Which reads: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" I read somewhere that someone contends that this refers only to those who don't believe in anything at all, meaning atheists. And that it doesn't refer to those who may believe in whatever it is other than Christianity. What do you say? I know that this is asking too much for this board but please keep the discussion and the replies civil. Thank you for your time.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
2 Corinthians 6:14.
- Thread starter pawnraider
- Start date
OzSpen
Regular Member
- Oct 15, 2005
- 11,553
- 710
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Private
To whom was the book of 2 Corinthians written?
So to interpret 2 Cor. 6:14, we need to look to what it meant to be in a "church of God" and to be "saints". Also, read the following verses to 2 Cor. 6:14,
It is very clear from this context what it means to be "unequally yoked with unbelievers". It means that Christians must not be "unequally yoked" with those who are non-believers. In that context at Corinth, saints of God were not be be yoked with idol worshippers, including Belial.
Sincerely, Oz
Upvote
0
- Dec 10, 2003
- 23,896
- 9,877
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
There really were very few atheists back in those days. "Unbeliever" means "non-Christian."
Upvote
0
- Nov 29, 2003
- 2,568
- 84
- 44
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
14 Do not be incongruously yoked with unbelievers. For what have righteousness and lawlessness in common? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 And what agreement has Christ with Beliar? Or what does a believer possess in common with an unbeliever? 16 And what accord has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God said:
Paul takes up a different, and more obvious, aspect of his plea in 6:1 that his readers should not receive Gods grace to no purpose. They need to put into effect the moral consequences of the grace bestowed upon them. These exhortations, however, are not unrelated to the major theme of the ministry of the new covenant. The Corinthians are Pauls letter of recommendation (3:2). If they fail to maintain the holiness proper to Gods covenant people (cf. Lev 19:2), then the validity of both the message and the ministry of the new covenant will be called into question, and Jewish doubts and criticism will be reinforced. The injunctions are of an uncompromising nature. But they are followed by a further plea for affection, coupled with a brief note of selfdefence, and by Pauls assurance of his own fundamentally affectionate attitude towards those to whom he writes.
14. Μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις· τίς γὰρ μετοχὴ δεκαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀνομίᾳ, ἢ τίς κοινωνία φωτὶ πρὸς σκότος; The basic theme of the passage is stated at the beginning: the Corinthians are not to associate closely with those Paul terms ἄπιστοι. Presumably they understood what he meant, but his form of expression is unusual. The participle ἑτεροζυγοῦντες implies the existence of a verb ἑτεροζυγέω which is nowhere else attested. It must be derived from, or at least related to, the adjective ἑτερόζυγος as used in Lev 19:19, where it means beast requiring a different yoke. Hence the participle will mean yoking oneself with someone whose yoke is a misfit for oneself, and thus misyoked, or unevenly yoked. In Lev 19:19 ἐτερόζυγος refers to the (prohibited) mixed breeding of animals (cf. the same law of mixtures, differently applied, in Deut 22:10), and the passage is allegorised by Philo to refer to adultery. But to translate Pauls term as mismated would probably limit it too specifically. Doubtless he does have in view the contraction of a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever, but he might be thinking also of business partnerships. In the ancient world, a business association was not divorced from other aspects of life: rather, the partners were expected to share the ups and downs together, belonging to each other in a close relationship. In addition, the prohibition would include participation in cultic meals in pagan temples.* It is unspecific, and therefore widely comprehensive. For this very reason, it appears to clash with Pauls more liberal attitude in 1 Corinthians. The problem is not to be avoided by interpreting ἂπιστοι as a reference to his Christian opponents or critics. It is close contact with unbelievers that he forbids. It may be that in his own mind there was no great inconsistency. He may not have intended, for example, to cancel what he had said in 1 Cor 7:116 about the maintenance of mixed marriages, but only to warn against such unions in the future. But he could have been aware that some of his ethical advice in the earlier letter had been received too lightly, so that he now thinks a stronger tone to be necessary. For this purpose he may use motifs and forms of expression which derive from pre-baptismal instruction, in which the break the convert must make with the unbelieving world will have been stated in absolute terms.
