BIG IDEA:
AVOID INTIMATE PARTNERSHIPS WITH UNBELIEVERS THAT WOULD HINDER YOU FROM GROWING CLOSER TO YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER AND MANIFESTING YOUR CHRISTIAN DISTINCTIVENESS
CALL TO CHRISTIAN SEPARATION AND HOLINESS
INTRODUCTION:
Charles Swindoll: Oh, the irony! Though the Corinthians had been reserved in their relationship with Paul (their spiritual father in the faith), they had eagerly entered into intimate personal and professional relationships with unbelievers. What a lack of discernment! They locked out the people who cared about them most, who sacrificed and suffered for them, and then locked arms with those who would harm their walk with Christ.
Paul Barnett: The opening exhortation Do not be yoked together with unbelievers (14) is the key to the whole section. All that follows relates back to this negative demand. It is a simple metaphor based on Deuteronomy 22:10, which forbade the yoking of ox and ass together, suggesting that ‘the Christian is a different breed from the unbeliever and is forbidden an improper relationship with him’. There is no call here, as is often claimed, for Christian to separate from Christian for doctrinal or ethical reasons. Neither is Paul requiring a wholesale separation from unbelievers. If a Christian is married to an unbeliever the believer should not seek divorce (1 Cor. 7:12–15). If invited to the home of an unbeliever the Christian is free to attend (1 Cor. 10:27). Unbelievers were not forbidden to attend the Christian meetings (1 Cor. 14:22–25). Indeed, as Paul writes earlier, total separation from the immoral, the greedy, robbers and idolaters would necessitate ‘leaving this world’ altogether (1 Cor. 5:9–11). Rather, as the rhetorical expansion which follows makes clear, it is a specific and technical association with temple worship which the apostle forbids. For this reason it is doubtful that Paul would agree with Christians today attending interfaith services with Muslims or Hindus, for example, since that would mean being mismated with unbelievers.
Five rhetorical questions, set out in balanced pairs and each requiring a negative reply, are now asked. The point of each question is that God’s people are to be distinct and separate from the characteristic beliefs and practices of unbelievers. . .
In conclusion, it should be emphasized that what is at stake here are fundamental truths about God, Christ and Christian commitment set in the context of a dark and seductive paganism. Paul’s words continue to have application wherever Christians are potentially entangled in idolatry, the occult or pagan religious practices. Christians may be joined to unbelievers socially or by an existing marriage; they are not at liberty to participate in their religious worship.
John MacArthur: Believers and unbelievers inhabit two opposing worlds. Christians are in Christ’s kingdom, which is characterized by righteousness, light, and eternal life. Unbelievers are in Satan’s kingdom, characterized by lawlessness, darkness, and spiritual death. The saved and the unsaved have different affections, beliefs, principles, motives, goals, attitudes, and hopes. In short, they view life from opposing perspectives.
Consequently, relationships between believers and unbelievers are at best limited to the temporal and external. They may enjoy family ties, work at the same job, share in business relationships, live in the same community, experience the same hobbies and pastimes, and even agree on certain political and social issues. But on the spiritual level, believers and unbelievers live in two completely different worlds. . .
The Corinthians had struggled greatly to make a clean break from the idolatrous and immoral lifestyle of their past. Despite having professed faith in Christ and become part of the church, some in the congregation were still clinging to elements of their pagan religion. And though they, like the Thessalonians, had “turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God” (1 Thess. 1:9), still they failed to make a clean break with their idolatrous past. The lure of their former paganism, which permeated every aspect of life in Corinth, had proven hard to shake, as Paul’s first epistle to them makes evident.
Making matters worse, the false teachers who had come to the church brought with them a quasi-Christian syncretism of gospel truth, Jewish legalism, and pagan mysticism. They were eager to stay connected to the Corinthians’ former behavior, to make themselves more popular and, thereby, more prosperous. Thus Paul gave this mandate to separate.
David Garland: [This section] is specifically composed for the Corinthian situation to encourage them to establish appropriate boundaries for the Christian community to ward off the deleterious effects of idolatry in their world, which was filled with various trade guilds and associations and pagan temples dotting the landscape. . .
Paul presents the Corinthians with an either/or situation. Fellowship with God excludes all other fellowships, particularly those associated with idolatry. The Corinthian Christians were surrounded by pagan values and practices. Just because the Spirit has sealed them does not mean they can be careless about their relationships and partnerships with the world.
Scott Hafemann: Whether or not one responds to Paul’s call in 6:14 – 7:1 will reveal publicly whether or not one has been reconciled to God as a genuine believer (cf. 13:5–10). Conversely, as Thrall has pointed out, since the Corinthians are Paul’s letter of commendation (3:2), “if they fail to maintain the holiness proper to God’s 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.” Within this framework it becomes evident that 6:14 – 7:1 is not a later insertion into Paul’s argument, but a fitting application of his covenant perspective.
