# Can a Christian be in business with a non-Christian?



## CDM

If a believer went into business for himself, say engineering, would it be permissible to have a non-Christian partner in a 50-50 partnership? Would this be an "unequally yoked" partnership?

I have heard many 'for' and 'against' arguments. I have heard 'for' arguments like "Well, we are to be salt and light in this world," and "No where in the New Covenant does it say we can't work with unbelievers...that was the way theocratic Israel had to live under the Old covenant administration." These arguments are coming from Reformed and non-Reformed pastors and teachers. 

But what about 2 Corinthians 14-18:

_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? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,

"œI will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
Therefore go out from their midst,
and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch no unclean thing;
then I will welcome you,
and I will be a father to you,
and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty."_

How far ought we to take this? I am in full agreement with this and I understand it to be prohibiting partnerships with unbelievers. Some say "Well, you wouldn't be able to even work at the company your at now." But isn't there a difference between working FOR an employer (or master) and in working WITH a partner that is opposed to Christ? Like the difference between the Jews working for Pharaoh and working with Pharaoh. Big difference right?

It seems this may very well be one of the most sensitive topics for American Christians considering are wealth of opportunities.


----------



## VictorBravo

I'm against the partnership. 

I have no problem working for an unbelieving boss, or entering into various kinds of agreements with unbelievers, but a partnership is a true yoking. The same analysis for marriage, I think, applies to partnerships. 

You are devoting your life's time, energy, money, etc., toward a goal with someone else. You share risk equally. Decisions on a course of action must coincide with God's law. That is impossibile to do with a non-believer.

Vic


----------



## BobVigneault

I agree with Vic. You can be but you shouldn't be.


----------



## CDM

Me too. I'd very much appreciate if some pastors here to chime in on this as well. I'm sure this is common in their ministries. I'd like to know the direction they gave to the inquirer.

The situation I'm thinking of now involves two Christians and one of them is falling away from the faith. We think he will be an apostate shortly. Now what? 

Thank you, brothers.

[Edited on 3-23-2006 by mangum]


----------



## BobVigneault

If we follow Pauls model regarding marriage then if the two are already partners than they can remain partners and hope that the apostate recovers. If they are not partners yet and it's clear that the one is falling, then it would be unwise to enter into that partnership.


----------



## CDM

I'd like to hear the Pro arguments for partnering with unbelievers. Especially in light of 2 Corinthians 14-18:

_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? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,

"œI will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
Therefore go out from their midst,
and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch no unclean thing;
then I will welcome you,
and I will be a father to you,
and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
says the Lord Almighty."_

If I am wrong to believe 2 Cor. 6 is forbidding partnerships (not Master slave relationships) with unbelievers I need to know what these passages are truly communicating then.

How are we to understand this portion of scripture?


----------



## Ambrose

*Let\'s Get Real*

How many people condemn 50/50 partnerships but not stock ownership? I believe the same principle applies and would not own 50, 25, 10 or even 1 percent of a company in partnership with unbelievers.


----------



## Cuirassier

> _Originally posted by Chad Degenhart_
> How many people condemn 50/50 partnerships but not stock ownership? I believe the same principle applies and would not own 50, 25, 10 or even 1 percent of a company in partnership with unbelievers.



I do personally believe 2 Corinthians does indeed apply to his situation, but I disagree with this comparison. Apples and oranges.

Mangum is facing a situation of co-ownership, day-to-day running of a business, and what he feels the Biblical directive should be of partnering/remaining partnered with an unbeliever. He has looked to 2 Corinthians for guidance--because he is in a yoke with that other business person. That yoke means business partners are "tied" to each other on issues that include (but not limited to)

legal liability for business actions
financial liability for payment obligations
corporate filings
tax filings
business management responsibilities
succession/estate responsibilities

Et cetera. Yet when one buys stock, none of these "yoking" attributes apply. To suggest that purchasing stock--to the extent that most of us common working folk are able to buy stock) is equivalent to co-ownership of a business is a huge leap of logic. There is a massive difference between co-ownership and co-managing of a business and investment of savings.

