Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Corinthians 6:14
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
14. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers ] Dean Stanley observes on the “remarkable dislocation of the argument here.” But the connection of thought is not difficult to trace. The only reward (see last verse) St Paul sought from the Corinthians was conduct in accordance with the Gospel of Christ. This was the best form their sympathy with him could take. Therefore he touches on some of the points on which they were in the habit of doing most violence to their Christian profession. They did not keep sufficiently aloof from unbelievers, but even went so far as to ‘sit at meat’ with them ‘in the idol-temple’ (see 1 Corinthians 8, 10, and notes) and thus become partakers with them in their idolatry, whereby they were the cause of infinite mischief to the souls of their brethren. The reference in the words ‘unequally yoked together’ is to the precept in Deu 22:10, a precept, like many similar ones in the same chapter ( 2Co 6:9 ; 2Co 6:11-12) and elsewhere in the Mosaic laws, manifestly figurative in its character. The Apostle’s words must not be confined to intermarriages with the heathen, though of course it includes them in the prohibition. It refers to all kinds of close and intimate relations. “They are yoked together with unbelievers, who enter into close companionship with them.” Estius.
what fellowship ] The word thus rendered here is not the same as that rendered communion below, a word which (see notes on 1Co 1:9; 1Co 10:16) is itself rendered indifferently by communion and fellowship in the N. T., but is derived from the word signifying to partake ( partynge, Wiclif), e.g. in 1Co 10:17. See Eph 5:7; also 1Ma 1:13-15 and 2Jn 1:11.
unrighteousness ] Literally, lawlessness, the normal condition of the heathen man, Rom 6:19, while the Christian is endowed with ‘God’s righteousness,’ ch. 2Co 5:21.
light with darkness ] Cf. Joh 1:5; Joh 3:19, the one signifying the condition of man in Christ, the other his condition without Christ. See also Eph 5:8; 1Th 5:5; and ch. 2Co 4:4.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers – This is closely connected in sense with the previous verse. The apostle is there stating the nature of the remuneration or recompence which he asks for all the love which he had shown to them. He here says, that one mode of remuneration would be to yield obedience to his commands, and to separate themselves from all improper alliance with unbelievers. Make me this return for my love. Love me as a proof of your affection, be not improperly united with unbelievers. Listen to me as a father addressing his children, and secure your own happiness and piety by not being unequally yoked with those who are not Christians. The word which is used here ( heterozugeo) means properly, to bear a different yoke, to be yoked heterogeneously – Robinson (Lexicon). It is applied to the custom of yoking animals of different kinds together (Passow); and as used here means not to mingle together, or be united with unbelievers.
It is implied in the use of the word that there is a dissimilarity between believers and unbelievers so great that it is as improper for them to mingle together as it is to yoke animals of different kinds and species. The ground of the injunction is, that there is a difference between Christians and those who are not, so great as to render such unions improper and injurious. The direction here refers doubtless to all kinds of improper connections with those who were unbelievers. It has been usually supposed by commentators to refer particularly to marriage. But there is no reason for confining it to marriage. It doubtless includes that, but it may as well refer to any other intimate connection, or to intimate friendships, or to participation in their amusements and employments, as to marriage. The radical idea is, that they were to abstain from all connections with unbelievers – with infidels, and pagans, and those who were not Christians, which would identify them with them; or they were to have no connection with them in anything as unbelievers, pagans, or infidels; they were to partake with them in nothing that was special to them as such.
They were to have no part with them in their paganism unbelief, and idolatry, and infidelity; they were not to be united with them in any way or sense where it would necessarily be understood that they were partakers with them in those things. This is evidently the principle here laid down, and this principle is as applicable now as it was then. In the remainder of this verse and the following verses 2Co 6:15-16, he states reasons why they should have no such contact. There is no principle of Christianity that is more important than that which is here stated by the apostle; and none in which Christians are more in danger of erring, or in which they have more difficulty in determining the exact rule which they are to follow. The questions which arise are very important. Are we to have no contact with the people of the world? Are we cut loose from all our friends who are not Christians? Are we to become monks, and live a recluse and unsocial life? Are we never to mingle with the people of the world in business, in innocent recreation, or in the duties of citizens, and as neighbors and friends? It is important, therefore, in the highest degree, to endeavor to ascertain what are the principles on which the New Testament requires us to act in this matter. And in order to a correct understanding of this, the following principles may be suggested:
I. There is a large field of action, pursuit, principle, and thought, over which infidelity, sin, paganism, and the world as such, have the entire control. It is wholly without the range of Christian law, and stands opposed to Christian law. It pertains to a different kingdom; is conducted by different principles, and tends to destroy and annihilate the kingdom of Christ. It cannot be reconciled with Christian principle, and cannot be conformed to but in entire violation of the influence of religion. Here the prohibition of the New Testament is absolute and entire. Christians are not to mingle with the people of the world in these things; and are not to partake of them. This prohibition, it is supposed, extends to the following, among other things:
(1) To idolatry. This was plain. On no account or pretence were the early Christians to partake of that, or to countenance it. In primitive times, during the Roman persecutions, all that was asked was that they should cast a little incense on the altar of a pagan god. They refused to do it, and because they refused to do it, thousands perished as martyrs. They judged rightly; and the world has approved their cause.
(2) Sin, vice, licentiousness. This is also plain. Christians are in no way to patronise them, or to lend their influence to them, or to promote them by their name, their presence, or their property. Neither be partakers of other peoples sins; 1Ti 5:22; 2Jo 1:11.
(3) Arts and acts of dishonesty, deception, and fraud in traffic and trade. Here the prohibition also must be absolute. No Christian can have a right to enter into partnership with another where the business is to be conducted on dishonest and unchristian principles, or where it shall lead to the violation of any of the laws of God. If it involves deception and fraud in the principles on which it is conducted; if it spreads ruin and poverty – as the distilling and vending of ardent spirits does; if it leads to the necessary violation of the Christian Sabbath, then the case is plain. A Christian is to have no fellowship with such unfruitful works of darkness, but is rather to reprove them; Eph 5:11.
(4) The amusements and pleasures that are entirely worldly, and sinful in their nature; that are wholly under worldly influence, and which cannot be brought under Christian principles. Nearly all amusements are of this description. The true principle here seems to be, that if a Christian in such a place is expected to lay aside his Christian principles, and if it would be deemed indecorous and improper for him to introduce the subject of religion, or if religion would be regarded is entirely inconsistent with the nature of the amusement then he is not to be found there. The world reigns there, and if the principles of his Lord and Master would be excluded, he should not be there. This applies of course to the theater, the circus, the ballroom, and to large and splendid parties of pleasure. We are not to associate with idolaters in their idolatry; nor with the licentious in their licentiousness; nor with the infidel in his infidelity; nor with the proud in their pride; nor with the frivolous in their gaiety; nor with the friends of the theater, or the ballroom, or the circus in their attachment to these places and pursuits. And whatever other connection we are to have with them as neighbors, citizens, or members of our families, we are not to participate with them in these things. Thus far all seems to be clear; and the rule is a plain one whether it applies to marriage, or to business, or to religion, or to pleasure; compare note, 1Co 5:10.
II. There is a large field of action, thought, and plan which may be said to be common with the Christian and the world; that is, where the Christian is not expected to abandon his own principles, and where there will be, or need be, no compromise of the sternest views of truth, or the most upright, serious, and holy conduct. He may carry his principles with him; may always manifest them if necessary; and may even commend them to others. A few of these may be referred to.
(1) Commercial transactions and professional engagements that are conducted on honest and upright principles, even when those with whom we act are not Christians.
(2) Literary and scientific pursuits, which never, when pursued with a right spirit, interfere with the principles of Christianity, and never are contrary to it.
(3) The love and affection which are due to relatives and friends. Nothing in the Bible assuredly will prohibit a pious son from uniting with one who is not pious in supporting an aged and infirm parent, or a much loved and affectionate sister. The same remark is true also respecting the duty which a wife owes to a husband, a husband to a wife, or a parent to a child, though one of them should not be a Christian. And the same observation is true also of neighbors, who are not to be prohibited from uniting as neighbors in social contact, and in acts of common kindness and charity, though all not Christians.
(4) As citizens. We owe duties to our country, and a Christian need not refuse to act with others in the elective franchise, or in making or administering the laws. Here, however, it is clear that he is not at liberty to violate the laws and the principles of the Bible. He cannot be at liberty to unite with them in political schemes that are contrary to the Law of God, or in elevating to office people whom he cannot vote for with a good conscience as qualified for the station.
(5) In plans of public improvement, in schemes that go to the advancement of the public welfare, when the schemes do not violate the laws of God. But if they involve the necessity of violating the Sabbath, or any of the laws of God, assuredly he cannot consistently participate in them.
(6) In doing good to others. So the Saviour was with sinners; so he ate, and drank, and conversed with them. So we may mingle with them, without partaking of their wicked feelings and plans, so far as we can do them good, and exert over them a holy and saving influence. In all the situations here referred to, and in all the duties growing out of them, the Christian may maintain his principles, and may preserve a good conscience. Indeed the Saviour evidently contemplated that his people would have such contact with the world, and that in it they would do good. But in none of these is there to be any compromise of principle; in none to be any yielding to the opinions and practices that are contrary to the laws of God.
III. There is a large field of action, conduct, and plan, where Christians only will act together. These relate to the special duties of religion – to prayer, Christian fellowship, the ordinances of the gospel, and most of the plans of Christian beneficence. Here the world will not intrude; and here assuredly there will be no necessity of any compromise of Christian principle.
For what fellowship – Paul proceeds here to state reasons why there should be no such improper connection with the world. The main reason, though under various forms, is that there can be no fellowship, no communion, nothing in common between them; and that therefore they should be separate. The word fellowship ( metoche) means partnership, participation. What is there in common; or how can the one partake with the other? The interrogative form here is designed to be emphatic, and to declare in the strongest terms that there can be no such partnership.
Righteousness – Such as you Christians are required to practice; implying that all were to be governed by the stern and uncompromising principles of honesty and justice.
With unrighteousness – Dishonesty, injustice, sin; implying that the world is governed by such principles.
And what communion – ( koinonia). Participation; communion; that which is in common. What is there in common between light and darkness? What common principle is there of which they both partake? There is none. There is a total and eternal separation.
Light – The emblem of truth, virtue, holiness; see the Mat 4:16; Mat 5:16 notes; Joh 1:4 note; Rom 2:19 note; 2Co 4:4, 2Co 4:6 notes. It is implied here that Christians are enlightened, and walk in the light. Their principles are pure and holy – principles of which light is the proper emblem.
Darkness – The emblem of sin, corruption, ignorance; implying that the world to which Paul refers was governed and influenced by these. The idea is, that as there is an entire separation between light and darkness in their nature; as they have nothing in common, so it is and should be, between Christians and sinners. There should be a separation. There can be nothing in common between holiness and sin; and Christians should have nothing to do with the unfruitful works of darkness: Eph 5:11.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
2Co 6:14-16
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.
Unequally yoked
This peculiar word has a cognate form in the law which forbids the breeding of hybrid animals (Lev 19:19). God has established a good physical order in the world, and it is not to be confounded and disfigured by the mixing of the species. It is that law, or perhaps another form of it, which forbids the yoking together of an ox and an ass (Deu 22:10), that is applied in an ethical sense in this passage. There is a wholesome moral order in the world also, and it is not to be confused by the association of its different kinds. The common application of this text to the marriage of Christians with non-Christians is legitimate but too narrow. The text prohibits every kind of union in which the separate character and interest of the Christian lose anything of their distinctiveness and integrity. This is brought out more strongly in the free quotation from Isa 52:11 in verse 17. These words were originally addressed to the priests, who, on the redemption of Israel from Babylon, were to carry the sacred temple vessels back to Jerusalem. But we must remember that though they are Old Testament words they are quoted by a New Testament writer, who inevitably puts his own meaning into them. The unclean thing which no Christian is to touch covers, and doubtless was intended to cover, all that it suggests to the simple Christian mind now. We are to have no compromising connection with anything in the world which is alien to God. Let us be as loving and conciliatory as we please, but as long as the world is what it is the Christian life can only maintain itself in it in an attitude of unbroken protest. There always will be things and people to whom the Christian has to say No! But the moral demand is put in a more positive form in 2Co 7:1. (J. Denney, B. D.)
Unequally yoked
I. There is an essential spiritual difference between those who are converted and those who are not. The line of demarcation is broad and conspicuous. It is between–
1. Righteousness and unrighteousness.
2. Light and darkness.
3. Christ and Satan.
4. Faith and infidelity.
5. The temple of God and the temple of idols.
II. Notwithstanding this difference the converted are in danger of being associated with the unconverted. Alas, we find such association in almost every department of life.
III. From such an association it is the duty of the converted to extricate themselves.
1. The nature of the separation. Come out from among them. It must be–
(1) Voluntary. Not to be driven out, but you must break away from all ties that bind you.
(2) Entire. Touch not the unclean thing. Sin is an unclean thing, unclean in its essence, its phases and its influences.
2. The encouragement to the separation. I will receive you, etc. As a Father, what does God do for His children?
(1) He loves them.
(2) He educates them. He educates the whole soul, not for temporal purposes, but for ends spiritual and everlasting.
(3) He guards them.
(4) He provides for them. He is able to do exceedingly abundantly, etc. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
Amusements and companies of the world
I. There seem to be two capital reasons why Christians should not by choice associate with those of a worldly or idolatrous spirit.
1. There is really no congeniality between the two spirits. As there is the want of a common taste, so there is the want of common topics. For a man to delight in the conversation of an irreligious party, bears on it the evidence of his own irreligion. And, if it be the symptom of having passed from death unto life that we love the brethren and their society, then may the love of another society, at utter antipodes, administer the suspicion of a still unregenerated heart, of a still unsubdued worldliness.
2. So to consort with the ungodly not only proves the existence of a kindred leaven in our spirit, but tends to ferment it–not only argues the ungodliness which yet is in the constitution, but tends to strengthen it the more. And who can doubt of the blight and the barrenness that are brought upon the spirit by its converse with the world?
II. Both these considerations are directly applicable touchstones by which to try, we will not say the lawfulness, but at least the expediency, of–
1. The theatre and all public entertainments. Think of the degree of congeniality which there is between the temperament of sacredness and the temperament of any of these assemblages. The matter next to be determined is, will the dance, the music, the merriment, the representation, and the whole tumult of that vanity attune the consent of the spirit to the feelings and exercises of sacredness? If there be risk of being exposed to the language of profaneness or impurity, this were reason enough why a Christian should maintain himself at the most determined distance from them both. There may be a difficulty in replying to the interrogation–What is the crime of music? yet would you feel yourself entitled to rebuke the scholar whose love for music dissipated his mind away from all the preparations indispensable to his professional excellence.
2. And, as it is with this worlds amusements, so may it be with this worlds companies. There may be none of the excesses of intemperance, of the execrations of profanity, of the sneers of infidelity. All may have been pure and dignified and intellectual, affectionate and kind. And then the question is put–where is the mighty and mysterious harm of all this? The answer is that, with all the attractive qualities which each member of the company referred to may personally realise, it is quite a possible thing that there be not one trait of godliness on the character of any one of them. They may all be living without God in the world, and by a tacit but faithful compact during the whole process of this conviviality, all thought and talk of the ever-present Deity may for the season be abandoned. And thus is it a very possible thing that, in simply prosecuting your round of invitations among this worlds amiable friends and hospitable families, you may be cradling the soul into utter insensibility against the portentous realities of another world–a spiritual lethargy may grow and gather every year till it settles down into the irrevocable sleep of death. (T. Chalmers, D. D.)
Unequally yoked
When travelling in America, as we neared Montreal the Ottawa river joined that of the St. Lawrence, upon which we were sailing. The former is remarkable for its muddiness, the latter for its cleanness. For a while they flowed side by side, so that they could easily be distinguished the one from the other. Eventually, however, they coalesced, and the one stream was dirty, not clean. So is it too often, alas! I thought, with those who wed unbelievers. For a time they run together smoothly, but at last one is changed by the other, and it is generally the unbeliever that gains the day. Not without abundant cause was the apostolic injunction given, Be not unequally yoked.
What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?–
Religious Separation
I. Its grounds.
1. Immorality. What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? Let a man amass enormous wealth, and he will find at his board the noblest in the land. It matters not that he became rich in some questionable way–no one asks about that. Again, talent breaks down the rigid line of demarcation. The accomplished man or woman who, though notoriously profligate, is tolerated–nay, courted–even in the Christian drawing-room. Now I do not say that the breaking down of conventional barriers is undesirable. If goodness did it–if a man, low in birth, were admired for his virtues–it would be well for this land of ours! But where wealth and talent, irrespective of goodness, alone possess the key to unlock our English exclusiveness, there plainly the apostolic injunction holds, because the reason of it holds: What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?
2. Irreligion. What part hath he that believeth with an infidel? There is much danger, however, in applying this law. It is perilous work when men begin to decide who are believers and who are not, if they decide by party badges. Nevertheless, there is an irreligion which he who runs may read. For the atheist is not merely he who professes unbelief, but, strictly speaking, every one who lives without God in the world. And the heretic is not merely he who has mistaken some Christian doctrine, but rather he who causes divisions among the brethren. And the idolater is not merely he who worships images, but he who gives his heart to something which is less than God. Now there are innumerable doubtful cases where charity is bound to hope the best; but there is also an abundance of plain eases: for where a mans god is money, or position in society, or rank, there the rule holds, Come ye apart.
II. The mode of this separation. It is not to be attained by the affectation of outward separateness. Beneath the Quakers sober, unworldly garb, there may be the canker of the love of gain; and beneath the guise of peace there may be the combative spirit, which is worse than war. Nor can you get rid of worldliness by placing a ban on particular places of entertainment and particular societies. The world is a spirit rather than a form; and just as it is true that wherever two or three are met together in His name, God is in the midst of them, so, if your heart be at one with His Spirit, you may, in the midst of worldly amusements–yet not without great danger, for you will have multiplied temptations–keep yourself unspotted from the world. (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)
What part hath he that believeth with an infidel?–
The nature, sources, and results of infidelity
I. Its nature. An infidel is one who does not believe, and who avowedly rejects the testimony of Divine revelation.
1. Infidelity has existed in all ages. It was displayed when our first parents listened to the tempter in paradise. It appeared in the unhallowed building of Babel. It rancoured in the heart of the Jew who rejected and crucified the Messiah. It directed the judgment of the Greek who pronounced the gospel foolishness, and laughed at the resurrection from the dead.
2. In more modern times, how numerous and varied have been its different systems! We may, however, arrange them in two classes.
(1) The Deists who believe in the Divine existence and a future state of being, but who refuse the authority of the Bible.
(2) The atheists, who deny the Divine existence; who proclaim that the world was formed by chance, or that it is eternal; who assign to man nothing but a refined material organisation, and who pronounce that death is the end of all being.
