Purpose of this Paper

The purpose of this paper is simple: It is our intention to lay out the foundational reasoning for why we believe what we do about the order of the male-female relationship. It is the conviction of Grace Fellowship Church that the God-ordained roles assigned to men and women (within church and marriage) are clearly laid out in Scripture and are eternal principles which are beautiful when exemplified and always glorifying to the God who has created us exactly as he has.

Those who believe God created men & women with distinct but complementary roles have no reason to be ashamed of these roles, but ought to proclaim them as divinely handed-down and very good in the eyes of God and men (Gen. 1:31). The complementarian position is not indefensible, nor is it academically insufficient or in anyway logically inferior. It is not old-fashioned, but has been the "holy" (1 Pet. 3:5) order of relationships for all time. It is the historically attested position of the church of Jesus Christ and is based upon the perfect triune relationship of God, the relationship of Christ and his bride, and the relationship of Christ to humanity. This position, as it will be shown, can be argued (and indeed must be argued) entirely from Holy Writ and no other source.

Our Stance

Man and woman were created as equals; both alike in the image of God, with the same worth, dignity and honour associated with this image. Though both maintain the same value, there have been complementary roles assigned to men and women within the realms of marriage and the governance of the body of believers. The man is to lovingly and sacrificially lead, love, protect and provide for his wife as Christ has loved his bride. The woman is to live out a quiet and gracious spirit in a life characterized by good works and chastity, all the while joyfully submitting to her husband's authority. All women are not subject to all men, but wives are subject to their own husbands. Within the formal gathering together of the body of believers for worship, positions of authority are limited to males who meet many specific character quality tests.

Our Foundation: The Bible as Canon

God has inspired his Holy Word which is our authoritative rule in all matters of faith and practice throughout the centuries (2 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:1-2; 2 Pet. 1:16-21).

While some passages of Scripture are more difficult to interpret than others (2 Pet. 3:14-18), this does not necessitate another authority or turning to outside sources. Even the difficult words and texts of Scripture can be understood as seen within the context, as interpreted from the original languages, and most importantly, with the help of God (2 Tim. 2:7). The Scriptures alone are sufficient (2 Tim. 3:10-17).

The Goodness of Creation Before Sin[1]

God created the world and all that is in it and declared it very good as it was (Gen. 1:31). As result of sin, all of creation was subjected to the curse of judgment which brought death to all (cf. Gen. 3), and distorted the relationships between men, women, and animals (Gen. 3:8-24). It may then be concluded that the order established in creation before the fall was entirely according to God's design, not man's, and that restoration in the order of all creation is what Christians should desire, though it can come about only through the removal of sin.[2]

The Order of the Male-Female Relationship Prior to Sin

Male and female are created as equals; both are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27; 5:1-2).

The distinction in roles given for men and women are seen to be present before the fall. Therefore, they ought to be desired and preserved by all who seek to please God. This can be seen in no fewer than nine ways:

1)      The Order. Adam was created before Eve in the biblical account (Gen. 2:7, 18-23). According to the NT, this is of utmost importance for the continuing governance of the male-female relationship (cf. 1 Tim. 2:12-13).

2)      The Representation. Adam was given the role of representing the race as a whole. This is confirmed in the NT by the fact that even though Eve was the first to sin, we are told that we are all guilty because all sinned in Adam, not Eve (cf. 1 Cor. 15:22). Throughout the NT Christ is compared as the representative of his people with Adam, the representative of his people (1 Cor. 15:45-49; Rom. 5:12-21). Seeing as how it was Eve who first sinned and led Adam into sin, unless there was some reality of the headship of Adam already present, it should have been Eve listed in the NT as our representative.

3)      The Naming of the Woman. There is a motif of naming that would have been easily observable to the original reader throughout the early chapters of Genesis. This is important to notice because in every single instance the one doing the naming has implicit authority over the one being named. In Genesis 1:5, 8, and 10, God is the one naming specifics of his creation. In chapter 2:19-20 (after the reader has already been informed that man has been given authority over the animals, 1:26, 28) man is given the charge of naming all the animals that God has created. Once woman is created, the same process occurs again, as woman is brought by God to man, and man names her (2:22-23). Obviously, as has already been stated, she is one in nature with man ("bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh") and every bit as much an image-bearer of God as man (1:27), and therefore is not to be equalled in value with animals. In fact, she, with Adam in 1:28ff is given the charge of ruling over the animals and all God's creation. She is one with him and created from him, an image-bearer of God, but there is still a role distinction made, as man is pictured as the one to have authority over the woman.

4)      The Naming of the Human Race. When God created the human race (man and woman), he named them together, "Man" not "Woman" (Gen. 5:1-2; note the phrase "when they were created"--this was not a result of the fall, but most likely refers back to 1:26). "Adam" in the Hebrew is not a generic gender-neutral term to the Hebrew reader, who in the first four chapters has seen the same word used in 2:22, 23, 25; 3:8, 9, 12, and 20, (to cite a few examples; the word "Adam" has been used 13 times up to this point in Gen. 5 in this way) always to mean specifically "man" as opposed to "woman." Of those 13 times, the word is used five times in those chapters as a proper name for Adam in distinction of Eve. Thus, in 5:1-2, the naming of the race "Man" with the same word is in effect saying, the woman shall take the man's name; he is the representative head. God could well have given humanity a gender-neutral name, such as "humankind," but he did not. With this perspective, knowing that God named them "Man" when they were created, this makes proper sense of 1:27 ("So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them").

5)      The Primary Accountability. After the sin of Eve and Adam, God came looking specifically for Adam to give account. Gen. 3:9 reads, "But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, 'Where are you?'" In the Hebrew, "man", "him", and "you" are all singular. Even though Eve was the deceived, the first to sin, and the one to lead them into sin, God demanded that Adam give account. In Gen. 2:15-17, God gave the original command to Adam, and here God demands that Adam give account for the disobedience of his race. It is also significant that the Serpent spoke to Eve first, as if to invert the order God had decreed (Gen. 3:1).

6)      The Purpose. According to the biblical account, Eve was created by God to be a helper for Adam. The term "helper" (Hebrew 'ezer) is not necessarily a term of subordination. In fact, it is quite often used of God himself as Israel's helper throughout the OT. However, the one who is helping, for that time is seen to put himself in subordination to the one primarily responsible for the task at hand. According to Genesis 2, however, Eve was not Adam's helper on occasion, but was in fact created for the very purpose of being Adam's helper. She would be Adam's helper in the carrying out of the charge already given to Adam (2:15-17). Despite the purpose of being a helper to Adam and Adam being the one bearing primary responsibility for the carrying out of the charge given by God, Eve is still very much seen as Adam's equal, and in no way inferior because of her role distinction. The Hebrew for "fit for him" is kenegdô, which renders the phrase "a help corresponding to him," that is, "equal and adequate to himself" (2:18).

