View Single Post
Old 06-21-2009, 04:27 PM
custer custer is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Columbia KY
Posts: 74

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 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 : (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 "," 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!)