[BornAgainBibleBeliever514]

I highly doubt that "plowed with my heifer" refers to any sort of sex act whatsoever. Samson was calling the obvious, that they had used his wife against him.
Since there is no mention whatsoever of the Philistines having sex with the wife (nor yet Samson), but rather threatened her with burning, there is no way to extrapolate a sexual metaphor.
Now I know that in modern-day slang the term "to plow" can be used in an ugly, sexual way, however there just isn't any reason to read that into Judges 14.

Ironically, an heifer is a young cow that hasn't yet given birth, which can depict a newlywed wife. (Not what I'd call my wife, but...) Also, Numbers 19:2 and Deuteronomy 21:3 refer to an heifer as normally being destined to the yoke (unless offered for sacrifice). Now was Samson also implying that he is yoked to her? I'm not sure. She was outside of Israel, yet it was the Lord's will. I doubt that is good grounds to sanction lopsided relationships/marriages.

The Judges 14 passage has nothing to do with sex acts, although it does lend a bit of credibility to "being yoked" referring to marriage, although the initial scriptures given for a difference between being yoked and being joined are still evident as well.

I've heard 2Cr 6:14 used so often to come against lopsided relationships, I'm interested to see how this plays out.

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by BornAgainBibleBeliever514

I highly doubt that "plowed with my heifer" refers to any sort of sex act whatsoever. Samson was calling the obvious, that they had used his wife against him.
Since there is no mention whatsoever of the Philistines having sex with the wife (nor yet Samson), but rather threatened her with burning, there is no way to extrapolate a sexual metaphor.
Now I know that in modern-day slang the term "to plow" can be used in an ugly, sexual way, however there just isn't any reason to read that into Judges 14.

Ironically, an heifer is a young cow that hasn't yet given birth, which can depict a newlywed wife. (Not what I'd call my wife, but...) Also, Numbers 19:2 and Deuteronomy 21:3 refer to an heifer as normally being destined to the yoke (unless offered for sacrifice). Now was Samson also implying that he is yoked to her? I'm not sure. She was outside of Israel, yet it was the Lord's will. I doubt that is good grounds to sanction lopsided relationships/marriages.

The Judges 14 passage has nothing to do with sex acts, although it does lend a bit of credibility to "being yoked" referring to marriage, although the initial scriptures given for a difference between being yoked and being joined are still evident as well.

I've heard 2Cr 6:14 used so often to come against lopsided relationships, I'm interested to see how this plays out.

Born Again,

Thanks for your input. However, I couldn't disagree more.

I don't think it's necessary for it to even be seen as a metaphor for sleeping with a woman (which of course I think it's clear it is) to see the error of using that verse to support this idea of being "yoked" as having anything whatsoever to do with the marriage relationship.

The idea of being yoked is not even in the passage.

Is any reference to cattle and marriage or a wife within the same passage now to be used as evidence of "yoked" relating to the marriage relationship?

Did you read George's exposition on the topic that absolutely destroyed the argument that "yoked" scriptures have anything to do with marriage?

I have to say that I am quite surprised by the ideas that a few people on this board have about how to correctly interpret the scriptures. Live and learn, I guess.

Oh, well. At least we have the correct Bible, right?

[greenbear]

Not the first time and I'm sure not the last, but the most obvious and relevant point escaped me for a little while.

If you want to use Jg 14:18 as a scriptural evidence that "yoked" applies to marriage not only do you have to fabricate the concept of a "yoke" being implied in the verse but you also have to explain how it supports your argument even then.

Samson is accusing these Philistine men of "plowing with his heifer"; these men being as the farmers doing the plowing, not as the other ox being yoked to her. How does that have anything to do with marriage being "yoked" together?

[George]

Originally Posted by greenbear

Born Again,

Thanks for your input. However, I couldn't disagree more.

I don't think it's necessary for it to even be seen as a metaphor for sleeping with a woman (which of course I think it's clear it is) to see the error of using that verse to support this idea of being "yoked" as having anything whatsoever to do with the marriage relationship.

The idea of being yoked is not even in the passage.

Is any reference to cattle and marriage or a wife within the same passage now to be used as evidence of "yoked" relating to the marriage relationship?

