Jesus was incompatible with the devil

JESUS WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE DEVIL
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
2 Corinthians6:15 New International Version
15 What harmony is there between Christand
Belial[a]? Or what does a believerhave in common
with an unbeliever?
New Living Translation
Whatharmony can there be between Christand the
devil? How can a believerbe a partner with an
unbeliever?
BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
Unequal Yoking
2 Corinthians 6:14-18
E. Hurndall
Intimate associations oughtnot to be formed by the people of God with the
ungodly. The reference is, no doubt, to Deuteronomy 22:10.
I. HOW THIS MAY BE DONE.

1. In religious fellowship. The apostle had occasionto warn the Corinthians
againstfellowshipwith idolaters. We may he attractedby a religious
community in which the truth is not found or in which it is greatlyobscured
or distorted.
2. In marriage. With believers the religious question should be a prime
question. Alas! it is often no question at all. Religious inequality is most
frequently esteemedas the dust of the balance, and less than that. Consentis
askedof the earthly father, but the heavenly Father is too commonly forgotten
altogether. Marriagestoo often are not made in heaven, and that is why they
have so little heaven about them, The ill-assortedunion does not lead so much
to Paradise as to misery and the divorce court.
3. In friendships. There is often much unequal yoking here. A wise man
chooseshis friends with care, but a fool takes them haphazard or on mere
"liking." The powerof a friendship is great, for goodor for evil. Believers
should choose friends who will help, not hinder, and friends who wilt be
friends forever, and not severedat the grave.
4. In business. Partnership in commerce is a yoke which brings men very close
together. They must have very much in common; their lives must run in very
much the same channel; their actions must largely agree. Or, if not, their
union will be disunion, and the issue, quarrels first, and perhaps bankruptcy
or worse next. How often a child of God has lived to rue the day when he
entered into partnership with a child of the devil!
II. WHY THIS SHOULD NOT BE DONE.
1. Unreasonable in itself. Consider what believers and unbelievers are.
(1) The one, "righteousnes"(Ver. 14) - lovers of holiness striving for its fuller
possesion. The other, "iniquity" - the heart alienatedFrom God, loving sin
and walking in it, though possibly exteriorgloss may obscure inward
defilement.
(2) The one, "light" (ver. 14) - illumined by the Holy Ghost, shone upon by the
"Light of the world" - possessing a knowledge ofthe truth, children of the

day. The other, "darkness" - the true light rejectedor ignored, subjects of
error, preparing themselves for "the outer darkness."
(3) The one, in Christ (ver. 15) - members of his body, his disciples, his
ransomed people. The other, followers of Belial, the children of the wicked
one, serving him daily.
(4) The one, the temple of God (ver. 16), consecratedto God, God dwelling in
them. The other, the temple of idols - of the idols of sin, made into gods. God
in the one, the devil in the other. How can such opposites as these be united?
Why should righteousness seek alliancewith iniquity? Can light and darkness
walk together? CanChrist and Belialbe on terms of concord? How can
temples of God and temples of vilest idols be brought to agreement?
2. Extremely perilous. How many have found this! In marriage, for example.
What misery, loss of peace, loss ofholiness, loss ofeverything most prized
once, have followedupon an unequal alliance!The life has been utterly ruined
and lost. Some marry in order to convert; but we should always convert
people before we marry them. The peril applies to all casesofunequal yoking.
The evil generally triumphs because the goodhas robbed itself of power by
taking a false step.
3. Expresslyforbidden by God. The Divine Word is emphatic: "Come ye out
from among them, and be ye separate, saiththe Lord, and touch no unclean
thing" (ver. 17). This is a Divine command which we dare not setaside. This is
Divine wisdom; our wisdom may not accordwith it, but if so, our wisdom is
assuredlyfolly. This is Divine love, purposing to save us from misery and loss.
4. A most gracious promise for the obedient. The resolve not to be unequally
yokedmay sometimes seemto entail large sacrifice. Ifwe lose something, this
is what we gain. God says:
(1) "I will receive you" (ver. 17). We shall be with God. We shall have God.
Though we may lose the creature, we shall gain the Creator. God will be
gracious to us if others are ungracious. If the stream fail, we may resort to the
Fountain. Here is the warrant for doing so.

(2) "And will be to you a Father" (ver. 18). We may lose the earthly father,
who may have singular views respecting our "prospects;" we shall have a
Father above. If we are obedient, God wilt reveal himself in the tenderest and
most loving guise. If God be our Father it must be wellwith us whatever
betide.
(3) "And ye shall be to me sons and daughters" (ver. 18). Note, "daughters"
are speciallymentioned. These have frequently to endure much when
"unequal yoking" is resisted. We shall be "children of God." Then we shall be
"heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ." Sweet, indeed, are the fruits of
obedience. We may lose much; let us never imperil this. - H.
Biblical Illustrator
Be ye not unequally yokedtogetherwith unbelievers.
Unequally yoked

J. Denney, B. D.
This peculiar word has a cognate form in the law which forbids the breeding
of hybrid animals (Leviticus 19:19). God has establisheda goodphysical order
in the world, and it is not to be confounded and disfigured by the mixing of
the species.It is that law, or perhaps another form of it, which forbids the
yoking togetherof an ox and an ass (Deuteronomy22:10), that is applied in an
ethical sense in this passage. There is a wholesome moralorder in the world
also, and it is not to be confusedby the associationofits different kinds. The
common application of this text to the marriage of Christians with non-
Christians is legitimate but too narrow. The text prohibits every kind of union
in which the separate characterandinterest of the Christian lose anything of
their distinctiveness and integrity. This is brought out more strongly in the
free quotation from Isaiah 52:11 in ver. 17. These words were originally
addressedto the priests, who, on the redemption of Israel from Babylon, were
to carry the sacredtemple vessels back to Jerusalem. But we must remember
that though they are Old Testamentwords they are quoted by a New
Testamentwriter, who inevitably puts his own meaning into them. "The
unclean thing" which no Christian is to touch covers, and doubtless was
intended to cover, all that it suggests to the simple Christian mind now. We
are to have no compromising connectionwith anything in the world which is
alien to God. Let us be as loving and conciliatoryas we please, but as long as
the world is what it is the Christian life can only maintain itself in it in an
attitude of unbroken protest. There always will be things and people to whom
the Christian has to sayNo! But the moral demand is put in a more positive
form in 2 Corinthians 7:1.
(J. Denney, B. D.)
Unequally yoked
D. Thomas, D. D.