Indeed, the logical conclusion of that argument would prohibit a believer in investing virtually anywhere: RRSPs, (RIFs, I think you call them in the US), trusts, bonds, dividend funds - all of these invest in businesses, where almost 100% of the time, the management will be in the hands of unbelievers. Oh, and don't even think about the company pension plan! 

Moreover, the Lord Jesus would have been introducing confusion and contradiction by encouraging us to follow the wise stewards in the parable of the talents. I know, the principle was stewarding our God-given talents and spiritual opportunities--but the comparison would be invalid if the analogy itself was in contradiction of God's law.

Just my  ... 

In Him,

dl

[Edited on 3-23-2006 by Cuirassier]


----------



## Ambrose

> _Originally posted by Cuirassier_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Chad Degenhart_
> How many people condemn 50/50 partnerships but not stock ownership? I believe the same principle applies and would not own 50, 25, 10 or even 1 percent of a company in partnership with unbelievers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do personally believe 2 Corinthians does indeed apply to his situation, but I disagree with this comparison. Apples and oranges.
> 
> Mangum is facing a situation of co-ownership, day-to-day running of a business, and what he feels the Biblical directive should be of partnering/remaining partnered with an unbeliever. He has looked to 2 Corinthians for guidance--because he is in a yoke with that other business person. That yoke means business partners are "tied" to each other on issues that include (but not limited to)
> 
> legal liability for business actions
> financial liability for payment obligations
> corporate filings
> tax filings
> business management responsibilities
> succession/estate responsibilities
> 
> Et cetera. Yet when one buys stock, none of these "yoking" attributes apply. To suggest that purchasing stock--to the extent that most of us common working folk are able to buy stock) is equivalent to co-ownership of a business is a huge leap of logic. There is a massive difference between co-ownership and co-managing of a business and investment of savings.
Click to expand...


When you buy stock you are indeed a co-owner, which is why the officers of the corporation have a fiduciary duty you as a shareholder. Each shareholder has input on the selection of a Board of Directors which corresponds to their percentage of ownership. If you own 50% you have a lot of input. If you own 10%, you probably still have a lot of input. If you own a very small percentage, then the heathens run the show and give you a cut of the profits. 



> Indeed, the logical conclusion of that argument would prohibit a believer in investing virtually anywhere: RRSPs, (RIFs, I think you call them in the US), trusts, bonds, dividend funds - all of these invest in businesses, where almost 100% of the time, the management will be in the hands of unbelievers. Oh, and don't even think about the company pension plan!



Indeed. 



> Moreover, the Lord Jesus would have been introducing confusion and contradiction by encouraging us to follow the wise stewards in the parable of the talents. I know, the principle was stewarding our God-given talents and spiritual opportunities--but the comparison would be invalid if the analogy itself was in contradiction of God's law.



The parable condemned usury, it did not condone it. Even Calvin, who opened the floodgates of theologically-acceptable usury, wrote that Jesus did not intend to applaud usury in this parable. A more careful reading is in order. *The Ban on Interest - A Study in the Use of the Old Testament in Christian Economics* by Paul Mills offers a good perspective on this topic.


----------



## Ambrose

> _Originally posted by Cuirassier_
> Indeed, the logical conclusion of that argument would prohibit a believer in investing virtually anywhere: RRSPs, (RIFs, I think you call them in the US), trusts, bonds, dividend funds - all of these invest in businesses, where almost 100% of the time, the management will be in the hands of unbelievers. Oh, and don't even think about the company pension plan!



What the logical conclusion would be is a significant diversion of capital out of pagan-owned businesses and into Christian-owned enterprises. But unfortunately most Christians don't believe God will bless their finances enough unless they invest in the businesses of unbelievers.


----------



## Cuirassier

Brother Chad,

Usury is not the issue at stake here.