Did you read George's exposition on the topic that absolutely destroyed the idea that "yoked" scriptures have anything to do with marriage?

I have to say that I am quite surprised by the ideas that a few people on this board have about how to correctly interpret the scriptures. Live and learn, I guess.

Oh, well. At least we have the correct Bible, right?

Aloha sister greenbear,

To all of your comments. It also amazes me that some Christians either cannot, or will not, settle Scriptural matters in their hearts, but will instead leave themselves "open" to "SPECULATION" and "SUPPOSITION".

There isn't any way that Judges 14:18 cited by "custer" (in her desperation to disprove" the simple teaching about the difference between being "yoked together" and being "joined together") has anything to do with the sex act; or being "yoked together"; or being joined together"!

The use of the word "plowed" in the verse has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with being "YOKED"! It's pure "SPECULATION" on "custer's" part and a GROSS MISUSE of Scripture to boot! {No surprise there. }

What is sad to see is BornAgainBibleBeliever514's willingness to give any "credence" to these "FLIGHTS OF FANCY" by "custer".

BornAgainBibleBeliever514's quote:

"Now was Samson also implying that he is yoked to her? I'm not sure. She was outside of Israel, yet it was the Lord's will. I doubt that is good grounds to sanction lopsided relationships/marriages.

WHY would any Christian, with an ounce of "DISCERNMENT" - NOT "be sure"? When a Christian starts dealing with what someone in the Bible is "IMPLYING" - they are dealing with "SPECULATION" and "SUPPOSITION"; and if they aren't real careful they will fall into ERROR!

The Judges 14 passage has nothing to do with sex acts, although it does lend a bit of credibility to "being yoked" referring to marriage, although the initial scriptures given for a difference between being yoked and being joined are still evident as well.

This is known as "DOUBLESPEAK" or "speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time"! The passage does NOT lend itself to even a little "bit of credibility to "being yoked" referring to marriage". How could it - IF the words "YOKED" and "MARRIAGE" are NOT in the passage? From the "words" in the verse - HOW in the world would anyone, with a sound mind, get the ridiculous idea that there was any "credibility" at all to "custer's" conjectures?

I am baffled as to WHY "Christians" are willing to accept or entertain the idea that personal "speculation" about Bible issues (or doctrine) is an acceptable (or legitimate) form of Bible study.

I've heard 2Cr 6:14 used so often to come against lopsided relationships, I'm interested to see how this plays out ."

I do not understand WHY BornAgainBibleBeliever514 is "interested to see how this plays out"? I wonder - has he read the Thread and all the Posts? And if he has read all of the Posts - WHAT is LEFT to play out?

If by reading all of the Scriptures that I posted in the original Thread, a person cannot make up their own mind as to whether a Biblical marriage is "yoked" or "joined", I don't know how much MORE would have to "play out" before a person could know for sure which it is - since there are NO MORE Scriptures to be cited concerning the issue.

[greenbear]

Aloha, brother George.

Thanks for your encouragement. Along with you, I'm not sure what's left to play out, either. I guess you either get it or you don't. I just don't get how people don't understand the "plowing with my heifer" meaning, though. What do people think Samson is talking about, then?

I only jumped back in this thread because I was so amused that custer brought out Jg 14:18 as an argument for her "yoked" case and by now we all know what I think it means!!! Lol.

Now I can beat a dead horse along with the best of them but I am convinced there remains absolutely no sign of life in this horse so in my mind it is dead and buried.

I think I'll follow the advise of some people wiser than myself and instead of engaging in profitless debating I will spend more time in the Bible. What a concept. Duh.

[custer]

Originally Posted by greenbear

The idea of being yoked is not even in the passage.

greenbear,

This has been discussed SCRIPTURALLY already - see my post #23. You seem to read and comprehend my posts very selectively! The fact that the heifer is being plowed with, means that she IS YOKED! So, how can "the idea of being yoked" NOT be in the passage??? Still, both you and George clung to this side-note of mine while TOTALLY IGNORING my post #22...you know, the one with SEVENTEEN scriptures that ARE AGAINST George's conclusions!

WHY??? GEORGE???

