UNEQUALLY YOKED: ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS OR SOMETHING ELSE?

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

UNEQUALLY YOKED: ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS OR SOMETHING ELSE?

Scripture is replete with difficult-to-understand passages that are often misinterpreted, misapplied, and perverted for personal gain. One such instance is the Apostle Paul’s second letter to the Church at Corinth. Paul instructs the Church at Corinth (and, thus, all believers to follow), “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Cor 6:14)[1] While it might be simple to focus on the first part of the command (not to be yoked with unbelievers), all aspects of the verse stem from the second aspect—the lack of commonality between believers and unbelievers. Perhaps one of the most misunderstood and certainly misinterpreted verses in the Bible, when examined from a broader approach, the meaning becomes clearer and it is not related to romantic relationships, as is commonly suggested.

Meaning of “Unequally Yoked”

While pervasively applied to romantic relationships (especially marriages), Paul’s instructions in 2 Corinthians 6:14 should be considered in broad terms and within the context the Apostle Paul presents. For 2 Corinthians 6:14, scholars often notice an imprecise digression from its broader meaning and application. “An outline which avoids such digressions, if a reasonable one can be found, would seem to be preferable…[2] To begin with, 6:11-13 and 7:2-4 form an oft-noted unity, so that if the intervening verses are not an interpolation, then 6:11-7:4 forms an aba' pattern itself.”[3] Verse 14 rests within Paul’s defense of his own ministry and authority and (more specifically) his plea for the Corinthians to separate themselves from evil. “This section brings Paul’s argument in 2:14–7:1 to its culmination by giving the second, concrete application of what it will mean for the Corinthians to “widen [their] hearts” toward Paul (6:13) amid the current controversy in Corinth.”[4] For one to extract only verse 14 and run with unsupported theories would be wrong.[5] Therefore, observing Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians should (usually) be perceived broadly rather than narrowly.

This command, which is Paul’s main point in 6:14–7:1, will be restated in different words at the end of the section (7:1). To be “unequally yoked” is to be “hitched up” or even crossbred with another animal who is not the same (Gk. heterozygeō; the related adjective is found in Lev 19:19; see also Deut 22:10, though the word does not occur there). It is, thus, an image for being allied or identified wrongly with unbelievers. In context, it refers especially to those who are still rebelling against Paul within the church, whom Paul now shockingly labels unbelievers (he clearly thinks it possible that some are [2 Cor 13:5], though he hopes not), but the principle has wider application to other situations where (as with animals yoked together) one person’s conduct and direction of life strongly influences or controls the other’s.[6]

Such is the context of 2 Corinthians 6 (i.e., Paul is admonishing Christians within the Church at Corinth to remove themselves from evil so that they are not interspersed with the sinful ways of the world and, therefore, their testimony is misperceived). To do so, the image of a yoke is employed. A yoke is a heavy wooden frame used to harness two work animals together (e.g., oxen). The problem is that if two different animals are harnessed together—such as an ox and a donkey—they pull in different directions. Therefore, the work fails, and the animals get hurt. In using the image of a yoke, Paul’s lesson here then is to show that a believer and an unbeliever have different core values, directions, and spiritual masters.

Even Jesus gives guidelines on how his followers are to live their lives. Jesus teaches that people cannot serve both God and money (Matt 6:24). Moreover, rather than living as the world lives, God’s people are to avoid the ways of the world but be transformed by the renewing of their minds (Rom 12:2). Being unequally yoked then equates to believers who do not look like believers but rather like the world.[7] In its most fundamental sense, 2 Corinthians 6:14 is a call of separation rather than an inferred avoidance of romantic relationships with unbelievers. 2 Corinthians 6:14, therefore, is an order to flee from sin rather than an edict not to pursue relationships with unbelievers.

What Does the Life of a Christ-Follower Look Like?