I. THERE IS AN ESSENTIALSPIRITUAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THOSE WHO ARE CONVERTED AND THOSE WHO ARE NOT. The line
of demarcation is broad and conspicuous. It is between —
1. "Righteousnessand unrighteousness."
2. "Light and darkness."
3. Christ and Satan.
4. Faith and infidelity.
5. The "temple of God" and the "temple of idols."
II. NOTWITHSTANDING THIS DIFFERENCETHE CONVERTEDARE
IN DANGER OF BEING ASSOCIATED WITHTHE UNCONVERTED.
Alas, we find such associationin almost every department of life.
III. FROM SUCH AN ASSOCIATION IT IS THE DUTY OF THE
CONVERTEDTO EXTRICATE THEMSELVES.
1. The nature of the separation. "Come out from among them." It must be —
(1) Voluntary. Notto be driven out, but you must break awayfrom all ties
that bind you.(2) Entire. "Touchnot the unclean thing." Sin is an unclean
thing, unclean in its essence, its phases and its influences.
2. The encouragementto the separation. "I will receive you," etc. As a Father,
what does God do for His children?(1) He loves them.(2) He educates them.
He educates the whole soul, not for temporal purposes, but for ends spiritual
and everlasting.(3)He guards them.(4) He provides for them. "He is able to do
exceedinglyabundantly," etc.
(D. Thomas, D. D.)
Amusements and companies of the world
T. Chalmers, D. D.

I. THERE SEEM TO BE TWO CAPITAL REASONS WHY CHRISTIANS
SHOULD NOT BY CHOICE ASSOCIATE WITH THOSE OF A
WORLDLY OR IDOLATROUS SPIRIT.
1. There is really no congenialitybetweenthe two spirits. As there is the want
of a common taste, so there is the want of common topics. Fora man to
delight in the conversationof an irreligious party, bears on it the evidence of
his ownirreligion. And, if it be the symptom of having passedfrom death unto
life that we love the brethren and their society, then may the love of another
society, atutter antipodes, administer the suspicionof a still unregenerated
heart, of a still unsubdued worldliness.
2. So to consortwith the ungodly not only proves the existence of a kindred
leavenin our spirit, but tends to ferment it — not only argues the ungodliness
which yet is in the constitution, but tends to strengthenit the more. And who
can doubt of the blight and the barrenness that are brought upon the spirit by
its converse with the world?
II. BOTH THESE CONSIDERATIONS ARE DIRECTLYAPPLICABLE
TOUCHSTONESBYWHICH TO TRY, we will not say the lawfulness, but at
leastTHE EXPEDIENCY, of —
1. The theatre and all public entertainments. Think of the degree of
congenialitywhich there is betweenthe temperament of sacrednessand the
temperament of any of these assemblages. The matter next to be determined
is, will the dance, the music, the merriment, the representation, and the whole
tumult of that vanity attune the consentof the spirit to the feelings and
exercises ofsacredness? If there be risk of being exposedto the language of
profaneness orimpurity, this were reasonenoughwhy a Christian should
maintain himself at the most determined distance from them both. There may
be a difficulty in replying to the interrogation — What is the crime of music?
yet would you feelyourself entitled to rebuke the scholarwhose love for music
dissipated his mind awayfrom all the preparations indispensable to his
professionalexcellence.
2. And, as it is with this world's amusements, so may it be with this world's
companies. There may be none of the excessesofintemperance, of the

execrations ofprofanity, of the sneers of infidelity. All may have been pure
and dignified and intellectual, affectionate and kind. And then the question is
put — where is the mighty and mysterious harm of all this? The answeris
that, with all the attractive qualities which eachmember of the company
referred to may personally realise, it is quite a possible thing that there be not
one trait of godliness on the characterof any one of them. They may all be
living without God in the world, and by a tacit but faithful compactduring the
whole process ofthis conviviality, all thought and talk of the ever-present
Deity may for the seasonbe abandoned. And thus is it a very possible thing
that, in simply prosecuting your round of invitations among this world's
amiable friends and hospitable families, you may be cradling the soul into
utter insensibility againstthe portentous realities of another world — a
spiritual lethargy may grow and gather every year till it settles down into the
irrevocable sleepof death.
(T. Chalmers, D. D.)
Unequally yoked
When travelling in America, as we nearedMontreal the Ottawa river joined
that of the St. Lawrence, upon which we were sailing. The former is
remarkable for its muddiness, the latter for its cleanness.Fora while they
flowed side by side, so that they could easilybe distinguished the one from the
other. Eventually, however, they coalesced, and the one stream was dirty, not
clean. So is it too often, alas!I thought, with those who wed unbelievers. For a
time they run togethersmoothly, but at last one is changedby the other, and it
is generallythe unbeliever that gains the day. Notwithout abundant cause was
the apostolic injunction given, "Be not unequally yoked."
What fellowship hath righteousness withunrighteousness?
Religious Separation
F. W. Robertson, M. A.