Also, regarding your last post, you would have profited more by taking your own advice (from your post #35) and "spend more time in the Bible" (as would we all.)

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

[Renee]

Guys,(includes gals)

Time to back off and leave off. We have reached the point of contention. Our Lord is the only one that can can convience and convict in the above matter. What say we let The Lord rule and put this thread to rest?


Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

1 Corinthians 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.


If we need to contend, Let us contend for the faith.


Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

There are many guest on this forrum, some of whom may not be saved. we are not presenting a very good christian testimony.

You can say I am picking out verses if you like, but boy it sure fits!

May Our Lord grant each of us the peace and understanding of His written word.

Renee

[custer]

Originally Posted by Renee

Guys,(includes gals)

Time to back off and leave off. We have reached the point of contention. Our Lord is the only one that can can convience and convict in the above matter. What say we let The Lord rule and put this thread to rest?


Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

1 Corinthians 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.


If we need to contend, Let us contend for the faith.


Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

There are many guest on this forrum, some of whom may not be saved. we are not presenting a very good christian testimony.

You can say I am picking out verses if you like, but boy it sure fits!

May Our Lord grant each of us the peace and understanding of His written word.

Renee

Renee,

How can we possibly have "reached the point of contention?" It is very telling that you would like to "put this thread to rest," since NONE of the errors in the original post have even been addressed. It is extremely apparent who has "private opinions" and "preconceived ideas" here AND who is trying to suppress the truth. Your post SOUNDS nice, but if there are forum guests reading this (or any) thread, they should be able to tell that our "very good Christian testimony" is that we are "valiant for the truth," not afraid to discuss scripture or to admit when we are wrong!

Speaking of 'wrong,' your post #6 also contained obvious errors... For example, you said, "When you are yoked and do not agree it is impossible to walk together. When you are yoked it is easy to unyoke, you just take off the harness." I dealt with some of the problems with this when I addressed George's incorrect info (in my post #22; ) but I will explain again/further... When two oxen are yoked, if they do not "agree," one is actually LED by the other. Also, when you are yoked, IT IS NOT "EASY TO UNYOKE" - an ox would DIE right there in the yoke before it could "unyoke" itself. (The master, NOT one ox in the pair, would have to do the unyoking!) The point is, from every angle you and George are WRONG about your 'yoked oxen' pictures. Can't you see that this is a problem because it skews the conclusion of the whole study?

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

[custer]

First, the "study" in the original post of this thread is terribly one-sided - we were asked to read and study the verses and then "Tell me if a Biblical marriage is being 'joined together' or is it being 'yoked together'." The "study" then went on to list all the Bible references to "yoke" and all its biblical forms, but never listed ANY for "join" or ANY of its forms...so how was anyone supposed to study and give an answer to George's "tell me," since we were only HALF INFORMED? Obviously, George had a purpose in mind - to disconnect the separation principles in II Corinthians 6:14-18 from a marriage situation at any cost. I have already shown (in post #22) that one of these costs was to completely forfeit the TRUTH. (I am asserting that this was George's purpose because of his stance on the issue in the "Love and Race" thread.)

Those of us who believe that the II Cor. passage CAN be applied to marriage partners have been accused of trying to misapply scripture and take it "out of context" in order to prove our "preconceived ideas!" We were reprimanded with the fact that II Cor. only has to do with "workers," as in verse one of the chapter. But, after Paul gives us the admonition and explanation in verses 14-16, he tells us what to do (with a promise) in verses 17-18 (and part of 16.) Where did Paul get this "saith the Lord?" It certainly WASN'T from a passage having anything to do with "the ministry!!!" Anybody who does a fair amount of Bible study knows that in addition to their historical or prophetical context, passages can also have a practical application. (Peter does the same thing in Acts 2:16-21; James does it in Acts 15:13-17!)) And, back to II Cor. - if the separation principles in chapter six were not clear enough (which obviously for some, they are not,) chapter seven starts out: "Having therefore these promises [that would be the promises that Paul just used 'out of context'], dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from ALL filthiness of the flesh and spirit,..." Since this clearly applies to ALL areas, how can anyone assert that these separation principles do not apply to the choice of a marriage partner?