Since 2 Corinthians 6:14 should be understood as an indictment on Christians who choose to live life as the world does, to further discover the meaning of the text, an assessment of how Christ-followers should live must be fulfilled. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul claims that he has become all things to all people (1 Cor 9:22). Paul also instructs Christians to avoid using their personal freedom in a way that pressures or leads another believer to violate their own conscience and sin (Rom 14:13, 2 Cor 8:9). The command to avoid causing others to stumble is replete in Scripture including in the teachings of Jesus who says, “…whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt 18:6).

Furthermore, John warns against loving the worldly desires of the flesh, the desire for things, and the pride of life (1 John 2:15-17). Without evidence of a changed life, professing Christians hold no substance to their claims of Jesus. Paul’s teaching here then should be a weighty order, as believers hold the serious task of avoiding even the appearance of evil (1 Thess 5:22). The church is an extension of the character of God (in Christ). One who is changed by the Spirit of God does not have anything in common with one who is not a Christian. Thus, the life of a Christ-follower reveals such evidence.

Where then do Paul’s instructions apply? To answer such a question, it is not wholly wrong to consider relationships and (yes) even those of a romantic nature including marriage, but this type of application is too narrow, for believers should consider all aspects of life in the command offered in 6:14. While Paul’s words do not only apply to relationships, they are certainly a part of the necessary consideration. Broadly, believers should consider not only romantic relationships but also close friends, business relationships, and even circumstances surrounding such (e.g., casual get-togethers, parties, etc.). The context of 6:14, however, is more circumstantial than relational (i.e., the reason believers and unbelievers should not be yoked together is because of—a. the influence unbelievers have on God’s people and b. the appearance of evil that proceeds from the circumstances within which Christians will almost certainly find themselves).

Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians call the people of God to a dealignment from the ways of the world. Paul elsewhere claims that the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers will not see the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).[8] The life of a Christ-follower then reflect that of God the Son—Jesus Christ. One whose life does not mirror Jesus justifies judgment against themself. Without fruit (or evidence), it is impossible to conclude that one is a Christian. Therefore, while Paul warns believers against being yoked with unbelievers, the command is circumstantial more than relational. While believers are expected to exercise holiness, unbelievers are expected to exercise unrighteousness and sin. Being yoked with unbelievers could have dire impacts on believers, for what do believers have in common with those who are controlled by the world and, therefore, evil?

Common Misunderstandings

The most common misunderstanding of 2 Corinthians 6:14 is that the text refers to romantic relationships (especially marriage). Nonetheless, as already alluded, Paul’s words should be received more broadly (i.e., circumstantially in the impact unbelievers likely have on believers). A fundamental way of determining that Paul is not specifically speaking of believers and unbelievers in romantic relationships is his command in his first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 7:12-16). If a believer has a spouse who does not believe, and that spouse consents to live with them, the believer must not divorce them. In the text, Paul explains that the unbelieving partner is sanctified (set apart for God’s purposes) through the believing spouse, and the children of the union are holy rather than unclean. This does not mean the unbelieving spouse is automatically saved, but rather that the home is blessed and brought under God’s special influence.[9]

While the text of 2 Corinthians 6:14 surely has broad applications, believers must examine themselves considering what a Christian should look like and how they should live (i.e., wisdom should be sought and exercised). While not totally prohibited, believers’ investments in unbelievers commonly cause problems.[10] The message here aims to reevaluate the meaning of 2 Corinthians 6:14. As such, the text necessitates a more far-reaching approach.

Is Paul’s Instruction in 2 Corinthians 6:14 an Overarching Mandate?

Paul’s instructions in 2 Corinthians 6:14 present not an overarching mandate but a subjective call to wisdom in objective situations (i.e., Christians are charged with employing godly wisdom in all situations including their relationships). It is not wrong to have relationships with unbelievers, but God’s people must be careful because if not advanced in the Spirit’s power and wisdom, unbelievers seemingly have a greater impact on Christians than Christians have on them. Paul’s instructions here, therefore, are not an overarching mandate to avoid relations with unbelievers but rather a stark warning of the contrast that exists between believers and unbelievers. While not sinful in itself, romantic relationships between believers and unbelievers are often difficult and spawn manifold problems. Therefore, Christians should be careful and exercise wisdom in all their relationships and dealings. As such, the glory of God is always the issue—nothing else matters. Truly, Christian relationships should reflect and consider the authentic marriage that is the church and the Lamb, which, if not modeled, is counterfeit and (at best) forged.