I. ITS GROUNDS.
1. Immorality. "What fellowship hath righteousnesswith unrighteousness?"
Let a man amass enormous wealth, and he will find at his board the noblest in
the land. It matters not that he became rich in some questionable way — no
one asks aboutthat. Again, talent breaks down the rigid line of demarcation.
The accomplishedman or womanwho, though notoriously profligate, is
tolerated— nay, courted — even in the Christian drawing-room. Now I do
not saythat the breaking down of conventional barriers is undesirable. If
goodness did it — if a man, low in birth, were admired for his virtues — it
would be well for this land of ours! But where wealth and talent, irrespective
of goodness, alone possessthe keyto unlock our English exclusiveness,there
plainly the apostolic injunction holds, because the reasonofit holds: "What
fellowship hath righteousness withunrighteousness?"
2. Irreligion. "Whatpart hath he that believeth with an infidel?" There is
much danger, however, in applying this law. It is perilous work when men
begin to decide who are believers and who are not, if they decide by party
badges. Nevertheless, there is an irreligion which "he who runs may read."
For the atheist is not merely he who professes unbelief, but, strictly speaking,
every one who lives without God in the world. And the heretic is not merely he
who has mistakensome Christian doctrine, but rather he who causes divisions
among the brethren. And the idolateris not merely he who worships images,
but he who gives his heart to something which is less than God. Now there are
innumerable doubtful caseswhere charity is bound to hope the best; but there
is also an abundance of plain cases:for where a man's god is money, or
position in society, or rank, there the rule holds, "Come ye apart."
II. THE MODE OF THIS SEPARATION. It is not to be attained by the
affectationof outward separateness.Beneaththe Quaker's sober, unworldly
garb, there may be the cankerof the love of gain; and beneath the guise of
peace there may be the combative spirit, which is worse than war. Nor can
you getrid of worldliness by placing a ban on particular places of
entertainment and particular societies. The world is a spirit rather than a
form; and just as it is true that wherevertwo or three are met togetherin His
name, God is in the midst of them, so, if your heart be at one with His Spirit,

you may, in the midst of worldly amusements — yet not without greatdanger,
for you will have multiplied temptations — keepyourself unspotted from the
world.
(F. W. Robertson, M. A.)
What part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
The nature, sources, andresults of infidelity
J. Parsons.
I. ITS NATURE. An infidel is one who does not believe, and who avowedly
rejects the testimony of Divine revelation.
1. Infidelity has existedin all ages. It was displayed when our first parents
listened to the tempter in paradise. It appearedin the unhallowed building of
Babel. It rancoured in the heart of the Jew who rejectedand crucified the
Messiah. It directed the judgment of the Greek who pronounced the gospel
foolishness, andlaughed at the resurrectionfrom the dead.
2. In more modern times, how numerous and varied have been its different
systems!We may, however, arrange them in two classes.(1)The Deists who
believe in the Divine existence and a future state of being, but who refuse the
authority of the Bible.(2) The atheists, who deny the Divine existence;who
proclaim that the world was formed by chance, or that it is eternal;who
assignto man nothing but a refined material organisation, and who
pronounce that death is the end of all being.
II. ITS SOURCES. The greatsource is the depravity.of the human heart. No
doubt some have embracedinfidel opinions after inquiry into the evidences of
the Christian revelation; but have they carried an unbiassed judgment to such
inquiries? I hold that the evidences ofthe Christian religion are so full, so
plain, and so powerful, that they cannotbe weighedwith a proper judgment
without at once receiving the homage of the heart. There are two dispositions,
however, in the heart of man, to which infidelity may be more particularly
assigned.

1. Pride. This is the principle which prominently prevailed in the first act of
infidelity. And so it was when the lawgiverwas denied and the Redeemerwas
rejected. "The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, willnot seek
after God: God is not in all his thoughts." If you will examine the doctrines
and principles of Christianity, you will see much that is humiliating.
2. Sensuality. The whole system of the gospelis intended to put down the
sensuality of depraved human nature. On the other hand, infidelity never yet
promulgated one principle which could present a barrier againstthe
gratificationof lust. If it spoke of moral principle, of what force could that
moral principle be when it suggestedno motive for promoting it, no sanction
for its exercise?Did not the Epicureans recognise thatthe chief goodwas
pleasure? Did not Herbert teachthat the indulgence of lust and angerwere as
innocent as the gratificationof hunger and thirst? Did not Bolingbroke teach
that lust was lawful if it could be indulged with safety? Did not Hume teach
that adultery was only a crime when it was known? Did not Voltaire admit
that the sensualappetites were to have a full and unrestrained gratification?
When you considerthe sentiments of its chief advocates, do you not perceive
that it opens wide the flood-gates oflicentiousness thatit may rush upon the
world?
III. ITS RESULTS.
1. On the life that now is.(1) As they affectindividuals. The true dignity of
man is destroyed by the dogmas which infidelity embraces. And where is
comfort to be found in connectionwith infidelity? The infidel has gone away
from his Father's house, and what canhe expectbut to be fed on the husks
which the swine do eat? He is gone awayfrom the haven of peace, andwhat
can he expect but to be tossedby the storm? He may join in the festive dance,
but it is the emblem of raving madness; when he sinks in sickness, he is
oppressedwith the weight of sorrow;and when he falls in death, he is
precipitated to the regions of despair.(2)As they affectcommunities. Infidel
opinions are hostile to that which constitutes a nation's prosperity and
grandeur. The withering effects of infidelity have been exemplified in France.
Her efforts for freedom might have been brilliant and successful;she might
have led the way of the empires of the earth in the march of true

emancipation; but her impious dethronement of God and her nameless
abominations have taught the lessonthat if infidelity dwell in the bosom of the
empire, it can only be as the most malignant destroyer.
2. On the life that is to come. While men continue in the avowedrejectionof
Christianity, it is impossible for them to be saved.
(J. Parsons.)
What communion hath light with darkness?
Communion with God
H. Melvill, B. D.
We need not refer to the specialcaseswhichmay have been contemplated by
St. Paul when giving utterance to these emphatic questions. They may be
takenin the most generalsense, as indicating the impossibility of there being
any agreementor fellowshipbetweenGod and man unless a great moral
change pass over the latter. We need not tell you, that in regard of the
associationsoflife, there must be something of a similarity of dispositionand
desire. Unless there be congenialityof character, there may indeed be outward
alliance;but there cannot be that intimate communion that the alliance itself
is supposed to imply. And further than this — a sameness oftendency or
pursuit appears evidently to form an immediate link betweenparties who
would otherwise have very little in common. You observe, for instance, how
men c,f science seemattractedto eachother, though strangers by birth, and
even by country. But this is not communion or fellowshipin the sense orto the
extent intended by St. Paul. This is only agreementon one particular ground.
Take the parties away from that ground, and they will probably be inclined to
move in quite opposite directions. We shall first glance at what is mentioned
— fellowship or communion with God; and we shall then be in a position to
press home the energetic questions of the apostle — "What fellowship hath
righteousness with unrighteousness? andwhat communion hath light with
darkness?"Now, youcan require no proof that God and the wickedman
cannot be said to have fellowship or communion, though God be about that