The “fear of God” that motivates the believer’s perseverance in holiness is therefore not simply a desire to gain rewards or an attitude of “reverence for God.” Rather, as its allusion back to 5:10–11 indicates, it refers to God’s judgment between believers and unbelievers, since the “fear of the Lord” is the distinguishing mark of the wise (Ps. 2:11; 5:7; Prov. 1:7, 29; 8:13). We ought not to downsize our appropriate response to the righteous and sovereign “Lord Almighty” into simply revering who he is. When we encounter God, we encounter ourselves as sinful.
R. Kent Hughes: Forty years ago liberal theologian Langdon Gilkey gave this assessment of his church in America, an assessment that could describe much of the evangelical church today:
“All around us we see the church well acclimated to culture: successful, respected, wealthy, full, and growing. But are the transcendent and the holy there? In the area of belief we find widespread indifference to the Bible and ignorance of its contents — and strong resentment if a biblical word of judgment is brought to bear on the life of the congregation. In worship we find notably lacking any sense of the holy presence of God and of what worship is for. . . . In ethics we find the cultural ideals of friendliness and fellowship more evident than the difficult standards of the New Testament or historic Christendom.”
Hearing this today, who can deny that biblical ignorance, an absence of holiness in worship, and ethical accommodation have become widespread among evangelicals? As Joe Bayly, author and editor, wrote, “The evangelical church is sick — so sick that people are crowding in to join us. We’re a big flock, big enough to permit remarriage of divorced people (beyond the exceptions of the Word of God), big enough to permit practicing homosexuals to pursue their lifestyle, big enough to tolerate almost anything pagans do. We’re no longer narrow; it’s a wide road of popular acceptance for us.”
Just as throughout history, the evangelical church’s greatest danger is from within. And this is where the opening command of our text intersects our lives: “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.” The command is not (as is commonly thought) an injunction against marrying unbelievers or entering into contracted relationships with non-Christians (though both actions are un-Biblical), but rather a command not to be yoked together with those in the church who oppose the truth — unbelievers in the church. . .
The structure of Paul’s argument is easy to see and ever so powerful. The command “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers” is reiterated again in the middle of his argument in verse 17: “Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing.” And then again it is stated as a general principle in the conclusion: “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God” (7:1). The call to unyoke ourselves from unbelieving aspirants reverberates with passionate nuance
I. (:14-16a) SEPARATION IS A NO-BRAINER
Separation = Avoiding Intimate Partnerships with Unbelievers
Psalm 1 – “How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked …”
A. (:14a) One Clear Command
“Do not be bound together with unbelievers”
Key = When does it apply
Marriage / Business / Church / Degree of Friendship
Raymond Collins: The Corinthians should have a positive relationship with Paul; they should not embrace an inappropriate relationship with unbelievers.
Scott Hafemann: Given the polemic situation in which Paul finds himself, “opening up” to him will necessarily entail closing themselves off from those who oppose him, whom the apostle now labels “unbelievers.” This statement is shocking because “unbelievers” is not a word Paul ever uses to describe erring but still genuine Christians (e.g., those dealt with in 1 Cor. 3:10–15). Rather, “unbelievers” refers to those who are manifestly outside the sphere of God’s people, even if they profess otherwise (cf. 1 Cor. 6:6; 7:12–15; 10:27; 14:22–24; 2 Cor. 4:4; 1 Tim. 5:8; Titus 1:15–16).
Thus, to make clear, in no uncertain terms, precisely what is at stake in supporting his opponents, Paul employs much of the same terminology in 6:14–16 and 7:1 that he used earlier to describe the necessity of breaking free from demon-dominated idolatry (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–21 with 2 Cor. 6:14; 1 Cor. 8:7 with 2 Cor. 7:1). But now it describes the absolute incompatibility between those who believe (and hence support Paul’s ministry) and those who are calling Paul’s apostleship into question. Paul’s point is stark. In the final analysis, the believers in Corinth must recognize his opponents as “unbelievers” and separate from them. Conversely, if they refuse to obey this command, they too will be considered unbelievers (cf. 13:5).
John MacArthur: To infiltrate churches under the guise of tolerance and cooperation is one of Satan’s most cunning ploys. He does not want to fight the church as much as join it. When he comes against the church, it grows stronger; when he joins with the church, it grows weaker. Undiscerning believers who join in a common spiritual cause with unbiblical forms of Christianity or other false religions open the door wide to satanic infiltration and forfeit the blessing of God. Further, embracing those heretical systems falsely reassures their followers that all is well between them and God, when actually they are headed for eternal damnation.