What nation on earth is like your people?

You, God, came to redeem us as a people for yourself. You have confirmed us to yourself, to be a people for you forever; and you, Lord, have become our God. Wonder, O heavens, and be moved, O earth, at this great thing!

The tabernacle of God is with us, and you will dwell with us, and we will be your people; and you yourself will be with us, and be our God.^[11] Amen. 

---

[1] All biblical references are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible unless otherwise noted.

[2] Craig Blomberg, “The Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7,” Criswell Theological Review 4.1 (1989): 10.

[3] Blomberg, 13.

[4] Scott J. Hafeman, note on 2 Corinthians 6:14, in ESV Study Bible, eds. Lane T. Dennis et al. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 9626.

[5] Scripture should be viewed as a metanarrative with all cultural and contextual elements considered.

[6] Hafeman, 9626.

[7] While this meaning may surely be applied to romantic relationships, the underlying purpose of Paul’s instructions in 6:14 is to call for a distinction between Christians and unbelievers (i.e., those who live according to the world).

[8] While Paul’s list includes these specific sins, they should be understood as complete; nor, should anyone assume that one failure in these areas constitutes eternal damnation; rather, the sins represent patterns of life in which those involved have damned themselves for lack of repentance.

[9] If the unbelieving spouse chooses to separate or depart because of the faith, the believer is not bound in such circumstances. God calls believers to live in peace, and abandonment by the unbeliever allows for (not mandates) the dissolution of the marriage.

[10] While Paul does not direct believers to completely separate themselves from unbelievers—which would be detrimental to the church’s witness to an onlooking world—, in a wide-ranging manner, the Apostle calls for wisdom (e.g., wisdom in romantic relationships, business dealings, and close loyalties) and the avoidance of evil’s appearance. Therefore, it is the opinion expressed in this text that in itself, pursuing a romantic relationship with an unbeliever is not a sin, but possesses a strong inclination toward problems.

^[11] Joseph Alleine, “God Has Married His People,” in Piercing Heaven: Prayers of the Puritans, ed. Robert Elmer (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019), 91.

WORSHIP AND MISSIONS INTERVIEW WITH STEPHEN AND LEANN ABBOTT

Dr. Jonathan Michael Jones interviews missionaries, Stephen and Leann Abbott, of France, and then participates in their interview. Audio for the interview between Dr. Jones and Stephen and Leann may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

CAN A CHRISTIAN BE A SOCIALIST?

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.

CAN A CHRISTIAN BE A SOCIALIST?

Socialism and its far-reaching and seemingly unceasing grasp have seen drastic rises in Western culture—especially in the United States of America. Recent data reveals surprising (and troubling to many) increases in socialist support in the United States. Nearly half (46% to 49%) of 18- to 34-year-olds view democratic socialism positively. Separate data from organizations like the Cato Institute indicate that up to 62% of young people aged 18 to 29 hold favorable views of socialism. Within the Democratic party, support of socialism is up from 50% to about 66%. While most Americans tend to favor capitalism over socialism, the numbers continue to fall for the former and rise for the latter.[1]

In the United States (at least), however, socialism is often masked with the title of democratic socialism—possibly a feeble attempt to separate the title from communism. The aim of both, however, is the same: to federalize the means of production and private business. With the recent elections of boldly-admitted socialists (e.g., Florida Democrat Angie Nixon, Colorado’s Melat Kiros, NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani, NY’s Darializa Avila-Chevalier, and massive wins by Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates in Michigan and Pennsylvania, the issue is more than a mere passing phase. It is crucial that Americans consider all facets of socialism and (for the church) especially what it means for Christians.

