate context and will be shown shortly.  The unbelieving partner can consent to God’s condition(s) or he/she can fail to consent and become divorced from the believer.  The believing partner can expect a harmonious Christian marriage partner or they must separate themselves from the marriage all together.  The believing spouse must follow and obey God’s Word here and actively pursue divorce if the unbelieving spouse fails to consent because the unbeliever is unlikely to obey God by leaving when their own failure to consent takes place.  They, in essence, become a squatter that does not belong–expecting them to vacate their position is foolish.  In obedience to God’s command here the believing spouse must evict (divorce) the unbelieving spouse for failure to consent to live with…

The Greek word σᴜνεᴜɗoҡεῑ is translated into English as ‘consents’.  The prefix σᴜν is a marker of accompaniment and association.  The word σᴜνεᴜɗoҡεῑ means to join in approval or agreement with consent to or in harmony with the person to whom one is joining.  What has taken place in an unequally yoked marriage is that God has taken a married couple and removed one of the two people from death to life, from darkness to light, and the unbelieving partner must then consent to God’s terms by approving and agreeing with the new life of their believing spouse bringing harmony and peace into the marriage.

Paul Lays Out God’s Conditions of Consent For the Unbelieving Spouse

Now, as stated earlier, the immediate context (Verses 14-16) shows how Paul lays out God’s conditions to which the unbelieving spouse must give consent in order to maintain the marriage relationship to a child of God.  God’s first condition to which the unbeliever must consent is to become set apart from the world and toward conformity to the believing spouse even as the believing spouse has been set apart from the world and toward the holiness of God.  Verse 14 says, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband…”

A Sanctification Similar to Cornelius In Acts 10: Fearing God While Yet Unsaved

Sanctification is, by nature, a cooperative behavior or activity.  The unbelieving spouse does not receive a superstitious blessing of sorts for merely squatting in the home of a child of God or for merely having their name on a marriage licence.  In order to remain married to the believer the unbeliever must actively cooperate with their believing spouse in this sanctification.  It is very much like the God-fearers: Gentiles who attended the synagogue and followed the teachings of Judaism but who were not full-fledged Jews because they were not circumcised.  So then, a failure on the part of the unbelieving spouse to consent here does not equate to leaving and divorcing, which would actually be the outcome of a failure to consent.  Failure to “consent to live with” here means that the unbelieving spouse refuses cooperation with the believing spouse to become a God fearing couple–he or she refuses to live like the God-fearers lived.

By conforming to the holiness that the Holy Spirit is bringing into the believers life the unbeliever is admitting that God’s ways are greater than man’s ways and will to the best of their ability not impede but rather reflect the changes brought about by the Holy Spirit in the believing spouse.  The vast majority of Evangelicals who very regrettably hold an Arminian view of the gospel (though repudiated twice as heresy by the church fathers) will misdiagnose the spiritual condition of the unbelieving spouse thinking them to be in Christ.  But that simply is not the case because they lack “a faith of the same kind as ours”.  Their will is favorable to the Christian religion and they desire the blessings of heaven yet they lack saving faith and the changes that accompany it.  So then, consent here means that the unbelieving spouse will work at conforming to the godliness their believing spouse is exhibiting rather than being bad company that corrupts the good morals of their believing spouse.  They desire the grace of God necessary to follow the ways of the Lord, which makes them Christian moralists, but they will not cry out for God’s grace of forgiveness and the  righteousness of Christ for they love their sin more.

God’s second condition to which the unbeliever must consent is to help bring up the children in the fear and admonition of the Lord “for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy” (Vs. 14).  So then “consents to live with” means that the unbelieving spouse will not interfere or steer the children in any direction other than being raised in the fear of the Lord.  The unbelievers words and deeds must be consistent with Christian virtues, again following the pattern set out by God fearing Gentiles.  Perfection cannot be obtained by the believer or the unbeliever, but both must be working toward the goal of seeing the children all submit themselves to the Lordship of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins and the glory of God in their salvation.  Often the unbelieving spouse is in a dead religion such as Catholicism or is an atheist and their desire is to raise their children in their own belief system or with no guidance whatsoever.  Paul is teaching believers that such behavior does not meet the condition “consents to live with”.  Thus, divorce and remarriage in the Lord or remaining single are the only obedient options for the believing spouse.

In fact, once an unequally yoked marriage exists the only way for the children to be holy is for the unbelieving spouse to meet all the conditions of consenting to stay.  If the unbelieving spouse leaves (a bad outcome to be sure), then sadly the children may be raised in both homes or they could be raised only in the home of the unbelieving spouse.  If the unbelieving spouse refuses to consent but also is allowed to stay in the marriage (an even worse outcome), then according to Matthew Henry the unbelieving spouse will have an undue influence upon the children as both have unrepentant hearts.  In addition, the children will live in a house divided.  Either way the children will be unclean.  So then, the only “sanctification” in the life of an unbeliever that can make their children “holy” is if they consent to conform to the sanctification they see in their believing spouse.

