Marrying Foreign Women (Ezra)

[JudahYAHites]

Were Joseph, Manasseh, and Ephraim pre or post the giving of the Law? No need to create difficulties.

Were Joseph Manasseh and Ephraim, Israelites?
You obviously missed the connection.
They are Israelites...
That's what we are talking about, no one is "creating difficulties" apart from that unnecessary slight.

@Bartato answered beautifully and brought out the points I hoped someone would see

The Israelites were specifically prohibited from intermarriage with people from the accursed seven specific Canaanite nations listed in Deut. 7.

Marriage with other foreigners isn't prohibited the same way.

As I recall the Hebrew word for "foreign women" literally translates as something like "daughter of a foreign god", indicating that religion was the primary issue.

Ruth and Rahab were both foreign women who married Israelites. Rahab was even apparently a Canaanite (being from Jericho).

Importantly, Rahab and Ruth were truly and radically converted prior to marriage. They had ceased being "daughters of a foreign god", and by faith become part of God's people Their marriages seem to have been blessed by God.

 

[frederick]

2 Cor 6 is NOT about marriage but rather about EQUALITY in business and church operations.

Please read the passage. It addresses being unequally yoked; about associating discordantly. Of course that includes marriage! There can be no partnership between righteousness and lawlessness (v:14). The true believer in Jesus Christ should not associate discordantly with an unbeliever in marriage. Nor should they engage in spiritual discordance with unbelievers; i.e. not joining with joint religious activities. Stay with the wider meaning of the passage and don't limit it to only a narrow application. Shalom

 

[Maddog]

Please read the passage. It addresses being unequally yoked; about associating discordantly. Of course that includes marriage! There can be no partnership between righteousness and lawlessness (v:14). The true believer in Jesus Christ should not associate discordantly with an unbeliever in marriage. Nor should they engage in spiritual discordance with unbelievers; i.e. not joining with joint religious activities. Stay with the wider meaning of the passage and don't limit it to only a narrow application. Shalom

We can apply "principle" till we are blue in the face and live our life "by extention"(of that principle. Heck for that matter, that might prevent association with anybody with whom we disagree. Lets let the passage apply primarily to its intent and not condemn those who have "foreign wives".

 

[FollowingHim]

Lets let the passage apply primarily to its intent

But what is the intent? That is in your mind, as there is no narrow intent stated in that passage. It is worded very broadly.

I have far more commonly heard Christians focus on this being just about marriage, forgetting the application to business. They're equally making up an "intent" for the passage, and are equally wrong.

 

[Mark C]

I have far more commonly heard Christians focus on this being just about marriage, forgetting the application to business. They're equally making up an "intent" for the passage, and are equally wrong.

The letter is to people in an area where paganism abounds.

"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

I contend that it applies to the Whore Church (which may, in fact, encompass other aspects of such worship.)

 

[Keith Martin]

The letter is to people in an area where paganism abounds.

 

[frederick]

The letter is to people in an area where paganism abounds.

Sort of like.... everywhere!

To the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints who are in all Achaia (2 Cor. 1:1). The passage is written to believers and all believers live among unbelievers in this world. Those who have been redeemed should not associate discordantly with unbelievers. That of necessity must include marriage, among other things.

 

[Maddog]

I come from the world of technical writings and have had to create curricula (as an author and instructor of technical specifications) based on those. I am predisposed to follow a mandate as written because I know it will not be superseded by another (p)reference. The previous mandate was in 1 Cor 7 which allowed for believers and nonbelievers to be in marriage with no mandate for the separation of such. Yet in this argument the opposite is arguably authoritative "Be not unequally yoked". This is the essence of my position- Can two opposite mandates coexist in scripture? Equality of everything is the essence of feminism and thus anti-scriptural and anti-Christ. In summary, marriage was already covered previously so this does not apply to marriage.
Real world example is our own Megan C- she as an unbeliever married a believer and his leadership brought her to faith in our Savior. What a lovely story! Her marriage results in her salvation. Dare we refuse the evangelizing opportunity and salvation of another beautiful soul and her children? Feminist Christianity says "Don't do that!" If your leadership is weak-kneed then it probably wont work. Be strong for the salvation of others.

 

[NickF]

I come from the world of technical writings and have had to create curricula (as an author and instructor of technical specifications) based on those. I am predisposed to follow a mandate as written because I know it will not be superseded by another (p)reference. The previous mandate was in 1 Cor 7 which allowed for believers and nonbelievers to be in marriage with no mandate for the separation of such. Yet in this argument the opposite is arguably authoritative "Be not unequally yoked". This is the essence of my position- Can two opposite mandates coexist in scripture? Equality of everything is the essence of feminism and thus anti-scriptural and anti-Christ. In summary, marriage was already covered previously so this does not apply to marriage.
Real world example is our own Megan C- she as an unbeliever married a believer and his leadership brought her to faith in our Savior. What a lovely story! Her marriage results in her salvation. Dare we refuse the evangelizing opportunity and salvation of another beautiful soul and her children? Feminist Christianity says "Don't do that!" If your leadership is weak-kneed then it probably wont work. Be strong for the salvation of others.