Socialism Defined

In its simplest and purest form, socialism is an economic and political system where the community or the government owns and controls the major means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods.[2] While various forms (and levels) of socialism subsist, the goal and end is the same—the government controls the economic force of society rather than private citizens. Historically-socialist nations are certainly no secret (e.g., the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc.), many of which still operate under such ideals presently.

Is It Biblical? Is It Right?

In determining if it is possible to be a Christian and subscribe to socialism, one must first decipher if socialism is biblical[3] and, further, if socialism is morally right. One must consider not only whether socialism exists in the Bible but whether it is also suggested as moral and good for God’s people and for society. In seeking such answers, it is appropriate to examine the Bible for indications of socialism (including the teachings of Jesus) and measure such indicators against current Christian proposals of socialism.

Christian Interpretations of Socialism

Christian undertones of socialism certainly exist within the framework of the modern church—especially that of Western influence. Contentions for compatibility between Christianity and socialism lie in early church practices, a heavy focus on the poor and needy in Scripture, and a general rejection of greed.

As a matter of early church practice, those who advocate for socialism from a Christian perspective pose that the New Testament describes early believers sharing their money and goods to help the poor. Additionally, Jesus did, in fact, teach his followers to feed the hungry, care for the sick, and help those in need (truly a characteristic of God that is not new to New Covenant teachings, as it is also revealed in Micah 6:8 to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God). Furthermore, Christian socialism argues that extreme wealth and unbridled capitalism promote selfishness and hurt the vulnerable.

But are they truly “Christian”?

These so-called Christian interpretations of socialism are seemingly heard often with the rise of democratic socialism’s perpetuation. At face value, New Testament practices of helping those in need, Jesus’ teachings of caring for such people, and an unbridled rejection of greed and selfishness are elements with which few may contend, for they are right and good. The previous assertions are (at least anecdotally) the most common supports for socialism from a Christian platform. Nevertheless, such affirmations find voids in their foundations.

First, Jesus’ teachings are never directed toward government but rather his followers (i.e., Christians—the church). Although disobedience to God regarding loving the least of these (Matt 25:40) is sin, Jesus’ instruction is not to legislate morality. If people do not choose to honor God with their actions, they cannot be forced to do so. Morality should not be legislated but rather chosen.[4] Jesus’ instructions of generosity and hospitality are directed toward his own people rather that the magistrates.

Second, opponents of socialism note that the Bible respects personal property rights (such as the commandment not to steal) and ties individual work directly to survival. Support of private ownership and property is replete in the Bible and should not be dismissed. Moreover, when a government controls the means of private property, society fails to acquire that which might be given in generosity to people who need it.[5]

Third, traditional Marxist socialism historically promotes a materialistic or atheistic worldview, viewing organized religion as a tool of oppression. People under the age of thirty-five have no memory of the Soviet Union. The Berlin Wall fell thirty-seven years ago. People of such youth do not know the lengths people went to escape the Soviet Bloc and other Communist so-called paradises. They have not read Alexander Solzenitsyn’s books about the gulags or seen Soviet leader Kruschev pound his shoe and proclaim his intention to bury the West. At face value, socialism seems to be the utopia it promises while those who have memory of and have experienced it have also experienced its lies. Without delving much into Marxist thought (as it is not in the scope of this paper), it should be sufficiently comprehended that Marxism is incompatible with the teachings of Jesus and, thus, with Christianity.

Was Jesus a Socialist?

A common notion often submitted in support of socialism is that Jesus was a socialist. Those who advocate for socialism seem to think “it is a nicer, more inclusive system than capitalism and see a quest for justice congruent with Jesus’ ministry and his concern for the poor, dispossessed, and downtrodden. It is true that Jesus was concerned about these people and acted on it, but there are some essential distinctions.”[6]

First, the Bible never charges the government with caring for the poor or benevolence, except that a nation is identified as God’s people (i.e., Israel), in which case much disdain would subsist for the aim of a theocracy. Rather, such a charge is given to the people of God alone.