wickedman's path, and about his bed, and spieth out all his ways. There is no
proposing of the same object or end, for God proposes His own glory, whereas
the wickedman proposes the gratificationof his own sinful propensities. You
see at once the contradiction betweenthe assertions that a man is in fellowship
with God and yet loves the present world. In short, it must be clearto you that
the phraseologyofour text implies a state of concord, or friendship — a state,
in fact, on man's part, of what we commonly understand by religion — the
human will having become harmonious with the Divine, and the creature
proposing the same object as the Creator. And therefore we conclude that the
questions before us imply that there canbe nothing of religious
communication betweenman and his Makerunless there have been some
process ofreconciliation. You are to remember that man is by nature in a
state of enmity to God, born in sin, shapen in corruption, and far gone from
original righteousness. Take awaythe work of the MediatorChrist, that work
through which alone the alienation of our nature, its unrighteousness, its
darkness, canbe corrected, and the Creatorand the creature cannever meet
in friendship. Now you will readily understand that up to this point we have
confined ourselves to the urging the necessityfor a greatchange on man's part
from unrighteousness to righteousness,from darkness to light, in order to his
having fellowshipwith God. We would examine how God and man may be at
peace, now that reconciliationhas been made. You are to remember that
whateverthe provisions made by Christ for our pardon and acceptance,we
retain whilst yet sojourning on earth a deprived nature, fleshly lusts, which
war againstthe soul, sinful propensities which may indeed be arrestedbut not
eradicated. And can a being such as this have communion with that God who
is a consuming fire againstevery form and degree of iniquity? Is this
fellowship possible even though certain causes ofseparationhave been
removed — because the debt has been paid, or because punishment has been
vicariously endured? You are to take heed that you do not narrow the results
of Christ's work of mediation. There was a vast deal more effectedby this
work than the mere removal of certain impediments to the outgoing of the
Divine love towards man. The process ofagreement, as undertakenand
completed by Christ, had a respectto continuance as well as to
commencement. God and man are brought into fellowshipif man accept
Christ as his Surety, for then the death and obedience ofChrist are placed to

his account, and accordinglyhe appears as one on whom justice has no claim,
and on whom love may therefore smile. But how are they to continue in
fellowship, seeing that man as a fallen creature is sure to do much that will be
offensive to God, and that God in virtue of His holiness is pledged to hostility
with evil? Indeed the communion could not last if it were not that the
Mediatorever lives as an Intercessor. It could not last if it were not that the
work of the Son procured for us the influence of the Spirit. But combine these
two facts and you may see that Christ made not only provision for uniting
God and man, but for keeping them united. The question as to what
fellowship, what communion there canbe betweenthings in their own nature
directly opposed, is of course to be consideredas only a forcible mode of
expressing an impossibility. There cannotbe fellowship betweenrighteousness
and unrighteousness, there cannot be communion betweendarkness and light.
Now we wish you to considerthis impossibility with reference to a future
state:we cannotconcealfrom ourselves that there is a greatdeal of vague
hope of heaven which takes little or no accountof what must necessarilybe
the characterofthe inhabitants of heaven. But the greatthing to be here
impressed upon men, who in spite of their musings on heaven give evident
tokens of being still worldly-minded — it is, that they are altogethermistaken
as to the worth, the attractiveness ofheaven. They are not indeed mistakenas
to heaven being a scene of overwhelming splendour and unimagined
blessedness, but they are utterly mistaken in supposing that it would be so to
themselves. They forgetthat in order to anything of happiness there must be a
correspondence betweenthe dispositions of the inhabitants of a world and the
enjoyments of that world; otherwise in vain will the Creatorhave hung a
scene with majesty and scatteredoverits surface the indications of His
goodness.It is nothing, then, that we have a relish for descriptions of heaven.
The question is whether we have any conformity to the inhabitants of heaven.
Eternally to be in communion with God, eternally to have fellowship with God
— why this suggeststhe most terrible of thoughts — thoughts of being for
ever out of my element, unless God and myself are to be of one mind — if I am
to remain unrighteous while He is righteous, if I am to be darkness while He is
light. We have no right to think that this friendship betweenGod and man is
effectedunless at leastcommencedon this side of the grave. Go not away with
the thought that you may indeed have nothing here of the characterwhich is

necessaryto the happiness of heaven, but that such characterwill be imparted
to you hereafter.
(H. Melvill, B. D.)
COMMENTARIES
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(15) What concordhath Christ with Belial?—Thepassageis remarkable as
being the only occurrence ofthe name in the New Testament, all the more so
because it does not appearin the Greek versionof the Old. The Hebrew word
signifies “vileness, worthlessness;” and the “sons of Belial” (as in
Deuteronomy 13:13;1Samuel2:12; 1Samuel25:17) were therefore the
worthless and the vile. The English version, following the Vulgate, translates
the phrase as though Belial were a proper name, and this has led to the
current belief, as shown in Milton’s poems, that it was the name of a demon or
fallen angel, the representative of impurity—
“Belialcame last, than whom a spirit more lewd,
Fell not from heaven, or more gross to love
Vice for itself.”—ParadiseLost, i. 490.
“Belial, the dissolutestspirit that fell,
The sensualest, and, after Asmodai,
The fleshliestincubus.”—ParadiseRegained, ii. 204.
St. Paul’s use of the word would seem to imply that some such belief was
floating among the Jews in his time. A strange legend, which possibly had a
Jewishorigin (it is referred to certainnecromantici), is found in an obscure
and forgottenbook (Wierus: Pseudo-Monarchia Dæmonum), to the effectthat
Solomonwas led by a certain womanto bow before the image of Belial, who is