7)      The Conflict. The curse in no way introduced new roles for men and women, but rather, it simply perverted roles already established. Gen. 3:16 speaks of a woman's "desire" being for/against her husband and of a husband "rul[ing]" over his wife as a result of the fall. The Hebrew formation of "desire for/against" (teshûqāh 'el) is used only here and in the following chapter (Gen. 4:7). The verses have incredible resemblances in structure and vocabulary and the latter is probably written with the purpose of recalling the former in the mind of the original reader. In both of these contexts, it seems that this construction means "an aggressive desire, perhaps a desire to conquer or rule over, or else an urge or impulse to oppose or act against." The Hebrew word māshal ("rule") is regular in the OT. It almost without exception implies rule by strength and force, often in an oppressive fashion. Thus, sin resulted in a perversion of the God-given roles of joyful "helping" and loving "providing for". As a result of sin, woman would desire to usurp her husband's authority (hate him for it) and the husband would rule the home and the world oppressively, in a harsh manner, by force of strength. Furthermore, the consequences meted out make all the more sense when put into this relational context. Woman would now have pain introduced to her area of responsibility ("in pain you shall bring forth children"), and man now has pain in his area of responsibility ("in pain you shall eat of [the ground] all the days of your life"). Thus we have pain introduced to the relationship between them (the conflict) and pain introduced in each of their areas of responsibility.

8)      The Restoration. After the grand act of redemption and the re-ordering of things in Christ, we would expect to find the effects of the curse undone completely. And thus we do, affirms Paul: "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them" (Col. 3:18-19). This statement is a direct command to undo the impulses created in the fall (to oppose or to usurp and to rule harshly).

9)      The Mystery. A "mystery" in the writings of Paul generally refers to something understood vaguely, if at all, in the OT, but has been made clear in Christ. Thus, he refers to marriage as a reflection of Christ and the Church. Paul does not look at the culture surrounding him to analogize marriage, but to the perfect order of things in the Garden (prior to the fall) to instruct his readers how to live in marriage now (in the NT). Paul quotes from Genesis 2 "'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh' (Gen. 2:24). This mystery is a profound one, but I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church" (Eph. 5:31-32). In other words, the relationship of husband and wife just described (Eph. 5:22-30) is a model of Eden (Gen. 2), and both (marriage before the curse and marriage after Christ's work) are a picture of Christ and his bride (an eternal reality--not a picture from the culture of his day).

Neither Male nor Female

Galatians 3:28 in no way abolishes gender distinctions, but rather, the false assumptions that value or worth could somehow be attached to the simple identification of an individual as a slave, free man, Jew, Gentile, male, or female. (After all, if it really did abolish gender distinctions, then how could homosexuality be wrong?) Rather, the text says that in Christ, all were purchased at the same price (the context of the book is obviously justification), and in creation all were equally made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27).

Mutual Submission

Mutual submission, as presented by egalitarians (so as to abolish the existence of an authority within a relationship), does not fit with the flow of Paul's argument in Eph. 5 (wives to husbands, children to parents, slaves to masters). Moreover, it does not fit with the established meaning of hypotassō which is always indicative of submission to an authority. The use of allēlous ("one another") does not necessarily convey the idea of "everyone to everyone" in its common usage. Although it sometimes can indicate this (cf. Mark 9:50; John 13:34; Phil. 2:3), full reciprocity is sometimes obviously not even possibly in view (cf. Matt. 24:10; Luke 2:15; 12:1; 24:32; 1 Cor. 11:33; Gal. 6:2; Rev. 6:4; etc.). In light of the particularly odd construction ("submit unilaterally to one in authority to one another") it must be deemed best to allow the context (the ellipsis in the original undisputedly indicates a continuation of thought from 5:21 to 5:22) to determine exactly what Paul means. Given the explanation and examples that follow, the best understanding of hypotassō allēlous is "be subject to others in the church who are in positions of authority over you." In other words, even though you are all one in Christ, do not use this as an excuse to forsake all authority relationships (which are shown elsewhere to be established by God; cf. Rom. 13:1-7), but continue to submit to one another, where authority relationships exist. This is the best meaning linguistically, since it stays the closest to the invariably attested meaning of hypotassō and the contextually interpreted allēlous. It is also the best option contextually because it moves best with the flow of thought in Eph. 5, moving from the whole corporate body to specific application in the home life.

Furthermore, if the idea of mutual submission was the original intent of Paul, then it must also be applied to Christ and the church (Paul's own divinely inspired illustration). This is a concept that is never attested to anywhere in the Bible and seems illogical at best and blasphemous at worst.

It is also notable that in the explanations of authority relationships that follow Eph. 5:21, Paul takes care to indicate how, in each relationship, the one in authority is to carry out that authority properly, in a God-glorifying manner. The husband loves his wife (vv 25-33), the father does not provoke his children (6:4), and the master desists from threatening and remembers that he too has a master (6:9). This is further proof that Paul clearly has in mind relationships with a source of unilateral authority and does not desire the abolition of those authority structures.

The idea of mutual submission overruling a wife's submission to her husband as one in an authority position is also inconsistent with other instructions on ordering the NT home (Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1). None of the other passages which carry such instructions for the authority of the husband include any statement that would even vaguely suggest "mutual submission." Moreover, writing to the culture that he was, Paul would not have needed to tell the wife to submit to the husband (if mutual submission was his intent), but rather, he would have had to make it very clear that the husband was now to submit to the wife. "Husbands submit to your wives" would have been the newest revelation and is what would have needed clarifying and emphasizing. Nowhere in Scripture is such a statement even hinted at. Nevertheless, the commands for wives to submit to husbands are multiple. The classical complementarian position is established therefore by allowing Scripture to interpret itself (as Eph. 5:22ff; 1 Cor. 11:3; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1 all clarify Paul's meaning in Eph. 5:21). This is much preferred over the egalitarian argument which pits a false Greek construction of Eph. 5:21 over against the rest of the NT teaching on husband-wife relationships.