There is an absolute contrast between the moral uprightness required of the believer and the wickedness which characterises the pagan world. The opposition of δικαιοσύνη and ἀνουία is Pauline, as is the dualism of light and darkness. The use of this second contrast in a context which divides humankind into two groups does not of necessity support the view that the passage comes from an Essene source. Paul himself can speak of Christians as sons of light (1 Th 5:5), and may well have thought of the rest of humanity as sons of darkness.
* As Fee, Food Offered to Idols, pp. 15760, claims. It is unlikely, however, that this is the sole point of concern: see above, pp. 27, 31.
Margaret Thrall (1994), A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Volume 1, Chapter 1-7 (p. ?).
(I can look up the page number 2 days from now when I have bought my computer and installed Logos on it, accessing my Logos books right now from library.logos.com)
This commentary-series i abbreviated: ICC.
Paul takes up a different, and more obvious, aspect of his plea in 6:1 that his readers should not receive Gods grace to no purpose. They need to put into effect the moral consequences of the grace bestowed upon them. These exhortations, however, are not unrelated to the major theme of the ministry of the new covenant. The Corinthians are Pauls letter of recommendation (3:2). If they fail to maintain the holiness proper to Gods covenant people (cf. Lev 19:2), then the validity of both the message and the ministry of the new covenant will be called into question, and Jewish doubts and criticism will be reinforced. The injunctions are of an uncompromising nature. But they are followed by a further plea for affection, coupled with a brief note of selfdefence, and by Pauls assurance of his own fundamentally affectionate attitude towards those to whom he writes.
14. Μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις· τίς γὰρ μετοχὴ δεκαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀνομίᾳ, ἢ τίς κοινωνία φωτὶ πρὸς σκότος; The basic theme of the passage is stated at the beginning: the Corinthians are not to associate closely with those Paul terms ἄπιστοι. Presumably they understood what he meant, but his form of expression is unusual. The participle ἑτεροζυγοῦντες implies the existence of a verb ἑτεροζυγέω which is nowhere else attested. It must be derived from, or at least related to, the adjective ἑτερόζυγος as used in Lev 19:19, where it means beast requiring a different yoke. Hence the participle will mean yoking oneself with someone whose yoke is a misfit for oneself, and thus misyoked, or unevenly yoked. In Lev 19:19 ἐτερόζυγος refers to the (prohibited) mixed breeding of animals (cf. the same law of mixtures, differently applied, in Deut 22:10), and the passage is allegorised by Philo to refer to adultery. But to translate Pauls term as mismated would probably limit it too specifically. Doubtless he does have in view the contraction of a marriage between a believer and an unbeliever, but he might be thinking also of business partnerships. In the ancient world, a business association was not divorced from other aspects of life: rather, the partners were expected to share the ups and downs together, belonging to each other in a close relationship. In addition, the prohibition would include participation in cultic meals in pagan temples.* It is unspecific, and therefore widely comprehensive. For this very reason, it appears to clash with Pauls more liberal attitude in 1 Corinthians. The problem is not to be avoided by interpreting ἂπιστοι as a reference to his Christian opponents or critics. It is close contact with unbelievers that he forbids. It may be that in his own mind there was no great inconsistency. He may not have intended, for example, to cancel what he had said in 1 Cor 7:116 about the maintenance of mixed marriages, but only to warn against such unions in the future. But he could have been aware that some of his ethical advice in the earlier letter had been received too lightly, so that he now thinks a stronger tone to be necessary. For this purpose he may use motifs and forms of expression which derive from pre-baptismal instruction, in which the break the convert must make with the unbelieving world will have been stated in absolute terms.
There is an absolute contrast between the moral uprightness required of the believer and the wickedness which characterises the pagan world. The opposition of δικαιοσύνη and ἀνουία is Pauline, as is the dualism of light and darkness. The use of this second contrast in a context which divides humankind into two groups does not of necessity support the view that the passage comes from an Essene source. Paul himself can speak of Christians as sons of light (1 Th 5:5), and may well have thought of the rest of humanity as sons of darkness.
* As Fee, Food Offered to Idols, pp. 15760, claims. It is unlikely, however, that this is the sole point of concern: see above, pp. 27, 31.
Margaret Thrall (1994), A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Volume 1, Chapter 1-7 (p. ?).
(I can look up the page number 2 days from now when I have bought my computer and installed Logos on it, accessing my Logos books right now from library.logos.com)
This commentary-series i abbreviated: ICC.