God’s third condition laid out in the immediate context is that the unbelieving spouse is consenting to a peaceful and harmonious Christian marriage.  Paul says in verse 15, “Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.”  Clearly if the unbelieving spouse cannot consent to living in peace with the believing spouse, then the believing spouse is to live in peace after divorcing the unbelieving spouse.  Either way peace in the life of the believer is God’s expectation.

Paul traditionally opens his letters with a greeting of Grace and Peace.  He certainly did so in both of his letters to the Corinthian believers.  Paul does so because grace is the source of the Christians’ faith, and peace is the end or purpose of the Christians’ faith.  Peace is so much more than the interval between two wars or between fights.  Peace is the union after a separation or reconciliation after a conquest or quarrel.  Peace is the wall coming down because a separation is no longer necessary—the two have become one.  Once peace becomes a priority the need for the grace of God becomes evident.  When the unbelieving spouse consents to strive to be one with the believing spouse he/she will feel their overwhelming need to cry out to God for grace.  Man cannot have peace with others and he will not even be at peace within himself if he has not first been reconciled to and at peace with God, which necessitates the need for God’s grace.  The unbeliever must consent to a peaceful and harmonious Christian marriage.

God’s final condition provided in the immediate context is that the unbelieving spouse will consent to the gospel of repentance and faith in Christ Jesus.  “For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband?  Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife” (Vs. 16)?  Consent here refers to something short of salvation.  This final aspect of the condition does not mean that the unbelieving spouse must be saved, but it does mean that they must not reject the gospel as the only way to come out from under the wrath of God.  They fail in their “consent to live with” if they become an enemy of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So then, once the unbelieving spouse consents to live with the believing spouse in all of these ways, then the believing spouse is free from the guilt of being bound together with an unbeliever as God prohibits with such strong language in II Corinthians 6:14-7:1.  We certainly have hope that the unbeliever who consents to these four conditions will soon see their sin for what it is and cry out to God for forgiveness at which time they would join their spouse as a recipient of the grace of God–two saints joined together in marriage is indeed a beautiful relationship.

The believing spouse has the responsibility to be patient and assist their unbelieving partner as they are called to consent to the demands Paul lays out.  They must place their trust in the plans that God has made for them and for their spouse.  And if at any time the unbelieving partner refuses and rebuffs God’s prescribed plan of consent to live with the believing spouse, then the believer needs to recognize their failure to consent to live with them for what it is and they must begin asking the Lord for the wisdom and timing to pursue an honorable divorce so that they will not be guilty of being bound together with an unbeliever.  It is for this very circumstance that Paul said, “the brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases” (Vs. 15).  So then, the answer to the question, “Can a Christian divorce an unbeliever” is a very solid yes.

A final clarification is necessary here.  The careful reader may note that Paul does not use a language suggesting that these four clauses are conditions of the unbelievers consent to stay, and we would agree.  Paul is providing the four clauses to show Christians what the effects or outcome of the unbeliever’s consent will look like for the believer.  The only way to arrive at the outcomes Paul describes in verses 14-16 is for the unbelieving spouse to consent as we have demonstrated in this article.  These holy effects as seen in the marriage and the family define and explain the conditions of consent without which such outcomes would not be realized.

By electing to pen the expected outcomes of consent instead of the conditions of consent, Paul has actually provided greater weight to his instructions.  Had he laid these four outcomes down as conditions, then unbelieving spouses could more easily follow the letter of Paul’s instructions without actually meeting the spirit intended.  The only way for the believing spouse married to an unbeliever to have peace, harmony and holiness in their marriage and family is for Paul’s four outcomes to be mandates in the conditional clause “consents to live with”.

In 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 Paul demonstrably portrays God’s intent to protect His children from unequally yoked marriages.  And 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 is the exclamation point showing God’s children the magnitude of this doctrine: “Do not be unequally yoked to unbelievers.”  Ironically, the historical understanding on these two Biblical texts forces the passages themselves to be unequally yoked to one another.  Now, rather than contradicting one another these two biblical texts, originally intended for the Corinthian churches, can be understood as being in complete harmony with one another as well as with the rest of God’s Word.

Heavenly Father, I ask that you will open the eyes of those who cannot see and revive your church in our day.


Here God Once Dwelt

The Puritan John Howe when preaching on the fall would recall seeing large palaces or castles that have fallen to ruins and there would be a sign hanging above the entrance saying something like “Centuries ago, such and such a king once dwelt here.” Then Howe would go on to say, “Now, as a result of man’s fall into sin, it is written over man, ‘Here, God once dwelt.’”