Wives, Children, and then Slaves

It is purported by some that since Paul's instructions to slaves and masters are now passé, it can be argued backward, that his instructions to wives must also be cultural, and thus passé as well. This is rejected outright for the following three reasons:

1)      The Structure of Marriage was Ordained Pre-Fall. Slavery, on the other hand is most definitely a result of the fall. Scripture clearly acknowledges, then regulates, minimizes and mitigates the effects of slavery (particularly in the nation of Israel). The commands about slavery may in fact be deemed to be temporary because of their origin (post-fall), but the analogy fails with the marriage relationship because it originated and was ordered before the effects of sin (see above).

2)      The Consistent Picture. Throughout Scripture marriage is pictured as good (cf. Song of Solomon). Though sometimes effected by the fall so that it was not practiced as intended (Gen. 3:16; OT practice of polygamy / harems, etc), in the NT, as a result of Christ's redemptive work on the cross which reverses the effects of the fall, marriage is defined with all the more clarity (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22ff; Col. 3:18-19; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1; cf. elder qualifications in 1 Tim. 3:2ff and Titus 1:6ff). While slavery is pictured as a result of sin and the effects are mitigated, the order in marriage is consistently seen as good, particularly after the redemption accomplished in Christ.

3)      The Parent-Child Analogy. While egalitarians argue backward for the abolition of the authority of the husband on the basis of the temporality of the commands to slaves, they ignore the logical and necessary implications with regards to the parent-child relationship. In fact, this must be intentional, because the parent-child relationship is discussed in between the commands to husbands and wives and the commands to slaves and masters (this shows intentional manipulation of the text). If it is true that the authority relationships discussed with regards to slaves and masters and husbands and wives are all passé, then what becomes of the commands to children to obey their parents? It must be supposed that a mutual submission would be the ideal state (cf. the egalitarian interpretation of Eph. 5:21) in that regard as well, if the logic is applied consistently. Therefore, parents should have no more authority over children than children have over the parents.

Historical Novelty of "Mutual Submission" Overruling Authority Relationships

It is worth noting that not until 1971, after significant strides had been made in the west by the feminist movement did a single commentator ever present this argument from Eph. 5:21. In contrast to that, commentators as early as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) and John Chrysostom (c. 345-407), right through Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and Calvin (1509-1564), to Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), John Wesley (1703-1791), and Charles Hodge (1797-1878) all saw the classical complementarian interpretation as being plainly in view (namely that the instruction to submit to others in the church is qualified by the instructions that follow which detail some specific authority relationships).

Apostolic Proof Texts[3]

When providing the basis for his statements with regard to the male-female authority relationship, the writer of the God-inspired text almost always appeals to an eternal principle, outside the realm of sin and never once does he appeal to the secular culture of his day.[4]

In 1 Cor. 11 Paul makes it clear that "the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (v 3). The Greek kephalē ("head") has always referred--without exception--to one who has authority over the other. While many egalitarians have attempted to make kephalē mean "source", this meaning is absolutely without precedent and cannot even be verified as a legitimate possible meaning for the word (and that is without even dealing with the context which clearly shows that an authority in relationship is within the purview). Paul's point is clear: Inasmuch as the relationship of Christ to God, or man to Christ cannot be altered by time or culture, so it is clear that the relationship between husband and wife cannot be altered by time or culture.

In Eph. 5 Paul draws the parallel of husband and wife to Christ and the church. In no uncertain terms, he states this repeatedly. "For the husband is the head (kephalē) of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its savior" (v 23). So Christ is the head of the church and the church (his bride) is his body. Thus the command in v 28, "Husbands should love their wives as their own bodies," because Christ's bride is his body. "Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands" (v 24). Again, the wife is to submit to the husband every bit as much and in every way as the church submits to Christ (hence, Christ is the Lord of the church, vis-à-vis the command in v 22 to submit to the husband "as to the Lord"). Continuing on, the apostle draws out in great detail how the husband is to love his wife sacrificially "as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (v 25). As if it were not enough in this instance to refer to the relationship of Christ and the church, Paul relates the marriage of Christians (after the redemptive work of Christ) to the marriage of Adam and Eve before the fall and quotes Gen. 2:24! He, by inference, is saying that by maintaining this order, the Christian marriage will uphold God's plan for marriage as it was before the entering of sin into the world as well as modelling Christ's relationship to his church to a sinful world.

In 1 Tim. 2:13-14 Paul refers to creation (before the fall) as the reason why the women in the family of God are to be characterized by good works and a quiet and submissive spirit (vv 10-12). As noted above, the creation order is significant to Paul, the inspired OT commentator, who says "For Adam was formed first, then Eve" (v 13).

This reasoning is true even beyond the scope of Paul's writing. Peter, too, when he commands the continual observance of the authority relationship between husband and wife (1 Pet. 3:1-7) cites God's desires, and the approved tradition and pattern of holy women. Women are exhorted to let their "adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious" (v 4). Indeed it is precious, because it is what Eve was created to be! This is the reversal of the effects of the fall whereby the woman's desire is against her husband, to usurp his authority. In the tradition of the "holy women who hoped in God" (v 5), the NT wife is to submit to her husband. The husband is to honour his wife and live with her in an understanding way (not rule over her harshly, as in the curse), but he is to remember that she is a fellow heir with him of the grace of life.

Thus it can be seen that the repeated pattern of the NT authors was to not rely on the realities of their own sinful, transitory and shifting culture for the pattern of a God-honouring husband-wife relationship, but to refer back to either an eternal relationship which cannot change (viz., Christ and the church, Christ and God, man and Christ) or else to refer to God's original creation before the effects of sin (viz., creation order, purpose in creation), or both. Never did an apostle base his argument for the authority relationship of husband and wife on culture--not even once.

The Trinity[5]

Perhaps one of the more sobering truths about the egalitarian-complementarian debate is the reality that more is at stake than just the interpretation of a few words or a few verses. Rather, our whole vision of God is altered by how we view the nature of authority relationships. This is so because authority relationships plainly exist within both the immanent Trinity and the economic functioning of the Trinity.

As it has been noted, the husband is given authority over the wife in 1 Cor. 11:3 because "the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God." Since the word kephalē has never been acknowledged as meaning anything other than "one in authority over another," we must plainly see that this verse is teaching not only that men are to submit to Christ and that wives are to submit to husbands, but that the example for these requirements to submit is the relationship of Christ submitting to his Father. This example is important because it clearly shows that there can at the same time exist 1) equality in a relationship, and 2) an authority structure within a relationship.