Irrespective of whether or not the Bible is against charging interest, the fact is that Chris is looking for insight into a business partnership issue. I fail to see how suggesting that one shouldn't own stock is going to illuminate his situation. 

Insofar as the passage in Matthew 25 is concerned, it begins with "The kingdom of heaven is like ..." I believe the intent of the passage is to instruct believers in how their spiritual talents are to be used in furthering God's kingdom, as is also seen in Mark 19. 

You may see that passage as indictment of usury--that is your interpretation, which I respect. It does not seem evident to me that the Lord would instruct us by analogy in which he compares a directive to something he expressly forbids. 

Regardless, thanks for the link - I'll take a look.

In Him,

dl


----------



## Ambrose

> _Originally posted by Cuirassier_
> Brother Chad,
> 
> Usury is not the issue at stake here.



I believe you are the one that introduced usury to the discussion here? 



> Irrespective of whether or not the Bible is against charging interest, the fact is that Chris is looking for insight into a business partnership issue. I fail to see how suggesting that one shouldn't own stock is going to illuminate his situation.



Original post asked "How far ought we to take this?" I am offering some thoughts in response to that.


----------



## CDM

So far, it seems all are in agreement with a Christian not becoming partners with a non-Christian in business, correct? I believe it applies to other areas too. Does anyone have any idea how someone in the affirmative would understand 2 Cor. 6? How do they reconcile this?

I'd be curious to see a few commentaries on 2 Cor. 6 posted here by Calvin, Pool, Henry, etc. Where's VirginaHuguenot when you need him? 

Thanks for your feedback.


----------



## Cuirassier

Brother Chad,

Please re-read my post(s). Usury was not mentioned ONCE. The reference to investment was part of my assertion that the issues of co-ownership in business and stock ownership were not valid comparisons. 

I believe the intent of "how far do we take this" was whether or not he could still work there.

dl


----------



## Ambrose

> _Originally posted by Cuirassier_
> Brother Chad,
> 
> Please re-read my post(s). Usury was not mentioned ONCE. The reference to investment was part of my assertion that the issues of co-ownership in business and stock ownership were not valid comparisons.



I was referring to this quote:



> Moreover, the Lord Jesus would have been introducing confusion and contradiction by encouraging us to follow the wise stewards in the parable of the talents. I know, the principle was stewarding our God-given talents and spiritual opportunities--but the comparison would be invalid if the analogy itself was in contradiction of God's law.



If all you meant was that this passage implies that we should invest our money in stocks, then I misread your argument and inferred too much. In your list of investments you mentioned bonds which are based on usury. Therefore I thought you were making a connection between the two. Sorry to have misinterpreted.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> So far, it seems all are in agreement with a Christian not becoming partners with a non-Christian in business, correct? I believe it applies to other areas too. Does anyone have any idea how someone in the affirmative would understand 2 Cor. 6? How do they reconcile this?
> 
> I'd be curious to see a few commentaries on 2 Cor. 6 posted here by Calvin, Pool, Henry, etc. Where's VirginaHuguenot when you need him?
> 
> Thanks for your feedback.



 I can provide some resources for consideration, although I would not care to offer an opinion on the subject at hand at present. I hope this is helpful, though:

Matthew Poole:



> 2 Cor 6:14. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: they too much restrain the sense of this general precept, who either limit it to religious communion with idolaters, or to civil communion in marriages. The precept is delivered in a term of more general significancy, than to be limited by either of these, though both of them, questionless, be comprehended in it: mh_ gi/nesqe e9terozugou~ntej, do not become such as in the same yoke draw another way. It is a metaphor drawn from horses or oxen; which should draw together, being in the same yoke, neither standing still, nor yet holding back. It is a general precept, prohibitive of all unnecessary communion and intimate fellowship with such, as either in matters of faith or worship, or in their lives and conversations, declare themselves to be unbelievers; for why we should expound a)pi/voij of infidels merely, I cannot tell, especially considering that the apostle, 1 Cor 5:9-11, seems to allow a further communion with a heathen, than with a notoriously scandalous Christian. So as this precept may reasonably be interpreted by those in the former Epistle, of marrying with such, eating with them at idol feasts, or at the Lord's table, (as 2 Cor 5,) maintaining intimate communion with them, etc. For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? The reason he giveth, is, because they could have no comfortable communion with such; they were righteousness, those persons were unrighteousness; they were light, such persons were darkness, that is, full of the darkness of sin and ignorance. In the mean time, this precept ought not to be extended to a total avoiding of commerce with, or being in the company of, either heathens, or scandalous persons; for as to that, the same apostle had before determined it lawful, 1 Cor 5:11. Whatever communion with such persons is either necessary from the law of God or nature, or for the support and upholding of human life and society, is lawful even with such persons; but all other is unlawful.



