A House Divided

 May a Christian Marry An Unbeliever? 

By 

Kurt M. Simmons

  After obeying the gospel, marriage is perhaps the single most far reaching decision an individual will ever make.  If marriage is to be a rewarding and satisfying relationship that lasts a lifetime, it must be built upon a solid foundation.  Chief among those things that make for a strong foundation are one's choice of a marriage partner.  One's choice of marriage partner has profound ramifications which, for better or worse, he must live with every day of his life.  Among those marriages that are the least satisfying and happy, are those between a believing and an unbelieving spouse.

  Almost 2,800 years ago the prophet Amos asked: "Can two walk together except they be agreed?"  (Amos 3:3)  To ask this question is to answer it.  Clearly, no man or woman can walk the road of life together in marriage unless they are agreed where their lives are to lead.   Jesus said: If a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.  (Mark 3:25)  The believer and unbeliever are a divided house. The believer and unbeliever lack common ground upon which to build a home and marriage.  They are divided asunder by opposing values, world views, and eternal destinies.  As iron and clay do not mix, so the believer and unbeliever cannot cleave together either.   They are like bricks which, without straw to bind them together, crumble into pieces.  

  Jesus said: No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.  (Matthew 6:24)  Although Jesus was here speaking about love of worldly riches, he might well have said the same about mixed marriage.  The heart can have only one true object of devotion. The believer can scarcely cling to an unbeliever without at least partly turning his or her back on God. This is why those who marry out of the church typically are persons whose faith is weak, insubstantial, or immature.   This is also why the believer who marries an unbeliever often will  abandon all interest in Christ and the church.  Those for whom mixed marriage does not result in a complete loss of faith, wake up one day only to realize the lifetime of unhappiness marriage to an unbeliever can truly bring.

  Given the unhappiness that so often marks mixed marriages, and the tremendous struggle the spouses find themselves in, it is not surprising that the scriptures give stern warning against marriages between believing and unbelieving spouses.  Indeed, the line of scriptures prohibiting the marriage of believers with unbelievers is so long and well established that it is hardly open to dispute.  Despite all this, the picture of a young person or widow marrying an unbeliever is all too familiar.  Indeed, often the church minister even performs the ceremony pronouncing believer and unbeliever husband and wife. 

   The time from the flood to the events surrounding the tower of Babel was approximately 101 years.  This may be seen by counting up the number of years from the flood until the birth of Peleg, in whose days the earth is said to have been divided.  (Gen.10:25)  Thus, two years after the flood Shem begat Arphaxad; Arphaxad lived thirty-five years and begat Salah; Salah lived thirty years and begat Eber; and Eber lived thirty-four years, and begat Peleg. (Gen.11:10-19) 2+35+30+34=101. 

  The crisis that moved God so soon after the flood to divinely intervene a second time in world affairs does not seem properly attributable to the fact of merely building the city or tower.  Although elements of human pride and defiance also figure in the narrative surrounding the city and tower, the danger arose out of the commingling of the people and the unity of their language.  Hence, the better view probably is that  foremost in God's mind in confounding their language was the fact that the commingling of the righteous with the common mass of mankind in a social and political union threatened the existence of a  righteous seed, much as it had prior to the flood by the marriage of the sons of God and the daughters of men. Thus, God was forced to act lest the righteous seed be overgrown a second time by the weeds of unbelieving men. 

ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB

   After a brief introduction to Abraham in chapter eleven at the end of the narrative about the tower of Babel, Genesis twelve begins by stating that God had instructed Abraham to depart from his native people:  "Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee.  And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing."  (Gen. 12:1,2) 

   Many fail to see the connection between the historical narratives about the flood, the tower of Babel, and the call of Abraham.  Abraham was the father of the Jews and the progenitor of the nation of Israel.  Moses included these historical narratives at the beginning of his book of laws in order to give the children of Israel a better sense of their national identity and the role of their laws, customs, and traditions in keeping the nation separate from the unbelieving peoples around them. 

  Another lesson from the book of Judges is  the story of Samson.  Samson lived at a time when the Jews were subject to their neighbors, the Philistines. In the sixteenth chapter, Samson falls in love with Delilah, a daughter of the Philistines.  But  the love Samson bore  Delilah was unrequited, and the lords of the Philistines bribed Delilah to betray him into their hands by finding out wherein lay the secret of his great power.  Delilah made several attempts to get Samson to reveal the secret of his strength, but to no avail.  Finally,  when she had pressed him daily with her words, and urged him, his soul was vexed unto death, and he told her all his heart.  Having failed the decisive test of allegiance toward God or to trust his heart to a woman of the Philistines, God departed from Samson leaving him powerless before his enemies.  Equipped with the secret of his power, Delilah betrayed him into  the hands of the Philistines, who bore out his eyes and make him grind grain like an ox in the prison.  After a time, Samson turned again to God, and God returned to him.  When Samson was placed between two pillars in the house of the Philistine's god to make sport for them, Samson prayed that he might be avenged of his enemies.  Bowing with all his might, Samson toppled the pillars, collapsing the house upon the Philistine lords, killing Samson and 3,000 of his enemies.