I need to tell you also that if I don't type out every passage in its entirety, I am not trying to rob you of proper context; I am not (as George is) adept at copying and pasting...I am working off the assumption that everyone here has access to a King James Bible and probably a concordance, so I beg you to read as much as is necessary on either side of any passage I mention to have each in its own context. Also, I have relied on Cruden's Complete Concordance, so if Cruden has missed something, I probably have too! With this in mind. please notice...

The phrase "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" cannot be lifted out of II Cor. 6:14 and isolated. It is followed (praise the Lord) by at least two-and-a-half verses of explanation...actually the thought continues into the next chapter as mentioned above. The explanation is in the form of parallels; they are as follows:

command : yoked......ye (believers) - unbelievers
explanation: fellowship......righteousness - unrighteousness
communion......light - darkness
concord......Christ - Belial
part......he that believeth - infidel
agreement......temple of God - idols

Now, if you run (and read) all the references for "yoked," "fellowship," "communion," "concord," "part," "agreement," and all the various forms of these words, you will find that NONE of them can be directly connected with marriage anywhere in the Bible! The closest any of them come is:
"Fellowship" is in Eph. 5:11 but not in direct reference to the husband/wife verses; when I ran this reference in the "Love and Race" thread, post #68, no one acknowledged its relevance. "Communed" is in I Sam. 25:39, but it is David communing with Abigail BEFORE they are married. "Part" in Ruth 3:13 is the "part of a kinsman," which still does not refer to the marriage relationship of Boaz and Ruth; it is only the description of the duty of Boaz. Unless I missed something, those are the nearest that any of the parallel words from II Cor. 6 ever come to the subject of marriage...and they don't ever touch it DIRECTLY. By extension of George's premise then, this means that if "yoked together" can in no way be related to a "genuine Biblical marriage," then neither can "fellowship," "communion," "concord," "part," or "agreement." I am asserting that this is a LUDICROUS position, and when I'm done here, you will see that I have taken my assertion from the Bible! (Keep in mind George's position that "JOIN" is THE term for marriage, and his position that we can't take the separation principles in II Cor. 6 and apply them to marriage.)

Upon reading the aforementioned references, I found several very interesting correlations...For example, in Daniel 11:6a, the parties "JOIN themselves together" by "mak[ing] an AGREEMENT." In I Cor. 1:9-10, since we "were called unto the FELLOWSHIP of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord," Paul beseeches us to be "perfectly JOINED together." In I Cor. 10:16-17, the "COMMUNION of the body of Christ" is because we are "one body," which is "one flesh." (I Cor. 6:16 and Eph. 5:31) Also, in Isaiah 28:15 and 18, an "AGREEMENT" IS a covenant; in Jer. 50:5, you "JOIN...in...a...covenant," and covenants are directly connected to marriage in Deut. 7:1-3 and Mal.2:14. Yet another - in I Cor. 12:12-27, "one body" is made of "parts;" and in Eph. 4:16, "every PART" is "fitly JOINED together!"
These verses provide CONCLUSIVE SCRIPTURAL PROOF that "yoked," "fellowship," "communion," "concord," "part," "agreement," AND, YES, "JOIN," and "one body"/"one flesh" are connected and relevant to each other!

Another angle...George, your idea was that we would be taking I Cor. chapter six "out of context" to try to apply the "yoked together" analogy to a married couple; your contention was that the analogy could only be applied to "workers," and for marriage, we must use the term "joined." Well, it is very interesting that the Lord uses "joined" for spouses AND for workers in "the ministry." (See Numbers 18:1-4.) On a completely unrelated note, Genesis 29:34 casts a totally different light on being "joined" to a spouse!

Please note that there has been NO "twisting, wresting, and CHANGING the Holy words of God!" (George's quote) All that I have done is to run some references to show how THE LORD HIMSELF DEFINES AND CONNECTS HIS OWN WORDS!!! There is simply no scriptural reason to shy away from saying that a married couple is "yoked together." Yes, two oxen can be "paired together for work," and when they are "paired," they are JOINED with a yoke! Not only is this plain common sense, but it is clearly shown as biblically related if one will take the time to run all the references in the passage to get the whole picture! And it's a wonderful picture - I can certainly think of no one or nothing that I would rather be yoked to, paired together with, or joined to than my husband. The bottom line is that TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICATION OF GEORGE'S WORD STUDY, if one has a problem with "yoked together" being applied to a marriage relationship, he must also reject that a husband and wife can have "fellowship," "communion," "concord," a "part," or "agreement" with each other. This is simply an effort to have George apply his own Bible study principles to ALL the associated words in II Cor. 6:14-16. Why bother with a word study if it's not going to be complete? In order to see the Bible's commentary on itself, we must scripturally define all the elements of a passage!