Matthew Henry:



> II. The caution or exhortation itself, not to mingle with unbelievers, not to be unequally yoked with them, 2 Cor 6:14. Either,
> 
> 1. In stated relations. It is wrong for good people to join in affinity with the wicked and profane; these will draw different ways, and that will be galling and grievous. Those relations that are our choice must be chosen by rule; and it is good for those who are themselves the children of God to join with those who are so likewise; for there is more danger that the bad will damage the good than hope that the good will benefit the bad.
> 
> 2. In common conversation. We should not yoke ourselves in friendship and acquaintance with wicked men and unbelievers. Though we cannot wholly avoid seeing, and hearing, and being with such, yet we should never choose them for our bosom-friends.



John Calvin:



> 14. Be not yoked. As if regaining his authority, he now reproves them more freely, because they associated with unbelievers, as partakers with them in outward idolatry. For he has exhorted them to show themselves docile to him as to a father: he now, in accordance with the rights that belong to him, 9 reproves the fault into which they had fallen. Now we mentioned in the former epistle 10 what this fault was; for, as they imagined that there was nothing that was unlawful for them in outward things, they defiled themselves with wicked superstitions without any reserve. For in frequenting the banquets of unbelievers, they participated along with them in profane and impure rites, and while they sinned grievously, they nevertheless thought themselves innocent. On this account Paul inveighs here against outward idolatry, and exhorts Christians to stand aloof from it, and have no connection with it. He begins, however, with a general statement, with the view of coming down from that to a particular instance, for to be yoked with unbelievers means nothing less than to
> 
> have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,
> (Ephesians 5:11,)
> 
> and to hold out the hand to them 11 in token of agreement.
> 
> Many are of opinion that he speaks of marriage, but the context clearly shows that they are mistaken. The word that Paul makes use of means -- to be connected together in drawing the same yoke. It is a metaphor taken from oxen or horses, which require to walk at the same pace, and to act together in the same work, when fastened under one yoke. 12 When, therefore, he prohibits us from having partnership with unbelievers in drawing the same yoke, he means simply this, that we should have no fellowship with them in their pollutions. For one sun shines upon us, we eat of the same bread, we breathe the same air, and we cannot altogether refrain from intercourse with them; but Paul speaks of the yoke of impiety, that is, of participation in works, in which Christians cannot lawfully have fellowship. On this principle marriage will also be prohibited, inasmuch as it is a snare, by which both men and women are entangled into an agreement with impiety; but what I mean is simply this, that Paul's doctrine is of too general a nature to be restricted to marriage exclusively, for he is discoursing here as to the shunning of idolatry, on which account, also, we are prohibited from contracting marriages with the wicked.



It is probably also worth looking at commentaries on 1 Cor. 5.9-10 for comparison purposes: I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 

I might also suggest another resource (I don't have immediate access to it -- it is at home and I am not): George Gillespie's _Forbidden Alliances: Concerning Associations and Confederacies with Idolaters, Infidels, Heretics, or Any Other Known Enemies of Truth and Godliness_ (and Richard Steele's _The Religious Tradesman_).