representedas worshipped by the Babylonians. Of that worship there is no
trace in history; and Milton seems to have recognisedthis—
“To him no temple stood
Nor altar smoked.”
But if the name had gathered these associations round it, we can understand
St. Paul’s using it as representing, or, as it were, personifying, the whole
system of impure cultus that prevailed in the worship of Aphrodite at Corinth.
With an infidel.—So many later associations have gatheredround the word,
that it may be well to remind the readerthat it does not mean, as commonly
with us, one who has rejectedthe faith, but simply one who has not as yet
receivedit.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
6:11-18 It is wrong for believers to join with the wickedand profane. The
word unbeliever applies to all destitute of true faith. True pastors will caution
their beloved children in the gospel, not to be unequally yoked. The fatal
effects of neglecting Scripture precepts as to marriages clearlyappear. Instead
of a help meet, the union brings a snare. Those whose cross itis to be
unequally united, without their wilful fault, may expectconsolationunder it;
but when believers enter into such unions, againstthe express warnings of
God's word, they must expect must distress. The caution also extends to
common conversation. We should not join in friendship and acquaintance
with wickedmen and unbelievers. Though we cannot wholly avoid seeing and
hearing, and being with such, yet we should never choose them for friends.
We must not defile ourselves by converse with those who defile themselves
with sin. Come out from the workers ofiniquity, and separate from their vain
and sinful pleasures and pursuits; from all conformity to the corruptions of
this present evil world. If it be an envied privilege to be the son or daughter of
an earthly prince, who can express the dignity and happiness of being sons
and daughters of the Almighty?

Barnes'Notes on the Bible
And what concord- (συμφώνησις sumphōnēsis). Sympathy, unison. This word
refers properly to the unison or harmony produced by musical instruments,
where there is a chord. What accordance, whatunison is there; what strings
are there which being struck will produce a chord or harmony? The idea is,
then, there is as much that is discordant betweenChrist and Belial as there is
betweeninstruments of music that produce only discordantand jarring
sounds.
Hath Christ - What is there in common betweenChrist and Belial, implying
that Christians are governedby the principles, and that they follow the
example of Christ.
Belial- Βελίαλ Belialor Βελίαρ Beliar, as as it is found in some of the late
editions. The form Beliar is Syriac. The Hebrew word ‫לּבּילּב‬ beliya‛al means
literally without profit; worthlessness;wickedness. It is here evidently applied
to Satan. The Syriac translates it "Satan." The idea is, that the persons to
whom Paul referred, the pagan, wicked, unbelieving world, were governed by
the principles of Satan, and were "takencaptive by him at his will" (2
Timothy 2:26 compare John 8:44), and that Christians should be separate
from the wickedworld, as Christ was separate from all the feelings, purposes,
and plans of Satan. He had no participation in them; he formed no union with
them; and so it should be with the followers ofthe one in relation to the
followers of the other.
Or what part - (μερὶς meris). Portion, share, participation, fellowship. This
word refers usually to a division of an estate;Luke 10:42;Acts 8:21 note;
Colossians 1:12 note. There is no participation; nothing in common.
He that believeth - A Christian; a man the characteristic ofwhom it is that he
believes on the Lord Jesus.
With an infidel - A man who does not believe - whether a paganidolater, a
profane man, a scoffer, a philosopher, a man of science,a moral man, or a son
or daughter of gaiety. The idea is, that on the subject of religion there is no
union; nothing in common; no participation. They are governed by different

principles; have different feelings;are looking to different rewards;and are
tending to a different destiny. The believer, therefore, should not selecthis
partner in life and his chosencompanions and friends from this class, but
from those with whom he has sympathy, and with whom he has common
feelings and hopes.
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary
15. Belial—Hebrew, "worthlessness, unprofitableness, wickedness."As Satan
is opposedto God, and Antichrist to Christ; Belial being here opposedto
Christ, must denounce all manner of Antichristian uncleanness [Bengel].
he that believeth with an infidel—Translate, "a believer with an unbeliever."
Matthew Poole's Commentary
And what concordhath Christ with Belial? By Belial, in this text, very good
interpreters understand the devil; judging that the apostle here opposeth
Christ, who is the Head of Believers and of the church, to him who is the head
of all unbelievers, and the godof the world. The term is used only in this place
in the New Testament, but very often in the Old Testament, to express men
notoriously wickedand scandalous, Deu13:13 Judges 19:22 1 Samuel 1:16
2:12 25:17 2 Samuel 16:7 2 Chronicles 13:7. The Hebrews themselves are not
agreedin the etymology of it; Psalm101:3, a wickedthing is calleda thing of
Belial(as may be seenin the margin of our bibles); so as the argument is
drawn from our duty of conformity to our Head; Christ hath no fellowship
with the devil, therefore we ought to have no unnecessarycommunion with
such who manifest themselves to be of their father the devil, by their doing his
works;nor hath Christ any communion with the sons of Belial.
Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? What part or portion,
that is, what societyor communion, hath a believer with one that beheveth
not? What hath he to do with him? It was a usual phrase amongstthe Jews,
Joshua 22:25,27.Some by this part understand, what portion in the life to
come? In which sense it teacheth us, that we should maintain intimate and
elective communion in this life only with such as we would gladly have our