So, you see, George and greenbear, there was much left to play out because all the original post did was to scratch the surface...and by staying on the surface, George, you could make the Bible line up with YOUR "private opinion" and "preconceived ideas."

I do still believe that when it comes to simply defending the idea that saved/lost marriage is FORBIDDEN, all this cross-referencing is rather superfluous - I Cor. 7:39 ("only in the Lord") is a crystal clear defense. But, for those who reject that plain verse, I do think it's 'nifty' that the Lord has all the separation principles unmistakably connected! I'm sure you will all concur! (ha ha - that's a joke!)

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

[biblereader]

Originally Posted by custer

First, the "study" in the original post of this thread is terribly one-sided - we were asked to read and study the verses and then "Tell me if a Biblical marriage is being 'joined together' or is it being 'yoked together'." The "study" then went on to list all the Bible references to "yoke" and all its biblical forms, but never listed ANY for "join" or ANY of its forms...so how was anyone supposed to study and give an answer to George's "tell me," since we were only HALF INFORMED? Obviously, George had a purpose in mind - to disconnect the separation principles in II Corinthians 6:14-18 from a marriage situation at any cost. I have already shown (in post #22) that one of these costs was to completely forfeit the TRUTH. (I am asserting that this was George's purpose because of his stance on the issue in the "Love and Race" thread.)

Those of us who believe that the II Cor. passage CAN be applied to marriage partners have been accused of trying to misapply scripture and take it "out of context" in order to prove our "preconceived ideas!" We were reprimanded with the fact that II Cor. only has to do with "workers," as in verse one of the chapter. But, after Paul gives us the admonition and explanation in verses 14-16, he tells us what to do (with a promise) in verses 17-18 (and part of 16.) Where did Paul get this "saith the Lord?" It certainly WASN'T from a passage having anything to do with "the ministry!!!" Anybody who does a fair amount of Bible study knows that in addition to their historical or prophetical context, passages can also have a practical application. (Peter does the same thing in Acts 2:16-21; James does it in Acts 15:13-17!)) And, back to II Cor. - if the separation principles in chapter six were not clear enough (which obviously for some, they are not,) chapter seven starts out: "Having therefore these promises [that would be the promises that Paul just used 'out of context'], dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from ALL filthiness of the flesh and spirit,..." Since this clearly applies to ALL areas, how can anyone assert that these separation principles do not apply to the choice of a marriage partner?

I need to tell you also that if I don't type out every passage in its entirety, I am not trying to rob you of proper context; I am not (as George is) adept at copying and pasting...I am working off the assumption that everyone here has access to a King James Bible and probably a concordance, so I beg you to read as much as is necessary on either side of any passage I mention to have each in its own context. Also, I have relied on Cruden's Complete Concordance, so if Cruden has missed something, I probably have too! With this in mind. please notice...

The phrase "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers" cannot be lifted out of II Cor. 6:14 and isolated. It is followed (praise the Lord) by at least two-and-a-half verses of explanation...actually the thought continues into the next chapter as mentioned above. The explanation is in the form of parallels; they are as follows:

command : yoked......ye (believers) - unbelievers
explanation: fellowship......righteousness - unrighteousness
communion......light - darkness
concord......Christ - Belial
part......he that believeth - infidel
agreement......temple of God - idols