[Edited on 3-23-2006 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Richard Steele has this to say generally:



> 2d. In the prudent choice of the several circumstances of trade.
> ...
> For persons. Great prudence is necessary in the choice of these. First, whom to trust: for it is not the metal that glitters most, that is always the richest; men are often deceitful, and too many make it their business to deceive, and enrich themselves with the spoils of the unwary and credulous. It is better, therefore, to be at the pains of a diligent inquiry after their abilities for the trust which we repose in them, than endure the grief of sad experience that we were mistaken in our apprehensions concerning them. Certain it is, that as there is prudence in trusting some, and charity in trusting others; so there are many whom it is neither prudence nor charity to trust at all. Whom to deal with; to wit, with men of conscience, or, at least, of common honesty; for these may be relied upon with more security than others, and it is at all times more creditable to correspond with men of virtue than with knaves. Common fame will generally acquaint you who and where they are. Lastly, whom to be familiar with. For though we should be friendly to all, yet familiar only with a few; and they should be such as we may either receive good from, or do good unto. And even of these not too many; for the tradesman's employment will not allow him time sufficient for performing the necessary offices of friendship to a great number. Let, therefore, the wise and the prudent, the virtuous and good, be the persons of your intimacy and choice; for nothing has a greater influence on our present and future happiness or misery, than our chosen companions, as was before observed. "He that walketh with wise men shall be wise, but a companion of fools shall be destroyed." _The Religious Tradesman_, Chap. 3: _Of Prudence and Discretion_


----------



## satz

> I might also suggest another resource (I don't have immediate access to it -- it is at home and I am not): George Gillespie's Forbidden Alliances: Concerning Associations and Confederacies with Idolaters, Infidels, Heretics, or Any Other Known Enemies of Truth and Godliness.



http://www.covenanter.org/GGillespie/miscellaneousquestions/ggilles14.html

is this it?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by satz_
> 
> 
> 
> I might also suggest another resource (I don't have immediate access to it -- it is at home and I am not): George Gillespie's Forbidden Alliances: Concerning Associations and Confederacies with Idolaters, Infidels, Heretics, or Any Other Known Enemies of Truth and Godliness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.covenanter.org/GGillespie/miscellaneousquestions/ggilles14.html
> 
> is this it?
Click to expand...


Yes, thanks Mark!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

A "choice sentence" from the New England Primer:



> HAVE communion with few,
> Be intimate with ONE,
> Deal justly with all,
> Speak evil of none.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

A.W. Pink says:



> "Be ye not unequally yoked together." This applies to business partnerships. Disobedience at this point has wrecked many a Christian's testimony and pierced him through with many sorrows. Whatever may be gained of this world by seeking its avenues to wealth and social prestige, will but poorly compensate for the loss of fellowhip with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. Read Prov. 1:10-14. The path which the disciple of Christ is called to tread is a narrow one, and if he leaves it for a wider road, it will mean severe chastenings, heartbreaking losses, and perhaps the forfeiting the the Savior's "Well done" at the end of the journey.


----------



## satz

> _Originally posted by mangum_
> I'd like to hear the Pro arguments for partnering with unbelievers. Especially in light of 2 Corinthians 14-18:
> 
> _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? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,
> 
> "œI will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,
> and I will be their God,
> and they shall be my people.
> Therefore go out from their midst,
> and be separate from them, says the Lord,
> and touch no unclean thing;
> then I will welcome you,
> and I will be a father to you,
> and you shall be sons and daughters to me,
> says the Lord Almighty."_
> 
> If I am wrong to believe 2 Cor. 6 is forbidding partnerships (not Master slave relationships) with unbelievers I need to know what these passages are truly communicating then.
> 
> How are we to understand this portion of scripture?



I believe this to be a matter of prudence. The liberty is there, but would it be wise?

I personally would not enter into a partnership with unbelievers, but I do not think we can say it is always a sin. I do have the utmost respect for those brothers who hold to the opposing view though.