Second, the foundation of the market system is enshrined in the commands God gave the Israelites in the Torah. There is not much to the market system, what Marx called capitalism. All that is needed is private property and voluntary exchange. If people can own stuff (land, buildings, animals, equipment, but also ideas and labor) and can exchange those things as they see fit, that is capitalism, and it naturally emerges. It does not have to be imposed, but it must be protected.[7]

At its core, without understanding, socialism must be imposed rather than chosen, and if it is chosen, a lack of comprehension is present. American writer, Ayn Rand (who was born herself under the pressures of Communism in the Soviet Union), states that communism and socialism are identical in their ultimate goal and results, differing only in their methods: communism uses direct physical force, while socialism uses the democratic process of voting. She famously wrote that it is “merely the difference between murder and suicide.”[8]

The disparity between Jesus’ teachings and pure socialism then is coercion (socialism) and choice (capitalism). Coercion is not the way of God, the way of Jesus, or the way of the cross.[9] Christians who pose ideals of socialism, therefore, offer misapplied scriptures and misinterpreted teachings of Jesus.[10]

Drawing from Dylan Pahman, PhD

Dylan Pahman, PhD and President of the St. Nicholas Cabasilas Institute for Orthodoxy and Liberty, recently published an article criticizing Christian socialism in which he uses a comparative analysis of two prominent historical figures to explore whether devotion to Christ and socialism can truly coexist: Semyon Frank (a twentieth-century Russian religious philosopher who offered poignant critiques of socialist proposals, warning Christians against utopian errors and state overreach) and F.D. Maurice (a nineteenth- century Russian philosopher who argued that the holiness of private property is derived from our divine obligation to use what we own to care for our neighbors).

Pahman aligns with Frank to argue that secular and political socialist movements often default to utopian fallacies, overestimating the state’s capacity to engineer a perfect society, but he also asserts that to fulfill the Christian mandate of charity, society requires more economic freedom, not less. Charitable and entrepreneurial initiatives rely directly on the freedom of the individual to act voluntarily. Drawing from Maurice’s model, Pahman concludes that true social transformation should be led by the church and voluntary communities rather than state bureaucracies. Social responsibility should be driven by a shared spiritual vision where individuals care for the least of these within their personal vocations.

The seemingly most-common consensus among conservative evangelical Christians is that charity should be offered from individuals rather than government. Moreover, many American citizens have observed massive waste an incompetence in government entities, which leads many to conclude that government is the absolute worst unit to oversee charity.

Has Socialism Ever Worked?

Advocates for socialism often seem to argue with examples of nations where socialism has supposedly worked or is currently working (e.g., China, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway). Upon closer examination of such nations, however, it becomes clear that socialism is not what has made them successful.

China, for example, has allowed market reforms and private property while maintaining heavy state control over key industries, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty, though operating more as a state-directed market economy than traditional socialism so China has not been a purely socialist country for several decades.

The Nordic model is often cited as successful socialism, but their leaders clarify they are free-market capitalist economies where they utilize private enterprise and competitive markets alongside high taxes, strong labor unions, and robust public welfare safety nets so (again) this is not pure socialism.

Even post-WW2 Great Britain democratically nationalized major industries like rail, coal, and healthcare (creating the National Health Service or NHS), but many of these sectors faced later economic friction and were heavily privatized in subsequent decades.

Nations that claim socialism seem to boast success in many cases, but when examined more closely, it becomes apparent that 1) they are far from pure socialism and 2) what has most significantly aided in their seeming success are capitalist (rather than socialist) ideals. To answer the question of whether socialism has ever worked then, the answer seems to be a resounding no.

Four Concluding Matters

For concluding matters, I offer four elements to consider bearing in mind the issues, thoughts, and assertions presented here. First, Jesus calls the church to trust him. The answer to the world’s problems will never be found in a government or magistrate but only in the hope that exists in Jesus Christ. When kings and kingdoms fail (and ultimately, they will) and dissolve into the unknown, the reign of Jesus will be forever. His people are called to trust him for provision, as he supplies everything needed not only for godliness but also for life (2 Pet 1:3).