II. Its sources. The great source is the depravity.of the human heart. No doubt some have embraced infidel opinions after inquiry into the evidences of the Christian revelation; but have they carried an unbiassed judgment to such inquiries? I hold that the evidences of the Christian religion are so full, so plain, and so powerful, that they cannot be weighed with a proper judgment without at once receiving the homage of the heart. There are two dispositions, however, in the heart of man, to which infidelity may be more particularly assigned.
1. Pride. This is the principle which prominently prevailed in the first act of infidelity. And so it was when the lawgiver was denied and the Redeemer was rejected. The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts. If you will examine the doctrines and principles of Christianity, you will see much that is humiliating.
2. Sensuality. The whole system of the gospel is intended to put down the sensuality of depraved human nature. On the other hand, infidelity never yet promulgated one principle which could present a barrier against the gratification of lust. If it spoke of moral principle, of what force could that moral principle be when it suggested no motive for promoting it, no sanction for its exercise? Did not the Epicureans recognise that the chief good was pleasure? Did not Herbert teach that the indulgence of lust and anger were as innocent as the gratification of hunger and thirst? Did not Bolingbroke teach that lust was lawful if it could be indulged with safety? Did not Hume teach that adultery was only a crime when it was known? Did not Voltaire admit that the sensual appetites were to have a full and unrestrained gratification? When you consider the sentiments of its chief advocates, do you not perceive that it opens wide the flood-gates of licentiousness that it may rush upon the world?
III. Its results.
1. On the life that now is.
(1) As they affect individuals. The true dignity of man is destroyed by the dogmas which infidelity embraces. And where is comfort to be found in connection with infidelity? The infidel has gone away from his Fathers house, and what can he expect but to be fed on the husks which the swine do eat? He is gone away from the haven of peace, and what can he expect but to be tossed by the storm? He may join in the festive dance, but it is the emblem of raving madness; when he sinks in sickness, he is oppressed with the weight of sorrow; and when he falls in death, he is precipitated to the regions of despair.
(2) As they affect communities. Infidel opinions are hostile to that which constitutes a nations prosperity and grandeur. The withering effects of infidelity have been exemplified in France. Her efforts for freedom might have been brilliant and successful; she might have led the way of the empires of the earth in the march of true emancipation; but her impious dethronement of God and her nameless abominations have taught the lesson that if infidelity dwell in the bosom of the empire, it can only be as the most malignant destroyer.
2. On the life that is to come. While men continue in the avowed rejection of Christianity, it is impossible for them to be saved. (J. Parsons.)
What communion hath light with darkness?—
Communion with God
We need not refer to the special cases which may have been contemplated by St. Paul when giving utterance to these emphatic questions. They may be taken in the most general sense, as indicating the impossibility of there being any agreement or fellowship between God and man unless a great moral change pass over the latter. We need not tell you, that in regard of the associations of life, there must be something of a similarity of disposition and desire. Unless there be congeniality of character, there may indeed be outward alliance; but there cannot be that intimate communion that the alliance itself is supposed to imply. And further than this–a sameness of tendency or pursuit appears evidently to form an immediate link between parties who would otherwise have very little in common. You observe, for instance, how men c,f science seem attracted to each other, though strangers by birth, and even by country. But this is not communion or fellowship in the sense or to the extent intended by St. Paul. This is only agreement on one particular ground. Take the parties away from that ground, and they will probably be inclined to move in quite opposite directions. We shall first glance at what is mentioned–fellowship or communion with God; and we shall then be in a position to press home the energetic questions of the apostle–What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? Now, you can require no proof that God and the wicked man cannot be said to have fellowship or communion, though God be about that wicked mans path, and about his bed, and spieth out all his ways. There is no proposing of the same object or end, for God proposes His own glory, whereas the wicked man proposes the gratification of his own sinful propensities. You see at once the contradiction between the assertions that a man is in fellowship with God and yet loves the present world. In short, it must be clear to you that the phraseology of our text implies a state of concord, or friendship–a state, in fact, on mans part, of what we commonly understand by religion–the human will having become harmonious with the Divine, and the creature proposing the same object as the Creator. And therefore we conclude that the questions before us imply that there can be nothing of religious communication between man and his Maker unless there have been some process of reconciliation. You are to remember that man is by nature in a state of enmity to God, born in sin, shapen in corruption, and far gone from original righteousness. Take away the work of the Mediator Christ, that work through which alone the alienation of our nature, its unrighteousness, its darkness, can be corrected, and the Creator and the creature can never meet in friendship. Now you will readily understand that up to this point we have confined ourselves to the urging the necessity for a great change on mans part from unrighteousness to righteousness, from darkness to light, in order to his having fellowship with God. We would examine how God and man may be at peace, now that reconciliation has been made. You are to remember that whatever the provisions made by Christ for our pardon and acceptance, we retain whilst yet sojourning on earth a deprived nature, fleshly lusts, which war against the soul, sinful propensities which may indeed be arrested but not eradicated. And can a being such as this have communion with that God who is a consuming fire against every form and degree of iniquity? Is this fellowship possible even though certain causes of separation have been removed–because the debt has been paid, or because punishment has been vicariously endured? You are to take heed that you do not narrow the results of Christs work of mediation. There was a vast deal more effected by this work than the mere removal of certain impediments to the outgoing of the Divine love towards man. The process of agreement, as undertaken and completed by Christ, had a respect to continuance as well as to commencement. God and man are brought into fellowship if man accept Christ as his Surety, for then the death and obedience of Christ are placed to his account, and accordingly he appears as one on whom justice has no claim, and on whom love may therefore smile. But how are they to continue in fellowship, seeing that man as a fallen creature is sure to do much that will be offensive to God, and that God in virtue of His holiness is pledged to hostility with evil? Indeed the communion could not last if it were not that the Mediator ever lives as an Intercessor. It could not last if it were not that the work of the Son procured for us the influence of the Spirit. But combine these two facts and you may see that Christ made not only provision for uniting God and man, but for keeping them united. The question as to what fellowship, what communion there can be between things in their own nature directly opposed, is of course to be considered as only a forcible mode of expressing an impossibility. There cannot be fellowship between righteousness and unrighteousness, there cannot be communion between darkness and light. Now we wish you to consider this impossibility with reference to a future state: we cannot conceal from ourselves that there is a great deal of vague hope of heaven which takes little or no account of what must necessarily be the character of the inhabitants of heaven. But the great thing to be here impressed upon men, who in spite of their musings on heaven give evident tokens of being still worldly-minded–it is, that they are altogether mistaken as to the worth, the attractiveness of heaven. They are not indeed mistaken as to heaven being a scene of overwhelming splendour and unimagined blessedness, but they are utterly mistaken in supposing that it would be so to themselves. They forget that in order to anything of happiness there must be a correspondence between the dispositions of the inhabitants of a world and the enjoyments of that world; otherwise in vain will the Creator have hung a scene with majesty and scattered over its surface the indications of His goodness. It is nothing, then, that we have a relish for descriptions of heaven. The question is whether we have any conformity to the inhabitants of heaven. Eternally to be in communion with God, eternally to have fellowship with God–why this suggests the most terrible of thoughts–thoughts of being for ever out of my element, unless God and myself are to be of one mind–if I am to remain unrighteous while He is righteous, if I am to be darkness while He is light. We have no right to think that this friendship between God and man is effected unless at least commenced on this side of the grave. Go not away with the thought that you may indeed have nothing here of the character which is necessary to the happiness of heaven, but that such character will be imparted to you hereafter. (H. Melvill, B. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 14. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers] This is a military term: keep in your own ranks; do not leave the Christian community to join in that of the heathens. The verb signifies to leave one’s own rank, place, or order, and go into another; and here it must signify not only that they should not associate with the Gentiles in their idolatrous feasts, but that they should not apostatize from Christianity; and the questions which follow show that there was a sort of fellowship that some of the Christians had formed with the heathens which was both wicked and absurd, and if not speedily checked would infallibly lead to final apostasy.
Some apply this exhortation to pious persons marrying with those who are not decidedly religious, and converted to God. That the exhortation may be thus applied I grant; but it is certainly not the meaning of the apostle in this place. Nevertheless, common sense and true piety show the absurdity of two such persons pretending to walk together in a way in which they are not agreed. A very wise and very holy man has given his judgment on this point: “A man who is truly pious, marrying with an unconverted woman, will either draw back to perdition, or have a cross during life.” The same may be said of a pious woman marrying an unconverted man. Such persons cannot say this petition of the Lord’s prayer, Lead us not into temptation. They plunge into it of their own accord.
For what fellowship, c.] As righteousness cannot have communion with unrighteousness, and light cannot dwell with darkness so Christ can have no concord with Belial, nor can he that believeth have any with an infidel. All these points were self-evident; how then could they keep up the profession of Christianity, or pretend to be under its influence, while they associated with the unrighteous, had communion with darkness, concord with Belial, and partook with infidels?
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
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: , 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 of infidels merely, I cannot tell, especially considering that the apostle, 1Co 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 Lords table, {as 2Co 5:1-21} maintaining intimate communion with them, &c.
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, 1Co 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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
14. Be notGreek,“Become not.”
unequally yoked“yokedwith one alien in spirit.” The image is from the symbolicalprecept of the law (Le 19:19),”Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind”;or the precept (De 22:10),”Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together.”Compare De 7:3, forbiddingmarriages with the heathen; also 1Co7:39. The believer and unbeliever are utterly heterogeneous.Too close intercourse with unbelievers in other relations also isincluded (2Co 6:16; 1Co 8:10;1Co 10:14).
fellowshipliterally,”share,” or “participation.”
righteousnessthe stateof the believer, justified by faith.
unrighteousnessrather,as always translated elsewhere, “iniquity”; the state ofthe unbeliever, the fruit of unbelief.
lightof whichbelievers are the children (1Th5:5).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers,…. This seems to be an allusion to the law in De 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 1Co 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:
for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? This, with what is said in the following verse, and in the beginning of the next to that, contain reasons or arguments engaging believers to attend to the exhortation given not to keep company with unbelievers. By “righteousness” is meant righteous persons, who are made the righteousness of God in Christ, to whom Christ is made righteousness, or to whom the righteousness of Christ is imputed for justification; and who also have principles of grace and holiness in their hearts, or have the kingdom of God in them, which consists of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost; and who being made free from the dominion of sin, are become servants of righteousness: and by unrighteousness is designed unrighteous persons, who are destitute of a justifying righteousness, are filled with all unrighteousness, and are, as it were, a mass and lump of iniquity; now, what fellowship can there be between persons of such distant characters?
And what communion hath light with darkness? regenerate men are made light in the Lord; they are enlightened into their state and condition by nature, to see the exceeding sinfulness of sin, to behold the glory, beauty, fulness, and suitableness of Christ, so as to be sensible of their need of him, and to be able to look unto him for life and salvation; they are enlightened more or less into the doctrines of the Gospel, and the duties of religion; and their path is a shining light, shining more and more unto the perfect day. Unregenerate persons are “darkness” itself; they are dark and ignorant of God in Christ, of the way of salvation by Christ, of the work of the Spirit of God upon the heart, and of the mysteries of grace; they know not themselves, nor the sad estate they are in; they are born, and brought up in darkness worse than Egyptian darkness; they go on in it, and if grace prevent not, will be cast into utter and eternal darkness. Now, what “communion” can there be between persons so different one from another? for what is more so than light and darkness? these the God of nature has divided from each other; and they are in nature irreconcilable to one another, and so they are in grace.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers ( ). No other example of this verb has yet been found, though the adjective from which it is apparently formed, (yoked with a different yoke) occurs in Le 19:19 of the union of beasts of different kinds. In De 22:10 we read: “Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together.” Literally, “Stop becoming ( present imperative, not aorist subj.) unequally yoked with unconverted heathen (unbelievers).” Some were already guilty. Marriage is certainly included, but other unions may be in mind. Cf. Eph 5:7. Paul gives as the reason () for this prohibition five words in questions to distinguish the contrasts.
Fellowship (). Sharing with and followed by associative instrumental case of (righteousness) and iniquity (). A pertinent challenge today when church members wink at violations of laws of the land and laws of God.
Communion (). Partnership to light ( dative case) with (), facing darkness.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Unequally yoked [] . Only here in the New Testament. Not in classical Greek, nor in Septuagint, though the kindred adjective eJterozugov of a diverse kind, occurs Lev 19:19. Unequally gives an ambiguous sense. It is not inequality, but difference in kind, as is shown by the succeeding words. The suggestion was doubtless due to the prohibition in Deu 22:9, against yoking together two different animals. The reference is general, covering all forms of intimacy with the heathen, and not limited to marriage or to idolfeasts.
The different shades of fellowship expressed by five different words in this and the two following verses are to be noted.
Fellowship [] . Only here in the New Testament. The kindred verb metecw to be partaker is found only in Paul ‘s epistles and in Hebrews : metocov partner, partaker, only in Hebrews and Luk 5:7. Having part with is the corresponding English expression.
Righteousness – unrighteousness [ – ] . Lit., what sharing is there unto righteousness and lawlessness ? Dikaiosunh righteousness, though the distinctively Pauline sense of righteousness by faith underlies it, is used in the general sense of rightness according to God ‘s standard.
Communion [] . See on Luk 5:10; Act 2:42.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Be ye not” (me ginesthe) “Become ye not,” or “you all do not become;” come to a state of attachment to worldliness, Rom 12:1-2.
2) “Unequally yoked together with unbelievers,” (heterozugountes apistois) “unequally or discordantly yoked (hooked up with or tied to) unbelievers,” or unfaithful, faithless ones. No covenant attachment is to be entered between the saved and unsaved, the profane and the holy; such brings discord, disharmony. Deu 7:2-4.
3) “For what fellowship,” (tis gar metoche) “For what kind of share,” or part. The Corinthians’ enlargement of heart and affection was not to be so broadly interpreted as to ignore the Divine principle of separation from sin to fellowship in truth, Eph 5:6-11.
4) “Hath righteousness with unrighteousness?” (dikaiosune kai anomia) “have righteousness and lawlessness?” what reciprocating interests have these two? None! 1Co 6:19-20; 1Co 10:31.
5) “And what communion, ‘ (e tis koinonia) “or what fellowship,” common communion; or “how can two walk together,” in harmony and accord, except they be agree, of like kind in affections? 1Ki 18:21; Amo 3:3.
6) “Hath light with darkness?” (photi pros skotos) “has light with darkness?” Eph 5:8; Joh 8:12; Joh 12:48. The life of God’s is to be one of light, Mat 5:15-16. True saints are not to be discordantly yoked with unbelievers in friendship, marriage, trade, or married life. This is the Christian, Bible standard. All should try to pursue, for harmony in life, with God.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
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, (608) reproves the fault into which they had fallen. Now we mentioned in the former epistle (609) 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, (Eph 5:11,)
and to hold out the hand to them (610) 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. (611) 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.
For what fellowship He confirms his exhortation on the ground of its being an absurd, and, as it were, monstrous connecting together of things in themselves much at variance; for these things can no more coalesce than fire and water. In short it comes to this, that unless they would have everything thrown into confusion, they must refrain from the pollutions of the wicked. Hence, too, we infer, that even those that do not in their hearts approve of superstitions are, nevertheless, polluted by dissimulation if they do not openly and ingenuously stand aloof from them.
(608) “ Parlant comme en puissance et authorite de pere;” — “Speaking as with the power and authority of a father.”
(609) See vol. 1, p. 282.
(610) “ Aux infideles;” — “To unbelievers.”
(611) “ Joachim Camerarius, in his Commentary on the New Testament, (Cambridge 1642,) suggests, that ἐτεροζυγοῦντες, may have a reference to a balance, and that Paul — would not have the Corinthians unequally balanced with unbelievers. The verb ζυγοστατειν, as he observes, is employed to denote the adjusting of scales in balance. It seems more natural, however, to understand the word, as Calvin and most other interpreters do, as derived from ἓτερος, ( Another,) and ζυγὸς, as meaning a yoke, and as employed by Paul to mean, drawing on the other side of a yoke with another; or, as Beza explains it, “ Qui cum sint divers’ conditionis, tamen in eodem opere mutuam operam pr’stant;” — “Those who, while in a different condition from each other, do nevertheless take their corresponding part in the same work.” — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
THE PERIL OF THE PUTRID TOUCH
2Co 6:14-18
IN continuing this series of sermons, I want to speak this evening on The Peril of the Putrid Touch. The dictionary defines putrid as, in a state of putrifaction; tainted, and we will so employ it in this discourse.
The great Apostle Paul is writing his Second Letter to the Corinthians, and in his earnest endeavor to bring these people to right thinking and holy living, inserts this earnest, comprehensive appeal,
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the Living God; as God hath said, I will dwelt in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: and I will receive you,
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty (2Co 6:14-18).
It is the expression of an Apostles interest in holy living, with all of its consequent blessing of fellowship with the Father.
Two or three suggestions for our study:
THE TOUCH DEFINED
We discover in the beginning of this text Pauls definition of the putrid touch.
We are experiencing it when we yoke ourselves with unbelievers. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers. The reference here is doubtless to one of two scenes which were often witnessed in the Orient. In Deu 22:10 there is the plain command, Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. Such was an unequal yoking. Their very characters made their fellowship in the yoke an incongruity; and, if there could be a degradation of the lower animal life, surely the ox suffers an indignity when thus associated with the foul-breathed, loud-mouthed, homely-appearing beastthe ass. Possibly, however, the Apostle had in mind that stranger scene where women are yoked with cattle to drag the plow as it scratches the field of the Orient; where human life, made in the image of God, is degraded to the level of the beasts of burden. In either view, the Christian is not to yoke himself with the bad-breathed, loud-voiced unbeliever, whose words are a stench, and whose infidelity is vociferously expressed. Much less is the man indwelt by the Spirit of God to connect himself with those whose unbelief render them beastly.
When Colonel Ingersoll was yet alive, he wrote these things, I like a man who has good feeling for everybody. One man said to another, Will you take a glass of wine? I dont drink. Will you smoke a cigar? I dont smoke. Maybe you will chew something. Let us eat some hay. I dont eat hay. Well, then, good-by; you are no company for either man or beast! was the Colonels farewell. No wonder the Colonel did not like this fellow. He was poor company for the intemperate and unclean, and no company for a beast. If he had only been willing to eat some hay, the Colonel would have stood in the same stall with him in the perfect appreciation of his good fellowship; but the sober, clean man can poorly afford to drink wine, or to smoke, or to eat hay; and certainly the Christian man cannot afford to stand in the stall with the man whose infidelity has cultivated in him the habit of strong drink, or other sins. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.
But the Apostle further defines this putrid touch as fellowship with unrighteousness. His question is, What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? The touch of unbelief means a daily temptation to iniquity; and Paul here relates that which is associated in lifeunbelief and iniquity. The popular view of unbelief is not the Biblical one. We have come to think that if only a man is moral, it makes little difference whether he believes on the Son of God. We should remember that unbelief is at the bottom of all sin. It is the very atmosphere in which Satan flourishes, and souls are doomed.