portion with in another life. But the most judicious interpreters think this is
not intended in this place.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And what concordhath Christ with Belial?.... The word "Belial" is an
Hebrew word, and is only used in this place in the New Testament, but often
in the Old; this word is differently readand pronounced, some copies read it
"Beliar", and accordinglyin the Ethiopic versionit is "Belhor", andby Jerom
read (i) Belvir"; but he observes, that it is more rightly calledBelial":in some
copies it is "Belias", andso Tertullian (k) read it; and Jerom(l) says, that
most corruptly read it "Belias", for"Belial":some derive it from "Beli", and
"Alah", and signifies "without ascent";one in a very low condition, of low
life, that never rises up, and comes to any thing; to which Kimchi's etymology
of the word seems to agree, who says (m), that Belial is a wickedman, , "who
does not succeed, and does not prosper": others say it signifies (n) one that is ,
"BeliOl, without a yoke", without the yoke of the law; so Jarchiexplains
children of Belial, in Deuteronomy13:13 without yoke, who break off the yoke
of God; and so say (o) the Talmudists,
"children of Belial, are children that break off , "the yoke of heaven" (i.e. the
law) from their necks;''
lawless persons, who are under no subjectionto God or man: others (p) derive
it from "Jaal", and"Beli", and so it signifies one that is unprofitable, does no
good, and is goodfor nothing; and it is applied in Scripture to any wicked
person, or thing; it is commonly rendered by the Chaldee paraphrast, a
"wickedman"; and by Aquila and Suidas it is interpreted, "anapostate", and
so it is rendered here in the Arabic version; sometimes the corruption of
nature is called"Belial" by the Jews (q), than which nothing canbe more
contrary to Christ; it is also a name of the devil; by Hesychius, "Beliar" is
interpreted "a dragon", by which name the devil is sometimes called;and
here the Syriac version is, "whatconcordhath Christ with Satan?" most
interpreters by Belial understand the devil, who has castoff the yoke of
obedience to God, and is unprofitable, yea, noxious and hurtful to men;
betweenwhom and Christ there is no concord, but a perpetual enmity; and as

there is no concordbetweenChrist personal, and Belialthe devil, so what can
there be between Christ mystical the church, which goes by the name of
Christ, 1 Corinthians 12:12 and wickedmen, the sons of Belial; who have cast
awaythe law of the Lord, are not subject to the law of God, nor can they be,
and are become unprofitable to themselves, and others?
or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? such have no part, and
shall have no part or portion in one and the same thing; the believer's part
and portion are God, Christ, and an eternal inheritance; the unbeliever's part
and portion will be in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone; and
therefore what part, society, or communion, can they have with one another?
(i) De Nominibus Hebraicis, fol. 106. K. (k) De Corona, c. 10. (l) Comment. in
Ephes. iv. 27. (m) SepherShorashim, rad. (n) Hieronym Quaestasive Trad.
Heb. in Lib. Reg. fol. 74. I. Tom. 3. & in Ephes. iv. 27. R. Abraham Seba in
Tzeror Hammor, fol. 141. 4. & 142. 2.((o)T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 111. 2.((p)
Philip Aquinas, Schindler, Cocceius, &c. (q) TzerorHammor, fol. 148. 3. &
149. 2.
Geneva Study Bible
And what concordhath Christ with Belial? or what {k} part hath he that
believeth with an infidel?
(k) What canthere be betweenthem?
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
2 Corinthians 6:15. The five different shades given to the notion of fellowship
vouch for the command which the apostle had over the Greek language.
Regarding the use of δέ before a new question with the same word of
interrogation, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 169.

Βελίαρ] Name of the devil (the Peshito has Satan), properly ‫ְּלְּּב‬‫ּי‬ ַּ‫ּב‬ ַּ‫ל‬ (wickedness,
as concrete equivalent to Πονηρός); hence the reading Βελίαλ (Elzevir,
Lachmann) is most probably a correction. The form βελίαρ, which also occurs
frequently in the Test. XII. Patr. (see Fabricius, Pseudepigr. V. T. I. pp. 539,
587, 619, al.), in Ignatius as interpolated, in the Canon. Ap., and in the Fathers
(see Wetstein, criticalremarks), is to be explained from the not unfrequent
interchange of λ and ρ in the common speechofthe Greek Jews.In the O. T.
the word does not occur as a name. See, generally, Gesenius, Thesaurus, I. p.
210.
συμφώνησις, harmony, accord, only here in the N T., not in the LXX. The
Greeks sayσυμφωνία and σύμφωνον (with πρός, Polyb. vi. 36. 5; Plat. Lach.
p. 188 D); the simple form φώνησις in Pollux ii. 111.
On μερίς, share, comp. Acts 8:21. The two have no partnership with one
another, possess nothing in common with one another. The believer has, in
Christ, righteousness, peace, etc.,all of which the unbeliever has not, and one
day will have μερὶς τοῦ κλήρου τῶν ἁγίων, Colossians 1:12. In strict logic ἢ
τίς μερὶς … ἀπίστου did not belong to this series ofelements of proof, since it
contains the proposition itself to be proved, but it has come in amidst the
lively, sweeping flow of the discourse.
Expositor's Greek Testament
2 Corinthians 6:15. τίς δὲ συμφώνησις κ.τ.λ.:and what concordhas Christ
with Belial? or what portion has a believer, sc., a Christian (see Acts 16:1,
Ephesians 1:1, Colossians 1:2, etc.), with an unbeliever, sc., a heathen (see on 2
Corinthians 4:4 above)? ‫ִלְּּב‬ ‫ּבי‬ ַּ‫ל‬ = worthlessness is frequently rendered
παράνομος (Deuteronomy13:13, 1 Kings 20:13) or ἀνομία (Psalm17:5) by the
LXX; they never treat it as a proper name, although Theodotiondoes so at
Jdg 19:22, and it is so regardedin later literature (e.g., Test. XII. Patriarch.
and Orac. Sibyll., iii., 63, 73). Here it is the personificationof ἀνομία, just as
Christ is the personificationof δικαιοσύνη;the contrastis that betweenChrist