EZRA, NEHEMIAH, AND THE CHILDREN OF THE CAPTIVITY

  The sin that began with Solomon was never completely eradicated from Israel, and through a succession of evil kings it came to pass that God was compelled to deliver the nation up to captivity in Assyria and, later, Babylon.  During the captivity, many of the customs and traditions of the Jews were abandoned and they married wives of the nations among whom they lived.  After the return from the captivity to Jerusalem, Ezra and Nehemiah were at pains to compel those that had taken wives of unbelievers to divorce or put them away.  (Ezra 9,10; Neh. 13:23-30)

What is evidence of the profound danger poised by such marriages, is the fact that the children of these unions could not so much as speak the language of the Jews but spoke the language of their pagan mothers. (Neh. 13:24)  If they were not instructed in the language of the Jews, we may be certain neither were they instructed in the Jewish scriptures.  To correct this situation, the offenders were compelled upon oath to divorce their wives and children, or suffer excommunication from the covenant community and forfeiture of all their goods and possessions.  (Ezra 10:8,19)

  This passage is important because it establishes that the prohibition against mixed marriage was more than just dead letter, and was enforced by the severest measures where the parties failed to repent.

NEW TESTAMENT

 I Corinthians

  The seventh chapter of the 1st letter to the Corinthians is almost entirely devoted to issues regarding marriage and the Christian.  The chapter indicates that it is written in response to a letter from the Corinthians regarding various aspects of the marital union.  Therein, Paul affirms that it is good for a man not to touch a woman, but because of the temptation to fornication, he advises that men and women marry.  This he says by concession and not by commandment; for he wishes that all were able to contain themselves in celibacy as he.  However, recognizing that each man has his own gift from God, he indicates that marriage is a lawful alternative.  

  There are at least three different groups Paul addresses in the course of the chapter. The first group is "the unmarried and widows."  (v. 8)  Unmarried here signifies those who for various reasons are not virgins, probably including the divorced.  This group Paul advises to remain unmarried if they can.  But, if they cannot, he says let them marry.  "For it is better to marry than to burn" (v.9), assuming, of course, that no other impediment to a lawful union existed.

  Paul next addresses the "married."   (vv.10-24)  Paul addresses two groups here: The first he instructs to remain married, but, if they separate, to remain unmarried or be reconciled to their spouses.  (vv.10,11)  The  second consists of married persons who became Christians later in life, but whose spouses did not. (12-17)  The question for such individuals is whether they should divorce their unbelieving spouses.  The fact that this question is even posed itself is telling. Paul's instruction, however, is that the Christian should remain with the unbelieving spouse as long as the unbeliever is content to abide with the Christian. But, if the unbeliever chooses to go, Paul says let him go. (v.15)  That this group consists of those already married at the time  they become Christians, and not persons who, being Christians, marry outside the church, is clear from the language: "But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk." (v. 17; cf v. 24; emphasis added.)  In other words, since they are called in marriage, they are instructed therein to abide.  The believer should not initiate  divorce from the unbelieving spouse.

  The better part of the fifth chapter of I Timothy is devoted to instructions regarding widows.  It is the duty of the church to care for its own.  Support of widows was more common in the ancient church than it is today. The problem before Timothy was whether every widow ought be admitted to the role of those receiving support.  Paul responds by saying that a widow is more than merely a woman whose husband is deceased.  A widow for purposes of support is someone without family or means of support and, therefore, destitute of help.  Thus, Paul instructs that none are to be admitted to the role but those that are sixty years and above, whose lives are known for their good works.  (vv. 9,10)  Younger widows Paul instructs Timothy to refuse, saying

  But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; having damnation because they have cast off their first faith.  And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things they ought not.  I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children,  guide the house, given none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.  For some have already turned aside after Satan.  (I Timothy 5:11-15)

  There are two views interpreting these statements by Paul condemning a widow's remarriage.  The first view has it that, in exchange for being admitted to the church role, widows were expected to become servants to the church.  Those that take this position argue that  Paul condemns the widows for remarriage because in doing so they allegedly abandon their sacred service in favor of a secular relationship.

  However attractive this interpretation may first seem, there is little to recommend or support it.  There simply is no evidence widows were required to come under "orders" like nuns, take vows of celibacy, or otherwise bind themselves to some form of service in exchange for support.  Indeed, in I Corinthians 7:9 Paul acknowledges the advantage and necessity of remarriage for widows, saying it is better to marry than to burn, and in I Timothy 4:3 Paul condemns those that would forbid others to marry.  Thus, it is hardly plausible that Paul here condemns widows for doing the very thing he allowed, for the very reason he allowed it.