Charles Spurgeon tells of a company of ministers who were disputing whether it was a sin, in men, that they did not believe the Gospel. While they were discussing it a young layman entered the room and said, Gentlemen, am I in the presence of Christians? Are you believers in the Bible, or are you not? They said, We are Christians, of course. Then he said, Does not the Scripture say, Of sin because they believed not on Me? And is it not the condemnation of sinners that they do not believe on Christ? Then Spurgeon comments, I would never invent a sophism to prove that it is no sin on the part of the ungodly not to believe, for I read in the Scriptures, He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God. Is it not a sin for a creature to doubt the Word of his Maker? Is it not a crime and an insult to the Deity for me, an atom, a particle of dust, to dare to deny His words? Is it not the very summit of arrogance and extremity of pride for a son of Adam to say, even in his heart, God, I doubt Thy grace; God, I doubt Thy love; God, I doubt Thy power? I want to tell you to-night, that I am profoundly impressed that whenever those grosser sins which startle society are committed, unbelief lies back of them; and when we yoke ourselves unequally with unbelievers we are preparing the way for fellowship with iniquity. People who are to escape some of the most dreadful perils of this world must learn that many insiduous attractions are as deadly in character as they are beautiful in appearance; and that many people whose ways seem winning are only applying the arts of destruction.
Do you not recall how in Gibbons Rome he tells the story of the people of Thessaly, who were invited in the name of their sovereign to the games of the circus; and such was their insatiate avidity for those amusements that they threw off their fears and suspicion and attended in great numbers. As soon as the assembly was complete, soldiers, who had secretly been posted around the circus, received a signalnot for the races, but for a general massacre. An awful carnage lasted for hours, and somewhere between 7,000 and 15,000 people died in their own blood. The devil has changed some of his ways. He does not slaughter the bodies of men as he used to do; but his inventions are to entice mens souls, luring multitudes; and the great Apostle makes his appeal to Christian people that they have no fellowship with the iniquitous, and he sounds a needed warning which wise men and women will regard.
There is, however, a third element in this peril of the putrid touch which the Apostle calls communion with darkness. What communion hath light with darkness? Of believers Christ has said, Ye are the light of the world. And the Apostle means to say, If that be true, ye should not love darkness, for light opposes darkness; light dispels darkness. Ones character is determined absolutely by whether he loves light or darkness. It is a matter of suspicion, to say the least, when a man has to guard his mail lest it come under the eyes of his wife or Christian friend; when a woman has to throw a cloak over her conduct that she may put off guard some of those whose inherent right it is to know every intent of her heart.
It is a material illustration of the great moral fact that the danger places of a city are the dark placesthe places where evil men work; and when we have a dark secret in the life we are trampling the edge of the pit. Some centuries ago, before gas or electricity were thought of, the mayor of the great City of London commanded that a light should be suspended in front of the houses on dark evenings; and as the watchman walked his beat he cried out ever and anon, Hang out your lights; and the people who failed to do it were prosecuted by law. It is essential to safety, for sin loves darkness!
In the great City of Chicago, just opposite where the old auditorium and its hotel stands, there was a house of the deepest infamy. Every art of the Adversary was practiced behind its walls. The police attempted again and again to break it up, but, though it was raided often, it ran on and on until, by and by, when the great auditorium went up and the electric lights were flashed in front of it, and the whole street was illuminated, these children of darkness, whose awful deeds could not bear exposure, removed, without a word from mayor or any man.
Irving, in his Life of Columbus, tells us how when on his third voyage the provisions were all either consumed or spoiled, the starving men ate nothing in the day time, but after night had fallen they consumed in the darkness food from which the stomach would have revolted had they even so much as looked upon it in the day time. Oh, my friends, if we would see our sins as they are, loath them as does the Lord our God, and fling them from us forever, animated by utter disgust, let us drag them into the light, for If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the Blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin (1Jn 1:7).
SEPARATION ADVISED
After the Apostle has called attention to the peril of the putrid touch, he calls upon Gods people to separate themselves from sinners, Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters.
God wants a separate people. In the Old Testament He said to Israel, Ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me; and again, The Lord hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people. This phrase is often repeated in those Scriptures. In the New Testament He speaks of purifying unto Himself a peculiar people. This does not mean the cloister. Christ never prayed that His people might be taken out from the world, but that they might be kept from the evil which is in the world. Abraham was never asked to be a hermit, but he was expected to behave well in the midst of heathen. They were to behold in him an example, and come to understand something of what the grace of God can do for a man. I know of nothing that would settle more of our perplexing questions than a willingness to separate ourselves from sinners. There are some things that are not positively wrong in themselves, but are so fully and completely appropriated by sinners, that I cannot afford to practice them; the utmost that can be claimed for them is that they are on the borderland. They are the peculiar property of the men and women who, rejecting Jesus, fulfil the lusts of the flesh.
A brilliant woman, a teacher of young women in the University of Lafayette, Indiana, with whom she was so influential, used to say to the girl students, Young women, when you are in doubt about a thing, dont. Who can question that her advice was wholesome? What do the Scriptures mean when they declare that No man can serve two masters? What is the significance of Johns sentence, Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him (1Jn 2:15)? Now I am not asking that you assume a long face; I am not asking that you dress in black unless it becomes you. I certainly am not requesting the men to wear high collars, rectors vests, in order to look pious; or the women to don Salvation Army or Quaker bonnets, or part their hair in the middle and comb it straight, unless these things are comely. But I am asking that deportment be exemplary; I am asking that men and women go to no place, participate in no thing with which Christ would be displeased. I am asking that we crucify the lusts of the flesh and subject ourselves to personal inconveniences, and even positive humiliation and shame, if need be, for Christs sake. If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him.
Charles Spurgeon has a parable about a certain king whose son was sent upon an errand to a far country, and I suspect that this parable is based upon the New Testament one to which it is so similar. He was the lawful prince of that far country, but they would not acknowledge himmocked him, set him in the pillory, and they scoffed at him, and pelted him with filth. Now there was one in that country who loved the prince and who stood up for him, and when they pelted him with filth this man was so near that he got some of it in his own face. He tenderly wiped the filth from the face of his prince, and, as often as possible, stood before him and shielded him. Finally one day this man was called to the court, and the peers and their courtiers were sitting in their places when the king called for that man. As the man approached the king said, Make way princes and nobles, make way; here is a man I want to honor. He suffered for the sake of my son; he stood with him when they were scorning and scoffing at him. Make way, I tell you, for he shall sit at my right hand. There is no need to interpret this parable. The man who endures for Christs sake is the man whom God will yet set up upon High. Truly he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
He wants a sanctified people. The same God who said, Be ye separate, also added, and touch not the unclean thing. The Bible clearly teaches sanctification. It does not consist in a speech, but in an experience. The man who says, I am sanctified, can hardly understand the meaning of the term. The man who hates sin, and keeps close to Jesus lest he should get into it, and who humbly confesses and asks to be forgiven, has some experience of sanctification. The best expression of this great Biblical word sanctification is not in a creed, but, rather, in conduct. Touch not the unclean thing. The Pharisee who stood and prayed thus within himself, I thank God that I am not as other men, was not sanctified, his own opinion to the contrary notwithstanding. The publican who smote upon his breast and cried, God be merciful to me a sinner, went down to his house justified, and justification is an essential element in sanctification. When I meet people who are striving to surrender all to the Spirit, who really desire His infilling, that they may be better servants of His willpeople who are longing to snap every chain that binds them to any wrong, and to be patterns of all that is lovely and of good repute, I am face to face with those whom God is sanctifying through His Truth. I do not pretend to say how long it will be before that is accomplished. The great work of grace can be done in a very short time when the conditions are met. The times and seasons are with Him; the surrender is with you and with me. Truly did Charles Wesley pray when he said,
Breathe, oh breathe thy Holy Spirit Into every troubled breast;Let us all Thy grace inherit;Let us find Thy promised rest.Take away the love of sinning;Take our load of guilt away;End the work of Thy beginning;Bring us to eternal day.
Carry on Thy new creation;Pure and holy may we be;Let us see our whole salvationPerfectly secured by Thee;Changed from glory into glory,Till in Heaven we take our place,Till we cast our crowns before Thee,Lost in wonder, love, and praise.
SONSHIP PROFFERED
The last sentence in this text is its sweetest, And I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters. Dr. John Watson, in his volume, The Mind of the Master, speaking on the Universal Fatherhood of God, says, One is aghast to discover that this doctrine * * for long centuries passed out of the Christian consciousness. The Anglican communion has thirty-nine articles with one on the descent into hell; one on the marriage of priests; one on how to avoid people that are excommunicated, and not one on the Fatherhood. The Presbyterian communion has a confession of thirty-three chapters which deal in a trenchant manner with great mysteries, but there is not one expounding the Fatherhood of God. And yet, if Watson studied the Scriptures better, he would not be surprised, for the universal Fatherhood of God is not found in the Scriptures. Why then should it be in creeds, ancient or modem? Christ plainly taught that men who were of His Father were those who believed on Him. With awful candor He told those who preferred darkness to the light, Ye are of your father, the devil. Our text confirms Christs speech. The Apostle does not present God as the Father of all men; he presents Him as ready to become the Father of such as would separate themselves from sin and touch no unclean thing.
God proffers His paternity. He says, I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you. Oh, how willing no man can ever tell! There is not a lost man on earth whose cry does not stir in the bosom of Deity the longing for paternity. God says with reference to every sinful man, How I would like to become a Father to him; and I would be his Father if he would let me. If he would only renounce the evil fatherthe Adversaryand turn to me, I would adopt him into my family and make him mine own.
I know young women who anticipate the bridal day with double pleasure because they are to marry sons of such noble sires. They are willing to be daughters to these men; they admire them for their nobility of character and are pleased to be able to win their favor. And, oh, men and women, the most marvelous thing in all our history is the circumstance that we can give our hands in marriage to the Lord of lords, the King of kings, and that when once we have taken our vows of loyalty to Him we become children of God, for His statement is, I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
I wish I could make you understand to-night what joy it would give Him if only there went up from this audience the voices of the willing, the voices of men and women who should say, Lord, receive us; Lord, save us; Lord, let us become Thy children. How many of you have ever read that wonderful story of Anthony Hunt, the drover, who used to live out on the western prairies? He tells us how there was not a house in sight; the neighbors were at long distances. He went off one day to sell fifty head of cattle, and to buy some groceries and dry goods, and his little baby girl said, Papa, bring me a doll. He promised. And as he went out of the yard gate, she cried, Papa, buy a big one!
The cattle were sold; the doll was purchased, and along with calico, and tea, and sugar, was being borne home; and he said, I was anticipating what a good time my little girl would have with it. Long before I reached home the night had set in; and a dark night it was. The rain was falling in torrents. I urged on my horse and as she responded I heard a cry. I stopped short and listened; I called and it answered; I couldnt see a thing. I got down and groped about and couldnt find a thing. I began to be timid. I was a drover and was known to have money about me. I thought it might be a trap to catch me, and there rob and murder me. I was half inclined to run away. But once more I heard that piteous cry, and, said I, If any mans child is hereabouts, Anthony Hunt is not the man to let it lie here and die. Following the sound I was attracted to a hollow under a hill, and there, surely enough, I stumbled right on the little dripping thing. It moaned and sobbed as I took it in my arms. Once on my horse I tucked the little soaked thing under my coat as best I could. It seemed tired to death, and soon cried itself to sleep against my bosom. Coming near to my home I saw my own windows lighted, and I supposed wife had done it to show me the way; but entering the door I saw a great company of neighbors who had been gathered from long distances, and my wife amid them was weeping. Oh dont tell him, she said; it will kill him. What is it, neighbors? I cried. Sit down, said one; what is that in your arms? A poor lost child. I answered. Take it, will you; and care for it; I feel faint. And as I pulled back my coat and put the little one into his arms, lo, the face of my own child! It was my own darling that I had picked up and saved from perishing. After I left, in her eagerness to meet papa and get the doll, she had started down the road, and you can imagine the rest. It is not much of a story, neighbors, he added, but I think of it often in the nights, and wonder how I could bear to live had I not stopped and searched in answer to that little cry for help. Shall man be better than God? Oh, let me say to you tonight, to those of you who have wandered so far from Him as to be lost: there beats in His bosom the Father-heart, and if you will only call, He will come and hunt and find and make you His own.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
HOMILETIC ANALYSIS.2Co. 6:14 to 2Co. 7:1
The paragraph may be gathered up round the central figure
The Temple of the Living God.The Church collectively, then, is:
I. The scene of special Divine manifestation.
1. His manifestation makes holy ground. The flame which played harmless around the Bush in Horeb made a spot where, for the nonce, every man must tread with bare feet. [I.e. he is no better than the poorest or than a slave when he stands there in the presence of God; seen from Gods elevation all disparities of rank are merged in one common lowliness.] So whilst God is manifest in all His works,in Nature to those who have eyes opened to see Him; in mankind,for there is no need to deny, no honour done to God or the Church in denying, that God by the redemptive Gift of the Spirit, is amongst all men, of every race and religion and age; yet He is most conspicuously manifest in His choicest Work, His Church. So also a Church has no holiness unless He be in its midst, in its means of grace, in its success, in its members: all, in all. Solomon built his Palace for Jehovah, as Moses workmen had, long before, made the Tent; but, until God entered, and in both dwelt amongst them, the one was a Palace only, and not a Temple, and the other was only a tent, larger and of more costly materials than the others round it, but not the Tabernacle. [Cf. even the theory of classical heathenism (Smith, Dictionary of Antiq.): It was necessary then for a temple to be sanctioned by the gods, whose will was ascertained by the augurs, and to be consecrated or dedicated by the will of man (pontiffs). When the sanction of the gods had not been obtained, and where the mere act of man had consecrated a place to the gods, such a place was only a sacrum, sacrarium, or sacellum.] So, also, let there be an organisation of the most thorough and perfect, part and part closely articulated, wisely related, admirably adapted to its high purpose; let wealth, numbers, influence, all fill the Church roll; yet if there be no presence of God, there is no Church. If He be not amongst them, they are not His people. Your housenot Myis left unto you, was said when the material fabric was at its culmination of beauty and glory, the treasury never better filled, the ritual never better observed, the show of religiosity never greater in all the history of Israel. But no Shekinah, though a Holy of Holies was there still; no Presence, to be hid by as splendid a Veil as had ever been wrought. Pompey was amazed to find the inmost shrine empty. The world sometimes makes proof of the Church; the inquirer penetrates within, and within again; is it only to find a Most Holy without a God? Then that Church is no Temple of God; or is one no longer. The inquirer finds in even a half-organised Church like that of Corinth: God is among you of a truth (1Co. 14:25).
2. This is the glory of the Church.When Solomon substituted Temple for Tabernacle, everything was new, with one exception; everything but that was more costly and on a larger scale. The same ark was brought into the new Sanctuary from the old. Looked, perhaps, small, unsuitable, unworthy, mean; its art very far beneath that of the grand new shrine of Solomons advanced days. But he dared not change that. The throne of Jehovah, His mercy-seat [=throne of grace, with the elements of the name reversed], the testimony of His Law,all these must be the same. The same God must own, hallow, inhabit, the new Who had in that way made the old a dwelling-place of God on earth. [As, then, the continuous connection with the same personality year after year is no small note of the identity of the body; so also, that the organisation should, age after age, be the dwelling-place (or, to change the figure, the ) of the same God, is one of the notes of the One Church, in all the Churches, ages, creeds, lands.]
II. Separated that it may be this.
1. Here again the Jewish idea coincided with the heathen; it was universal. In classical heathenism, e.g., the separateness was of the essential of a temple. In strictness the templum, like the Greek , was the separated area, within which usually rose the special building that came to appropriate the name of Temple. It was, literally, marked off, as well as hallowed by rite and sacrifice, from the outside area beyond. Tabernacle and Temple in Israel had their surrounding court and open space, as well as the true shrine [the of this passage] which stood in its midst. [Cf. the bounds set round the base of Sinai.] If God is to dwell in the midst of a people, peculiarly His own (Tit. 2:14), His own purchased possession, they must come out and be separate.
2. Separateness is inevitable, whether we start from the requirement of the nature of God, or from the innate difference between the sons and daughters and the enemies of God (Jas. 4:4). What communion? What fellowship? What part? It lies in the -of ecclesia. The congregation called together, is first of all called out from the world. Singularity is not necessarily the true separateness; oddity is not certainly or invariably holiness, or a mark of it. No virtue in mere disconformity. But given the holiness, given the real heart separateness, then outward distinction, of perhaps a very marked type, is inevitable. None know it, or expect it, with a more sure instinct than do the excluded world. If the figure be pushed so far, as it may, andto correspond with the factsmust often be; if, in the very Temple of the Church there be, as in the literal Temple of sacred antiquity, an outer court of inferior holiness, and an inner court, and again an inmost building, with its shrine; yet even the outer court must have its wall. It cannot be left the mere open ground, undistinguishable from the space beyond. Certainly the Church is not co-extensive with the redeemed Race. Come out from among them.
3. The customary code of distinctions between Christians and non-Christians, between Church and world,not only formulated in registered membership, or in attendance at the Lords Table, but in amusements, books, friendships, and the like,is no gratuitous limitation of liberty or pleasure,which are naturally as desirable to Christians as to anybody else; it is only the orderly statement of the issue of repeated, numerous, varied experiments, and these often made by those who would not unwillingly have discovered, if it had been possible, a modus vivendi under which Church and world need not have stood so sharply apart. The things tabooed are only so put under ban, because often verified experiment has shown, either that they are the expressions of a heart-alienation from God, or that they minister to it; a heart which cannot be that of sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty.
4. Particular case of this, often drawn out from 2Co. 6:14 : Mixed marriages. [Obviously there are many other cases, analogous in the principle which governs them.] It is a false start in building the house (Psa. 127:1), when a young couple stand side by side before God, to plight their wedding troth either to other, perfectly fitted for each other, physically, in education, in character, in social status,perfectly, in all but the one thing. For years, perhaps, to have every taste, every interest, in common, their two wills working together in perfect harmony, the twain one,until they come to the deepest interest of all; then, deeply sundered! Not a secret between them, except here. They can talk about everything else together, with the most open-hearted confidence, but on the Dearest Friendship, upon the deepest joys and sorrows, the closest interests of all, the lips of one are closed. It is a poor fulfilment of the ideal of marriage, when, as the two travel side by side on lifes journey, there is between them the deep and far-reaching cleavage which parts between the new creation and the old nature. A poor finish to the married life, when, after fifty, sixty years, during which husband and wife have lovingly lived one life, the wife, perhaps, goes forward to her part in the inheritance incorruptible, etc., and he, to find that he has been treasuring up wrath against the Day of wrath. Peter (1Pe. 3:7) has a fine expression: Heirs together of the Grace of Life, i.e. heirs of the Life which is life indeed (1Ti. 2:15, best reading), and which is a grace of God. An ideal marriage is suggested there. Husband and wife marrying with great expectations indeed! Jointly heirs of Life; both with Life eternal as a holy, glorious reversion. Fellow-travellers, helpers of each others weary footsteps. Held together by the profound common understanding which spiritual have with spiritual. An unequally yoked marriage usually either means a cross for life for the Christiana cross of his own making, never designed for him by Godor that Christian turning back again into the world.