Within the Trinitarian relationship, the Father "gave" his Son (Jn. 3:16) and "sent" the Son (Jn. 3:17, 34; 4:34; 8:42; Gal. 4:4; etc.). The Father predestined us to be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom. 8:29; cf. 1 Pet. 1:2) and "chose us in the Son" before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). The Son is obedient to the commands of the Father (Jn. 12:49; Phil. 2:5-10) and confessed that he had come to "do the will" of the Father who "sent him" (Jn. 4:34; 6:38). God the Father created the world "through" his Son (Jn. 1:3; Heb. 1:2; 1 Cor. 8:6). These relationships are never reversed. The Son never initiates of his own will, never directs the Father, never creates through the Father, never sends the Father. The Father never speaks the words that the Son gives him to speak. The Son sits at the right hand of the Father (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 1:3, 13; 1 Pet. 3:22; etc.). The Father never sits at the right hand of the Son.

These relationships are proven to be eternal (ie. they exist in the immanent Trinity and are not limited to the economic functioning of the Trinity while Christ was on earth) for several reasons. It is easily seen that the Father created the world through the Son (see above). Even before the creation of the world, however, the Father chose his elect in Christ to be reconciled to him through Christ (Eph. 1:4-5). Furthermore, passages such as Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 make it plain that it was the predetermined and definite plan of God the Father that Christ would come and suffer for the sins of his people (interpretation affirmed by NT preaching; Acts 2:23). Moreover, it is plainly visible in John 17, at the end of Christ's earthly ministry that he viewed both his words and his own followers as those which God the Father had given him. After the defeat of death, at the consummation of all things, Christ remains under the authority of God the Father who has always held all authority (1 Cor. 15:26-28).

God is one and all parts of the Trinity remain equal in holiness, worth, beauty, etc., yet there is clearly presented within the Trinity an authority structure relationship. All this has yet said nothing about the Holy Spirit who is portrayed as being under the authority of both Father and Son, yet is himself in authority over neither of the others. We must allow this picture to form our understanding of value and authority in a culture that views being in authority as great and being under authority as horrible. The picture of submission within Scripture itself shows that submission to a rightful authority is a beautiful, noble, even wonderful task because it models the Trinity itself. Thus the husband is seen as a picture of Christ (because he is an authority over his wife, as Christ is authority over man) and the woman is seen as a picture of Christ (because Christ is under the authority of the Father and gladly submits to his will). Both positions in the relationship are godly and God-glorifying.

Conclusion

It has been the intent of this paper to present several of the exegetical arguments for the complementarian position. Admittedly, some arguments are more persuasive than others, but all are founded in the God-breathed texts from the Old and New Testaments.

This paper does not claim to have all answers for all questions, nor has it come close to providing exhaustive definitions, arguments and proofs, so as to close the case--that was not the intent. What was desired has been accomplished, however, and the Scriptures have been allowed to interpret themselves in order to present the reader with a broad view of how God inspired his writers to structure the husband-wife relationship.

Since this has been a presentation of the classical interpretation and the plain reading of all of the passages mentioned, a personal plea to the reader must be made: Do not allow yourself to be swayed away from the doctrine of Paul, Peter, and the historic Christian church by any showy argument. If there is any temptation to move to a novel egalitarian position, scrutinize motives in agonizing detail: Why do you desire to depart from the biblical teaching? Examine arguments carefully: Are they logical? Are they consistent with the style and intent of arguments of biblical writers? Are the criteria used biblical in nature? And most importantly: Make sure your position is derived from Holy Writ and nowhere else. No other text is God-breathed, and no writer since John has been inspired. We may be absolutely sure that God's will (at least at one point) was for wives to submit to husbands. We may not in any sense whatever be certain that it was ever or ever will be God's desire for a husband-wife relationship to exist without headship and submission.

If we complementarians are wrong, it is because we have attempted to stick too closely to the revealed will of God. If egalitarians are wrong, it is out of desire to abrogate the commands of God in order to appeal to a feminist and pluralistic culture. Clearly, unless there is absolutely not one a single doubt anywhere in your mind that an egalitarian interpretation of Scripture is correct, it only makes sense to remain a complementarian with Paul, Peter and the 2000 years of church history that has followed them. May we all be able to stand before the judgment throne of God one day and be cleared of any charge of adding to or subtracting from all the words of his divine self-revelation.

January 3-9 marks our 2010 Winter Week of Prayer!

All of our special meetings will take place at Timothy Christian School. The schedule is listed below, and all prayer meetings are listed on our calendar as well.

We have tried to make the schedule so that everyone should be able to make it to at least 2 or 3 meetings this week.

The Week of Prayer booklets were distributed on Sunday (January 3), and will be available at all the meetings. If you're not able to pick up a printed copy, you will can download a pdf version here. That way if you have to miss a meeting, you will still be able to pray along with us from wherever you are.

Week of Prayer Schedule:

• Sunday, January 3 -- Learn 'What to Pray for One Another' from Colossians 1
  
• Monday, January 4 -- 7pm
  
• Tuesday, January 5 -- 6.30am
  
• Wednesday, January 6 -- 7pm (Men's & Ladies' Meetings as part of Week of Prayer)
  
• Thursday, January 7 -- 7pm
  
• Friday, January 8 -- 7pm
  
• Saturday, January 9 -- 7am

Biography on Dani is forthcoming.

Dani can be reached by e-mail at:

1. INTRODUCTION

To say that there is little consensus among scholars on the passage at hand would be a significant understatement. The differences of opinions on every issue related to this passage are so widespread that it remains virtually impossible to find any two scholars who agree on all the problems inherent in the interpretation of this pericope. As one author has lamented, "everything about 2 Cor. 6.14-7.1 remains disputed in the secondary literature: its origin, its place in context, and its interpretation."[1] Some commentators despair of finding a clear solution to all the questions raised in the exegesis of this text. After his 23-page treatment of these few verses, Furnish concludes: "This passage therefore, remains an enigma within [2 Corinthians]".[2]

This paper will make an attempt to move beyond this despair by bringing together the relevant research and drawing some coherent conclusions. First, we will deal with problems pertaining to the body of text itself, discussing the limits of the section to be studied, a textual variant, and then the ultimate question: Do these verses belong in their current place in 2 Corinthians? Second, we will wade through the issues of interpretation of the text, examining syntax and meanings of words. An attempt will also be made to place the passage in its context, aligning its arguments with the grander scheme of 2 Corinthians as a whole. The author's argument will be outlined, and the use of the Old Testament will be explored.