Frank Matera: The meaning of Paul’s exhortation, then, can be summarized in this way: the Corinthians are not to be united in religious matters with those who are not Christians, for such behavior inevitably leads to idolatry.
B. (:14b-16a) Five Clearcut Distinctions
(5 different Greek words used in rhetorical questions)
Charles Swindoll: Together these words describe close, intimate, interdependent, shared, and single-minded relationships that take time to develop and are difficult to end. Believers and unbelievers should never enter into these kinds of relationships. Never. Why not? Because certain things are essentially distinct and fundamentally incompatible. The saved cannot have spiritually intimate relationships with the lost. They should not form relationships with unbelievers that would either lead to a compromise of Christian standards or jeopardize the consistency of their Christian witness. . .
Our relationship with God places us in an intimate, corporate relationship with other believers. This relationship involves spiritual harmony (6:16), personal purity (6:17), and familial intimacy (6:18). We are God’s temple, and we should not bring into His temple anything or any relationship that dishonors Him or destroys the harmony, purity, and intimacy we are meant to experience in the body of Christ, the church.
- Orientation towards Obedience: Partnership / Righteousness vs Lawlessness
“for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness,”
Robert Gromacki: These patterns of behavior are mutually incompatible.
Frank Matera: “Righteousness” (dikaiosynē) has no partnership with “lawlessness” since the former presupposes a moral life in accord with God’s will, made possible by the power of the Spirit, whereas the latter is a life at odds with God’s law (anomia, “lawlessness”).
- Orientation towards Character: Fellowship / Light vs Darkness
“or what fellowship has light with darkness?”
Robert Gromacki: These cannot coexist.
John MacArthur: It is self-evident that light and darkness are mutually exclusive; thus, this contrast is a common biblical metaphor (cf. Isa. 5:20; John 1:5; 3:19; 8:12; 12:35, 46; Acts 26:18; Rom. 13:12; Eph. 5:8, 11; Col. 1:12–14; 1 Thess. 5:5; 1 Peter 2:9; 1 John 1:5; 2:8–9). Intellectually, light refers to truth, darkness to error; morally light refers to holiness, darkness to evil. Those who are righteous in Christ walk in the light (John 8:12; 12:35; Eph. 5:8; 1 John 1:7); those who are unrighteous are part of Satan’s kingdom of darkness (Luke 22:53; Eph. 6:12; Col. 1:13). The ultimate destination of the righteous is the eternal light of heaven (Col. 1:12; 1 Peter 2:9; Rev. 22:5), that of the unrighteous the eternal darkness of hell (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30; 2 Peter 2:17). To expect the children of light to work together with the children of darkness is as foolish as to expect it to be both light and dark in the same place at the same time.
- Orientation towards the Savior Himself: Harmony / Christ vs Belial
“Or what harmony has Christ with Belial,”
Richard Pratt: The term Belial (Beliar) appears in a number of intertestamental writings as a personification of Satan, the chief of evil spirits. Paul spoke here of Christ and Satan as metonymies of believers and unbelievers. In principle, believers and unbelievers should have no more in common than Christ and Satan.
- Orientation towards Faith: In common / Believer vs Unbeliever
“or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?”
- Orientation towards Worship: Agreement / Temple of God vs Idols
“Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?”
II. (:16b-18) CLEANLINESS IS NEXT TO GODLINESS
Separation = Essential for Intimate Fellowship with our Heavenly Father
Psalm 15 – “O Lord, who may abide in Thy tent?”
A. (:16b) Remember Our Sacred Identity and Privileged Calling
“For we are the temple of the living God”
Scott Hafemann: Paul’s point is clear. Whereas Israel as a people fell into idolatry and disobedience (cf. the vision of Ezek. 8:3–18 as the basis of Israel’s judgment in the Exile), the Messiah has brought the church back into the presence of God’s glory and begun the process of transforming her into the image of God himself (2 Cor. 3:16–18). The separation described in 6:14–16a that is to characterize God’s people under the new covenant is thus the positive counterpart to Israel’s history of syncretism under the old. Paul is therefore stunned that believers would consort with idolatry and wickedness. Here, as in 1 Corinthians 3:16–17, the identification of the church with the temple consequently contains a warning of divine destruction against all who would destroy God’s people, since the Corinthians, as God’s temple, are “holy” (cf. 1 Cor. 3:17 with 2 Cor. 7:1). The righteous who belong to the Messiah have been delivered from their idolatry and wickedness and brought back into the presence of God’s glory.
B. (:16c, 17b-18) Remember God’s Precious Promises to His People
“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.’”
“’And I will welcome you. And I will be a father to you,
And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,’ says the Lord Almighty.”