Some Christian business men will take no partner but a Christian, on the very intelligible ground that, since religion is to come into business, as into all else in their life, it may occurin fact, it doesthat they should on principle be divided as to the acceptance or non-acceptance of a business proposal, or as to the following up, or the turning aside from, a promising opening. In all such matters, the Christian man is accustomed to do nothing without reference to a great Adviser, Whose advice, once obtained, he is bound to follow. But if his partner can be told nothing of this Divine Counsellor? If all such motives and reasons seem to him amiable but unpractical ideals, with which he has scant patience? What communion? etc. Take the best specimen of the man of the world in business, and take a poor specimen of Christian,it may be possible to show the worldling more admirable. But take one of the many fine samples of Christian men of business, one whose religion permeates and pervades, and has a real hold upon, every transaction with the outside world, and upon all his dealings with his employs; yoke himnot by any means with the worst specimen of worldly man, butwith a man of fair, or very good, business character who, however, makes no claim or attempt to mix up religion with business; it is inevitable, either that the Christian man must sooner or later adjust himself to the standard of his yoke-fellow, or that their relations will be strained till they both discover, What part hath he that believeth? etc. Unequally yoked in pleasure-taking will follow similar lines. More decidedly than in other cases must the word often be used in regard to this, the unclean thing. Novels whose motif is some irregular relation between man and woman; irregular being euphemistic for adultery or fornication, at least such as is condemned in the Court of the Great Judge of hearts (Mat. 5:27-28). Plays whose code of morality will not bear being laid by the side of the rule of even the surface reading of the Ten Commandments, to say nothing of their deeper, searching significance, touching motive and secret thought. Places whose atmosphere and associations are notoriously unfriendly to the spiritual life; where the non-Christian does not expect to find a Christian man. Say to him: What are you doing, reading that book,you, a Christian? Or, What affinity can bring you here,you, a Christian? What possible liking can you have for the atmosphere of this place? Of no practical service to discuss or defend what might be; to discuss ideals of books, pleasures, places, friendships, which are simply visionary, and in the air. Of very much of the actual, concrete recreation (in the widest sense) of the non-Christian community, one must say to the Christian, Come out, be separate. The healthy, vigorous, spiritual life will secure, will create, a definite, far-reaching separateness, befitting the temple of God. On no other conditions can God dwell amongst His people. The Temple must be kept for Him, and for Him alone.
III. The obligation lies on every Christian man to keep the Temple separate from sin.There are no merely official guardians of the holiness of the Temple of God. Christ made Himself a pattern of the duty of every Christian to vindicate the holiness of Jehovahs sanctuary. He had no official authority, to purify the Temple courts as He did. At most, it was the extraordinary, self-vindicating prerogative of a Zealot or a Prophet. But every man who is a member of the new Israel of God must regard himself as a guardian of the sanctity of Jehovahs dwelling-place. The Temple is nothing, as distinct from its component sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty. It has indeed a corporate holiness which each one of them must guard; but their personal holiness underlies the corporate. Unholy Christians cannot make a holy Church. Hence the illustration of the Temple passes over into that of a holy Family, whose every son and daughter is to be jealous for the family honour; and this again passes over in 2Co. 7:1 to that of a personal cleansing from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit. The Temple in this paragraph is the actual Temple-building only. But it is noteworthy how Christ would have even the Outer Court hallowed. What He cleansed was the great marble-paved Court of the Gentiles. Would suffer no man to carry any vessel through it (Mar. 11:16). The life of the Church, like the life of the individual Christian, has its outer court, as well as its inner and its inmost shrine. All lies within the holy precinct; all is part of the Temple; and even the outer-court lifethe business-meeting, the finance, the organisation, and much more the philanthropy and social workmust be kept holy. Separateness is the law throughout; no touching of the unclean thing must be tolerated, even in these. The Church must, e.g., have clean hands when she touches money, and must handle none which would defile her. The Church, the Christian Temple, has its outer court of personal attachments. There is a Church within the Congregation. See in Act. 21:28-29 a vivid illustration of a zeal which should find its higher, its highest, embodiment in the Christians to whom our paragraph appeals. They thought Paul had brought the Gentile Trophimus, not only into the Court of the Gentiles, but beyond, into the inner court reserved for Israelites. M. Clermont Ganneau some years ago found built into a door-jamb in Jerusalem one of the marble tablets which were inserted into the boundary-wall of the Court of Israel in the Temple of Herod: LET NO MAN OF OTHER RACE ENTER HERE ON PAIN OF DEATH. Whatever welcome into its outer court the Church may give to all who care to come thus far from the outside into a holy precinct of approach to God, she must have an inner Court of Israel. If the unequally yoked man may bring his partners in the yoke so far as into the outer court, they may come no farther. No heathen alliance must find lodging within the holy Temple itself (Neh. 13:4-9). Every man will be a Christian Zealot for the honour and the purity of the Temple; every son of God Almighty will regard himself as charged with the care of the honour of the family for holiness; he will cleanse himself, lest he be the occasion of defilement or dishonour to the Temple in which he has a place. Note, that all this is put by way of exhortation, and not of obligation only. Paul reasons; God calls; He allures to separateness and holiness by gracious promises. Every man of Gods Church shall be a Solomon, to whom Jehovah will be a Father. [Further material on this Temple topic may be found under 1Co. 3:16-17; 1Co. 6:19.]
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Butlers Comments
SECTION 3
In Associations (2Co. 6:14-18; 2Co. 7:1)
14 Do not be mismated with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, I will live in them and move among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 17Therefore come out from them, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch nothing unclean; then I will welcome you, 18and I will be a father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.
7 Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God.
2Co. 6:14-16, Yoking: It has never been the will of God that his chosen people should yoke themselves unequally (Gr. heterozugountes, from which we get the English, zygotes, and the prefix, hetero, yoked to one of a different kind) with unbelievers (see Exo. 23:2; Exo. 33:16; Exo. 34:11-16; Lev. 20:26; Gen. 24:3; Gen. 28:1; Num. 23:9; Deu. 7:2-3; Jos. 23:6-7; Jos. 23:12; Jdg. 2:1-2; Ezr. 4:3; Ezr. 6:21; Ezr. 9:12; Ezr. 10:9-15; Neh. 9:2; Neh. 10:30; Neh. 13:3; Neh. 13:23-27; Psa. 1:1; Pro. 4:14; Pro. 24:1; Isa. 52:11; Act. 2:40; Rom. 16:17; 1Co. 5:11; Eph. 5:11; 2Th. 3:6; 2Th. 3:14; 1Ti. 6:5; 2Ti. 3:5; 2Jn. 1:10). The fact that Gods people continue to do so is a problem that plagues preachers and other spiritual leaders of the church. For the idea of yoking see, Mat. 11:29; 1Ti. 5:18; 1Ti. 6:1; Gal. 5:1; Act. 15:10; 1Co. 9:9; Php. 4:3).
Paul is not talking about necessary social associations here. He had already granted that Christians would often times have to be associated with unbelievers in mundane affairs (1Co. 5:9-13). What the apostle seeks to forestall here is the uniting of a Christian with an unbeliever so that the Christian is actually working toward the same purpose as the unbeliever. There is an illustration in the O.T. in the prohibition against yoking together an ass and an ox in order to plough a field or do any other work (Deu. 22:10; Lev. 19:19). The apostle clarifies what he means in the following contrasts and opposites. What Paul says here relates to the opening words of this chapter, . . . we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain (2Co. 6:1). William Barclay writes, The idea is that there are certain things which are fundamentally incompatible and were never meant to be brought together. It is impossible for the purity of the Christian and the pollution of the pagan to run in double harness. For the Christian to accept the grace of God and then join with any enterprise which is blatantly opposed to the will of God and dedicated to destroying righteousness and truth is vanity! It is self-deception!
The Christian cannot be in partnership with iniquity (Gr. anomia, lit. lawlessness). It is an impossibility! Jesus declared, No man can serve two masters . . . (Mat. 6:24; Luk. 16:13; Jas. 4:4). No man can be a friend of God and a friend of the world at the same time. No man can obey conflicting orders or realistically serve two opposing sovereigns! The Christian must love righteousness and hate lawlessness (Heb. 1:9).
Paul continues, What fellowship has light with darkness? Light (Gr. photi) has no communion (Gr. koinonia) with darkness (Gr. skotos). Where one is the other cannot be! Another impossibility! (see Eph. 5:8-11; 1Jn. 1:5).
What accord (Gr. sumphonesis, from which we get the English word, symphony) has Christ with Belial (Gr. Beliar, lit., worthlessness, ruin, desperate wickedness). The word Belial came to be used as a name for Satan. Christ gathers, Satan scatters (Mat. 12:22-32). Where one is the other cannot be! Another impossibility! Neither can a man be a believer and an unbeliever at the same time. Therefore the believer must not unite himself, or make himself part of (Gr. meris) anything dedicated to producing unbelief. If he does, he becomes an unbeliever. It is impossible to be a believer while working at the same time to produce unbelief!
The last phrase, What agreement has the temple of God with idols? is conclusive. The word agreement is from the Greek word sugkatathesis and means literally, stand together with. It was a word common to the Greek culture of that day and meant, to approve by putting the votes together. Idols, false gods, and everything for which they stand, lying, wickedness, and hurtfulness, vote as one. They all agree in opposing the God of truth. Every new idol or image added to historys pantheon of false gods votes the same. But can any one of these false gods be brought into the temple of God (the Christians heart), there to speak and vote for truth, righteousness and love? Never! No false god will ever vote in unison with the True God. Christians cannot be joined to idols! (Act. 15:20; Act. 15:29; Act. 21:25; 1Co. 10:6-22; 1Co. 12:1-3; 1Th. 1:9; 1Jn. 5:21). Covetousness is idolatry.
Believers, individuals united to Christ in covenant relationship, are the temple of God. The Spirit of God resides in those who have believed in his Son and obeyed his revealed will. God allowed his chosen people in ancient times to build an ornate temple in which they might congregate and glorify his name. But no building, however ornate, could ever be the residence of God. He does not dwell in temples made by human hands (Act. 7:47-50; Act. 17:24; Isa. 66:1-2; Joh. 4:20-21). In symbolic form Gods presence was in the holy of holies of the Hebrew tabernacle and temple. But in reality his presence has always been in the hearts and minds of believers (Psa. 51:10-11; Psa. 148:10; Isa. 63:11; Eze. 11:19; Eze. 18:31; Eze. 36:27; Eze. 37:14; Hag. 2:5; Num. 27:18; Rom. 8:5-17; 1Co. 3:16; Eph. 2:21-22; 1Pe. 2:5). Jehovah God is the Absolute Sovereign of everything that exists. There is no other sovereign. Any man who wishes the Absolute Sovereign to dwell in him cannot allow another god to dwell there. Jehovah cannot be other-yoked with idols in mans heart. Jehovah votes for absolute truth; idols vote for absolute falsehood!
The RSV double spaces its text between 2Co. 6:13 and 2Co. 6:14 and between 2Co. 7:1 and 2Co. 7:2. This emphasizes the parenthetical nature of the passage. But that should not necessarily lead us to think of the passage as disconnected to the subject under discussion here! Such momentary digression is certainly in keeping with Pauline literary style in Romans, Ephesians, Hebrews and other works. But remember the context. Paul has been vindicating himself against slanderous opponents. He has also been pleading with the Corinthian believers to reckon themselves new creatures in Christ, with new constraints and new perspectives. It is altogether plausible to suggest that the unbelievers of 2Co. 6:14 are those opposing and slandering Paul to the Corinthian church. In fact, it appears there were unbelievers within the church there denying the resurrection (1Co. 15:1-58). Paul is exhorting the believers in Corinth to clearly separate themselves from these unbelievers. There also appears there are unbelievers trying to call themselves Christians and worship idols at the same time (1Co. 8:1-13; 1Co. 9:1-27; 1Co. 10:1-33). When Paul uses the word heterozugountes, yoked to one of a different kind, he is admonishing the Christians at Corinth they cannot live in the church with someone who does not share their presuppositions.
Whatever this passage means, it cannot forbid members of the Christian Church to be married to spouses who are believers from other denominations. There are believers in all denominations. We believe denominationalism is a spiritual error. Christ is not pleased with its perpetuation. But then, there are numerous spiritual errors being perpetuated within the Restoration Movement with which Christ is not pleased. Are we to think Pauls plea for separation in this text is for separation from every person who believes the Bible is Gods inspired word and Jesus is his divine Son, though they may sincerely obeying differently than we because they have never been privileged to see as we have seen? Never!
Whatever this passage means, it cannot mean the absolute prohibition of the marriage of a believer to an unbeliever. First, the context forbids any such interpretation; no mention is made here of the marriage relationship. Second, the Greek tense of the verb, heterozugountes, present tense participle, would literally be translated, Do not go on being yoked to one of a different kind. . . . That would contradict what the same apostle wrote in 1Co. 7:12-13. While the Old Testament (see references cited above) forbids Hebrews from marrying foreigners, the prohibition was clearly concerned with maintaining separation from idolatry. Joseph married Asenath, daughter of an Egyptian priest (Gen. 41:50); Moses married a Midianite (Exo. 2:21); Hosea was commanded by God to marry a woman with a spirit of harlotry (Hos. 1:2) and when she deserted him and wound up in the slave market, Hosea was told to go love again a woman who is an adulteress (Hos. 3:1-5).
This passage focuses contextually on all that has been said in chapters 5 and 6. Contextually, Paul is giving a call for believers in the church at Corinth to separate themselves from the unbelieving, wicked opponents who are slandering him. What Paul has done is to take his usual argument against idolatry and apply it to those in Corinth seeking to destroy his ministry to the truth.
2Co. 6:17-18; 2Co. 7:1 Yielding: The place of Gods abode is to be always pure. That which is false, in rebellion against God, and hurtful cannot abide where God abides. Otherwise, God is false, impotent and unworthy of trust or adoration. God dwells in believers and believers are the church. The church must not yield to pagan influence of any kindneither theological nor ethical. The church must come out and be separate from false doctrine and false living. And Paul had to deal with both circumstances in his letters to Corinth.
Plainly, he has in mind here the arrogance the Corinthians had in refusing to immediately discipline (drive out) the man living an adulterous life with his fathers wife (1Co. 5:1 ff). That is apparent from Pauls subsequent discourse in 2Co. 7:11-13.
Paul quotes from (or paraphrases) a variety of Old Testament passages here to prove his point that wickedness cannot be tolerated where God dwells (Lev. 26:11-12; Isa. 52:11; Eze. 20:34; Jer. 51:45; Isa. 48:20; Jer. 50:8; Zec. 2:6-7; 2Sa. 7:14; Exo. 25:8; Eze. 37:27; Jer. 31:1). For 2Co. 6:18 see Hos. 1:10 and Isa. 43:6. Gods chosen people in the Old Dispensation, warned over and over not to yoke themselves to gods of a different kind, would not separate themselves from idolatry and heathen wickedness. They eventually became, in fact, worse than their heathen neighbor-nations in idolatry and wickedness (see Jer. 2:11; Jer. 18:13). In the Revelation given to John concerning the seven churches of Asia Minor, an angel, with authority and splendor, cried with a loud voice to the church surrounded by the idolatry and licentiousness of the Roman empire, Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues. . . . (Rev. 18:4). No matter how difficult it may be, it will always remain true that Christians must separate themselves from anything and anyone that is opposed to God and what God has declared right. The Lord never promises separation from ungodliness will be easy (Mat. 7:13-14; Luk. 13:23-24; Mat. 18:23-26; Joh. 15:18-21; Mat. 10:34-39; Luk. 12:49-53; Luk. 14:25-33). The Greek word translated separate is aphoristhete. It is a compound of apo, from, and horizo, boundary, limit, fixed point. Horizo is the word from which we have the English word, horizon. Paul is saying that Christians must Come out from the midst of them (unbelief) and fix themselves away from unbelievers. Believers are not to touch (Gr. haptesthe, fasten or cling to) anything that defiles or dirties (Gr. akathartou, unclean). This means anything that defiles spiritually. Anything in opposition to the will of God is unclean.
There is a cost which must be paid to follow Jesusseparation from whatever is disapproved by Jesus and his word. But what a reward! The separated one is welcomed (Gr. eisdexomai, taken by the hand, taken hold of) by God into Gods eternal family like the father welcomed the prodigal son (Luk. 15:11-24). The cost for separation from ungodliness is infinitesimal compared with the reward!
It is unfortunate that our English translations are marked with a chapter division between 2Co. 6:18 and 2Co. 7:1. Chapter 7, 2Co. 6:1, is plainly the concluding statement of this passage about holiness and separation. There were no chapter divisions when Paul wrote this letter in Greek. Chapter divisions were inserted by Stephen Langton in the thirteenth century. And verse divisions were inserted by Stephanus, the Paris printer, in the sixteenth century. We will treat 2Co. 7:1 here.
Since God has promised judgment (2Co. 5:10-11) for the impenitent and gracious adoption (2Co. 6:16-18) for the separated, it is imperative that we have a catharsis (Gr. katharisomen, cleansing) from every pollution (Gr. molusmou, filthiness, foulness) of body and spirit. Body, soul and spirit make up the whole man (1Th. 5:23). A man cannot keep his body pure but sin with his mind and expect Christs approval (cf. Mat. 5:21-30). Nor should the Christian try to justify himself by saying he keeps his mind pure so it doesnt matter what he does with his body. That Gnostic sophistry is thoroughly denounced by Scripture (1Jn. 3:4-10, etc.).
The last phrase is most significant. Paul instructs Christians precisely as to how this separation and cleansing is to be accomplished. It is done by perfecting holiness in the fear of God (Gr. epitelountes hagiosunen en phobo theou). The word epitelountes is a present tense participle derived from the word teleios which means, to complete, to finish, to bring to its goal. In other words, we reach the goal of holiness (we are separated, cleansed) in the fear of God! The fear of God is a healthy (cathartic) attitude! Peter tells us to pass the time of our sojourning here in fear (1Pe. 1:17). Only the fear of God will purge a world in rebellion against God of its wickedness. Only the fear of God will restore that sense of awe, respect and worship that is absent from both the church and the world. Isaiah wrote, . . . when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness. If favor is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals perversely and does not see the majesty of the Lord. (Isa. 26:9-10). The Psalmist said, When he slew them (the Israelites in the wilderness) they sought for him; they repented and sought God earnestly. (Psa. 78:34). See sermon notes at the end of this chapter, Judgment Begins at the House of God.