Whilst the distinction between working with (partnership) and working for (employment) is certainly valid, I do not think we can assume Paul had that understanding in mind when writing 2 Cor 6. Whilst we are working under our masters/employers are we not working with our fellow servants? Nor would the prohibition only be triggered when there is an "˜official´ partnership in the modern, business sense of the word. In 1 Cor 10 even though the Corinthians had made no "˜official´ association with the idol temples in Paul´s view simply eating at the idol feasts made them partakers with the idolators. Also, whilst the distinction may hold true for employment in the lowliest positions, the higher one rises in his employment, the more the distinction starts to break down, at least as far as applying 2 Cor 6, In my humble opinion.

Again, I would not personally enter into such a partnership, but I believe them to be allowable because we are to understand "˜unequally yoked´ as not forbidding any and all partnerships but rather those that are unequal, those which a Christian cannot enter into without compromising his principles or being associated with evil.

John Gill:


> Verse 14. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers,.... This seems to be an allusion to the law in Deuteronomy 22:10 and to be a mystical explanation of it; and is to be understood not as forbidding civil society and converse with unbelievers; for this is impracticable, then must believers needs go out of the world; this the many natural and civil relations subsisting among men make absolutely necessary; and in many cases is both lawful and laudable, especially when there is any opportunity or likelihood of doing them any service in a spiritual way: not is it to be understood as dehorting from entering into marriage contracts with such persons; for such marriages the apostle, in his former epistle, had allowed to be lawful, and what ought to be abode by; though believers would do well carefully to avoid such an unequal yoke, since oftentimes they are hereby exposed to many snares, temptations, distresses, and sorrows, which generally more or less follow hereon: but there is nothing in the text or context that lead to such an interpretation; rather, if any particular thing is referred to, it is to joining with unbelievers in acts of idolatry; since one of the apostle's arguments to dissuade from being unequally yoked with unbelievers is, "what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?" and from the foregoing epistle it looks as if some in this church had joined with them in such practices; see 1 Corinthians 10:14. *But I rather think that these words are a dissuasive in general, from having any fellowship with unbelievers in anything sinful and criminal, whether in worship or in conversation*:



I take this view because in the scriptures we do see examples of righteous men making certain association with unbelievers. Again, with regards to employment, you might be able to argue a distinction if you are sweeping the floor of the company lobby, but if you are working in any higher, more regarded position, I think we cannot force the distinction upon the verses. There is a sense of yoking even in employment.

Genesis 14:13-24 And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; *for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram*. And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus. And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people. And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself. And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

Genesis 21:22-32 And it came to pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phichol the chief captain of his host spake unto Abraham, saying, God is with thee in all that thou doest: Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son: but according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned. * And Abraham said, I will swear*. And Abraham reproved Abimelech because of a well of water, which Abimelech's servants had violently taken away. And Abimelech said, I wot not who hath done this thing: neither didst thou tell me, neither yet heard I of it, but to day. And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; *and both of them made a covenant.* And Abraham set seven ewe lambs of the flock by themselves. And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What mean these seven ewe lambs which thou hast set by themselves? And he said, For these seven ewe lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that they may be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well. Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them. Thus they made a covenant at Beersheba: then Abimelech rose up, and Phichol the chief captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines.

Genesis 41:40-42 Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: *only in the throne will I be greater than thou.* And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt.* And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand, and arrayed him in vestures of fine linen, and put a gold chain about his neck;*

Genesis 47:1-13 Then Joseph came and told Pharaoh, and said, My father and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen. And he took some of his brethren, even five men, and presented them unto Pharaoh. And Pharaoh said unto his brethren, What is your occupation? And they said unto Pharaoh, Thy servants are shepherds, both we, and also our fathers. They said moreover unto Pharaoh, For to sojourn in the land are we come; for thy servants have no pasture for their flocks; for the famine is sore in the land of Canaan: now therefore, we pray thee, let thy servants dwell in the land of Goshen. And Pharaoh spake unto Joseph, saying,* Thy father and thy brethren are come unto thee: The land of Egypt is before thee; in the best of the land make thy father and brethren to dwell; in the land of Goshen let them dwell: and if thou knowest any men of activity among them, then make them rulers over my cattle.* And Joseph brought in Jacob his father, and set him before Pharaoh: and Jacob blessed Pharaoh. And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How old art thou? And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage. And Jacob blessed Pharaoh, and went out from before Pharaoh. *And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded. And Joseph nourished his father, and his brethren, and all his father's household, with bread, according to their families. And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine.*


2 Samuel 5:11 And Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, and carpenters, and masons: and they built David an house.