Upvote
0
In the text Paul contrasts 2 groups together identifying them first as "believers" and "unbelievers". As the text continues these terms are then liken with righteousness/unrighteousness, light/dark, Christ/Belial (v15), temple of God/idols(v16). Now lets group these all together and see what we have...
believers
righteousness
light
Christ
temple of God
unbelievers
unrighteousness
dark
Belial
idols
I see nothing ambiguous with the term "believers" in the context of the text. You seem to be isolating "believers and unbelievers" and fail to read the rest of the context even in your own quoted text. If Paul means "believers" to simply be anyone who believes in anything then to pair that term with righteousness, light, Christ, and temple of God then assuming that only atheist are to be likened with that later terms of unrighteousness, dark, Belial and idols is a counter gospel message and rejects the fundamental Christian message (not to mention it doesn't even make sense as atheist and idols are not like terms and cannot be paired together)
Upvote
0
2 Cor 6:14, 15 is teaching that Christians are not to be "in union" with unbelievers:
14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?
The Greek word heterozygeō is used for "bound together" which basically means "yoke". When you see that a yoke is designed to lock two animals together to work in union, it should be clearly understood that Christians are not to be in any type of relationship or commitment that "yokes" them or locks them with another person who is an unbeliever, where the two are working toward a common goal. Keep in mind the most obvious would be marriage, business ventures, or contract agreements with one who is not a believer in Christ.
Paul makes the contrast of "righteousness with unrighteousness", "Christ with Belial (Satan)", and "light with darkness". All those contrast clearly make the points:
*Righteousness is Godly, lawlessness is not.
*Christ is our Savior, but Belial (Satan) is our enemy.
*Light helps us see clearly, darkness does not. (Or think of light as that which leads us to God, as Christ is the Light of the world).
Consider what God told Israel in Deuteronomy 22:10 about yoking unlike animals:
“You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together."
Here is a link to that passage from the Bible Study Tools site that may help you:
2 Corinthians 6 - Jamison, Fausset Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
I hope this helps you.
14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?
The Greek word heterozygeō is used for "bound together" which basically means "yoke". When you see that a yoke is designed to lock two animals together to work in union, it should be clearly understood that Christians are not to be in any type of relationship or commitment that "yokes" them or locks them with another person who is an unbeliever, where the two are working toward a common goal. Keep in mind the most obvious would be marriage, business ventures, or contract agreements with one who is not a believer in Christ.
Paul makes the contrast of "righteousness with unrighteousness", "Christ with Belial (Satan)", and "light with darkness". All those contrast clearly make the points:
*Righteousness is Godly, lawlessness is not.
*Christ is our Savior, but Belial (Satan) is our enemy.
*Light helps us see clearly, darkness does not. (Or think of light as that which leads us to God, as Christ is the Light of the world).
Consider what God told Israel in Deuteronomy 22:10 about yoking unlike animals:
“You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together."
Here is a link to that passage from the Bible Study Tools site that may help you:
2 Corinthians 6 - Jamison, Fausset Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
I hope this helps you.
Upvote
0
- Nov 29, 2003
- 2,568
- 84
- 44
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
Here is a brief thread discussing this verse: 2 Corinthians 6:14 - Catholic Answers Forums
Here are two papers about 6:14-7:1: http://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j...84C4Dg&usg=AFQjCNFTJhHssj_SJE180kkC71HBhllLPQ
http://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j...sg=AFQjCNE0r0ee_KNj5IePuUzElYEp-DptgQ&cad=rja
The first cites Margaret Thrall, the second cites Ben Witherington III and Margaret Thrall, The Problem of II Cor. VI. 14-VII. in Some Recent Discussion, NTS 24 (1977 or 1978)
Here are two papers about 6:14-7:1: http://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j...84C4Dg&usg=AFQjCNFTJhHssj_SJE180kkC71HBhllLPQ
http://www.google.se/url?sa=t&rct=j...sg=AFQjCNE0r0ee_KNj5IePuUzElYEp-DptgQ&cad=rja
The first cites Margaret Thrall, the second cites Ben Witherington III and Margaret Thrall, The Problem of II Cor. VI. 14-VII. in Some Recent Discussion, NTS 24 (1977 or 1978)
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Similar threads