The scriptures bear witness that a significant contributing factor to purging the church of its plague of paganism is consistent proclamation of the judgment and fear of God. Paul says so in this very text! The goal of holiness is reached through the fear of God.
And so Paul has dealt with another problem that plagues preachersthe problem with paganism. Paganism now, as then, is at times an attraction in which preachers may be tempted to indulge, or it surrounds a preacher like a plague in those to whom he ministers. And how did Paul deal with it? By first appealing to the brethren at Corinth to remember how much he had opened up his heart in love to them and pleading with them to reciprocate the same kind of openness. And, second, by reminding the brethren of the incongruity of yoking belief to unbelief. And, third, by pointing out that holiness is brought to its goal through the fear of God. Not a bad plan for the church to follow in any age!
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(14) Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.We seem at first to enter, by an abrupt transition, upon a new line of exhortation. The under-current of thought is, however, not difficult to trace. There was a false latitude as well as a true. The baser party at Corinth might think it a matter of indifference whether they married a heathen or a Christian, whether they chose their intimate friends among the worshippers of Aphrodite or of Christ. Against that enlargement the Apostle feels bound to protest. The Greek word for unequally yoked together is not found elsewhere, and was probably coined by St. Paul to give expression to his thoughts. Its meaning is, however, determined by the use of the cognate noun in Lev. 19:19 (Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind). Cattle were unequally yoked together when ox and ass were drawing the same plough (Deu. 22:10). Men and women are so when they have no common bond of faith in God. Another explanation refers the image to the yoke of a balance, or pair of scales, and so sees in the precept a warning against partiality in judgment; but this rests on very slender ground, or rather, no ground at all.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
14. St. Paul trusts now, by warming the affections of his Corinthians, first to draw them into separation from sin, 2Co 6:14 to 2Co 7:1, and to bring them to an acceptance of himself, 2Co 7:2.
Be ye not The richer your Christian affections the easier your separation from a wicked world. As Christ, his gospel, his Church, his apostles, and holy happiness, fill your hearts with abounding satisfaction, withdrawal from earthly idols becomes spontaneous.
Unequally yoked An allusion, doubtless, to Deu 22:10, where an ox and an ass are forbidden to be yoked together. To be unequally yoked is, therefore, to be connected with an unfitting associate. There will be pulling different ways, and danger for a Christian to be pulled into danger and ruin. This unequal yoking, this binding of the Christian with the loose thinker and free liver, is a source of myriads of apostasies and destructions. Marriage is not specially indicated, but it is eminently included as the most striking instance of yoking in life. A false marriage of Christian with unbeliever is often a disaster for eternity.
Righteousness with unrighteousness This antithesis is truly, if seen with a true eye, the greatest possible contrast in the universe. There are many opposites known or conceivable, but the greatest possible of all oppositions is that between absolute right and absolute wrong. But as the eye of the ethical man is apt to be dim and dull, Paul immediately addresses another contrast, the most powerful conceivable, to the bodily eye light with darkness. This image is known among all religions which in any degree inculcate the idea of holiness.
In a series of intense questions, five in number, St. Paul arrays before the minds of the Corinthians a series of images to impress them with a vivid sense of the absolute contrariety between a pure Christianity and a world of wickedness. The images are drawn from ethics, from nature, from the antithesis of Christ and Belial, from faith, and from the sanctity of God’s temple. it is, doubtless, by a summary rehearsal of those lessons of holiness with which his preaching had often impressed these converts from heathenism, that he is here recalling them to first principles.
In the five words used to designate the denied connexion between the contracted objects, namely, fellowship, communion, concord, part, agreement, Meyer sees proof of Paul’s command of copious Greek. But Stanley remarks that there is no special fitness of each to its own place; they might be interchanged.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘ Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion has light with darkness? And what concord has Christ with Belial? or what portion has a believer with an unbeliever?’
The problem is that they are having too close a relationship with secular things and those who are not believers. Instead of being properly yoked together as fellow-workers together with God they are unequally yoked together with what is incompatible with their faith. This comes out in the way that they are willing to tie their lives in with the ways of unbelievers in a binding way, in marriage to unbelivers and too close association with idolaters, without thought for the long term consequences. This helps to explain their lack of affection for Paul and for Christ. Their unequal yokes are preventing the enlargement of their affections towards what is right.
For the Christian there is always a fine line between keeping in touch with the world and its ways, and being sucked in by it. Keeping in touch is fine (1Co 5:10), but becoming obligated to it and having too close an association with it is folly. Thus he warns them about tying themselves in with unbelievers, whether by marriage, binding partnerships, or any kind of commitment that might restrict them in their Christian lives and witness. This includes putting themselves in a position where the course of their life can be determined by others who have secular rather than heavenly aims. In view of the strength of the comparisons that follow (iniquity, darkness, Belial, idols) we must probably see this as very much having in mind certain idolatrous associations, whether the participating in sacral meals in heathen temples, being members of trade guilds where acknowledgement of idols was necessary, or membership in some other such organisation, and even sexual misbehaviour through Temple liaisons. (It is tempting to think that there may have been an association or guild which connected itself with Belial or a god who could be paralleled with Belial).
‘Unequally yoked.’ Let them consider that it is important that when two animals are yoked together they be compatible. If they are not the result will do grave harm to the task in hand. For example an ox and a donkey will not make good yoke-fellows (Deu 22:10), and will wreck any attempts to achieve anything through such a compromise. In the same way Christians must not yoke themselves with those with whom they do not fit spiritually, those who have different aims, or who wish to go in a different direction, or whose methods might result in compromise. For under a yoke, either both are aiming for the same thing, or compromise is inevitable, and if they are yoked to unbelievers that is the road to disaster.
We can compare, for example, how he had reprimanded them for allowing their legal disputes with one another to be arbitrated by the secular courts (“in front of unbelievers,” (1Co 6:1-6). How he had admonished them for joining with pagans in their cultic meals with the resulting compromise of loyalties (1Co 10:6-22). How he had had to rebuke them for approving of sexual unions with prostitutes, possibly cultic prostitutes (1Co 6:12-20). These and other such activities are in mind here.
He then applies this more specifically to their situation as Christians (and more specifically to ours). ‘For what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion has light with darkness? And what concord has Christ with Belial? or what portion has a believer with an unbeliever’
‘For what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity?’ How can those who seek to walk in righteousness with God, and have ‘become the righteousness of God’ (2Co 5:21), live lives in common with, or associate closely with, those whose hearts are set on iniquity, on inward thoughts of evil? Righteousness and sin do not go together. One or the other will soon have to give way, for they are totally incompatible. There can be no compromise with sin. Yet those who are yoked to sinners will find themselves constantly having to do exactly that.
‘What communion has light with darkness?’ Again light and darkness are totally incompatible. Introduce light and away goes darkness. Thus both will have to live in semi-darkness. Neither will be comfortable. This is true whether it be the light of Christ in contrast to the darkness of unbelief and sin (Joh 3:19-21), or the light of righteous living (Mat 5:16) in contrast with the darkness of selfishness and self-seeking (Mat 6:22-23). For we who are Christians have been made partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light, and have been delivered from the power of darkness (Colossian 2Co 1:12-13). How then can we return to the dark? Consider also Rom 13:12 where the armour of light is in contrast to the works of darkness, stressing their incompatibility; 1Th 5:5; Eph 5:8; Eph 5:11-14; Colossians .
‘And what concord has Christ with Belial?’ Here is the greatest contrast of all. Christ and Belial are totally incompatible. Belial is probably another name for Satan and in the Old Testament (where it is not a synonym for Satan) represents the ideas of worthlessness, rebellion, evil and lawlessness. See especially 1Sa 2:12, where the ‘sons of Belial’ contrast with the idea of knowing ‘the Lord’ by showing their disobedience to Him.
But the most significant reference is in 2Ch 13:7, where the ‘sons of Belial’ having rebelled against the house of David, and therefore against God’s anointed (christos), chose to look to the golden calves, thus being divisive, and bringing about the great divide between Israel and Judah. This example alone might be seen as justifying the comparison, and explain Paul’s use of it here, for it fits exactly. The ‘sons of Belial’ reject the anointed one of God, and destroyed the unity of God’s people by consorting with idolatry. In contrast those who are Christ’s rejoice in God’s Anointed, and in Him are thus again one united people. So they must choose which they will follow, Christ or Belial.
But in intertestamental literature, especially at Qumran, Belial had become a personal enemy of God, prince of demons and possibly a synonym for Satan, which would give deeper significance to the above references. And it may well be that such an idea was known in Corinth, possibly through Judaisers, otherwise why use it in this letter? (Paul may even have been termed by them a ‘son of Belial’, drawing out his sarcastic comment that Satan has fashioned himself into an angel of light – 2Co 11:14).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Co 6:14. Be ye not unequally yoked, &c. “Be not associates in marriage, in worship, or in any thing with infidels; for what union can there be,” &c. See on 2Co 6:11.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
2Co 6:14 . As a contrast to the desired ., Paul now forbids their making common cause with the heathen, and so has come to the point of stating what was said generally at 2Co 6:1 ( . . . ) more precisely, in a form needful for the special circumstances of the Corinthians, in order to warn them more urgently and effectually of the danger of losing their salvatio.
.] Bengel: “ ne fiatis , molliter pro: ne sitis .” He does not forbid all intercourse with the heathen whatever (see 1Co 5:10 ; 1Co 10:27 ; 1Co 7:12 ), but the making common cause with heathen efforts and aims, the entering into the heathen element of life. There is no ground for assuming exclusively special references (such as to sacrificial banquets or to mixed marriages), any more than for excluding such reference.
] see, in general, Wetstein. It means here: bearing another (a different kind of) yoke . Comp. , Lev 19:19 ; Schleusner, Thesaur . II. p. 557. Paul undoubtedly has in mind the figurative conception of two different animals (as ox and ass) which are yoked together in violation of the law (Deu 22:9 ), a conception, in which the heterogeneous fellowship of Christians with heathen is aptly portrayed: drawing a yoke strange to you . In this verse the dative denotes a fellowship, in which the unbelieving partner forms the standard which determines the mode of thought and action of the Christian partner. For this dative cannot mean “ with unbelievers ” (the usual explanation), as if had been used; but it is not so much dativus commodi (Hofmann: for the pleasure of unbelievers), a thought which Paul would have doubtless expressed with more precision, as the dativus ethicus (Krger, 48. 6); so that the words mean: do not draw for unbelievers a strange yoke. The yoke meant is that drawn by unbelievers, one of a kind strange to Christians ( ), and the latter are not to put themselves at the disposal of unbelievers by sharing the drawing it. The great danger of the relation against which Paul warns them, lies in this dative expression. According to Theophylact (comp. Chrysostom), the sense is: , so that the figurative expression is taken from the unequal balance (Phocylides, 13 : , ). But apart from the circumstance that Paul would in that case have expressed himself at least very strangely, the reminiscence from the O. T. , which the common view assumes, must still be considered as the most natural for the apostle. [250]
. . . ] for how utterly incompatible is the Christian with the heathen character! Observe the impressiveness of the accumulated questions, and of the accumulated contrasts in these questions. The first four questions are joined in two pairs; the fifth, mounting to the highest designation of Christian holiness, stands alone, and to it are attached, as a forcible conclusion of the discourse, the testimony and injunction of God which confirm it. [251]
. ] For the Christian is justified by faith (2Co 5:21 , 2Co 6:7 ), and this condition excludes immoral conduct ( , 1Jn 3:4 ), which is the element of heathen life (Rom 6:19 ). The two life-elements have nothing in common with each other, Rom 8:1 ff.; Gal 2:15 ff.
In the second question the Christian life-element appears as , and the heathen as . Comp. Eph 5:8 ; Eph 5:11 f.; Col 1:12 f. In the latter is implied , and in : (in both, the intellectual and the ethical element are to be thought of together ), Gregory Naz. Or. 36.
Regarding the two datives, of which the second is expressed in Latin by cum , see Matthiae, p. 883; and the , in the second clause, is the expression of social relation, like our with . See Bernhardy, p. 265. Comp. Plato, Conv. p. 209 C: , Stobaeus, S. 28: , Philo, Leg. ad Cai. p. 1007 C: , Sir 13:2 .
[250] Hence our view (comp. Vulgate) is to be preferred also to that of Theodoret: , .
[251] Hofmann brings the second and third questions, as well as the fourth and fifth, into closer relation. Neither the particles and , nor the prepositions and , nor yet the contents of the questions, are decisive. But it is in favour of our division, which Lachmann has also, that only to the fifth question is there specially added the great and important scriptural testimony, vv. 16 18, which is quite in keeping with its isolated and distinctive position.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
DISCOURSE: 2028
SEPARATION FROM THE WORLD ENJOINED
2Co 6:14-18. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
A MINISTER never appears, to young people especially, in so forbidding an aspect, as when he is circumscribing mens intercourse with the world, and marking with precision the spirit that characterizes the true Christian in relation to the things of time and sense. Many on such an occasion are ready to account him an enemy to their happiness, and to censure him as a promoter of gloom and melancholy. But where do we find the Apostle pouring out such copious streams of love, as in the chapter before us? So accumulated were the expressions of his regard, that he thought it almost necessary to apologize for the more than ordinary effusions of his heart: O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Yet in that very frame of mind did he give the directions in our text. As a parent in his dying hour would most tenderly guard his children against the temptations which were most likely to draw them aside from the paths of virtue and happiness, so does the Apostle on this occasion instruct and caution his Corinthian converts: and with a measure of the same spirit we would now proceed to the consideration of the subject before us.
That we may bring it before you with the greater perspicuity, we shall shew,
I.
What is that separation from the world which Christianity requires
It must be confessed, that the expressions in our text are often quoted and urged in too unqualified a manner, and without a due consideration of the difference between the heathen world, amongst whom the Corinthians dwelt, and the professedly Christian world, amongst whom we dwell. Certainly a greater measure of separation was necessary for them than for us: inasmuch as the dangers to which intercourse with heathens would subject them, were greater than those to which we are exposed by intercourse with those who profess the same faith with ourselves. Even they were not debarred from the courtesies of social life [Note: 1Co 10:27.], nor from some degree of intercourse even with the most ungodly and profane [Note: 1Co 5:9-10.]: much less are we from such a measure of communication with them, as is necessary for the discharge of our civil and social duties. But still we must not be unequally yoked with them:
1.
We must not have fellowship with them in any of their evil deeds
[It is probable that in the caution here given, the Apostle had some respect to idolatrous ceremonies, and idol feasts, in which a true Christian could not consistently take any part. Being himself the temple of God, he could not have any communion with idols. Not but that the prohibition must extend also to every kind of evil, as well as to idolatry: for, in another place, the same Apostle speaks of uncleanness, and covetousness, and foolish talking, and jesting, as bringing down the wrath of God upon all the children of disobedience; and then adds, Be not ye therefore partakers with them: and again, Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them [Note: Eph 5:3-7; Eph 5:11.]. This therefore is a law unto us, and to the Church of God in all ages, that, though we may to a certain degree unite with ungodly men in things that are indifferent, we must not unite with them in any thing that is evil, however much it may he sanctioned by the customs and usages of the world: we must not follow a multitude to do evil.]
2.
We must not form any close connexion with them
[Under the law, men were forbidden to sow their fields with different kinds of seed, or to wear clothes that were formed of different kinds of materials, as of woollen and linen: nor were they to yoke together an ox, which was a clean animal, with an ass, which was unclean [Note: Deu 22:9-11.]. The import of these different laws was the same: they were all intended to intimate, that in the Lords people there should be a perfect simplicity of mind, and an entire freedom from all mixture of evil. It is to the yoking of the clean and unclean together, that the Apostle refers in our text: and his illustration of it is beautiful. He represents believers as the temple of the Lord, in which nothing but what is holy should be found. All the vessels of that temple must be holy; and all the priests that officiate in it must be holy also. In confirmation of this he quotes a passage from the Prophet Isaiah, where the priests in Babylon are enjoined to keep themselves from every species of defilement, in daily and hourly expectation that the order for their return to their own country shall be issued, and that they may be in a fit state to bear the vessels of the Lord, which would be restored by Cyrus for the service of the sanctuary at Jerusalem [Note: Isa 52:11.]. In such a state must all Christians, who are a holy priesthood, keep themselves, if they would please and honour God: they must come out from among the ungodly, and be separate, and not touch any thing that is unclean. In Babylon they must be, till the time of their release from it: but they must keep themselves from all close connexion with the people of it, and be in heart and mind as separate as the vessels of the sanctuary are from any profane use. The Apostles direction, not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, is justly urged against that most fatal of all connexions, the union of a believer with an unbeliever in the indissoluble bonds of marriage. This union on the part of a believer, is to be formed only in the Lord [Note: 1Co 7:39.], and with such a partner as will prove an helpmate for the soul. But the same rule should as far as possible be observed in every other relation of life, that so the spiritual person may not augment his difficulties in the way to heaven.]
3.
We must not cultivate any unnecessary intimacy with them
[What is necessary for the discharge of our social duties must, as we have before said, be allowed: yet even that is rather to be submitted to from necessity than be sought from choice. The whole of the Apostles argument extends to this. He supposes, that, as the whole world lieth in wickedness, it is almost impossible for a believer to be much in union with it without contracting some defilement. Hence he says, in reference to all who would divert us from the path of duty, or impede in any way our spiritual progress, Come out from among them and be separate, and touch not the unclean thing. Aware how soon evil communications will corrupt good manners, his advice is like that of Solomon, enter not into the path of the wicked, and go not in the way of evil men: avoid it, pass not by it, turn from it and pass away [Note: Pro 4:14-15.]. In a word, the true line of conduct seems to be that which a physician would follow in the time of a pestilential disease. He would go amongst the infected from a sense of duty, and with a desire to do them good: but he would not make them his companions, nor stay longer with them than his duty, and their necessities, required: and both before and after his visit, as well as during his intercourse with them, he would use all proper means to preserve himself from the contagion which he had reason to apprehend.]
Such being the separation from the world which Christianity requires, we proceed to shew,
II.
Whence the necessity for it arises
On this part of the subject the Apostle speaks very fully: and, because of the perfect conviction of his own mind, he addresses us in a way of appeal, determining to make us judges in our own cause.
The difference between the believer and unbeliever he supposes to be as great as between light and darkness, or Christ and Belial. And though this at first appears harsh and extravagant, it is really no exaggeration, if only we consider, that the one is a partaker of the Divine nature and a child of God, whilst the other is altogether carnal, a child of disobedience, a child of Satan. The question then is, What real fellowship can there be between persons so dissimilar? Let any one think what a total difference exists,
1.