Second, Jesus calls the church to generosity and hospitality (especially toward the poor and needy) and a rejection of greed without excuse. A rejection of socialism on grounds of the church’s responsibility to charity should not negate such a charge but rather enhance it. One who professes Christ and does not live in generosity and charity lives in sin. Research reveals that Christians (especially American Christians) are among the most generous people in society.[11] Perhaps, such data discloses a deeper spiritual reality that God’s people are givers because God is a giver.

Third, Jesus demands respect for authority (Rom 13). The implicit response of believers to this truth should be that even if the government mandates socialist policies, while Christians may surely disagree, God has placed governmental leaders in positions of authority so if laws and regulations do not impose morally-bankrupt actions, God’s people are to respect such orders and, yes, while still be charitable.

Last, Jesus never suggests government-mandated charity. God’s commands for charity are aimed toward his own people so the responsibility of charity rests solely on the church. The answer to the earlier pontification of Jesus’ position as a socialist should be clear from this paper: Jesus was not and is not a socialist, as his instructions do not infer governmental responsibility to charity.

Scripture does give government a great task, but it is protection rather than a particular economic ideal. As such, it is the conclusion of this paper that socialism is largely incompatible with Christian values.[12]

Lord, I would be the most miserable person in the world if my hopes were only in this life. Why? Because I am hopeless without Christ’s righteousness. My life could never be comfortable, and there would be no hope at all of eternal life.

If you denied me that hope, I would be the most miserable one of all. I may be happy without worldly enjoyments, but all things in the world cannot make me happy without this.

So however you treat me in this world, whatever you deny me, Lord, deny me not this. I can be happy without riches and abundance, like Job and Lazarus were. I can be happy even if I am reviled and reproached, as was Christ and his disciples. I can be happy and comfortable in prison, as were Paul and Silas.

But I cannot be happy without the righteousness of Christ.^[13]

---

[1] Lydia Saad, “How Americans View Capitalism, Socialism, and Free Enterprise,” Gallup, August 6, 2026, https://news.gallup.com/poll/713144/americans-view-capitalism-socialism-free-enterprise.aspx.

[2] Kristian Niemietz, Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 2019).

The DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) attempt to cover the pure meaning of socialism by presenting it as disparate in that democratic socialism is democratically (by vote) chosen by the people rather than forced upon society through dictatorship. Nonetheless, no matter how socialism is employed, the same goal is achieved: namely government control of the means of production.

[3] “Biblical” here should be understood as synonymous with God’s morally-right way as indicated in the text of Scripture.

[4] As such, it is the view of this paper that legislation should only exist to protect people’s rights and well-being. Thus, if laws are created with morality at the forefront (though there is surely room for debate and disagreement), the action is an exercise in futility.

[5] It is conversely true that those who profess Christ but fail to exercise generosity live in sin.

[6] Brian Baugus, “Jesusand Socalism: What Does the Bible Say?” (blog), Regent University, January 19, 2026, https://ccta.regent.edu/jesus-and-socialism-what-does-the-bible-say/.

[7] Baugus.

[8] Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual (NY, NY: New American Library Penguin Group, 1961), 43.

[9] This statement is compatible with the doctrines of sovereign grace since such concepts include humankind’s choice (not free will). While salvation is passive (to people), believers still have daily choices for which, although motively-controlled by God, they are still held accountable.

[10] Anecdotally, it might also be observed that many proponents of so-called Christian socialism do not practice orthodox Christianity and are otherwise opposed to such.

[11] Philanthropy Roundtable, s.v. “Less God, Less Giving?” accessed August 25, 2026, https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/magazine/less-god-less-giving/.

[12] The implication here does not suggest an impossibility of Christian socialism but rather a difficulty. While socialism is not evil in and of itself, the Bible most supports capitalist ideas and rejects traditional Marxist and socialist concepts.

^[13] David Clarkson, “No Hope without Christ’s Righteousness,” in Piercing Heaven: Prayers of the Puritans, ed. Robert Elmer (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2019), 18.