2. DEFINING THE TEXT

A. IDENTIFYING THE SECTION AS A UNIT

That 2 Corinthians 6.14-7.1 is a unit is one of the least-contested issues in the scholarly discussions of these verses. The breaks at both the beginning and the end of the passage have been seen by most as "something of a jerk,"[3] to say the least. Barrett details the break this way:

There is no connection between vi. 13 and vi. 14, and between vii. 1 and vii. 2. In vi. 13 Paul begs his readers to make room for him in their hearts; in vi. 14 he tells them sharply to have nothing to do with unbelievers. In vii. 1, after quoting Scripture, he urges them to take thought for holiness of life in the fear of God; in vii. 2 he returns to self-defence, and a renewed personal appeal.[4]

So strong are the breaks in thought, tone, and vocabulary that this pericope has been widely seen as a "self-contained unit" that was really not originally placed here by Paul.[5] Moreover, the "oft-noted unity" of 6.11-13 and 7.2-4 creates a distinctly isolated section (6.14-7.1) in the middle.[6]

B. TEXTUAL VARIANTS

There is only one textual variant of any note in this passage, and it occurs in 6.16. Where the UBS⁴ and NA²⁷ texts read ἡμεῖς γὰρ ναὸς θεοῦ ἐσμεν, there are variants reading ἡμεῖς γὰρ ναοὶ θεοῦ ἐσμεν and ὑμεῖς γὰρ ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστε (plus a few minority readings where ἐστε is placed immediately following γὰρ). The ναοὶ is not widely attested, and may easily be explained as an adaptation to match the plural ἡμεῖς.[7]

The ἡμεῖς ... ἐσμεν / ὑμεῖς ... ἐστε debate is only slightly more difficult. While both readings have strong external support,[8] the ὑμεῖς ... ἐστε reading might be "very naturally suggested by the recollection of 1 Cor 3.16 as well as by the context (verses 14 and 17)." To the contrary, there is no plausible reason why ἡμεῖς ... ἐσμεν might be inserted in place of the other.[9] Clearly, we ought to read ἡμεῖς γὰρ ναὸς θεοῦ ἐσμεν, as in the UBS / NA text.

C. ORIGIN AND PLACEMENT OF THE TEXT

Stephen Hultgren begins his NTS article with these words: "Ever since the literary integrity of 2 Corinthians was called into question by modern scholars, the origin and placement of 2 Cor 6.14-7.1 has been a great puzzle."[10] The widespread nature of the debate has caused it to move from scholarly circles into the public arena as well:

Scholarly discussions have filtered down to the church, so it is not uncommon to find someone raising this issue in a Sunday-school class or even assuming as fact that 2 Corinthians is not a unity. In particular, the theory that 2 Corinthians is a composite of a number of letter fragments that were editorially assembled when Paul's letters were being collected is becoming increasingly popular.[11]

Many writers have put forth many theories about which portions of 2 Corinthians are original, and which parts are merely fragments of other letters inserted at various points. 2 Cor 6.14-7.1 is one of the most hotly debated sections, most often deemed as a "fragment" of some sort. We will attempt to survey the major options now. We will first look at why so many have argued that this passage was not penned by Paul, and then the justification for each non-Pauline view will be presented and evaluated.

i. Non-Pauline Authorship of 2 Corinthians 6.14-7.1

Some have argued that the passage must be non-Pauline in origin simply on account of the fact that it is self-contained and seemingly without connection to the situation at Corinth. As noted above, others find this section a sharp interruption of what would otherwise be a smooth flow of thought from 6.13 to 7.2.[12] Moreover, there are six NT hapax legomena and three Pauline hapax legomena in this one passage.[13] Even words which Paul has been known to use (like σάρξ, πνεῦμα, δικαιοσύνη, and πιστός) are used in non-Pauline ways.[14] There are no less than three proposed origins of the text at hand.[15]

a. Origin in Qumran. Among those who believe that this passage is non-Pauline are those who argue that the Essene community at Qumran is really behind the authoring of these verses.[16] It is proposed that the designation of Beliar as Satan and the rigid exclusivism are undeniably un-Pauline. By way of contrast, however, Beliar is a well-attested name for the enemy of God in Essene circles.[17] There are many more noteworthy links between this section of 2 Corinthians and the literature of Qumran. Hultgren puts forward six: (1) The triple dualism of righteousness / lawlessness, light / darkness, and Christ / Beliar; (2) Opposition to idolatry; (3) Radical separation of the community from outsiders; (4) Purity of flesh and spirit and perfection in holiness; (5) The quotation formulae and the concatenation of biblical citations; (6) The idea of the temple as a community.[18]

While this list may appear compelling at first glance, it is far from convincing in light of other NT evidence. In response, it should be noted that (1) non-ontological dualism is present throughout the NT;[19] (2) opposition to idolatry is common in both testaments;[20] (3) exclusivism in some forms is definitely present in the NT community;[21] (4) purity / cleanliness and holiness are familiar topics to Paul;[22] (5) there are multiple examples of Paul and at least one other NT author creating and using catenae;[23] and (6) the concept of the temple as community is not at all unique to Qumran either.[24] All these things considered, it seems unlikely at best that these verses are Qumranian in origin.[25]

b. An Anti-Pauline Jewish Source. Building off of the above connections with Qumran, Hans Dieter Betz has argued that the source of this "interpolation" is actually written and placed by Paul's opponents from the church in Galatia.[26] Fundamental to his position is his belief that the ἄπιστοι are Gentile Christians, with whom the Jewish Christians ought not associate, since they do not keep the Torah. In reality, however, "this view is untenable and no evidence exists that the word ever had this meaning."[27] Again, there is not a single record or hint anywhere that "Gentile Christians had ever been charged with 'unbelief' because of their 'lawlessness,'"[28] as Betz would suggest. Betz's hypothetical reconstruction has not met with any real success, and it is prudent to reject his theory as well.[29]

c. Another Early Christian Source. In addition to the highly detailed speculation above, some less specific conjectures have been made about Paul using this material, which was originally composed by someone else. For example, Belleville concludes that there are simply too many hapax legomena, too many ideas that seem foreign to Paul, and too much atypical language (especially in the exhortation of 7.1) for this passage to have been written by Paul, even though she goes to great lengths to determine how the passage fits in the context.[30] Her suggested solution is that Paul most likely inserted content from a sermon that the Corinthians would have known into his letter, even though he himself had not written it.[31] It will be seen, however, that this thesis is not needed when the language data from this passage are weighed out more carefully. The next section will show how the arguments against Paul having written this section are far less conclusive than they may appear, thus making a middle-ground position like this one unnecessary.

ii. IS 2 Corinthians 6.14-7.1 PAULINE AFTER ALL?