When man fell in the Garden of Eden he lost his original righteousness and thus his correspondence to God. God’s immediate response was to condemn man and put him out of Eden. No longer having correspondence with God man could no longer be together with God. The scriptures inform that it was the woman who first fell and then the man. Had Eve fallen alone, is there any reason whatsoever to believe that Adam would have been condemned along with her and both of them put out of the garden? Both logically and theologically, had Adam continued in his original righteousness, then he would have continued having correspondence to God and therefore would not have been condemned and put out of Eden.

Well then, one could speculate that perhaps Eve would have been allowed to stay in the garden with Adam even though she alone had fallen; after all she had become Adam’s wife. The Lord Jesus said, “What God has joined together let no man separate”. In our Lord’s statement we find the obvious doctrine, implicit, yet undeniable, that only God can separate what He has joined together and that is precisely what God would have done in this scenario. Eve would have been put out of the garden because she alone would have come under condemnation and she alone would have no longer had correspondence to God and, in fact, she would not have had correspondence to Adam either.

In this scenario they would have become unequally yoked in marriage, and God would have divorced them by putting Eve out of the garden alone. But some will argue that this is merely speculation. Since it never happened it cannot be known what God would have done. Speculation means: The act of theorizing. To speculate means: To form conjectures regarding anything without experiment (experience). To conjecture is to guess or to presume knowledge that is simply unknown.

Is it conjecture that man’s sin caused a separation between man and God? Few biblical doctrines are more sure than sin separates man from God. Is it conjecture that a just God would not punish an innocent man? The situation may be hypothetical but as to how God would have responded is sure. Adam would have continued in fellowship with God in the garden and Eve would have been stricken dead or put out of the garden, and since God put the both of them out of the garden for committing this offense together there is no reason, other than stubbornness of mind, to think that God would have done anything else with Eve had she alone fallen into sin.

But God in His everlasting lovingkindness sent His only begotten Son into the world so that whosoever believes in Him shall come out from under God’s condemnation and once again have correspondence to God. The righteousness of Christ Jesus is the possession of all those truly born-again. So then, they, once again, have correspondence to God in their spirit. They are granted eternal life and will forever dwell with God.

However, they no longer correspond to those children of Satan who refuse repentance. If God’s remedy for a failure to correspond to a righteous being is to put the unrighteous, condemned soul out, then that is precisely what must be done here. Notwithstanding Paul’s temporary injunction to the Corinthians that if the unbelieving spouse “consents to live with” then let them stay. The great apostle laid out four conditions of this consent, which if not followed meant that the unbeliver did not give their consent.  So, Paul provided a short “grace period” with this temporary injunction so that the grace of God in salvation might come to the unsaved spouse as well. Some time is necessary to see whether or not the unbelieving spouse softens or hardens to the gospel of grace.

Then after an appropriate amount of time divorce is inevitable as Paul subsequently commanded the Corinthian believers “Do not be bound together with unbelievers”. And the great apostle gave this command because the two no longer have correspondence to one another. Then Paul quotes the scriptures saying, “Come out from their midst and be separate, says the Lord. And do not touch what is unclean; and I will welcome you. And I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to Me, says the Lord Almighty” (2 Cor. 6:14-18). Saints who are presently bound in marriages with unbelievers should be agreed that marital separation from such unions is inevitable, and seek to know the mind of God concerning the steps which they should take.

Adam and Eve stayed married to one another because they continued in their correspondence one to another throughout their entire lives (they fell and remained fallen together), but when a marriage consists of one born-again person in whom there is no condemnation and one child of Satan who is already condemned by God a divorce is the biblically mandated remedy. It is God that has separated them when He brought only one of them out from under His just condemnation. The one condemned should be called to repentance, and if they refuse they should be put out of the marriage as they no longer have correspondence with their righteous spouse or with God who dwells within the believing spouse.

Marriages between saints and unrepentent sinners have it written over them, “Here, God has never dwelt.”


Do Not Be Bound Together With Unbelievers: Does 2 Corinthians 6:14 Apply to Marriage?

2 Corinthians 6:14 says, “Do not be bound together with unbelievers.”  Among the most common questions asked regarding this text is, “Does it apply to marriage?”  A fundamental rule in the proper understanding of scripture is almost always broken when it comes to this question regarding Paul’s universal, straightforward command to the saints at Corinth.  Why?  Because it is falsely interpreted through the lens of an ancient, popular, and destructive presupposition that divorce is always biblically prohibited, which twists the passage’s clear meaning so that it will not be applied to marriages.  Sadly, this leaves believers unable to repent of their sinful marital unions in obedience to the ubiquitous command throughout God’s word to separate from the world of the ungodly.