1 Kings 5:1-18 And Hiram king of Tyre sent his servants unto Solomon; for he had heard that they had anointed him king in the room of his father: for Hiram was ever a lover of David. And Solomon sent to Hiram, saying, Thou knowest how that David my father could not build an house unto the name of the LORD his God for the wars which were about him on every side, until the LORD put them under the soles of his feet. But now the LORD my God hath given me rest on every side, so that there is neither adversary nor evil occurrent. And, behold, I purpose to build an house unto the name of the LORD my God, as the LORD spake unto David my father, saying, Thy son, whom I will set upon thy throne in thy room, he shall build an house unto my name. Now therefore command thou that they hew me cedar trees out of Lebanon; and my servants shall be with thy servants: and unto thee will I give hire for thy servants according to all that thou shalt appoint: for thou knowest that there is not among us any that can skill to hew timber like unto the Sidonians. And it came to pass, when Hiram heard the words of Solomon, that he rejoiced greatly, and said, Blessed be the LORD this day, which hath given unto David a wise son over this great people. And Hiram sent to Solomon, saying, I have considered the things which thou sentest to me for: and I will do all thy desire concerning timber of cedar, and concerning timber of fir. My servants shall bring them down from Lebanon unto the sea: and I will convey them by sea in floats unto the place that thou shalt appoint me, and will cause them to be discharged there, and thou shalt receive them: and thou shalt accomplish my desire, in giving food for my household. So Hiram gave Solomon cedar trees and fir trees according to all his desire. And Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand measures of wheat for food to his household, and twenty measures of pure oil: thus gave Solomon to Hiram year by year.* And the LORD gave Solomon wisdom, as he promised him: and there was peace between Hiram and Solomon; and they two made a league together.* And king Solomon raised a levy out of all Israel; and the levy was thirty thousand men. And he sent them to Lebanon, ten thousand a month by courses: a month they were in Lebanon, and two months at home: and Adoniram was over the levy. And Solomon had threescore and ten thousand that bare burdens, and fourscore thousand hewers in the mountains; Beside the chief of Solomon's officers which were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, which ruled over the people that wrought in the work. And the king commanded, and they brought great stones, costly stones, and hewed stones, to lay the foundation of the house. And Solomon's builders and Hiram's builders did hew them, and the stonesquarers: so they prepared timber and stones to build the house.

2 Kings 5:17-19 And Naaman said, Shall there not then, I pray thee, be given to thy servant two mules' burden of earth? for thy servant will henceforth offer neither burnt offering nor sacrifice unto other gods, but unto the LORD. In this thing the LORD pardon thy servant, that *when my master goeth into the house of Rimmon to worship there, and he leaneth on my hand, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon:* when I bow down myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon thy servant in this thing. And he said unto him, *Go in peace.* So he departed from him a little way.

Romans 16:23 Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. *Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you*, and Quartus a brother.
Romans 16:27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.* Written to the Romans from Corinthus,* and sent by Phebe servant of the church at Cenchrea.


[Edited on 3-23-2006 by satz]

I know some of these references are controversial in the sense that conservative and godly commentators have felt the people in question were either sinning in making such alliances or the heathen in question was a covert to the worship of the true God. However, i think the general tone of the bible does allow some cooperation of the civil sort between unbelievers and believers. Also, simply because a man praises God does not make him a convert. 

Nebuchadnezzar has this to say a few verses before ordering everyone to bow down and worship his statue.

Daniel 2:47 The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.