So far it has been found that none of the proposed non-Pauline answers can be shown to be either helpful or necessary. Could it be that the simplest answer might be the best one? Even though the objections to Pauline authorship may seem impressive at first glance, when taken one-by-one, they are easily dismantled.

While many argue that this passage is an interpolation because it is a self-contained unit, without connection to the surrounding paragraphs, this cannot be proven. To the contrary, many have shown quite plausible connections to Paul's surrounding argument. How this passage fits in its context will be examined in greater depth below, but for now one example will suffice. In his rhetorical analysis of the arguments of Paul in 1 and 2 Corinthians, Witherington finds our passage to be a digression, or egressio. Noting Thrall's work, amplified by Murphy-O'Connor,[32] he notes how 6.11, 14ff refer back to Deut 11:16 and its context. "This not only explains the references to open hearts in 6:11 and to idols in v. 16 but also connects the two."[33] Moreover, "in a rhetorical digression in the midst of a discourse it was expected that the rhetor would return to the point from which he digressed." He therefore suggests that "this explains why 6:11f and 7:2f are so similar."[34] This unit then, while seemingly a whole within itself, must be seen to have intrinsic ties to the verses around it, making it unlikely to be a non-Pauline interpolation. Furthermore, since he is speaking of εἰδώλων, which are a known issue in the city of Corinth (1 Cor 8, 10), there is at least one obvious connection to the situation at Corinth.

There are also plausible explanations for the sharp introduction of this section in 6.14. Barnett notes that there are no connecting verbs or phrases to begin the passage and states that the command the is given using asyndeton "to make freestanding statements and thus to heighten the impact of his words."[35] The simple fact that so many have noted the sudden "jerk" effect bears witness, that it has--at least in some sense--fulfilled its purpose of attracting the reader's attention. Far from being disconnected because it is unrelated, this passage is given as disconnected in order to emphasize the importance of the command.

The issue of how many hapax legomena are present is made to be larger than it is. Of the nine supposed hapaxes ἐμπεριπατήσω, εἰσδέξομαι, and παντοκράτωρ are unique in Paul, but present in the lxx--which Paul would have known.[36] Again, if μετέχω--μετοχή and μολύνω--μολυσμός are seen as legitimate cognates (which they are), they are not true hapaxes either. Still another for consideration is ἑτεροζυγέω. Is it really "that much different from similar compounds with ζυγός and σύζυγος?" And as for συμφώνησις and συγκάταθεσις, they "simply follow the pattern of other Pauline compound words formed with the prefix συγ(μ)."[37] The conclusion Martin draws, then, is that the only hapax worth noting is βελιάρ, and "it is hardly reasonable to think that a term, so entrenched in Jewish thinking should necessarily be excluded from Paul's thinking."[38] If one is still unconvinced, it should be noted that "a digression ... may be characterized by greater vehemence and freedom of speech than the surrounding argument,"[39] which is precisely what we find in 2 Cor 6.14-7.1. Clearly, the evidence presented stands in favour of seeing this unit as original to Paul himself, and none of the so-called non-Pauline features are persuasive enough to cause us to conclude that this paragraph does not belong precisely where it is.[40]

Thus far we have defined the boundaries of our text, determined the author, and the place of the passage simply by examining characteristics of the text. Now attention will be given to the actual interpretation of these verses, and it will be made even clearer that the apostle Paul is the author, using clear logic and purpose to forcefully command that the Corinthians be pure and holy in their service to God. We will attempt to answer the question Barnett poses: "If the passage is Pauline, a remaining question is, Why does it appear in this position, as the climax of the entire apologia for Paul's new covenant ministry, which he began (at) 2:14?"[41]

3. ISSUES IN INTERPRETING THE TEXT

A. THE PLACEMENT OF THE TEXT IN THE ARGUMENT OF 2 CORINTHIANS

It would scarcely be an overstatement to say that the theories and attempted explanations of Paul's line of reasoning leading up to and including 6.14-7.1 are as numerous as the commentators. With a view to the overall argument of 2 Corinthians 1-7 (which is nearly universally recognized as a unit of thought separate in some sense from 2 Corinthians 8-9), the best visual representation has been given by Craig Blomberg, and is reproduced below.[42]

[caption id="attachment_321" align="aligncenter" width="480" caption="Proposed Extended Chiasm"][/caption]

Yet, even in such a broad, over-arching sweep, our passage remains the one which is most difficult. Blomberg admits, "The least obvious pair matches 2:14-4:6 with 6:11-7:4." Yet he defends this pairing, all the same:

Still, both of these sections linger long on the clear-cut contrasts between true Christianity and its opposition: false teachers in Corinth, improper responses by the Corinthians, and inappropriate application of the old covenant in the age of the new. More strikingly, both sections focus heavily on key OT Scriptures which bear on the situation in Corinth.[43]

While Blomberg may be the only one to have pointed out this extended chiasmus, he is not alone in connecting it to the theme of the ministry of reconciliation.

With this powerful appeal (6:14-7:1) Paul now brings the apostolic excursus, begun at 2:14 to its climax. More immediately it relates to the passage begun at 5:18. God has given to Paul the ministry of reconciliation and entrusted to him the message of reconciliation (5:18-19). On that basis he has exhorted the Corinthians to be reconciled to God (5:20-6:2). His exposition of his sufferings, in which the power of God is nonetheless active (6:3-10), provides moral authority for his appeal that the Corinthians be reconciled to God, and, in the passage following (6:11-13), to him also. Now follows the strong exhortation to which all this has been leading and for which it has served as the foundation. The Corinthians must separate from all that is unclean in Corinth.[44]

To these notions of connection should be added the oft-noted realization that in giving this command on the heals of asking the Corinthians to "widen their hearts" to him, he is most likely indicating the reason why their hearts have been "restricted"; namely, their double-allegiance.[45]

Having now placed the passage within the flow of thought in 2 Corinthians, we will shift our focus to the internal analysis of the passage; namely, some notes on syntax and semantics and then a summary of the structure of the argument.