In their taste and sentiments
[The believer affects only heavenly things. As for the things of time and sense, he is dying to them daily, and suffers them to have as little influence as possible upon his mind. He is convinced that every thing in this world is lighter than vanity itself; and that the care of the soul is the one thing needful. To have a sense of the Divine presence, and an assured hope of dwelling with God for ever, to see sin increasingly mortified in his soul, and the image of God progressively advancing there, this is happiness in his estimation; and it is the only happiness he desires. But how different are the taste and sentiments of the merely natural man! All his affections are set on earthly things: nor has he any wish beyond them. If he could have an uninterrupted enjoyment of health, and wealth, and honour, he would wish for no other heaven: he would be well satisfied with his state, though he had never one glimpse of Gods countenance, nor one foretaste of the heavenly glory.
Now we ask, What communion can there be between persons so totally discordant from each other? They live in a different element; and what is life to the one, is to the other death.]
2.
In their habits and pursuits
[The believer delights in the word of God and prayer. Meditation on heavenly things is the very food of his soul. The life which he now lives in the flesh, he lives by the faith of the Son of God, who has loved him and given himself for him. To receive out of his Saviours fulness more abundant communications of grace and peace, and to glorify him more in the midst of a wicked world, this is his daily desire, habit, and pursuit. But is it thus with the unbeliever? Does he appear like a man running in a race, and determined to win the prize? No; there is no resemblance between the two characters: and, if yoked together, their union would be like that of a reptile and a bird: the reptile fetters the bird to the earth, whilst every motion of the bird, when aspiring after liberty and affecting its wonted flights, incommodes and pains the reptile: and the sooner a separation is effected, the better will each of them be pleased.
Now these things are by the Apostle made a matter of appeal. And we also appeal to yourselves respecting them: Is there not, in profession at least, this contrariety between the characters, and, as far as the believer acts agreeably to his profession, does it not exist in practice also? Here then is abundant reason for the separation before spoken of: for it is impossible for the believer to derive either comfort or benefit from an intercourse that damps all his best feelings, and obstructs all his best interests. And his true way to be holy and happy is, to Come out from the world, and be separate, and if possible, not to touch the unclean thing.]
Nor will this separation be thought painful, if only we bear in mind
III.
The honour which God will confer on all who steadfastly maintain it
The people of the world, in order to retain the believer in a state of bondage, hold out to him the benefits of which a separation from them will deprive him
[They tell him of his reputation, which will suffer; and of his interests, which will be impaired by what they call his needless singularity Perhaps, and indeed not uncommonly, his own parents will be the most forward to discourage him in his heavenly course, and his greatest foes will be those of his own household ]
But the encouragement here afforded him is sufficient to outweigh it all
[What astonishing words are these! I will receive you, and be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. What need we care about being cast out by men, if we are received by God? yea, if even disowned and disinherited by earthly parents, what loss do we sustain, if God himself acknowledge us as his sons and daughters, and provide an inheritance for us worthy of that high relation? Think of the sweet access which a child has to his parent, the delightful confidence he has in his love, and the full assurance he enjoys of all suitable provision in the time of need. This, and infinitely more than this, does the believer enjoy in the presence of his God: and beyond all this he looks forward to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away. Say, believer, how small are thy privations, when such are thine enjoyments! how contemptible are thy losses, when such are thy gains! ]
Address
1.
Those who are just entering on the divine life
[Let every one who sets himself to seek his God, prepare his soul for temptation. Yes, beloved, if you will be followers of Christ, you must have some cross to bear. The servant cannot be above his lord: if they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, much more will they those of his household. Be content then to have it so. Do not imagine that you can ever reconcile the ungodly to the ways of God. If you will maintain friendship with them you must renounce your friendship with him. You cannot serve God and Mammon: and even a wish to do so is in Gods estimation constructive treason [Note: Jam 4:4. See the Greek, and mark well the import of every word.]. You think perhaps to do them good: but you are infinitely more likely to be injured by them, than to impart any solid benefit to them [Note: See Hag 2:12-13.]. They must come to you; not you to them. To attempt to unite with them is folly and madness. You do not meet on equal terms. There is nothing that they will not say and do to draw you from God: but they will not suffer you to say or do any thing to draw them to God. They will propose to you to join with them in their amusements: but if you were to propose to them to join with you in reading the word of God and prayer, they would pronounce you mad. Come out then from among them and be separate, even as your Lord and Saviour did. Ye are not of the world, says our Lord, even as I am not of the world. Let this saying be verified in you: and let such be your love to his cross, that by means of it the world may be crucified unto you, and you unto the world.]
2.
Those who have made some progress in the Divine life
[Do not imagine that, because the world have not hitherto prevailed to draw you back to them, you need not be on your guard against them. Remember Demas: Remember Lots wife. The world will never cease from their efforts, because, whilst you walk steadfastly with God, you are a reproach to them. Like Noah, you, by your lively faith, and practical fear, condemn the world. Your own experience will be a sufficient warning to you in future. You have doubtless at times been drawn into a closer intimacy with the world than was expedient: and what, I would ask, has been the effect of it? Have you found the same satisfaction in their vanities that you have found in holy exercises? Have you not found that fellowship with them has invariably tended to interrupt your fellowship with God? When you have been walking closely with God, you have known somewhat of what is meant by those words, I will dwell in them, and walk in them: but have you ever been taught this by communion with the world? Your own consciousness will give the best answer to these questions. Let past experience teach you; for it is in perfect unison with the word of God, that to be holy, and to be harmless, you must be separate from sinners. Let your one concern then be, to present yourselves as living sacrifices unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God. And be assured, that if, like the little remnant in the Church of Sardis, you keep your garments undefiled, you shall walk with God in white, approved by him as conquerors, and rewarded with a crown of glory that fadeth not away.]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
Ver. 14. Be not unequally yoked ] Dare not saith Mr Ward, to yoke thyself with any untamed heifer that bears not Christ’s yoke. Quam male inaequales veniunt ad aratra iuvenci? (Ovid. Epist.) An ox and an ass might not be coupled together in the law; and hereunto the apostle seems to allude. The doctors of Douay upon Lev 19:19 : Here all participation, say they, with heretics and schismatics is forbidden. Philip king of Spain said, He had rather have no subjects than subjects of various religions. And out of a bloody zeal, suffered his eldest son Charles to be murdered by the bloody Inquisition, because he seemed to favour our profession.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
14 7:1 .] Separate yourselves from unbelief and impurity . On the nature of the connexion, Stanley has some good remarks. He now applies to circumstances which had arisen among the Corinthians the exhortation which in 2Co 6:1 he described himself as giving in pursuance of his ministry of reconciliation. The following exhortations are general , and hardly to be pressed as applying only to partaking of meats offered to idols , as Calv., al., or to marriage with unbelievers , as Estius, but regard all possible connexion and participation, all leanings towards a return to heathenism which might be bred by too great familiarity with heathens. Become not (‘ne fiatis , molliter pro: ne sitis ,’ Bengel: rather, perhaps, as expressing, ‘do not enter into those relations in which you must become’) incongruous yokefellows (the word and idea from ref. Levit. Hesych [9] : . Grot. explains it, ‘ alteram partem jugi trahere ,’ but this does not give the force of – : Theophyl., . : so making the simile that of an unequal balance: but this could hardly be without more precise notification) with unbelievers (Winer explains the construction, edn. 6, 31. 10, Remark 4, thus, . , : better, as De W., . . . ).
[9] Hesychius of Jerusalem, cent y . vi.
] ‘ share in the same thing ,’ community. .
. is the state of the Christian, being justified by faith: he is therefore excluded from , the proper fruit of faith being obedience .
, of which we are the children, 1Th 5:5 , and not of darkness.
Meyer remarks, that the fivefold variation of the term to express partnership, , , , , , shews the Apostle’s command of the Greek language. The construction of with a dat. and , is illustrated by Wetst. from Stobus, S. 28, , and Philo, leg. ad Caium, 14, vol. ii. p. 561, , ;
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
2Co 6:14 . . . .: be not (mark that the pres. tense indicates the beginning of a state, sc. , “do not become”) unequally yoked with unbelievers , the constr. being “be not unequally yoked, as you would be if you were yoked with unbelievers”. The most obvious application of such a prohibition would be to intermarriage with the heathen, which was continually forbidden to the chosen people (see Deu 7:3 , Jos 23:12 , Ezr 9:2 , Neh 13:25 ), and this is probably the main thought here (see ref. Lev. for ); but to indulge in any excessive familiarity of intercourse would be “to be enlarged in heart” in a way which the Apostle strongly deprecates ( cf. 1Ma 1:15 ). He enforces this by five contrasts which illustrate the incongruity between Christianity and heathendom. . . .: for what fellowship have righteousness and lawlessness? or what communion has light with darkness? Cf. Eph 5:7 , , , and cf. , for the same image, Act 26:18 , Rom 13:12 , 1Th 5:5 and chap. 2Co 4:6 , 2Co 11:14 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
2Co 6:14 to 2Co 7:1 . PARENTHETICAL. HE WARNS THEM AGAINST TOO FAMILIAR ASSOCIATION WITH THEIR HEATHEN NEIGHBOURS. These verses are somewhat perplexing, inasmuch as they seem to interrupt the appeal of 2Co 6:11-13 by the introduction of an irrelevant warning. If they be omitted, the argument is quite consecutive, 2Co 7:2 f. being in close and evident connexion with 2Co 6:11-13 . And it has been supposed that the whole section is an interpolation either ( a ) added by St. Paul after the arrival of Titus, in consequence of the news he had received as to the state of the Corinthian Church; or ( b ) belonging to another Pauline letter (possibly the Lost Epistle of 1Co 5:9 ), and inserted here at a later date when a collection of Pauline letters began to be made; or ( c ) it has been regarded ( e.g. , by Heinrici) as a fragment of an ancient homily, not by St. Paul, which has found a resting place here. It is urged in favour of the non-Pauline authorship of the section that ( ) it contains a considerable number of words which do not occur elsewhere in St. Paul. To this it may be replied that and have their origin in O.T. phraseology, while is a LXX word (see reff.); and that, as to the words , , , it is not surprising that some of the synonyms which are found in this section should be comparatively rare. It is not easy to find (as has here been done, with no small skill) five distinct terms to convey almost the same idea. ( ) Schmiedel urges that the phrase (2Co 7:1 ) is quite un-Pauline, and that it is inconsistent with St. Paul’s psychology to speak of being “cleansed” from it, inasmuch as for him the is always tainted by sin. But there is no thought here of the taint of sin which remains in fallen man; is always used in the LXX (see reff.) of a too intimate association of the chosen people with heathen nations, and such “contamination” is exactly what it stands for in this place. As an argument on the other side, there occur in this section several quite common Pauline ideas and phrases, e.g. , the contrast of Christianity and heathendom as light and darkness (2Co 6:14 ), the description of Christians as God’s temple (2Co 6:16 ), the phrases “the living God” (2Co 6:16 ) and “the fear of God” (2Co 7:1 ), the introduction of the term (2Co 7:1 ), etc. We regard, therefore, the section as undoubtedly Pauline; and, further, its connexion with what precedes reveals itself on a close inspection of the phraseology. The Apostle has bidden the Corinthians “Be ye enlarged in heart”. But he is reminded that this phrase has a bad meaning in the Law (Deu 11:16 ; see Chase, Classical Review , 1890, p. 151), where it is applied to that excessive tolerance which should permit the worship of other gods beside Jehovah; and so he hastens to give a warning (parenthetically introduced) to the Corinthians that he does not mean by enlargement of heart any undue tolerance of or contaminating association with their heathen neighbours (see on 2Co 4:4 above for ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 2Co 6:14-18
14Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 17″Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you. 18And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” says the Lord Almighty.
2Co 6:14
NASB”Do not be bound together with unbelievers”
NKJV”Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers”
NRSV”Do not be mismatched with unbelievers”
TEV”Do not try to work together as equals with unbelievers”
NJB”Do not harness yourselves in an equal team with unbelievers”
Paul often uses OT agricultural quotes to illustrate Christian truths (cf. 1Co 9:9; 1Ti 5:18) to reflect Deu 22:10. It is a present imperative with the negative particle, which implies “they were forming” these inappropriate, intimate, interpersonal relationships with unbelievers. The Greek term is a compound of “yoked” (zuge) and “another of a different kind” (heteros, i.e., different kinds of animals). This verse has been proof-texted in relation to believers marrying unbelievers. However, this text does not seem to be dealing with marriage specifically, although that is surely included in this broader statement. Believers must restrict their most intimate, personal relationships to fellow believers. This helps us fight the pull of fallen culture away from Christ. Faith in Jesus and the indwelling Spirit have caused a sharp and deep cleavage within families, businesses, hobbies, amusements, even churches.
One must take into account passages like 1Co 5:9-13; 1Co 7:12-16; 1Co 10:27 to get the theological balance of this truth. We must remember the wickedness of first century pagan culture. This is not an affirmation of monastic living, but an attempt to reduce intimate personal relationship with the fallen world system (cf. 1Jn 2:15-17).
“what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness” This same truth is repeated in the cyclical letter of Ephesians (cf. 2Co 5:7; 2Co 5:11). Paul’s contrast of righteousness with lawlessness shows clearly that in this context righteousness does not refer to imputed righteousness (cf. Romans 4; Galatians 3), but righteous living (cf. Mat 6:1). See SPECIAL TOPIC: RIGHTEOUSNESS at 1Co 1:30.
“fellowship: See Special Topic at 1Co 1:9.
2Co 6:15
NASB, NKJV”Belial”
NRSV, NJB”Beliar”
TEV”the Devil”
This is a Hebrew term (i.e., beli and ya’al, see BDB 116) whose etymology is somewhat in doubt. Beliar is a variant spelling from some Jewish writings. The possible backgrounds are:
1. worthlessness (i.e., a description of evil people, cf. Deu 13:13; 2Sa 23:6; 1Ki 21:10; 1Ki 21:13)
2. lawlessness (cf. 2Sa 22:5)
3. place from where there is no ascent (i.e., Sheol, cf. Psa 18:4)
4. another term for Satan (cf. Nah 1:15; Jubilees 1:20; 15:33; and the Dead Sea Scrolls [ex. IQS 1:18,24; 2:5,19])
2Co 6:16 “Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols” This verse must be compared with 1Co 3:16, where the local church is called the temple of God. In 1Co 3:16 there is no article with “temple” (i.e., naos, the central shrine itself). The pronoun “you” is plural, while “temple” is singular, therefore, in this context “temple” must refer to the whole church at Corinth (cf. Eph 2:21-22).
The focus of Jewish faith developed into Temple ritual and liturgy (cf. Jeremiah 7) instead of personal faith in YHWH. It is not where or when or how one worships, but who one is in relationship with, God. Jesus saw His body as the temple of God (cf. Joh 2:21). Jesus is greater than the OT Temple (cf. Mat 12:6). God’s activity has moved from a sacred building into a sacred (i.e., redeemed, holy) believers’ body.
Idols and believers are fully discussed in 1 Corinthians 8 and 1Co 10:14-22. These must be mutually exclusive! All roads do not lead to heaven!
“the living God” The covenant name for the God of the OT was YHWH (see Special Topic at 1Co 2:8), which was a form of the verb “to be.” OT authors often used the adjective “living” to reflect the ever-existing, only-existing God. The OT allusions in 2Co 6:16-18 contain covenant terminology, “I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (cf. Eze 37:27).
The phrase “walk among them” seems to come from Lev 26:12. The OT texts in 2Co 6:16 reflect the new age when YHWH will dwell among His people as was intended in Genesis 2 and temporarily and partially occurred during the wilderness wandering period, but will be fully realized in the new heavens and the new earth (cf. Revelation 21-22).
“God said” This is a loose combination of Lev 26:11-12 and Eze 37:27 from the Septuagint. In this context Paul is applying these promises originally to covenant Israel to the church who is spiritual Israel (cf. Rom 9:6; Gal 6:16).
2Co 6:17 “come out. . .be separate” These are both aorist imperatives. These are allusions to Isa 52:11 in the Septuagint. God’s people are to disassociate themselves from sinners and unbelievers lest they be caught up in their judgment (cf. Rev 18:4).
Often today I hear this verse quoted in connection to which denomination one belongs. Let me quote F. F. Bruce in Answers to Questions, “The use of these words to justify ecclesiastical separation between Christians betokens a grotesque failure to read them in their context” (p. 103).
“and do not touch what is unclean” This is a present middle imperative. Believers must not participate in the sinful actions of their respective cultures. As the redeemed we must exhibit and proclaim the new heart and new mind of God’s people. Everything has changed in Him!
2Co 6:18 This verse reflects the truth of many prophets, but most fully, Hosea (or possibly 2Sa 7:14). Christianity is a family affair.
“Lord Almighty” This reflects the OT term for God, YHWH (cf. Exo 3:14), and El Shaddai (cf. Exo 6:3). In the Septuagint it translates the phrase “Lord of Hosts.” See SPECIAL TOPIC: NAMES FOR DEITY at 1Co 2:8.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Be = Become.
unequally yoked. Greek. heterozugeo. Only here.
together with = to.
unbelievers. Greek. apistos. See 2Co 4:4.
fellowship = Partaking, or share. Greek metoche. Only here. See 1Co 9:10.
hath = is there to.
unrighteousness = lawlessness. Greek. anomia. App-128.
light. Greek. phos. App-130.
with = towards. Greek. pros, as in 2Co 6:11.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
14-7:1.] Separate yourselves from unbelief and impurity. On the nature of the connexion, Stanley has some good remarks. He now applies to circumstances which had arisen among the Corinthians the exhortation which in 2Co 6:1 he described himself as giving in pursuance of his ministry of reconciliation. The following exhortations are general, and hardly to be pressed as applying only to partaking of meats offered to idols, as Calv., al., or to marriage with unbelievers, as Estius,-but regard all possible connexion and participation,-all leanings towards a return to heathenism which might be bred by too great familiarity with heathens. Become not (ne fiatis, molliter pro: ne sitis, Bengel: rather, perhaps, as expressing, do not enter into those relations in which you must become) incongruous yokefellows (the word and idea from ref. Levit. Hesych[9]: . Grot. explains it, alteram partem jugi trahere, but this does not give the force of -:-Theophyl., . : so making the simile that of an unequal balance: but this could hardly be without more precise notification) with unbelievers (Winer explains the construction, edn. 6, 31. 10, Remark 4, thus, . , : better, as De W., . . . ).
[9] Hesychius of Jerusalem, centy. vi.
] share in the same thing, community..
. is the state of the Christian, being justified by faith: he is therefore excluded from , the proper fruit of faith being obedience.
, of which we are the children, 1Th 5:5, and not of darkness.