This is a very good point

 

[frederick]

The previous mandate was in 1 Cor 7 which allowed for believers and nonbelievers to be in marriage with no mandate for the separation of such.

According to 1 Cor. 7:15, if one spouse was saved but not the other, the unbeliever is free to depart. It is an option open to the unbelieving spouse if he or she no longer wants the union to continue. The passage in 2 Cor. 6:14 is instruction for believers and it is for them not to be unequally yoked to unbelievers. That would prohibited, among other things, a believer entering into a marriage with an unbeliever in the first place. The question is simple; Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? (2 Cor. 6:15). None, so believers should avoid getting in to the conflict with unbelievers.

 

[Maddog]

And remember the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse. That would indicate that the marriage is not condemned. We can stretch any "principle" to apply to anything in our eisegesis mode.

 

[frederick]

And remember the unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse. That would indicate that the marriage is not condemned. We can stretch any "principle" to apply to anything in our eisegesis mode.

Obviously. If the unbeliever wants to remain he or she is free to do so. No one is suggesting the marriage must end just because God saves one spouse.

 

[Maddog]

BUT...! They are unequally yoked! Therefore come out from among them!
Which will it be? Get in or Get out. Or change the application of our interpretation.

 

[frederick]

BUT...! They are unequally yoked! Therefore come out from among them!
Which will it be? Get in or Get out. Or change the application of our interpretation.

You can argue that with those who hold such a position. I don't. As I've demonstrated from Scripture, ending a relationship where one spouse becomes a believer is the choice of the unbeliever. A believer should not get into a situation of becoming unequally yoked in the first place. Shalom

 

[professionalrespect97@gma]

BUT...! They are unequally yoked! Therefore come out from among them!
Which will it be? Get in or Get out. Or change the application of our interpretation.

Solomon fell because he was pursuing beautiful ladies which where not Godly. I assert my opinion that when looking for a first or 5th wive what ever number it might be that you listen to God and let him guide and direct. For by not doing that you unconsciously predagate your self in the same story of Solomon but maybe at a different level of consequence

 

[FollowingHim]

Back to whether this whole "unequally yoked" business applies to marriage or everything in life, John Branyon had some great thoughts recently:

I grew up going to church, attending Bible studies, and generally soaking in Christian culture so I am an expert in warped Christian orthodoxy. For example:

(2 Corinthians 6:14) Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?

Without a proper misinterpretation, these verses would put Christians in a dilemma. Paul seems to suggest that believers should not be yoked (partnered, fellowshipped, share portions) with unbelievers. That can’t be right since some unbelievers are wonderful people. They aren’t all lawless Belial worshipers! Heck, some pagans are morally superior to Christians! So what is the proper warped interpretation?

This passage is just talking about marriage. We are free to associate and socialize with God’s enemies as long as we don’t marry them. Marriage, after all, is sacred and our unholy friends don’t respect it.

Of course, sometimes God wants us to date unbelievers so we can convert them to Christianity. The Bible tells us (somewhere) to become all things to all people (or some such). That gives us permission to do—ANYTHING! A properly warped understanding of 1 Corinthians 9:22 allows us to disregard every other scripture in order to ‘share Jesus!’

So the most common warped method of dealing with 2 Corinthians 6:14, is to ignore it. What a relief! We don’t need to give up fraternizing with god-hating friends! We can indulge our fleshly desires and call it witnessing. In fact, yoking ourselves with unbelievers is how we love them!

Warped Christian orthodoxy encourages me during times when I think I know better than God. When the truth hurts, lies are a tremendous comfort.

Common Ground With Darkness

I grew up going to church, attending Bible studies, and generally soaking in Christian culture so I am an expert in warped Christian orthodoxy. For example: (2 Corinthians 6:14) Do not be unequally…

johnbranyan.com

 

[Keith Martin]

Back to whether this whole "unequally yoked" business applies to marriage or everything in life, John Branyon had some great thoughts recently:

Common Ground With Darkness

I grew up going to church, attending Bible studies, and generally soaking in Christian culture so I am an expert in warped Christian orthodoxy. For example: (2 Corinthians 6:14) Do not be unequally…

johnbranyan.com

Boom! I loved this.

What is so often overlooked when folks tend to focus on the difficulties and inconveniences associated with marrying an unbeliever is the degree to which they are actually, on average, more likely to corrupt you than they are to be converted. Paul was issuing a very useful expectation!

 

[paterfamilias]

Marrying foreign women you say...

Hmmm...could be. You could sell me on it. Which country makes the least likely to divorce, has the highest birth rate, is most likely to want to live farm/ranch life and has the best and most positive attitude?

No more girls from Belfast though, I am out on that