B. ISSUES OF SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS

As Barnett notes, this section begins with asyndeton, for rhetorical effect.[46] The present periphrastic construction, rather than implying stopping[47] or not starting[48] an action, has general gnomic force; it is something the Corinthians ought never do.[49] William Webb addresses the semantic range of ἑτεροζυγοῦντες and suggests that it should be limited by the five synonyms that follow and the two covenant formulas in the catena. He concludes: "On this basis the prohibitions do not appear to be against causal contact, but against forming covenantlike relationships with pagans, which in turn violate Christians' existing covenant with God."[50] The identification of the ἄπιστοι who the Corinthians are to avoid being yoked with is perhaps not as hard to determine as some have suggested. Despite a plethora of options, on the whole, "the evidence strongly favors a traditional understanding of the ἄπιστοι as non-Christians outside the church community."[51]

Wallace makes note of the substantival use of πιστῷ and ἀπίστου in 6.15.[52] Furnish finds the ἡμεῖς at the beginning of 6.16b "very emphatic."[53] With regard to the repetition of the introductory formulae, Thrall notes that Paul may intend "to stress the divine and authoritative origin of the exhortations he quotes."[54] Zerwick notes that εἰς + acc. following γινομαι or εἰμι (as in 6.18) is common, and most likely a result of Semitic influence, given its frequent presence in OT quotations.[55] The anarthrous παντὸς stresses "each and every" form of defilement (μολυσμοῦ),[56] while σαρκὸς and πνεύματος just refers to the totality of the purity / holiness.[57] The prepositional phrase ἐν φόβῳ θεοῦ "defines the circumstances or manner in which the exhortation is to be carried out."[58] Finally, it should be noted that the cohortative nature of the reiteration of the command combined with the address, ἀγαπητοί, is designed to reveal a loving, pastoral heart.[59]

C. STRUCTURE OF THE ARGUMENT

The simplest outline of Paul's argumentation comes from James Scott, who sees this unit as a parenetic section in a ring structure, wherein the initial exhortation that they should not be "allied" with unbelievers is restated using different terminology at the close of the section. He fills out the middle of the section in this way:

Between these exhortations come two separate lines of substantiation for 6.14a: the rhetorical questions in vv. 14b-16b and the scripture citations in vv. 16c-18. There can be no doubt that the function of these citations is to substantiate v. 14a; for the exhortation in v. 17, which reiterates v. 14a, comes at the center of two sets of corresponding Scripture promises (vv. 16def and 17d-18b), which provide the theological basis of v. 17 and thus of v. 14a. Quite logically, therefore, these promises also provide the basis for the concluding exhortation in 7.1, thereby closing the ring.[60]

Thus Paul begins with an exhortation, amplifies with rhetorical questions intended to polarize the audience, and then reminds them of the promises that are theirs as they partake of his new covenant ministry that the old covenant itself had prophesied. But just as in the old covenant, these promises are for those who love the True God exclusively. This discussion of Paul's argument naturally leads us to the issue of how to interpret Paul's use of the Old Testament.

D. PAUL'S USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

In Paul's argumentation here, the OT is being more or less directly quoted, for the purposes of enforcing his position that the new covenant church is the promised temple--the dwelling place of God with man. Paul's first OT quotation is a conflation of Lev 26.11-12 (καὶ θήσω τὴν διαθήκην μου ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ οὐ βδελύξεται ἡ ψυχή μου ὑμᾶς καὶ ἐμπεριπατήσω ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ ἔσομαι ὑμῶν θεός καὶ ὑμεῖς ἔσεσθέ μου λαός) and Ezek 37.27 (καὶ ἔσται ἡ κατασκήνωσίς μου ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς θεός καὶ αὐτοί μου ἔσονται λαός). Scott makes an important observation about the bringing together of these texts: in the Leviticus text, God is dealing with Israel in their protology (that is, when God led Israel out of Egyptian bondage at the Exodus, established the nation and the covenant relationship between Israel and himself, and began to dwell among them as their God). In the Ezekiel text, however, God is dealing with Israel's eschatology and their grand return to the presence and fellowship with God.[61] It is precisely this type of movement within the OT itself that Paul was so keen to elaborate on earlier in the letter, giving evidence that his ministry is the fulfillment of that which was promised.

It is also significant to note that the context of Ezekiel 37, which Paul has just alluded to, speaks of the new life (creation) in the new covenant (also themes which Paul has already addressed).[62] Perhaps even more important, however, is the realization that in this same context (37.21, 23) God has promised the return from exile in Babylon, with the last verse of chapter 37 reading: "Then the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore" (ESV)--the very thing which Paul has said is happening with the Corinthians, and the very reason why they must be holy![63]

The connection to the present context grows even stronger when Paul cites Isaiah 52.11 (ἀπόστητε ἀπόστητε ἐξέλθατε ἐκεῖθεν καὶ ἀκαθάρτου μὴ ἅπτεσθε ἐξέλθατε ἐκ μέσου αὐτῆς ἀφορίσθητε οἱ φέροντες τὰ σκεύη κυρίου) next, in 2 Cor 6.17. This passage also speaks of return from Babylonian exile, and "all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God" (52.10b). This is Isaiah's context for calling the Israelites to be holy, as they carried the holy cultic vessels, used in temple-worship of God; the fulfillment of these things is Paul's context for calling the Corinthians to be holy, since they themselves are the temple.[64]

Without warning that he is quoting a new text, Paul cites Ezek 20.34 (καὶ ἐξάξω ὑμᾶς ἐκ τῶν λαῶν καὶ εἰσδέξομαι ὑμᾶς ἐκ τῶν χωρῶν οὗ διεσκορπίσθητε ἐν αὐταῖς ἐν χειρὶ κραταιᾷ καὶ ἐν βραχίονι ὑψηλῷ καὶ ἐν θυμῷ κεχυμένῳ). In this immediate context

the contrast between God's people and their surroundings is emphasized: the people should not think of being "like the nations" (20:32-34). Then God warns his people that he will have to "enter into judgment" with them (20:35), and he will "purge out the rebels" from among them (20:38). Thus the context is about God's people being cleansed from the impurity that they acquired from their pagan neighbors.[65]

Paul's final OT allusion in this passage is no less suited to the context at hand. Here Paul cites 2 Sam 7.14, where the promise given to David is that "your house and your kingdom shall be made sure for ever before me; your throne shall be established forever (7:16). Thus Paul applies a promise originally uttered for David's royal house--and through it for the whole chosen people--to the new people of God (to whom the Christians in Corinth belong)."[66] When Paul quotes 2 Samuel, however, he adds the words καὶ θυγατέρας. Thrall suggests that this is another instance of conflation (of an ingenious sort). She suggests that it is "occasioned by OT promises of the restoration of Israel in which 'daughters' are often mentioned with 'sons'."[67] She cites Isa 43.6; 49.22; and 60.4. What makes this so significant, of course, is that it concludes this catena by rounding out the readers' thoughts on the "second exodus" of Isaiah 40-66.