Now, if you run (and read) all the references for "yoked," "fellowship," "communion," "concord," "part," "agreement," and all the various forms of these words, you will find that NONE of them can be directly connected with marriage anywhere in the Bible! The closest any of them come is:
"Fellowship" is in Eph. 5:11 but not in direct reference to the husband/wife verses; when I ran this reference in the "Love and Race" thread, post #68, no one acknowledged its relevance. "Communed" is in I Sam. 25:39, but it is David communing with Abigail BEFORE they are married. "Part" in Ruth 3:13 is the "part of a kinsman," which still does not refer to the marriage relationship of Boaz and Ruth; it is only the description of the duty of Boaz. Unless I missed something, those are the nearest that any of the parallel words from II Cor. 6 ever come to the subject of marriage...and they don't ever touch it DIRECTLY. By extension of George's premise then, this means that if "yoked together" can in no way be related to a "genuine Biblical marriage," then neither can "fellowship," "communion," "concord," "part," or "agreement." I am asserting that this is a LUDICROUS position, and when I'm done here, you will see that I have taken my assertion from the Bible! (Keep in mind George's position that "JOIN" is THE term for marriage, and his position that we can't take the separation principles in II Cor. 6 and apply them to marriage.)

Upon reading the aforementioned references, I found several very interesting correlations...For example, in Daniel 11:6a, the parties "JOIN themselves together" by "mak[ing] an AGREEMENT." In I Cor. 1:9-10, since we "were called unto the FELLOWSHIP of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord," Paul beseeches us to be "perfectly JOINED together." In I Cor. 10:16-17, the "COMMUNION of the body of Christ" is because we are "one body," which is "one flesh." (I Cor. 6:16 and Eph. 5:31) Also, in Isaiah 28:15 and 18, an "AGREEMENT" IS a covenant; in Jer. 50:5, you "JOIN...in...a...covenant," and covenants are directly connected to marriage in Deut. 7:1-3 and Mal.2:14. Yet another - in I Cor. 12:12-27, "one body" is made of "parts;" and in Eph. 4:16, "every PART" is "fitly JOINED together!"
These verses provide CONCLUSIVE SCRIPTURAL PROOF that "yoked," "fellowship," "communion," "concord," "part," "agreement," AND, YES, "JOIN," and "one body"/"one flesh" are connected and relevant to each other!

Another angle...George, your idea was that we would be taking I Cor. chapter six "out of context" to try to apply the "yoked together" analogy to a married couple; your contention was that the analogy could only be applied to "workers," and for marriage, we must use the term "joined." Well, it is very interesting that the Lord uses "joined" for spouses AND for workers in "the ministry." (See Numbers 18:1-4.) On a completely unrelated note, Genesis 29:34 casts a totally different light on being "joined" to a spouse!

Please note that there has been NO "twisting, wresting, and CHANGING the Holy words of God!" (George's quote) All that I have done is to run some references to show how THE LORD HIMSELF DEFINES AND CONNECTS HIS OWN WORDS!!! There is simply no scriptural reason to shy away from saying that a married couple is "yoked together." Yes, two oxen can be "paired together for work," and when they are "paired," they are JOINED with a yoke! Not only is this plain common sense, but it is clearly shown as biblically related if one will take the time to run all the references in the passage to get the whole picture! And it's a wonderful picture - I can certainly think of no one or nothing that I would rather be yoked to, paired together with, or joined to than my husband. The bottom line is that TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICATION OF GEORGE'S WORD STUDY, if one has a problem with "yoked together" being applied to a marriage relationship, he must also reject that a husband and wife can have "fellowship," "communion," "concord," a "part," or "agreement" with each other. This is simply an effort to have George apply his own Bible study principles to ALL the associated words in II Cor. 6:14-16. Why bother with a word study if it's not going to be complete? In order to see the Bible's commentary on itself, we must scripturally define all the elements of a passage!

So, you see, George and greenbear, there was much left to play out because all the original post did was to scratch the surface...and by staying on the surface, George, you could make the Bible line up with YOUR "private opinion" and "preconceived ideas."

I do still believe that when it comes to simply defending the idea that saved/lost marriage is FORBIDDEN, all this cross-referencing is rather superfluous - I Cor. 7:39 ("only in the Lord") is a crystal clear defense. But, for those who reject that plain verse, I do think it's 'nifty' that the Lord has all the separation principles unmistakably connected! I'm sure you will all concur! (ha ha - that's a joke!)

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

I see this is still being discussed, and that's good. IMO.