Does This Passage Apply to Marriage?  “Do not be bound together with unbelievers”      2 Corinthians 6:14-7:2

To properly understand this text regarding its application to marriage one merely needs to be disciplined, as always, in avoiding interference from presuppositions.  Virtually every saint from the day Paul penned these words until the present time would agree that this text clearly applies to marriages except for the fact that this obvious interpretation strongly conflicts with the view held by so many that divorce is not permitted as a remedy for believers bound in marriage to unbelievers.  Tragically the church has traditionally favored a strict prohibition against marital divorce over the necessity for the saints to be separate from the sons of disobedience.  Precious few verses (“God hates divorce”, “What God has joined together let no man separate”) have been used as platitudes and clichés that have effectively operated like a sledge hammer forcing theologians into a man-made doctrine restricting divorce where God’s grace and mercy commands/allows it.  Most of the biblical texts used to improperly form these awful presuppositions are addressed within the articles of this blog.

How Could This Passage Not Apply to Marriage?

Can marriage be defined as a relationship between one man and one woman?  Does marriage bind or yoke two people together in order to share the burdens of life?  Of course it does.  Paul uses the following five words to make his point: Partnership, fellowship, harmony, commonality and agreement.  He masterfully instructs the saints in the knowledge that these qualities cannot be in any relationship between a believer and an unbeliever.  He does not teach that these will be hard to come by, but rather they cannot exist within unequally yoked relationships.  What kind of marriage has no partnership, fellowship, harmony, commonality and agreement?  Binding a man and a women together in an unequally yoked marriage incapable of having these qualities is like strapping the dead carcass of a women to the back of a living man and calling it a marriage.  The simile of a living person being tied to a dead person is grotesque and vivid, but spiritual life being bound to spiritual death is infinitely more grotesque as much as the spirit is infinitely greater than the body.

Then Paul argues:

As righteousness cannot be in partnership with lawlessness neither can a believer be bound to an unbeliever.

As light cannot have fellowship with darkness neither can a believer be bound to an unbeliever.

As Christ cannot have harmony with Belial (the son of destruction or worthlessness) neither can a believer be bound to an unbeliever.

These are not difficult to manage, rather they are impossible!  They cannot be together.  This is Paul’s point.  All of these pairings are impossible including that of a believer and an unbeliever.

Paul asks, “What agreement has the temple of God with idols?  Then he reminds believers that “we are the temple of the living God”.  Should a believer bring idols into the temple of God by being married to an unbeliever who by default worships idols?  May it never be!  Paul then quotes the scriptures, “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate, says the Lord.  And do not touch what is unclean; and I will welcome you.  And I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to Me.”  Says the Lord Almighty.”

The most wicked words to have ever passed through the lips of many godly men have been the words, “We know that this passage does not apply to marriage.”  Tragically these men universally apply this passage to believers considering marriage to an unbeliever, but once the brother or sister has embarked upon the sin of being unequally yoked in marriage they change course and say it no longer applies.

Dear reader, the sole purpose of biblicalviewondivorce.com blog has been to correct the awful misinterpretation of this text and the man-made prohibition against divorce for the unequally yoked in marriage.  All of the articles within will answer most of the questions you may have regarding the topic at hand.  Start with the articles listed at the top of the home page.  Feel free to contact the author as I am most willing to answer fully all questions to the best of my ability.

THE BIG QUESTION: Is It a Sin to Be In an Unequally Yoked Marriage?

Interacting with others on this concern regarding divorce for the unequally yoked in marriage I have discovered that a great deal of confusion exists on determining whether or not it is a sin to be in an unequally yoked marriage.  The answer is an overwhelming YES.  My proof is offered in the article titled, The Will of God Dictates Divorce for Those Unequally Yoked In Marriage and you will find it at the top of the home page.

A Final Warning: Do Not Use This Blog to Acquire a Divorce of Convenience

Due diligence in reading most of this entire blog and doing your own biblical research will be necessary for you to properly come to a biblical conclusion on your unequally yoked marriage.  All who simply use this article to justify a divorce they desperately desire will more than likely be adding more sin to their already sinful state of affairs.  More often than not they will end up in another unequally yoked marriage in a few short months or years.  True repentance carries a great cost.

It is not wrong to desperately desire a divorce from a godless spouse if we are walking in obedience to the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.  When done carefully and prayerfully a believer can transition from the awful state of being unequally yoked to the wonderful state of being bound together with one of the majestic ones in who they will delight, but they must first repent of all the attitudes and actions that have put them were they are today.  In addition, true repentance includes making full restitution for those we have hurt intentionally or not, which of course includes the unregenerate spouse and children.

This Article Asks the Questions.  The Rest of the Articles Provide the Answers.

Prayerfully read 2 Corinthians 6:14 through 7:1, then diligently begin reading the articles of this blog.  One by one the articles will help you understand the biblical position on this most important question: Does God want His children unequally yoked in marriage and does He allow divorce as the path for repentance?  Christ’s continued blessings.