In sum, Paul's use of the OT in this passage shows a masterful understanding of the scriptural texts and their contexts, as well as the flow of redemptive-history. Paul's use of the Scriptures here (as elsewhere in 2 Corinthians) "underscores his conviction that the new covenant of the new creation has been inaugurated in Christ. As a believer in Christ and apostle to the gentiles for Israel's sake, it was this perspective that shaped Paul's self-understanding, served as an apologetic for his ministry, and supported his admonitions to the Corinthians."[68]

4. CONCLUSION

In most evangelical circles this passage is not cited for any other reason than as a proof-text for why Christians should not marry non-Christians. However, the challenge Paul lays before the Corinthians is much greater. They are to cleanse themselves "from every defilement," pursuing perfect holiness in the fear of God, in light of the promises of his presence. Their refusal to give their whole hearts and lives to God had constrained their affections for God's minister--Paul--and had greatly damaged earthly relationships.

Earthly relationships, however, for their own sake are not Paul's goal. Rather, he needs to be reconciled to the Corinthians because the whole defence of his apostolic ministry as that of the new covenant depends on their partaking of the Spirit, since they themselves are his "letter of recommendation." This passage is nothing short of a passionate plea for holiness from the people who were called apart to be holy. They must separate themselves from the cult worship and all defilement because they are the temple where God dwells; God is their Father, and they are his children, the heirs of all his promises.

Surely, his children are to in a manner appropriate for being in his presence. This includes respecting their covenant relationship with God by not joining with outsiders in covenantal-type relationships, but surely it is even broader. We must see that this passage teaches us, just as it did the Corinthians, that in opening our hearts to God, the proper response is absolutely exclusive.

WORKS CONSULTED

Achtemeier, Paul J, Joel B. Green and Marianne Meye Thompson. Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

Allo, Ernest Bernard. Seconde épître aux Corinthiens, 2e éd. Etudes Bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1956.

Balla, Peter. "2 Corinthians." In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. eds. G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.

Barnett, P. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Barrett, C.K. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Black's NTC. London: Hendrickson, 1973.

Beale, Gregory K. "The Old Testament background of reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5-7 and its bearing on the literary problem of 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1." NTS 35 (1989): 550-581.

Belleville, Linda L. 2 Corinthians. Downers Grove: IVP, 1996.

Betz, Hans Dieter. "2 Cor. 6.4-7.1: An Anti-Pauline Fragment?" JBL 92 (1973): 88-108.

Betz, Hans Dieter. 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Blass, F. and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament. Trans, and revision of 9th German ed. by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Blomberg, Craig L. "The structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7." Criswell Theological Review 4 (1989): 3-20.

Carrez, Maurice. "Le 'nous' en 2 Corinthiens: contribution à l'étude de l'apostolicité dans 2 Corinthiens. NTS 26 (July 1980): 474-486.

Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament, 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Collange, J. F. Énigmes de la deuxième épttre de Paul aux Corinthiens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

Dahl, Nils Alstrup. "A Fragment and Its Context: 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1." In Studies in Paul: Theology for the Early Christian Mission. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1977, 62-69.

Fee, Gordon D. "II Corinthians 6:14-7:1 and food offered to idols." NTS 23 (Ja 1977): 140-161.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1," CBQ 23 (1961): 271-280.

Furnish, Victor Paul. II Corinthians: A New Translation with introduction and notes. Anchor Bible, 32a. New York: Doubleday, 1984.

Garland, D.E. 2 Corinthians. NAC 29. Nashville: Broadman, 1999.

Goulder, Michael Douglas. "2 Cor 6:14-7:1 as an Integral Part of 2 Corinthians." NovT 36 (Ja 1994): 47-57.

Hafemann, Scott J. "Paul's Use of the Old Testament in 2 Corinthians." Interpretation 52 (Jl 1998): 246-257.

Hafemann, Scott J. "The 'Temple Of The Spirit' As The Inaugural Fulfillment Of The New Covenant Within The Corinthian Correspondence." Ex auditu 12 (1996): 29-42.

Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Hultgren, Stephen J. "2 Cor 6.14-7.1 and Rev 21.3-8: evidence for the Ephesian redaction of 2 Corinthians." NTS 49 (Ja 2003): 39-56.

Hughes, Philip E. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.

Kruse, C.G. The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. Word Biblical Commentary, 40. Waco: Word, 1986.

McDougall, Donald G. "Unequally Yoked - A Re-Examination of 2 Corinthians 6:11-7:4." TMSJ (Spring 1999): 113:137.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2d rev. ed. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006.

Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome. "Relating 2 Corinthians 6.14-7.1 to Its Context." NTS 33 (1987): 272-275.

Myrick, Anthony A. "'Father' Imagery in 2 Corinthians 1-9 and Jewish Paternal Tradition." TynB 47 (1996): 163-171.

Scott, James M. "The Use of Scripture in 2 Corinthians 6:16c-18 and Paul's Restoration Theology." JSNT 56 (1994): 73-99.

Thielman, Frank. Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Thrall, Margaret. "The Problem of 2 Cor. 6.14-7.1 in Some Recent Discussion." NTS 24 (1977-78): 132-148.

Thrall, Margaret. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. ICC. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994, 2001.

Walker, William O. "2 Cor 6.14-7.1 and the Chiastic Structure of 6.11-13; 7.2-3." NTS 48 (January 2002): 142-144.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Webb, William J. Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6.14-7.1. JSNTSup 85. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.

Webb, William J. "Unequally Yoked with Unbelievers, Part 1: Who Are the Unbelievers (ἄπιστοι) in 2 Corinthians 6:14?" BSac 149 (1992) 27-44.

Webb, William J. "Unequally Yoked with Unbelievers, Part 2: What is the Unequal Yoke (ἑτεροζυγοῦντες) in 2 Corinthians 6:14?" BSac 149 (1992) 162-179.

Wheeler, Victoria A. "A Plea for Holy Fellowship: 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1." Ashland Theological Journal, 31 (1999): 25-31.

Witherington, Ben III. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples. ETr. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.

Click here to visit the TPF site.

Click here to download the flyer to print on your own.

Baptisms are one of our favourite parts of life at Grace Fellowship Church. When we have baptism services we celebrate the fact that God has saved another sinner from sin, death, and hell.

If you are considering baptism, or would like to gain a better understanding of what the Bible teaches about baptism, please download our 'Preparation for Baptism' worksheet, print it off, and work through it on your own.

If you would like to pursue baptism at GFC, please speak with one of our elders and we will proceed from there.

• A Worksheet for Discovering the Biblical Meaning of Baptism