Later, 
Daniel 3:28-29 Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God. Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort.

But in 4:7 he is consulting magicians and astrologers again.

I emphasize again i am not arguing for partnerships with unbelievers. I believe in almost all circumstances it would be unwise and dangerous. But i believe we cannot consistently say they are always sinful, whilst maintaining that working for unbelievers is ok.

[Edited on 3-23-2006 by satz]


----------



## Larry Hughes

To link a business partnership in today's US economy (true use of the word) which is a sole legal relationship in the truest sense with marriage which is covenantal in 1 Cor. is at best a very very very poor stretch, especially in the realm of covenant theology.

We have to realize that the US is one of the first countries in history that is not at its basis presently anywhere near a government that is rooted in theocracy or religion - not in the least. The US today is purely economic driven that's why we cannot conceive of the problem in Iraq whose governmental structure is rooted in religion. It is foreign to States whose basis is "religion" (broadly speaking) to have other gods in their midst, while in the US which is not religiously driven but financially it really matters little as far as governing is concerned. AS long as the economy flows no one really cares.



> But isn't there a difference between working FOR an employer (or master) and in working WITH a partner



One is not a slave in the biblical sense of the term and neither is your boss your master in the same sense. Again, today working for an employer you are by legal definition an "At Will" employee or "contractual employee". And this means that either party can break the working relationship literally at will, you are not bound in the same since as the bible uses the term.


----------



## VictorBravo

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> To link a business partnership in today's US economy (true use of the word) which is a sole legal relationship in the truest sense with marriage which is covenantal in 1 Cor. is at best a very very very poor stretch, especially in the realm of covenant theology.



I'd have to disagree here. Partnership agreements are very much like a covenant. You share risk, you promise to put the partnership ahead of personal interest, you commit to a whole bunch of fiduciary duties under the common law and statutory law.

I'd say that in the legal world, marriage is the one that has degraded more than partnership law. No-fault divorce is the rule. In partership dissolution cases, fault (in terms of malfeasance) very much can be relevant in the division of assets.

But your point about the economy replacing God in our society is well taken. 

Vic


----------



## alwaysreforming

I am of the same opinion as Mark, above.

I would say that a blanket policy of never entering into business arrangements/partnerships with unbelievers is in error.

Firstly, although there is a "yoking", it is not one of a spiritual nature.

Secondly, there is nothing particularly "Christian" about business principles that we are to follow in running our businesses and serving our customers.

To deal justly with all is not "Christian", it is right.
To pay business taxes fairly is not "Christian", it is right.

If we're worried about "business principles" and mode of operation then why limit ourselves to just Christians. Could not a Jew be equally as "bound" to the Law and to justice and righteousness?

What is it Luther said about rather being ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian?

When we go into business with someone, it should be based on a number of important factors, and the mere fact that someone is a Christian does not lend to them any more possibility of success than a non-Christian. If one is serving his fellow man fairly and earning a fair profit from it, than that is one of the highest ideals that could be obtained from business.

I know fewer Christians that I would be in business with than non-believers. Most Christians I know think that having a "Christian Business" means:
1. You offer some sort of on-campus Bible study
2. You try to "evangelize" any and all co-workers and customers
3. You hang "Christian" sayings and pictures liberally throughout as a "witness"
4. You try to employ people because they're Christians and not because they have the best skill set for the job


No.... give me the wise Turk any day! I think one of the ways in which our thinking on this issue gets skewed is when we Christianize all that is "good", and "secularize" all that is bad. Does not "goodness" apply to creation and the world itself because God has made it and declared it so? When we act in "good" ways (righteous, fair, honest, diligent, beautiful, etc.) aren't we doing what is simply expected of us in taking dominion of the earth? I suppose most of us imagine that either a non-believer will not abide by righteous principles, or if he does it will be short-lived. I disagree and have seen just the opposite time and time and time again. 

(I'm happy to say, however, that my business partner is a Christian)


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

The OPC has a Q & A about this issue.


----------