C. (:17a) Obey God’s Clear Command
“’Therefore, come out from their midst
and be separate,’ says the Lord.
‘And do not touch what is unclean;’”
Scott Hafemann: Since the Corinthians are already part of God’s new covenant people in fulfillment of the prophets’ hopes (6:16c-e), they must separate from the unbelievers among them (6:17a-c) in anticipation of God’s final deliverance (6:18). The promise of a continuing covenant relationship and final redemption (6:18) is given only to those who keep the covenant stipulations (6:17), which in this case entail demonstrating their covenant identity by separating from impurity (6:14–16). In other words, the kingdom is here, but it is not yet here in all its fullness.
R. Kent Hughes: The fact that the Corinthians have been graced with the fulfillment of the covenantal promises of personal intimacy with God and personal adoption by God demands full threefold separation prophetically voiced in the restoration text of Isaiah 52:11: “‘Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing’” (v. 17).
Frank Matera: To summarize, Paul or the tradition he received brought together a series of quotations from Leviticus, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and 2 Samuel (= 2 Kingdoms) to produce a single quotation that contains exhortation and promise: an exhortation to depart from an unclean people and a promise that God will dwell in the midst of this restored people. Even if Paul is not the compiler of this quotation, he undoubtedly saw its fulfillment in the new covenant ministry he exercised, whereby the sanctified Gentile communities that he established, such as the church at Corinth, have become “the temple of the Living God.”
III. (7:1) HOLINESS IS NOT OUTDATED
Purpose of Separation = Maturing in Holiness in the Fear of the Lord
Psalm 93:5 – “Thy testimonies are fully confirmed; Holiness befits Thy house, O Lord, forevermore.”
A. Standing on the Promises
“Therefore, having these promises, beloved”
John MacArthur: Having God’s promises provides powerful motivation for believers to separate from unbelievers. Paul’s use of the word therefore is a call for action based on what he has previously written (cf. Rom. 12:1–2; 2 Peter 1:3–8). The apostle moves beyond the commands of 2 Corinthians 6:14, 17 and appeals to God’s promises enumerated in 6:16–18. Those promises should elicit love, gratitude, and thankfulness for His overwhelming generosity.
B. Separating from All Defilement
“let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit”
John MacArthur: Molusmos (defilement) appears only here in the New Testament. In all three of its uses in the Septuagint, however, it refers to religious defilement. Paul calls believers not only to cleanse themselves from sin and immorality but especially, in this context, from all associations with false religion. That complete cleansing is to be both of flesh and spirit; that is, both inward and outward. False teaching defiles the whole person by pandering to sinful human appetites and corrupting the mind. Therefore, believers must avoid both the fleshly sins and the pollution of the mind that false religion brings.
C. Sanctifying Ourselves for Intimacy with God
“perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”
David Garland: Therefore, Paul calls them to perfect their “holiness.” The verb “to perfect” (epitelein) means “to bring to completion,” “to bring to its intended goal” and does not mean that they are to become perfect. In the greetings of both letters to the Corinthians, Paul emphasizes that they have been “sanctified,” that is, set apart (1 Cor 1:2), and called as “saints,” that is, those who are set apart (1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1). Barnett comments, “The holiness that is to be perfected is covenantal rather than developmental or progressive in character.” Holiness is “something that God gives to Christians (1 Cor 1:30; 2 Thess 2:13) but also something Christians strive to complete (1 Cor 7:34; 1 Thess 4:1–8; Rom 6:19), as well as something that God will ultimately complete (1 Thess 3:13).”
Robert Hughes: These Old Testament quotations involve much more than a simple call to purity; they are structured within the framework of exodus thought. The first exodus from Egypt (Lev. 26 and context) and the second exodus from the Babylonian captivity (see Ezek. 37 and Isa. 52 contexts), both looked forward to the greatest of all releases from bondage, not from foreign political oppression, but from the mighty force of God’s wrath toward human disobedience. What is more, all three quotations are called “promises” (7:1), directly relating to the Corinthians. What ought the response of the captives be upon their release into this great exodus, but a perfection of holiness?
R. Kent Hughes: We must be perpetually vigilant. We must never allow those who oppose the gospel to ascend to leadership. We must yoke ourselves to the truth and the love of God.
* * * * * * * * * *
PREACHING CHRIST:
1) Remember how Christ fulfilled all righteousness and avoided lawlessness while still being willing to rub shoulders with sinners.
2) Proclaim Christ as the Light of the world – shining in the darkness of this world.
3) Proclaim how God became incarnate in the person of Christ in order to walk among men and be their mediator so He could truly be their God.
4) Proclaim the privilege of being brought into God’s family as a son or daughter.