and Satan(cf. 1 Corinthians 10:21). See Charles’Ascensionof Isaiah, pp. lv.
ff., for the identification of Beliar with Satan. The Hebrew form, Belial, with a
substitution of r for l, is written βελίαρ in the best Greek MSS. (see crit. note).
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
15. Belial] This word, derived from two Hebrew ones signifying ‘of no profit,’
was used in the O.T. (e.g. Deuteronomy13:13;1 Samuel 2:12) in the phrase
‘child,’ ‘son’ or ‘daughter of Belial,’ to signify a worthless person, and
generally(as in Deuteronomy 15:9, in the Hebrew) as a substantive signifying
worthlessness. Itseems to have been personified among the later Jews (some
such personificationseems clearlyindicated by the language of the Apostle),
and to have become a synonym for Satan. Similarly we find the idea of Belial
presentedin Jdg 19:22 personified by Milton in Paradise Lost, Book I. 490.
But we must guard againstimporting the imaginations of the poet into the
interpretation of the Scriptures.
Bengel's Gnomen
2 Corinthians 6:15. Βελιαρ, Belial)The LXX. always express in Greek words
the Hebrew, ‫;ּבעִּבב‬ but here Paul uses the Hebrew word for the purpose of
Euphemism [avoiding something unpleasant by the use of a term less strictly
appropriate]. This word is an appellative, 1 Samuel 25:25, and occurs for the
first time in Deuteronomy 13:14. Hiller, Onom. S. p. 764. Belijahal, without
ascending;i.e., of the meanestcondition, of a very low and obscure rank. Paul
calls SatanBelial. Nevertheless Satanis usually put ir antithesis to God,
Antichrist to Christ. Wherefore Belialas being opposedto Christ, seems here
also to denote all manner of Antichristian uncleanness.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 15. - Concord; literally, harmony or accord. The word does not occur
elsewhere in the New Testamentor in the LXX. The adjective sumphonos
occurs in 1 Corinthians 7:5. Christ with Belial(see 1 Corinthians 10:21),
Belial. Here used in the form Beliar, as a proper name, because no Greek
word ends in the letter τ. In the Old Testamentit does not stand for a person,
but means "wickedness"or"worthlessness."Thus in Proverbs 6:12 "a

naughty person" is adam belial. "A son of Belial" means "a child of
wickedness" by a common Hebraism (Deuteronomy 13:13; Judges 19:22).
And hence, since Belialonly became a proper name in later days -
"To him no temples rose,
No altars smoked." Perhaps, as has beenconjectured, this clause, which
contains two such unusual words, may be a quotation. It is, however, no
ground of objectionthat Belialdoes not occurelsewhere in St. Paul, for until
the pastoralEpistles he only uses diabolos twice (Ephesians 4:27; Ephesians
6:11). What part, etc.? This is not, like the other clauses, anillustration, but
the statementof the fact itself which "has come in amidst the lively, sweeping
flow of the discourse."With an infidel; i.e. with an unconverted Gentile.
Vincent's Word Studies
Concord(συμφώνησις)
Only here in the New Testament. Fromσύν together, φωνή voice. Primarily of
the concordof sounds. So the kindred συφωνία, A.V., music, see on Luke
15:25. Compare σύμφωνος with consent, 1 Corinthians 7:5; and συμφωνέω to
agree, Matthew 18:19;Luke 5:36, etc.
Belial(βελίαρ)
Beliar. Belialis a transcript of the Hebrew, meaning worthlessness or
wickedness. The Septuagintrenders it variously by transgressor, impious,
foolish, pest. It does not occur in the Septuagintas a proper name. The form
Beliar, which is preferred by critics, is mostly ascribedto the Syriac
pronunciation of Belial, the change ofl into r being quite common. Others,
however, derive from Belyar, Lord of the forest. Here a synonym for Satan.
Stanley remarks that our associations withthe word are coloredby the
attributes ascribed to Belialby Milton ("Paradise Lost," B. ii.), who uses the
word for sensualprofligacy.

PRECEPTAUSTIN RESOURCES
MIKE ANDRUS
SERIES:Powerthrough Weakness SERMON:Are We to Engage the Culture
or Separate Ourselves from It? Yes! SCRIPTURE:2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1
SPEAKER:MichaelP. Andrus DATE: January 8, 2006
We return this morning to our study of 2 Corinthians, which we started in
September and interrupted with Advent. Our text for today is one of the most
familiar passagesin the book, but that doesn’t mean it’s one of the best
understood. As a teenagergrowing up in a fundamentalist church, I probably
heard 2 Cor. 6 quoted as often as any other passagein the NT: “Be ye not
unequally yokedtogetherwith unbelievers… Wherefore come out from
among them and be ye separate, saiththe Lord, and touch not the unclean
thing ...”
This passagewas usedfor some very legitimate purposes (to warn against
evangelistic dating, for example), but it was also used as a club in ways that
appear to me today to be highly questionable. Did Paul really have in mind
card playing or dancing or socialdrinking when he wrote these words? I
personally think this is a powerful and profound portion of Scripture that we
need to take very seriously, but I also think we need to handle it carefully, as
we must all Scripture.

