Queen of Swords

I've heard the verses in this chapter quoted many times in favor of why unbelievers and believers should not marry, and I've never disagreed with that. However, in chat today, seebs said that this chapter wasn't about marriage, it was about worship practices.

I've reread the chapter, and seebs's explanation doesn't sound as plausible to me as the more common one. I mean, was it normal for that time for believers and unbelievers to worship together, so much so that Paul had to tell them to stop doing it? Moreover, some of the terminology used seems to suggest marriage far more than it suggests worship practices - especially the "do not be unequally yoked together", and "What part has a believer with an unbeliever?" Anyone want to comment further on this?

Chris Weimer

Actually, given that most of the ekklesia that Paul was writing to were communes, it most probably means have nothing to do with them at all.

John A. Broussard

Without getting into the true meaning of that chapter, I think it's safe to say that believers and unbelievers must have habitually worshipped together. The pagan world of that time was amazingly syncretic--one of the reasons the Romans could never understand Jewish (and much later, Christian) exclusiveness. The view then was if a new god shows up on the horizon, just add her/him/it into the pantheon.

And, of course, one way to convert unbelievers into believers is to invite them to "church."

Amaleq13

Even accepting his interpretation as correct, I don't see how that suggests Paul would have looked favorably on the idea of a believer marrying an unbeliever. If he didn't want them worshipping together, I would think marrying them would be even more prohibited.

John A. Broussard

I have no idea what the facts of the case are, but tradition has it that, time after time, a believing wife would bring her unbelieving husband into the fold. Even Pilate's wife was supposed to have swayed her husband. So, from a recruiting viewpoint, it would have been just good sense to encourage marriage of a believer (especially a woman) to an unbeliever.

I know that doesn't resolve the issue, but it's something to think about.

Toto

But contrast this with But that aside, the question of whether 2 Cor 6 refers to marriage has been the subject of lots of speculation. It is discussed in this conservative Christian message: However, the reference in Leviticus is not necessarily sexual. It appears to refer to yoking two animals of different size, strength, or temperament together, which would obviously make it difficult to plow the field.

This leads to the argument that Paul is only forbidding "unequal" relationships, in which one party would be subordinate to the other and be forced to compromise his or her beliefs or actions.

This particular article decides that Paul is advising against marriage to a non-believer, but that it is not a sin.

Here is a more liberal view, that may support seebs' interpretation:

A study in context Or you can check out Jason Gastrich who doesn't want believers even hanging out with non-believers.

judge

Does this mean belivers have to leave this forum?

Toto

You're asking me? I say no. 2 of the 3 Christians I quoted would agree.

IvanJames

Are you kidding?!? Then there'd be no floorshow at all! :Cheeky:

---Ivan James