This was the subject of several addresses
at the tea meeting held in the Temperance Hall, on
Whit-Monday, May 18th.—Brother
Roberts (who
presided) said there was a general impression to the effect
that the objection to marriage with the unbeliever was
founded on the expression of Paul’s in 1 Cor. 7:39, that
widows were at liberty to marry again “only in the Lord.” It
would be found on investigation that this was a mistake.
Paul’s expression taken in its special connection was
certainly a strong indication; but the objection to mixed
marriages stood on a much broader ground. It was involved in
the broad principle that the consecration required by Christ
at the hands of his people was so complete as to exclude
friendship with the present world. It was put negatively as
well as positively. “Ye are not of the world,” “Come out
from among them.” “The friendship of the world is enmity
with God.” The restriction was disagreeable and
inconvenient, but could not be evaded by such as were
resolved to be obedient.
This larger rule covered the
question of marriage: for the greater always included the
less. An unbeliever was a part of the world, understanding
by the “world” those whose affections were not set on things
above, but on things that are upon the earth only. How could
a believer of the scriptural type—(one whose affections were
set on things above—on God, Christ, their law, the
inheritance, &c.—the whole economy of divine things and
principles as distinguished from merely natural things)—take
the world into the closest of friendship in husband or wife,
without being disobedient, and without being
polluted?
Coming to definite indications on the subject, the
mind of God had in all generations of mankind been expressed
adversely to intermarriage with unbelievers. Mention is made
of such marriages before the flood. “The sons of God saw the
daughters of men that they were fair: and they took them
wives of all they chose.” A deluge of pitiless waters swept
away the result. When God afterwards chose a nation for
Himself, the law He gave them was very specific on this
point: “Thou shalt not make marriages with them.” The
“reason annexed” was a moral one. “They will turn away thy
heart from following me.” Israel disobeyed this law as they
disobeyed the other laws. Judgment and captivity was the
result. When they came back from Babylon, one of the first
things they did was to go astray in this matter and make
marriages with the people of the land: in connection with
which we have the picture of Ezra casting himself down
before God in an agony of shame, confessing their sin and
imploring mercy. The severe remedy of putting away the
strange wives followed.
Coming on to ecclesial times, we
have the same law of separation enjoined. “Be not unequally
yoked with unbelievers.” Though marriage is not mentioned in
this command, its application to marriage cannot be denied
if it is admitted to apply to any kind of yoking: for it
cannot be that the apostolic interdict should apply to
unimportant yokings and not apply to an important one. No
yoking is so important to man or woman as marriage. A man is
more influenced by his wife than by any human being, and a
wife by her husband: it is inevitable. “He that walketh with
wise men shall be wise, but the companion of fools shall
fall.” This applies to all degrees of association, but most
powerfully of all to the closest—surely.
The Bible view of
marriage is that the parties are “one flesh”—which is
according to experience. How then could man or woman, aiming
to be holy to God both in body and spirit, safely or
innocently make themselves one flesh with another that was
not so? The apostolic allusions always contemplated husband
and wife as both being “in the Lord.” Peter advises personal
harmony that “their prayers be not hindered.” There could be
no question of this sort if one of them were an unbeliever.
He speaks of them as “heirs together of the grace of
life.”
It is urged by some as an objection that Paul in 1 Cor. 7. permits a brother or sister to remain with
unbelieving wife or husband. In truth, this permission bears
the very opposite significance. It was in answer to a
question on the subject, propounded to Paul by the
Corinthians in writing (as the first verse shows). The
question was, what are believers to do who, becoming
enlightened after marriage, find themselves in association
with unbelieving wife or husband. Now, had Paul’s teaching
admitted of mixed marriages, how could such a question as
this have arisen? The very fact that the Corinthians found
it necessary to ask Paul’s guidance in such circumstances is
a proof that they recognised that the right thing for
believers was to be married to believers only. The answer
is, they were to remain together if agreeable. But husband
or wife being dead, “they were at liberty to be married to
whom they will, only in the
Lord” (verse 39.) Thus common
sense and Scripture unite in pointing out the right line of
action.
Some are disposed to get away from Paul’s judgment
in the matter on the score that he had “received no
commandment” on the subject, but spoke “by permission,” and
gave his judgment as “one who had
received mercy of the Lord to be faithful.”
A little reflection ought to save them from this mistake. Do
they think the Lord would have “permitted” Paul to give a
wrong judgment in the case? Paul refers to “faithfulness” as
the inspiring motive of his advice: this shows that his
judgment was something more than the expression of an
opinion; it was the faithful exercise of a prerogative, the
weight of which he seeks to bring to bear in the concluding
remark, “and I think that I
have the Spirit of God.” Here
is a man steps forward and says, “I have the spirit of God.
God permits me, as a faithful man, to give this judgment on
the matter you ask me about.” Is it possible that
enlightenment fully awake could hesitate to submit
implicitly to such a judgment?
