IS IT RIGHT FOR BELIEVERS TO MARRY UNBELIEVERS?
The following presents an important subject in a clear and interesting manner. The reference to the writer's belief, the Age-to-come, does not interfere with the argument, nor lessen its force. We request all, and especially the young, to read it with care.
ED. REVIEW. When God separated a people for the glory of his name he purposed that the separation should be complete, hence, witness the laws he gave to Israel. He had called them forth from bondage, and given unto them a code of righteous laws, the observance of which would insure life and happiness to those who had received them. But, although he is “plenteous in mercy,” yet he also tells them that he is a “jealous God,” and warns them that he alone must have their affections and worship. Seeing the dangers that beset their path in going amongst worshipers of strange gods, he interposes barriers, in the shape of positive commandments, against any unions being formed between the sons and daughters of Israel, and those of the non-separated people or nations. He foresaw that such unions would inevitably tend to lead astray his chosen people from that undivided worship of himself, that alone can please him. Listen to the words of his covenant: “Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest it be for a snare in the midst of thee; but ye shall destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves; for thou shalt worship no other god; for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God; lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; and thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.” Ex. xxxiv, 12–16. It is plain that the Lord would not consent to a division of the affections of his people, and in order to guard them against this fatal step, he warned them not to intermarry with aliens. As a result of the departure from this law to Israel, witness the case of their noble and wise king: “Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, Hittites. It came to pass when Solomon was old, that HIS WIVES TURNED AWAY HIS HEART AFTER OTHER GODS, and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God as was the heart of David his father.” 1 Kings xi, 4. But perhaps an objector remarks that he does not dispute the fact of the nation of Israel being bound by such a law, and that the wisdom of it in their case is apparent, but that the followers of Christ are not bound by law in this respect. We reply that we are just as much a separated people as was Israel of old. God has chosen us out of the nations for the high destiny of rulers in the coming age; and in order that we may perfect ourselves in this trial-state, he has given us laws for our observance, which are equally as stringent as those given to Israel. In proof of our being equally separated with Israel, read the following testimony: “If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people, for all the earth is mine; and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” Ex. xix, 5, 6.
“Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.” Deut. vii, 6. Separation of Christians.
“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light; which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God; which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.” 1 Pet. ii, 9, 10. It must be apparent, even to a casual reader, that in both these cases there was first existing an alienship, when neither were a people, but God chose Israel, and called them from the bondage of Egypt to the liberty and high honors that were promised if obedient to his laws. “We were not a people,” when in the world, but having come out of the world, in obedience to his call, we are now “God’s people.” He says Israel was to him a “holy nation,” and Peter declares that we too are a “holy nation.” They were to be a “kingdom of priests,” and we also are styled “a royal priesthood.” Israel was “a special people” unto the Lord, whilst we are designated as a “peculiar,” or “special” people. Seeing that we are as much a separated people as Israel was, the query now presents itself, can we with impunity, and at pleasure, mix up again with that from which we have been separated? Can we take to our bosoms, and love and cherish, that from which we are cut off? But perhaps an objector may say, that Israel cannot be introduced as a sample, inasmuch as they were God’s people in a national capacity, whilst we are yet mixed up among all nations. True, but we are none the less a separated people. We are cut off from the world as effectually as Israel was cut off from foreign nations. They were frequently mixed amongst these nations, but were none the less a separated people. It was by coming in contact with these nations that they were put to the test. If the sons of Israel had not beheld the beauty of the daughters of alien birth, how could they have been proven whether or not they were true to God? When we become “God’s people” we are under God’s laws, and can no longer consult our own expediency, or likes and dislikes, but regardless of all consequences, however severe, we are bound to consult what the law requires, and do it. Let us then see what is required of us, and at the same time we will present the commandment of like import given to Israel. “When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; and when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; THOU SHALT MAKE NO COVENANT WITH THEM, NOR SHOW MERCY UNTO THEM; NEITHER SHALT THOU MAKE MARRIAGES WITH THEM: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods.” Deut. vii, 1–4. “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, COME OUT FROM AMONG THEM, AND BE YE SEPARATE, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” 2 Cor. vi, 14–18. If language can be framed that will more effectually exclude the people of God (whether of ancient times or the present,) from forming a re-union with that from which the Lord has separated them, then we would like to see the task undertaken. On the part of Israel the law says, “Thou shalt make no covenant with them,” “neither shalt thou make marriages with them.” On the part of Christians the law is equally imperative: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” But perhaps an objector says that it does not mean marriages, whilst the law to Israel does. We reply that although it does not specify marriages, or any other special method of yoking, yet the law is none the less comprehensive, but equally broad, or even more so than that given to Israel. The law is sufficiently broad to cover all illegitimate unions. No believer, male or female, has a right to unequally yoke with an unbeliever. The inequality of the yoke is set forth clearly by the apostle, and we cannot do better than classify the same under different headings, in order that they may become perfectly apparent: Righteousness.
Light.
Christ.
A believer of God’s word.
“Ye are the temple of the living God.” Unrighteousness.
Darkness.
Belial, (or Satan.)
An infidel.