  In  Corinthians Paul said that a widow is at liberty to marry whom she will, "only in the Lord."  (I Corinthians 7:39)  Therefore, having already approved a widow's remarriage to a Christian man,  we need not entertain speculative questions about submitting to "orders," and vows of celibacy.  Hence, the second and preferable view is that Paul condemns these widows not because they  abandon their vows, orders, or service to the church, but  because they abandon their faith by marrying out of the church. No other interpretation holds up.  The language saying "some have already turned aside after Satan," (v.15) lends itself to this interpretation, and evokes images reminiscent of the sons of Israel going after the women of Moab and the "sons of God" marrying the daughters of unbelieving men.  It is also similar to that of II Tim. 4:10 where Paul says "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica."  Thus, Demas left the faith having loved the world, the widows were casting off their faith out of a sensual interest in men. 

WHY ONLY WIDOWS?

  Most would concede that Paul lays down a rule prohibiting widows from remarrying out of the church when he says they are at liberty to marry whom they will, only "in the Lord."  The question arises why this group alone was addressed or singled out.  Were others free to marry out of the church?

  The short answer to this question is that widows (and, by implication, divorcees) were sui juris ("of their own right" before law); single women were not, but were under the coverture of their fathers or guardians who had power over her legal affairs, including marriage, and who therefore might annul the union if contracted without his assent.  (Ex. 22:16,17; Numbers 30:3-5; I Corinthians 11:10)   Moreover so far as may confidently be shown, women did not even have the power to divorce their husbands.  (Josephus,  Antiquities of the Jews, Bk. 15, chpt. 8, sec. 10, Whiston ed.)  Hence, responsibility for a woman's marriage partner normally lay with the father; ^[vii]  marriages often being "arranged," the woman having little  say in the choice of spouse.  In such cases, if she were married to an unbeliever, the father was to blame and she bore no fault.  ^[viii]   Once a women was widowed or divorced, however, she was sui juris and able to decide whether to remarry and, if so, whom to  wed. (Num. 30:9; Ruth 3:10)  Hence, in addressing widows and divorcees (I Corinthians 7:8),  ^[ix] Paul spoke to the only class of women legally competent to choose whom they would marry.  We can only conclude that the rule announced for widows and divorcees was understood to obtain also for men and all who are legally competent to marry at will.  Hence, the only lawful choice of marriage partner for a Christian is "in the Lord."

PRINCIPLE OR PRECEPT?

  It may be objected that, while, yes, there is a principle against marrying out of the church, nevertheless the New Testament embraces no actual precept prohibiting such unions.  This objection thus raises the question what differentiates principle from precept, and which obtains in regard to mixed marriages.

  A principle is a basic truth, law, or assumption; a general rule or standard of moral or ethical conduct.  A precept, on the other hand, is a commandment, rule, or law prohibiting specific acts or conduct.  Thus, where principles are often general and all embracing, precepts are more narrowly drawn.  Principles often serve as the foundation of specific precepts. For example, the law of Moses established a duty of reasonable care to avoid an unreasonable risk of harm to all persons within the foreseeable scope of injury.  This principle in turn gave rise to the more specific precepts of keeping in an ox with a known dangerous propensity to gore (Ex. 21:28,29), covering a hole one has dug ( Ex. 21:33,34), and building a battlement or parapet upon one's roof to prevent others from falling.  (Deut. 22:8) Another example is the principle of God's people keeping themselves holy and separate from sin. This principle thus gave rise to the more specific precept enjoining table fellowship with gentiles.  (Acts 10:28; Gal. 2:12)  It also is the principle underlying the prohibition against mixed marriage.

  Another difference between principle and precept is that violation of a principle often does not carry the same consequence as violation of a specific precept.  For example, there is a principle of temperance and self control in the scriptures.  But, while having a short temper or acting compulsively may bring many unhappy consequences upon us, they are not the sort of conduct for which one is normally susceptible of being put out of the church.  However, because they violate specific precepts, if one's lack of temperance and self control manifest itself in drunkenness or fornication, the church's duty to withdraw fellowship from one practicing such conduct is only too clear. 

  Applied to the question of mixed marriages, the argument may be made that while marriage to an unbeliever may violate certain principles of wise living, yet, because no specific precept is violated, the church has no authority to discipline those entering such unions.  The problem with such line of reasoning is that it ignores precedents reaching back to the flood and Paul's specific injunction that Christians marry "in the Lord."  Hence the better view is that there is indeed a precept enjoining marriage to an unbeliever and, not merely a principle that may be obeyed or ignored as one sees fit.

SEPARATION FROM, AND RESTORATION TO, THE CHURCH

   What is the responsibility of the church toward individuals that enter into prohibited unions?  In I Corinthians where a man became involved in an illicit union the Corinthians were told to "deliver such an one up to Satan for the destruction of the flesh."  (I Cor. 5:5) If we are correct and there is a precept prohibiting mixed marriages, we can only assume that the church is compelled to do the same here, and must withdraw fellowship from a member that marries outside the body of Christ.  Anything else would give lie to the strength of Paul's  language.  This is in accord with the unbroken line of precedents beginning at Genesis, continuing through the patriarchs, and on down through the law and the prophets.  After all, how can one who has cast off their faith and turned aside after Satan  be deemed a member in good standing?  If they have turned aside after Satan, then they should be delivered unto Satan and admitted anew into the community life of the church upon public confession and expression of repentance.

 CONCLUSION