Meyer remarks, that the fivefold variation of the term to express partnership,-, , , , , shews the Apostles command of the Greek language. The construction of with a dat. and , is illustrated by Wetst. from Stobus, S. 28, ,-and Philo, leg. ad Caium, 14, vol. ii. p. 561, , ;
Fuente: The Greek Testament
2Co 6:14. , do not become) a soft expression for be not.-, yoked with an alien party [one alien in spirit]) [unequally yoked], Lev 19:19, LXX. , thou shalt not let thy cattle engender with a diverse kind. The believer and the unbeliever are utterly heterogeneous. The notion of slavery approaches to that of a yoke. The word , Num 25:5. The apostle strongly dissuades the Corinthians from marriages with unbelievers; comp. 1Co 7:39, only in the Lord. He however uses such reasons, as may deter them from too close intercourse with unbelievers even in other relations [besides marriage]: comp. 2Co 5:16; 1Co 8:10; 1Co 10:14.-, to unbelievers) heathens. He pulls up all the fibres of the foreign root [of foreign and alien connections].-, what?) Five questions, of which the first three have the force of an argument; the fourth, or what, and the fifth, have at the same time also the force of a conclusion.- , what fellowship is there between righteousness and unrighteousness) The state of believers and unbelievers is altogether different.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
2Co 6:14
2Co 6:14
Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers:-To be unequally yoked would be to be so connected with the unbeliever that the believer would be controlled by the unbeliever. The expression comes from Jehovahs command to the Israelites: Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. (Deu 22:10). So persons that do not harmonize in purposes, walk, and life should not be so bound together that the believer would be controlled by the unbeliever. The principle laid down certainly embraces all the relationships in which a Christian will be controlled in his life or business by one not a Christian. While I would not say that this passage is an absolute prohibition of the marriage of a believer to an unbeliever, it certainly discourages it. Paul says: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her. And the woman that hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. (1Co 7:12-14). This is presenting the contingency for a separation where one becomes a believer after marriage in which the believer would be blameless. It seems to me if it had been anticipated that believers would marry unbelievers, such provision would have not have been made for separation when one becomes a believer after marriage.
The whole drift and tenor of the scriptures, both of the Old and the New Testament, is that in the close and intimate relations of life the children of God should seek the companionship of servants of God, that they might help and encourage each other in the service of God. When both are working together, man in his weakness often becomes discouraged; it is greatly worse when the nearest and dearest one pulls from Christ and duty. Then, too, when people marry, they ought to consider the probability of rearing children. It is the duty of Christian parents to rear their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. How can one do this when the other sets the example of unbelief and disobedience to God? This passage certainly forbids persons so tying themselves to unbelievers in any business or any relation by which the believer is influenced or controlled by the unbeliever. How can a relationship be found that does this more effectually than the marriage relation?
for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity?-How can righteousness and iniquity harmonize in the same person and in the same life? Righteousness dwells in the heart and directs the life of the Christian; iniquity in that of the unbeliever. [By righteousness as opposed to iniquity is meant moral excellence in general, conformity to the law of God as opposed to opposition to that law. The opposition intended is that which exists between the righteous and the wicked. People are said to be in fellowship when they are so united that what belongs to the one belongs to the other, or what is true of the other. Incongruous elements cannot be thus united.]
or what communion hath light with darkness?-Since the heart of the believer is filled with light, and that of the unbeliever with darkness, there can be no interest in common between them. [Paul was sent to the Gentiles to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God. (Act 26:18). Of Christians the Holy Spirit said: Ye are all sons of light, and sons of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. (1Th 5:5). The attempt, therefore, of Christians to remain Christians, and retain their inward state as such, and yet to enter voluntarily into intimate fellowship with the world, is as impossible as to combine light and darkness, holiness and sin, happiness and misery.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
8. The Apostles Exhortations and Rejoicings.
CHAPTER 6:14-7
1. His Exhortations. (2Co 6:14-18; 2Co 7:1.)
2. His Rejoicing and Confidence. (2Co 7:2-16.)
The first exhortation is to separation from evil, without which no true fellowship with God can be enjoyed. It is one of the most important exhortations in the Pauline epistles, and greatly needed in our days of laxity and worldliness among Christians. God calls His people to holiness. But as He who hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. He has separated us from the world which lieth in the wicked one and separated us in Christ to Himself. Believers are not of the world as He is not of the world (Joh 17:14). The cross of Christ makes us dead to the world and the world dead unto us (Gal 6:14). Furthermore Gods Word tells us not to love the world, neither the things that are in the world (1Jn 2:15), and that the friendship of the world is enmity with God; whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God (Jam 4:4). And the world is that great system over which Satan domineers, built up and developed by him, to give the natural man a sphere of enjoyment. True faith not only joins the believer to the Lord, but also separates him in heart and practice from the world which crucified the Lord and still rejects Him.
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers is often quoted as a prohibition of a mixed marriage. This is no doubt included, but the exhortation means more and includes every form of alliance with the world and ungodly principles. It also includes the so-called religious world with its unscriptural practices and denials of the truth. The apostle shows that the believer going along with unbelievers and the world, is indeed in an unequal, a strange, yoke. What fellowship can there be between righteousness and unrighteousness? What fellowship hath light with darkness? Each has a different head; Christ is over His people, they belong to Him; Belial is the head of those who believe not. What could there be for a believer to enjoy with an unbeliever? And believers are the temple of God. How then is association with idols possible? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Blessed statement! But Gods presence demands holiness, separation from evil. Fellowship with evil shuts out God in His gracious manifestations. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing.
God must have His own holy, for He is holy; and this not only in an inward way, without which all would be hypocrisy, but in outward ways also to His own glory, unless He would be a partner with us to His own dishonor. He will have us clear from associations which are worldly and defiling; He will exercise our souls in order to free, them from all that denies or despises His will. He commands those that believe to come out from those that believe not, and to be separated. Indeed the union of the two is so monstrous that it never could be defended for a moment by a true heart. It is only when selfish interests or strong prejudices work, that men gradually accustom and harden themselves to disobedience so flagrant and in every way disastrous. For as the man of the world cannot rise to the level of Christ to be together with His own, the Christian must descend to the level of the world. God is thus and ever more and more put to shame in what claims to be His house, with a loudness proportioned to its departure from His Word (William Kelly).
And in connection with this exhortation to separation from unbelievers the Lord declares His relationship to us. Interesting is the use of the name Lord Almighty in 2Co 6:18. And I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. In the Greek the definite article before Lord is missing. It is simply Kyrios, Lord. It is the same as Jehovah. By that name He revealed Himself to Israel. To Abraham he spoke as the El Shaddai, the Almighty. The Lord who revealed Himself to Abraham, called Him to separation, Get thee out from thy country. To Israel God spoke as Jehovah and they became His people, separated by Him and to Him. And the same Jehovah-Shaddai declares now a new relationship, He will be a Father and we His sons and daughters. In Christ we know God as our Father; we are all the sons of God by faith in Jesus Christ. But to enjoy this relationship practically is only possible if the believer walks in separation. Real communion with God as Father without separating from evil is an impossibility.
God will not have worldlings in relation with Himself as sons and daughters; they have not entered into this position with regard to Him. Nor will He recognize those who remain identified with the world, as having this position; for the world has rejected His Son, and the friendship of the world is enmity against God, and he who is the friend of the world is the enemy of God. It is not being His child in a practical sense. God says, therefore, Come out from among them, and be separate, and ye shall be to me for sons and daughters (Synopsis).
May we heed these important truths. God cannot compromise His own holy and righteous character. His demands upon His people are the demands of separation. And, as we are obedient, we enjoy in faith the blessed relationship into which His grace has brought us.
The second exhortation is closely linked with this. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Holiness in our walk is Gods demand. God looks for practical holiness in His people. If we walk thus, habitually cleansing ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and spirit, we perfect holiness, a practical, daily separation, in the fear of God. While we are, as born again, clean every whit (Joh 13:10), our calling is equally to purify ourselves as He is pure. The defilements of the flesh are the things mentioned in Col 3:5, Gal 5:19, and elsewhere. What are the defilements of the spirit? It means the license of the natural mind, the whole sphere of thought and will, when unregulated by the truth and fear of God. Read 2Co 10:5. Every thought must be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.
The words which follow tell us again of the affectionate concern which the apostle had for the Corinthians! How he loved them and how considerate he was. His whole soul yearned for them. He had wronged no one, nor had he corrupted any, nor did he make personal gain through them. He was filled with comfort. He had fightings without and fears within, but now all was changed. He had met Titus in Macedonia, and through his report and the encouraging news he brought from Corinth, God had comforted him. He knew his former letter (the first epistle) had grieved them, but it had worked for them the godly sorrow which was the aim of the messages sent to them through his inspired pen. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance, for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that in nothing ye might be injured by us. But he also states that for a moment at least he regretted that he had written his first epistle of rebuke (2Co 6:8). But was not that letter inspired? The power behind his pen was the Holy Spirit, yet he regretted for a time that he had written. How is this to be understood? It shows the difference between the individuality of the apostle and divine inspiration.
His heart was filled with so much love, that it obscured his spiritual discernment and he forgot for a moment the character of his epistle, that not he was responsible for what he had written, but that the Spirit of God was the author. The regret was an evidence of weakness at the time when no tidings reached him from Corinth and when his loving heart was so burdened for the Corinthians. (The same weakness is manifested in his journey to Jerusalem. He loved Jerusalem and Israel in such a way that he went there even against the solemn warnings given by the Holy Spirit.) And what he writes now is a loving apology and great joy over what the epistle had wrought, an earnestness to clear themselves of the reproach, indignation on account of sin permitted, yea, zeal for God, and what revenge (or vengeance–righteous wrath)! And so he rejoiced therefore that his confidence had been restored in them in all things.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
righteousness (See Scofield “Rom 10:10”).
unrighteousness Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
unequally: Exo 34:16, Lev 19:19, Deu 7:2, Deu 7:3, Deu 22:9-11, Ezr 9:1, Ezr 9:2, Ezr 9:11, Ezr 9:12, Ezr 10:19, Neh 13:1-3, Neh 13:23-26, Psa 106:35, Pro 22:24, Mal 2:11, Mal 2:15, 1Co 5:9, 1Co 7:39, 1Co 15:33, Jam 4:4
for: 1Sa 5:2, 1Sa 5:3, 1Ki 18:21, 2Ch 19:2, Psa 16:3, Psa 26:4, Psa 26:5, Psa 26:9, Psa 26:10, Psa 44:20, Psa 44:21, Psa 101:3-5, Psa 119:63, Psa 139:21, Psa 139:22, Pro 29:27, Joh 7:7, Joh 15:18, Joh 15:19, Act 4:23, 1Co 10:21, Eph 5:6-11, 1Jo 3:12-14
and what: Pro 8:18, Pro 8:19, Rom 13:12-14, Eph 4:17-20, Eph 5:8-14, Phi 2:15, 1Th 5:4-8, 1Pe 2:9, 1Pe 2:10, 1Pe 4:2-4, 1Jo 1:5-7
Reciprocal: Gen 6:2 – and they Gen 24:3 – that Gen 28:1 – Thou shalt Gen 38:2 – saw Gen 49:6 – unto their Exo 8:26 – It is not Exo 20:23 – General Lev 19:2 – Ye shall Num 36:6 – only to the family Deu 22:10 – General Jos 23:7 – That ye come Jos 23:12 – shall make Jdg 2:2 – And ye shall 1Ki 8:53 – separate 1Ki 11:2 – surely 1Ki 22:44 – made peace 2Ki 8:27 – the son in law 2Ch 18:1 – joined affinity Neh 10:28 – all they Psa 101:4 – know Pro 13:20 – but Amo 3:3 – General Mat 5:14 – the light Mat 18:17 – a heathen Act 26:18 – and to Rom 12:2 – be not Eph 5:11 – no 1Jo 1:6 – fellowship
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Co 6:14. Notwithstanding all that can justly be said against Christians marrying those who are not, it is a perversion to apply this passage to that subject. The same subject is under consideration in verse 17, where the apostle commands them to come out from among them. If Paul was writing in view of the marriage relation, then the command would require Christian husbands or wives to separate from their companions who were not Christians. But that would contradict 1Co 7:12-16 and 1Pe 3:1-2, and we are sure the Bible does not contradict itself. The passage at hand refers to religious organizations, or any such that profess to offer religious benefits to the world. That would include the ones that make direct professions of a religious character, such as the sectarian organizations, also those whose claims for spiritual rewards are only a part of their avowed purpose, such as the various fraternal organizations. The New Testament church is the only organization that has any scriptural right to offer spiritual instructions and other benefits to the world. (See Eph 3:10-11 Eph 3:21, and 1Ti 3:15.) Unequally yoked is from HETERZUGER, and this is the only place the word is is used in the Greek New Testament. Thayer defines it, “to come under an unequal or different yoke; to have fellowship with one who is not an equal.” He then explains it to mean, “the apostle is forbidding Christians to have intercourse [familiar association] with idolaters.” Robinson’s explanation of the word is virtually the same as that of Thayer. The remainder of the verse (and several verses following) shows specific reasons for the command. Idolatrous teaching and practices certainly constitute unright-eousness, and Christians can have nothing in common with such a system. Light and darkness are used figuratively, referring to truth and error as pertaining to spiritual matters. Communion means fellowship, indicating a common sharing in the same thing. Christians believe in the truth of the Lord and hence cannot be a partner with those who teach error.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
2Co 6:14. Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers. The figure is drawn from the heterogeneous yoking of animals in a team (compare Deu 22:10, Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together; and see Lev 19:19); and though the more immediate reference probably is to too intimate association with their unconverted fellow-citizens at feasts, and especially to intermarriage with heathens, it is doubtless meant to embrace all entangling association with those whose close fellowship would have a deadening effect on their religious life,
for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? On the meaning of righteousness here, see on 2Co 6:7,
or what communion hath light with dark-ness? Compare Luk 16:8; 1Th 5:5; Amo 3:5; Eph 5:7-8; 1Jn 1:6-7.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The holy apostle closes this chapter with an exhortation to avoid all intimacy with idolators, either in civil affairs, in marriages, or in religious worship, lest they be brought into communion with their idolatry; there being no more agreement between a believer and an idolater, than betwixt light and darkness, betwixt Christ and Satan.
And, as we must not join with idolaters in spiritual communion or religious worship, so should we have no communion with them in marriages; that having proved a dangerous snare to the souls of many, our divines have justly pronounced such marriages sinful.
Nay, it is both wise and safe to have as little civil communion with idolaters as we can; and when we are necessitated to have civil communion with them, we must utterly avoid all sinful communion with them, that is, all communion with them in their sins.
Learn, That to associate with idolaters, or join in affinity with them, but especially to communicate with them in their idolatrous worship, is a God-provoking and a wrath-procuring sin: Be ye not unequally and unsuitiably yoked with unbelievers.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Verse 14 This appeal is based on the aforementioned love. All relationships with unbelievers that hinder our service to God should be stopped. So long as we can have peaceful relationships with unbelievers that do not affect our service to God adversely, we may continue in them ( 1Co 5:9-10 ; 1Co 7:12-13 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
2Co 6:14-16. Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers Christians with Jews or heathen, godly persons with the ungodly, spiritual with such as are carnal. The apostle particularly speaks of marriage; but the reasons he urges equally hold against any needless intimacy or society with them. Of the five questions that follow, the three former contain the argument, the two latter the conclusion. For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness The righteous can have no profitable, agreeable, or comfortable society or converse with the unrighteous. What communion hath light That is, the state of light and knowledge, into which you are brought by divine mercy; with darkness That deplorable state of ignorance and folly, vice and misery, in which they continue to be lost? And what concord hath Christ Whom you serve; with Belial To whom they belong, and who reigns in all the children of disobedience? Or what part In time or in eternity; hath he that believeth In Christ and his gospel, and who is a true, genuine disciple of Christ; with an infidel
Or an infidel with a believer? The union is surely, at the first view of it, too unnatural to be either agreeable, safe, or lasting. And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols Which would by this means be, as it were, erected in it? If God would not endure idols in any part of the land where he dwelt, how much less under his own roof? He does not say, with the temple of idols; for idols do not dwell in their worshippers. This is a proper question, and a just view in which to place the matter; for ye As a church, and as individuals; are the temple of the living God. See on Rom 8:9. As God hath said To his ancient Church, and in them to all his Israel, in all ages; I will dwell in them The force of the original expression cannot easily be equalled in any translation; . The words, I will inhabit in them, or I will take up my indwelling in them, would nearly, though inelegantly, express the sense: and walk in them The former expression signifies his perpetual presence; this latter, his operation. And I will be their God In the fullest sense; manifesting my favour to them, communicating my Spirit, stamping them with mine image, and vouchsafing them communion with myself, in time and in eternity. And they shall be my people Whom I will direct and govern, protect and save, here and hereafter. The sum this of the whole gospel covenant.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers [a figure drawn from the law– Deu 22:9-11]: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness?
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
ALLIANCES WITH THE WICKED FORBIDDEN
14. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers. This not only covers the ground of matrimonial alliances with the wicked, so prominently forbidden in the Word of God, and so recreantly and recklessly violated by the professors of religion at the present day, even the preachers winking at it, but it also interdicts all sorts of business complications and partnerships with the ungodly. For what participation to righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship to light unto darkness? The answer to these questions is a positive and uncompromising negative.
15. And what sympathy of Christ unto Belial? Or what part to a faithful man with an infidel? Precisely as there is no conceivable reconcilement and co-operation of Christ and Belial, it is equally true that there is no possible harmony between a believer and an infidel. Hence it is foolish and wicked on the part of Gods people to enter into alliance of any sort with infidels. We should have nothing to do with them, except to make an honest effort for their salvation.
16. What agreement unto the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God, as God said, That I will dwell among them and will walk among them, and I will be their God and they shall be my people. This verse is a scathing and uncompromising abnegation to all idolatry in every form and phase. This is very pertinent with them, because the most of them had been converted out of Gentile idolatry, and the Jews among them needed this admonition, as they had so largely retrogressed into not the paganistic, but yet practice idolatry. Oh! how exceedingly these strictures are needed in the churches of the present day, already largely filled with idols and daily multiplying them with an alarming rapidity! The Apostolic churches owned no houses, but worshipped wherever it suited their convenience. We find them in Troas using a room in a third story. What a pity the church didnt remain in this itinerant, belligerent attitude, free and unencumbered to go to the ends of the earth, waging everywhere an exterminating war against the devil! While needless ornamentation was justifiable in Solomons temple, the wilderness tabernacle and the high-priests regalia, as they lived in the symbolic dispensation, and all of those valuables taught important lessons appertaining to the gracious economy, we must remember that the types and shadows have all been verified in the great Antitype, and have no longer any pertinency in the Church of God; but now, as they are utterly useless, and even forbidden, they become idols and rivals of the glorious Antitype, who should to us be all things and in all. Here we are assured that God dwells among us in the sanctuaries we erect in His name and that He walks among us. Consequently there should be no idols in the form of needless expenditure of the Lords money, nor gratifications of human pride and vanity, as even church pride is an abomination unto God. We should have nothing in our houses of worship calculated to divert the attention of the awful presence of the Almighty, who can not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. How sad it is to see a modern church running after a vast diversity of idols, worshipping water-gods, day-gods, creed-gods, festival-gods, money-gods and gods of wood and stone in the form of fine church edifices!