Idolators. Brethren, we must not forget that we have ceased to exercise our own wills as guided by our fleshly inclinations. This mode of action belongs to the past, when we wore the unbeliever’s yoke, but now, having heard the invitation of the Lord, “Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me,” we have obeyed, and in doing so we yield up our own wills, and make them entirely subservient to the will of our Master. His “yoke is easy,” and “his burden is light,” and if we desire that “rest” that he says he will give unto us, we must be very cautious in our conduct, and not foolishly undertake to put our necks under both yokes at the same time. Let our past experience under the heavy yoke of sin and darkness, when we were unbelievers, suffice for all time to come, and depend upon it there can be nothing gained by an attempted union of Christ’s light and easy yoke, with the Devil’s iron yoke. In order to place the matter beyond all dispute, as to whether the Lord’s people are bound by the law as quoted from 2 Cor. vi, 14–18, we will refer to another portion of the word where Paul makes an application of the law in the case of marriages. This is found in 1 Cor. vii, 39, 40, and reads as follows: “The wife is bound by law as long as her husband liveth, but if her husband be dead she is at liberty to be married to whom she will, ONLY IN THE LORD.” Here is a clear case. It is that of a believer who has lost her husband by death. The query arose: Is she at liberty to marry a stranger, or alien? Under the law they were forbidden to do this; but how are we to act under the Christian order? Paul, the great expounder, settles the question by saying that “she is at liberty to be married to whom she will, ONLY IN THE LORD.” She can choose any one out of the Lord’s company—the called-out ones—but not from the alien camp, who are not in the Lord. It is a matter about which no true disciple will dispute for a moment, as to who are IN THE LORD. None but those who have taken upon them his name in the appointed way. Query: If a widow who is “in the Lord” cannot marry any one except such as are “in the Lord,” is it likely that an exception will be made in favor of virgins, or those who have never been married? Not at all. God’s laws are not of that loose character in their application. They were founded on principle, and the principle on which they are founded is applicable to all cases. We have seen that this principle, as applied to Israel, was one that had for its object the preservation of His people from idolatry. The same principle is applicable still, seeing that men and women are yet governed by their fleshly inclinations, and are apt to be led astray by temptations thrown in their path. No tempter is more insidious, nor any so dangerous, as that of a life companion who has our affections. As a holy and a special people, therefore, we are forbidden to become at one again with the world from which we have been separated. No worldly man or woman is to find a place in our affections, so as to induce a union, and thus introduce strange flesh into the Lord’s holy camp. Remember what trouble was caused in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, when the people sought reconciliation with God. He would not receive them until they had put away the strange wives and their offspring. Ezra x, 3, 10, 11. Nehemiah says, “In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab; and their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews’ language, but according to the language of each people. And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. Did not Solomon, king of Israel, sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin. Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives?” Neh. xiii, 23–27. In order to place the matter beyond dispute, as to how believers understood the matter in Paul’s day, we refer to 1 Cor. vii, 12–14. “If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were55your children unclean, but now are they holy. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases.” The apostle here provides, we see, for those cases where believers at the time of their conversion were already united with unbelievers, and they, doubtless knowing the law, both as given to Israel and to followers of Christ, were at a loss what to do in such a dilemma. They knew that there was no fellowship between righteousness and unrighteousness, nor any communion between light and darkness; they were sure also that a believer had no portion with an infidel, and in this position the question of separation had arisen. The apostle provides for such cases as we have read above, and from this we learn that it was a settled point with believers in those days, that no one who was called out from the world, being unmarried, had a right to unite themselves with worldlings in this most binding of all social ties. No doubt, in the cases above provided for, the believers, seeing that they had been separated from the world, looked back to the days of Ezra, and Nehemiah, already referred to, and, reasoning from this, they evidently thought that they too had a duty to perform in this respect. But in the case of Israel it was a direct violation of God’s command, whilst in their case it was an emergency resulting from their adoption into the new system that had supplanted the Mosaic system, which was vanishing away. But it goes clearly to establish the law in relation to marriage at least, as understood in those days. There was no such thing as yoking of believers with unbelievers, or marrying out of the Lord then. Why should there be now? Is it because the same law is not in force? or is it because believers now are less mindful of the law? We think it must be the latter. It is a lamentable fact that believers of to-day, in many instances, consult their own fleshly inclinations more than they do the law of Christ. If they do find some law that conflicts with the course they desire to pursue, we are pained to know that they attempt to spiritualize away the plain testimony, and thus quiet their consciences in the matter. We are free to confess, for our part, that we cannot see what reason a person can give for seeking a union with an unbeliever, even apart from the positive prohibitory laws given for their government in such cases. It surely is a mistaken idea, for there cannot exist that sweetest of all fruits which the marriage relationship should yield, viz., a perfect union of sentiment and purpose. The aim of a Christian, in this life, is to so live as to perfect a character for the age to come; to work out our salvation with fear and trembling; and in order to do this, we need all the assistance possible. Is this to be obtained by marrying a Universalist, a Spiritualist, or a worldly-minded individual? Can the time of their union, the long evenings of winter, or the other opportunities of converse, be pleasantly and profitably spent in talking of the glorious hope of the coming age, with the share that each is to possess in its glories? No, alas! no. One has a hope, whilst the other has none. One is in Christ, but the other not. “One shall be taken, but the other left.” One expects to sit down in God’s kingdom, but the other not. What a prospect to look forward to, to say nothing of the great and insurmountable difficulties such unfortunate unions produce in this life. It is a poor excuse for brethren to say that their partner is interested in the truth, and they will marry them, feeling confident that afterwards they will come to a full knowledge of the truth, and obey it. As well might Israel have conjured up excuses for violating the law of God in their cases. Allow us, then, to lift the voice of warning to our brethren and sisters, especially those who are yet young. To such we say, be very careful where you place your affections, and never entertain for a moment the thought of setting aside the commandments of God for the sake of gratifying your fleshly inclinations. If you consult your highest happiness in this life, and your certainty of title to that which is to come, obey the commandment, and keep your necks under the yoke of Christ, but never join yokes with an unbeliever.—Herald of the Kingdom.