Brother
Rollason (Nuneaton)
thought Solomon’s case was enough to show the folly of
marriage with unbelieving wives. Although he received more
wisdom than all men, he did not lead his wives right, but
they led him wrong. As Nehemiah said (Neh. 13:26), “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.”
Brother
Hands (Nuneaton)
thought the command was sufficient to “Come out from among,
and be separate, and touch not the unclean thing” (2 Cor.
6:17). An unbelieving man or woman was one not cleansed from
sin by the obedience of the truth, and was therefore,
scripturally speaking, part of “the unclean thing” which we
were commanded to touch not. It was a great help to have a
godly wife or husband; and therefore the command to have
only such was good as well as binding.
Brother
Mosley (Great
Bridge) considered there was guidance on the subject in the
very first reference to woman in the Bible: “It is not good
that the man should be alone, I will make an help meet for
him.” It was usual to read the words “help meet” as if they
were one—“an helpmeet.” But they were two—an
help meet—that
is, an help suitable
for him. The question then would be, was an unbelieving wife
an help suitable for a man striving to do the will of God?
On this there could not be two opinions. In all the cases he
had known, cases where the law of God had been disregarded,
nothing but evil had come of it. One case he had distinctly
before his mind in which the brother had seen and confessed
the great mistake he had made. As for those who strove to
get away from or to weaken, Paul’s advice in the matter, he
understood there was a peculiar force in the words of Paul
translated, “and I think I have the Spirit of God.” He was
informed that the sense was as if Paul had said “And I think
I ought to know.” They must all allow that Paul, having the
guidance of the Spirit, and sent forth by Christ as an
instructor of the brethren, was one who ought to know, and
that their duty was to submit to his judgment, not
forgetting what Christ said concerning the Apostles: “He
that heareth you heareth me.”
Brother
Jakeman (Dudley) had known about six cases of disobedience in the
matter: and in every one of them the result had been evil.
Instead of brethren bringing unbelieving wives into the
truth, unbelieving wives had taken brethren away. He thought
Christ’s words to the ecclesia at Pergamos had something to
do with the matter: “I have a few things against thee
because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of
Balaam who taught Balak to cast a stumbling block before the
children of Israel.” It would be found that the stumbling
block in question was intermarriage with the Moabites.
Balaam could not bring a curse on Israel, but he suggested
to Balak that a good way of getting God to curse them was to
induce the Israelites to inter-marry with the Moabites. The
trap was successful, and many thousand of Israel were slain
because of the transgression—the plague being stayed only by
the extreme action of Phinehas. The readings of the day had
something to do with the question. In 1 Thess. 4:7 Paul told
the brethren they were called to holiness: how could a man
or woman be holy in making themselves one with a person in a
state of unholiness? Is. 8:20, also said if any man spake
not according to the law and the testimony, it was because
there was no light in them. If this was to be said about
speaking, much more about acting.
Brother
J. Deakin
(Tamworth) thought the question was settled by the answer
which must be given to the enquiry of one of the prophets:
“How can two walk together except they be agreed?” A
believer and an unbeliever united in marriage must pull in
two opposite ways.
Brother
W. Deakin (Tamworth) referred to the marriage of the Lamb as bearing
on the subject. We were told there was preparation for this
marriage: “The Bride hath made herself ready: to her was
granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and
white.” This was the righteousness of the saints. So that if
they would take Christ for example, they would marry only in
the Lord.—Brother
John Todd (Birmingham), strongly supporting the
scriptural view, spoke also against the idea of marrying in
hope of the unbelieving partner accepting the truth
afterwards. Let the obedience of the truth be first.
Brother
J. J. Powell
(Acock’s Green) related the particulars of a case in which a
sister, under promise of marriage to an unbeliever, had
bravely adhered to the right course with the best results
afterwards.
Brother C. C. Walker (Birmingham) confirmed the arguments of
previous speaker by referring to the case of Eve as
illustrating a wife’s influence over her husband: to
Abraham’s solicitude as to Isaac’s marriage as showing the
scruples of the father of the faithful: to Abigail and
Jezebel as showing the good and bad results of the two kinds
of matrimonial alliance: to the marriage law for the mortal
priests in the age to come as indicating the old care on the
subject, and so on. He said that when the truth came to him,
he was unmarried; and he should as soon have thought of
committing suicide as of marrying out of Christ. It was
indeed a moral suicide for a man to do such a thing. Some
thought the stringency of the Bible marriage law was
weakened for believers by the fact that Christ had taken the
law out of the way: but, as pointed out by another brother,
the spirit of the law remained for believers although the
letter of it had been nailed to the cross. Paul plainly said
(Rom. 8:3–6) that the object of what had been accomplished
in Christ was “that the
righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in those who
walk not after the flesh but after the spirit.”
Thus he said, “love was the fulfilling of the law,” because
love would lead a man to abstain from what the law forbade
and to do what the law enjoined. So it might be said that
holiness to the Lord would lead a man to refrain from making
marriages with those who had no affinity for that state.