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
2Co 6:14 to 2Co 7:1. These verses appear plainly out of place. They break what is otherwise a close connexion between 2Co 6:13 and 2Co 7:2 : they introduce a new and very different subject, and they have a very different tone from what precedes and follows. They are best regarded as a scrap from another letter written by Paul to Corinth, possibly a fragment of the letter referred to in 1Co 5:9, which has accidentally crept into the sheets on which our letter was preserved. They contain an urgent, even passionate, demand for complete separation from the heathen, especially in their idolatrous practices. In a series of sharp questions Paul flashes scorn on every attempt to serve two masters, Christ and Belial, that is the devil (or, possibly, Antichrist, Pro 6:12*). The last of these questions reminds him that Christians are meant to be Gods temple; and he exposes the source and the significance of that conception by means of a series of quotations from OT, the first being freely reproduced from Eze 37:27, the rest combined from Isa 52:11, Ex. 20:34, and 2Ki 7:14. The description of God as the Almighty occurs in NT only here and in Rev. Men who rest in these promises seek to purify themselves (cf. 1Jn 3:3) in flesh and spiritthese words being used in the simple untechnical sense, as in 1Co 7:34 (body and spirit).
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Verse 14
Unequally yoked together; joined with them in any of the pursuits or associations of life. This prohibition is often, though without reason, supposed to refer specially to marriage. It seems, however, to be more general in its meaning, referring to connections of every kind.–Unbelievers; idolatrous heathen. The term, as used here, cannot justly be considered as intended to include individuals not professedly pious in a Christian land. (See 1 Corinthians 7:39.)
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
6:14 {7} Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
(7) Now he rebukes them boldly, because they became fellows with infidels in outward idolatry, as though it were an indifferent thing. And this is the fourth part of this epistle, the conclusion of which is, that those whom the Lord has condescended to in calling them his children, must keep themselves pure, not only in mind, but also in body, that they may be completely holy to the Lord.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Some of the Corinthians were not openhearted toward Paul because they were doing things that they knew he disapproved. This evidently included maintaining inappropriate relationships with unbelievers. Other interpretations of the identity of the unbelievers identify them as untrustworthy persons in contrast to Paul, Gentile Christians who did not observe the Mosaic Law, the immoral within the church, and the false apostles. [Note: See William J. Webb, "Who Are the Unbelievers (apistoi) in 2 Corinthians 6:14?" Bibliotheca Sacra 149:593 (January-March 1992):27-44.]
Paul was not saying that Christians should break off all association with unbelievers (cf. 1Co 5:9-10; 1Co 10:27). He had previously encouraged the saved partner in a mixed marriage to maintain the marriage relationship as long as possible (1Co 7:12-16). He had also urged his fellow Christians as ambassadors of Christ to evangelize the lost (2Co 5:20). Rather Paul commanded that Christians form no binding interpersonal relationships with non-Christians that resulted in their spiritual defilement. This is an extension to human beings of the principle underlying the prohibition against breeding or yoking an ox and a donkey together in Lev 19:19 and Deu 22:10. Such alliances can prevent the Christian from living a consistently obedient Christian life. The fulfillment of God’s will must be primary for a believer. Obviously some relationships with pagans do not pose a threat to our faithfulness to God. Where they do the Christian must maintain his or her relationship with Christ even it if means forfeiting relationship with unbelievers. There is a conceptual parallel here with what Jesus (Mat 22:21; Mar 12:17; Luk 20:25), Paul (Rom 13:1-7; Tit 3:1-2), and Peter (1Pe 2:13-17) taught about the believer’s relationships with God and the state. We should obey both authorities unless they conflict, in which case we must obey God.
"Urban Roman colonies understood quite well the custom that one could not be friends with a friend’s or patron’s enemies." [Note: Keener, p. 193.]
Paul set forth the folly of such behavior by pointing out five contrasts. Each one expects a negative answer. All of them point out the incompatibility and incongruity of Christian discipleship and heathenism. Paul supported the last of these with quotations from the Old Testament (2Co 6:16-18).
Christians should follow God’s will that results in righteous behavior, but pagans have no regard for God’s laws. Christians are children of the light, but unbelievers are children of darkness (cf. Col 1:13). Beliel (2Co 6:15) is the personification of evil (cf. Deu 13:13; 2Sa 22:5-6), and he is the antithesis of Christ. Beliel was a recognized name for Satan in Paul’s day. [Note: Hughes, p. 248.] It may have come from combining the Hebrew word for "worthlessness" with the name of the pagan god Baal. [Note: Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 8.318. Cf. Keener, p. 194.] Believers have little in common with unbelievers when it comes to things that are peculiar to unbelievers. Obviously we share many things, such as food, clothing, houses, sun, air, and rain. Christians who are temples of the living God are quite different from the heathen who worship idols in temples made with hands. [Note: See William J. Webb, "What Is the Unequal Yoke (hetepozygountes) in 2 Corinthians 6:14?" Bibliotheca Sacra 149:594 (April-June 1992):162-79.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The counter-balancing caution 6:14-7:1
The Corinthians had a tendency to respond to Paul’s teachings by first resisting them and then going overboard in applying them inappropriately. They had done this in dealing with the incestuous man, for example (1 Corinthians 5). Consequently Paul immediately explained what he did not mean by his appeal so his readers would not become dangerously openhearted to all people as well as to himself. This section of text summarizes 1Co 10:1-22 where Paul had previously warned the Corinthians about idolatry.
"Paul is quite capable of digressing, and it may be argued that while he is pleading for mutual openheartedness he reflects that the reason for the restraint which he deprecates on his readers’ part is their uneasy awareness that they have not made the complete break with idolatrous associations which he had earlier urged upon them (1 C. 10.14ff.); hence this exhortation." [Note: Bruce, p. 214. See also Carson and Moo, pp. 438-40.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 18
NEW TESTAMENT PURITANISM.
2Co 6:14-18; 2Co 7:1 (R.V)
THIS is one of the most peculiar passages in the New Testament. Even a careless reader must feel that there is something abrupt and unexpected in it; it jolts the mind as a stone on the road does a carriage-wheel. Paul has been begging the Corinthians to treat him with the same love and confidence which he has always shown to them, and he urges this claim upon them up to 2Co 6:13. Then comes this passage about the relation of Christians to the world. Then again, at 2Co 7:2 -“Open your hearts to us; we wronged no man, we corrupted no man, we took advantage of no man”-he returns to the old subject without the least mark of transition. If everything were omitted from 2Co 6:14 2Co 7:1 inclusive, the continuity both of thought and feeling would be much more striking. This consideration alone has induced many scholars to believe that these verses do not occupy their original place. The ingenious suggestion has been made that they are a fragment of the letter to which the Apostle refers in the First Epistle: {2Co 5:9} the sentiment, and to some extent even the words, favor this conjecture. But as there is no external authority for any conjecture whatever, and no variation in the text, such suggestions can never become conclusive. It is always possible that, on reading over his letter, the Apostle himself may have inserted a paragraph breaking to some extent the closeness of the original connection. If there is nothing in the contents of the section inconsistent with his mind, the breach of continuity is not enough to discredit it.
Some, however, have gone further than this. They have pointed to the strange formulae of quotation-“as God said,” “saith the Lord,” “saith the Lord Almighty”-as unlike Paul. Even the main idea of the passage-“touch not any unclean thing”-is asserted to be at variance with his principles. A narrow Jewish Christian might, it is said, have expressed this shrinking from what is unclean, in the sense of being associated with idolatry, but not the great Apostle of liberty. At all events he would have taken care, in giving such an advice under special circumstances, to safeguard the principle of freedom. And, finally, an argument is drawn from language. The only point at which it is even plausible is that which touches upon the use of the terms “flesh” and “spirit” in 2Co 7:1. Schmiedel, who has an admirable excursus on the whole question, decides that this, and this only, is certainly un-Pauline. It is certainly unusual in Paul, but I do not think we can say more. The “rigor and vigor” with which Pauls use of these terms is investigated seems to me largely misplaced. They did undoubtedly tend to become technical in his mind, but words so universally and so vaguely used could never become simply technical. If any contemporary of Paul could have written, “Let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit,” then Paul himself could have written it. Language offers the same latitudes and liberties to everybody, and one could not imagine a subject which tempted less to technicality than the one urged in these verses. Whatever the explanation of their apparently irrelevant insertion here, I can see nothing in them alien to Paul. Puritanism is certainly more akin to the Old Testament than to the New, and that may explain the instinctiveness with which the writer seems to turn to the law and the prophets, and the abundance of his quotations; but though “all things are lawful” to the Christian, Puritanism has a place in the New Testament too. There is no conception of “holiness” into which the idea of “separation” does not enter; and though the balance of elements may vary in the New Testament as compared with the Old, none can be wanting. From this point of view we can best examine the meaning and application of the passage. If a connection is craved, the best, I think, is that furnished by a combination of Calvin and Meyer. Quasi recuperata auctoritate, says Calvin, liberius jam eos objurgat: this supplies a link of feeling between vv. 13 and 14 {2Co 6:13-14}. A link of thought is supplied if we consider with Meyer that inattention to the rule of life here laid down was a notable cause of receiving the grace of God in vain (2Co 7:1). Let us notice
(1) the moral demand of the passage;
(2) the assumption on which it rests;
(3) the Divine promise which inspires its observance.
(1) The moral demand is first put in the negative form: “Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers.” The peculiar word (“unequally yoked”) has a cognate form in Lev 19:19, in the law which forbids the breeding of hybrid animals. God has established a good physical order in the world, and it is not to be confounded and disfigured by the mixing of species. It is that law (or perhaps another form of it in Deu 22:10, forbidding an Israelite to plough with an ox and an ass under the same yoke) that is applied in an ethical sense in this passage. There is a wholesome moral order in the world also, and it is not to be confused by the association of its different kinds. The common application of this text to the marriage of Christians and non-Christians is legitimate, but too narrow. The text prohibits every kind of union in which the separate character and interest of the Christian lose anything of their distinctiveness and integrity. This is brought out more strongly in the free quotation from Isa 52:2 in 2Co 6:17 : “Come out from among them, and be separate, saith the Lord, and touch not anything unclean.” These words were originally addressed to the priests who, on the redemption of Israel from Babylon, were to carry the sacred temple vessels back to Jerusalem. But we must remember that, though they are Old Testament words, they are quoted by a New Testament writer, who inevitably puts his own meaning into them. “The unclean thing” which no Christian is to touch is not to be taken in a precise Levitical sense; it covers, and I have no doubt was intended by the writer to cover, all that it suggests to any simple Christian mind now. We are to have no compromising connection with anything in the world which is alien to God. Let us be as loving and conciliatory as we please, but as long as the world is what it is, the Christian life can only maintain itself in it in an attitude of protest. There always will be things and people to whom the Christian has to say No!
But the moral demand of the passage is put in a more positive form in the last verse: “Let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” That is the ideal of the Christian life. There is something to be overcome and put away; there is something to be wrought out and completed; there is a spiritual element or atmosphere-the fear of God-in which alone these tasks can be accomplished. The fear of God is an Old Testament name for true religion, and even under the New Testament it holds its place. The Seraphim still veil their faces while they cry “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts,” and still we must feel that great awe descend upon our hearts if we would be partakers of His holiness. It is this which withers up sin to the root, and enables us to cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit. St. Paul includes himself in his exhortation here: it is one duty, one ideal, which is set before all. The prompt decisive side of it is represented in (“let US cleanse”: observe the aorist); its patient laborious side in (“carrying holiness to completion.”) Almost everybody in a Christian Church makes a beginning with this task: we cleanse ourselves from obvious and superficial defilements; but how few carry the work on into the spirit, how few carry it on ceaselessly towards perfection. As year after year rolls by, as the various experiences of life come to us with their lessons and their discipline from God, as we see the lives of others, here sinking ever deeper and deeper into the corruptions of the world, there rising daily nearer and nearer to the perfect holiness which is their goal, does not this demand assert its power over us? Is it not a great thing, a worthy thing, that we should set ourselves to purge away from our whole nature, outward and inward, whatever cannot abide the holy eye of God; and that we should regard Christian holiness, not as a subject for casual thoughts once a week, but as the task to be taken up anew, with unwearying diligence, every day we live? Let us be in earnest with this, for surely God is in earnest.
(2) Observe now the assumption on which the demand not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers is based. It is that there are two ethical or spiritual interests in the world, and that these are fundamentally inconsistent with each other. This implies that in choosing the one, the other has to be rejected. But it implies more: it implies that at bottom there are only two kinds of people in the world-those who identify themselves with the one of these interests, and those who identify themselves with the other.
Now, as long as this is kept in the abstract form, people do not quarrel with it. They have no objection to admit that good and evil are the only spiritual forces in the world, and that they are mutually exclusive. But many will not admit that there are only two kinds of persons in the world, answering to these two forces. They would rather say there is only one kind of persons, in whom these forces are with infinite varieties and modifications combined. This seems more tolerant, more humane, more capable of explaining the amazing mixtures and inconsistencies we see in human lives. But it is not more true. It is a more penetrating insight which judges that every man-despite his range of neutrality-would in the last resort choose his side; would, in short, in a crisis of the proper kind, prove finally that he was not good and bad, but good or bad. We cannot pretend to judge others, but sometimes men judge themselves, and always God can judge. And there is an instinct in those who are perfecting holiness in the fear of God which tells them, without in the least making them Pharisaical, not only what things, but what persons-not only what ideas and practices, but what individual characters-are not to be made friends of. It is no pride, or scorn, or censoriousness, which speaks thus, but the voice of all Christian experience. It is recognized at once where the young are concerned: people are careful of the friends their children make, and a schoolmaster will dismiss inexorably, not only a bad habit, but a bad boy, from the school. It ought to be recognized just as easily in maturity as in childhood: there are men and women, as well as boys and girls, who distinctly represent evil, and whose society is to be declined. To protest against them, to repel them, to resent their life and conduct as morally offensive, is a Christian duty; it is the first step towards evangelizing them.
It is worth noticing in the passage before us how the Apostle, starting from abstract ideas, descends, as he becomes more urgent, into personal relations. What fellowship have righteousness and lawlessness? None. What communion has light with darkness? None. What concord has Christ with Belial? Here the persons come in who are the heads, or representatives, of the opposing moral interests, and it is only now that we feel the completeness of the antagonism. The interest of holiness is gathered up in Christ; the interest of evil in the great adversary; and they have nothing in common. And so with the believer and the unbeliever. Of course there is ground on which they can meet: the same sun shines on them, the same soil supports them, they breathe the same air. But in all that is indicated by those two names-believer and unbeliever-they stand quite apart; and the distinction thus indicated reaches deeper than any bond of union. It is not denied that the unbeliever may have much that is admirable about him: and for the believer the one supremely important thing in the world is that which the unbeliever denies, and therefore the more he is in earnest the less can he afford the unbelievers friendship. We need all the help we can get to fight the good fight of faith, and to perfect holiness in the fear of God; and a friend whose silence numbs faith, or whose words trouble it, is a friend no earnest Christian dare keep. Words like these would not seem so hard if the common faith of Christians were felt to be a real bond of union among them, and if the recoil from the unbelieving world were seen to be the action of the whole Christian society, the instinct of self-preservation in the new Christian life. But, at whatever risk of seeming harsh, it must be repeated that there has never been a state of affairs in the world in which the commandment had no meaning. “Come out from among them, and be ye separate”; nor an obedience to this commandment which did not involve separation from persons as well as from principles.
(3) But what bulks most largely in the passage is the series of divine promises which are to inspire and sustain obedience. The separations which an earnest Christian life requires are not without their compensation; to leave the world is to be welcomed by God. It is probable that the pernicious association which the writer had immediately in view was association with the heathen in their worship, or at least in their sacrificial feasts. At all events it is the inconsistency of this with the worship of the true God that forms the climax of his expostulation-What agreement hath a temple of God with idols? and it is to this, again, that the encouraging promises are attached. “We,” says the Apostle, “are a temple of the living God.” This carries with it all that he has claimed: for a temple means a house in which God dwells, and God can only dwell in a holy place. Pagans and Jews alike recognized the sanctity of their temples: nothing was guarded more jealously; nothing, if violated, was more promptly and terribly avenged. Paul had seen the day when he gave his vote to shed the blood of a man who had spoken disrespectfully of the Temple at Jerusalem, and the day was coming when he himself was to run the risk of his life on the mere suspicion that he had taken a pagan into the holy place. He expects Christians to be as much in earnest as Jews who keep the sanctity of Gods house inviolate; and now, he says, that house are we: it is ourselves we have to keep unspotted from the world.
We are Gods temple in accordance with the central promise of the old covenant: as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” The original of this is Lev 26:2; Lev 26:12. The Apostle, as has been observed already, takes the Old Testament words in a New Testament sense: as they stand here in Second Corinthians they mean something much more intimate and profound than in their old place in Leviticus. But even there, he tells us, they are a promise to us. What God speaks, He speaks to His people, and speaks once for all. And if the divine presence in the camp of Israel-a presence represented by the Ark and its tent-was to consecrate that nation to Jehovah, and inspire them with zeal to keep the camp clean, that nothing might offend the eyes of His glory, how much more ought those whom God has visited in His Son, those in whom He dwells through His Spirit, to cleanse themselves from every defilement, and make their souls fit for His habitation? After repeating the charge to come out and be separate, the writer heaps up new promises, in which the letter and the spirit of various Old Testament passages are freely combined. The principal one seems to be 2Sa 7:1-29, which contains the promises originally made to Solomon. At 2Sa 7:14 of that chapter we have the idea of the paternal and filial relation, and at 2Sa 7:8 the speaker is described in the LXX, as here, as the Lord Almighty. But passages like Jer 31:1; Jer 31:9, also doubtless floated through the writers mind, and it is the substance, not the form, which is the main thing. The very freedom with which they are reproduced shows us how thoroughly the writer is at home, and how confident he is that he is making the right and natural application of these ancient promises.
Separate yourselves, for you are Gods temple: separate yourselves and you will be sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty, and He will be your Father. Haec una ratio instar mille esse debet. The friendship of the world, as James reminds us, is enmity with God; it is the consoling side of the same truth that separation from the world means friendship with God. It does not mean solitude, but a more blessed society; not renunciation of love, but admission to the only love which satisfies the soul, because that for which the soul was made. The Puritanism of the New Testament is no harsh, repellent thing, which eradicates the affections, and makes life bleak and barren; it is the condition under which the heart is opened to the love of God, and filled with all comfort and joy in obedience. With Him on our side-with the promise of His indwelling Spirit to sanctify us, of His fatherly kindness to enrich and protect us-shall we not obey the exhortation to come out and be separate, to cleanse ourselves from all that defiles, to perfect holiness in His fear?