Please turn with me to 2 Corinthians 6:14, and we will read to the end of the
chapter, plus the first verse of chapter 7: Do not be yokedtogetherwith
unbelievers. Forwhat do righteousness andwickednesshave in common? Or
what fellowship canlight have with darkness? Whatharmony is there
betweenChrist and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an
unbeliever? What agreementis there betweenthe temple of God and idols?
For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with
them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my
people." "Therefore come outfrom them and be separate, says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you." "I will be a Father to you,
and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty." Since we
have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that
contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.
I would suggestto you that the keyprinciple of this passage is quite obvious.
The application of the principle is, unfortunately, not a slam-dunk, but the
principle is clear:
The principle: Believers are not to be unequally yokedtogetherwith
unbelievers. (6:14)
In Deuteronomy 22:10 the Israelites are forbidden to pull a plough with an ox
and a donkey yokedtogether. One’s initial reactionto such a regulationmight
be, “Why does God take up precious space in His holy Word to address such a
mundane issue?” But apparently God has significant concernfor orderliness
throughout His creation. Some things go togetherand some

2
don’t. And among the things that don’t go togetherare certain forms of
collaborationbetweenbelievers and unbelievers. But which ones? We’re
going to get to that question, but first we want to ask the “why?” question,
because that’s where Paul goes nextas he moves from the principle to the
rationale.
The rationale:Why can’t believers be “yoked” with non-Christians?
The Apostle offers five reasons.In a sense they are all really just the same
reasonstatedfive different ways. But in anothersense they eachadd
something to the argument. They come in the form of rhetoricalquestions,
questions that aren’t expectedto be answeredbecause the answeris so
obvious. And in this case the answerto eachquestion is supposedto be,
“Nothing, or none!”
1. What do righteousness and wickednesshave in common? Nothing!
Righteousnessand wickednessare directopposites. Righteousness seeks to
conform to the characterand commands of God, while wickednessignores His
will or actively opposes it. There can be no compromise betweenthese two, no
middle ground. What happens if you put a rotten apple into a barrel of good
apples? Does the rotten one become good? Ofcourse not; the goodones
become rotten. So, if a righteous person partakes in wickedness,he is no
longerrighteous but automaticallybecomes contaminated. Secondquestion:
2. What fellowship canlight have with darkness? None!The kind of light and
darkness he is talking about is moral in nature, of course. Light refers to truth
and holiness;darkness to error and evil. Christians are people who have made
a transition from moral darkness to spiritual light, for as Col. 1:13 puts it,
“Godhas rescuedus from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the

kingdom of the Son he loves.” Jesus is the light of the world, and believers are
drawn to Him like moths to a candle, but as for the rest of mankind, they
“love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil” (John 3:19).
Friends, there’s a reasonwhy certainplaces of entertainment are dark.
Shameful things are done there, and followers of Christ cannot thrive there.
3. What harmony is there betweenChrist and Satan? Your text probably
reads “Belial,” one of the titles used in the NT for Satan. Paul is asking what
Christ and the devil have in common, and the answeris more than obvious–
none! Politics, you know, makes for some strange bedfellows. Lastyear Newt
Gingrich and Hillary Clinton gottogetheron some political proposal. In Israel
Prime Minister Ariel Sharonrecently formed a new party with his long-time
nemesis Shimon Peres. ShawnHannity and Alan Colmes host a television
program together. However, there is not, and never can be, any common
ground betweenJesus and the devil–no common platform, no basis for
agreement.
4. What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? This is a more
difficult question, and the answeris not so immediately obvious, because we
all have some things in common with unbelievers. We go to schoolwith them,
we may work with them, we all have relatives who are non-Christians; in fact,
we cannot avoid them. But it seems clear, in light of the previous questions,
that Paul intends for us to understand his question this way: “What does a
3
believer have in common spiritually with an unbeliever?” And the answerto
that is clearly, “nothing.” The two have different parents (God and Satan),
different motivation, different goals and objectives, and a different

destination. The servants of Christ cannot enter into spiritual alliance with the
servants of Satan, any more than Jesus canbe in harmony with the devil.
5. What agreementis there betweenthe temple of God and idols? None! The
very conceptis ludicrous! The temple in Jerusalemwas unique among all the
religious buildings in the ancient world in that it lackedany religious art
whatever. There were no stained glass windows depicting the greatscenes of
the OT, no icons, no statues, nothing. The reasonis grounded in the first two
commandments and the factthat the God who rules heavenand earth is so
glorious that as soonas you try to depict him with a picture or a statues, you
actually belittle Him. In his greatbook, Knowing God, J. I. Packerspeaks
truth when he says, “All manmade images of God, whether molten or mental,
are really borrowings from the stock-in-trade of a sinful and ungodly world,
and are bound therefore to be out of accordwith God’s ownholy Word. To
make an image of God is to take one’s thoughts of him from a human source,
rather than from Godhimself; and this is preciselywhat is wrong with image-
making.”
To set up a man-made idol in the Temple would be the greatestpossible
sacrilegeand blasphemy. But Paul is only using the Temple in Jerusalemas a
symbol of another, more important, temple–the believer’s body. “Forwe are
the temple of the living God,” he says in verse 16. God no longer makes His
home in bricks and mortar, as He once did (though even in the OT He was in
no way confined to that Temple); now He dwells in the hearts of His people. In
a sense everybeliever is a little temple housing the Holy Spirit of God. And if
that is true, every place we go and everything we do, we take God with us and
involve Him.
Friends, the crux of these five reasons is that believers are not to be joined
togetherin inappropriate ways with those who do not share our faith or
loyalty to Christ. Unfortunately, we live in a culture that is fast going to hell in

a handbasket. Our societyis becoming more secularby the hour, more
blatantly pagan actually, and more like Corinth every day. The distinctions
betweenthe church and the world are being blurred, the edges are becoming
fuzzy, and fewerand fewerpeople are standing up to the evils of the culture.
So let’s go to the really hard question of application:
The application: What kinds of activities are forbidden (by this text) between
Christians and non-believers? (6:14-16)
I want to try to answerthis question first negatively, then positively.
Negatively, this is not an outright ban on:
1. Socialcontactwith unbelievers. Christ has never calledupon His followers
to isolate themselves from society, eventhe wickedpeople in society. Jesus
Himself setan example by constantly rubbing shoulders with the scumbags of
His day. Monasteries and cloisters are the
4
invention of a corrupt medieval church, not a mandate from the NT. In 1 Cor.
5 the Apostle Paul is dealing with a member of the church who experienced
serious moral failure, and in instructing the church about how to respond to
him, Paul appeals to a previous letter he had written: “I have written you in
my letter not to associatewith sexually immoral people– not at all meaning the
people of this world (unbelievers) who are immoral, or the greedy and
swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world (you

would have to join a conventor a monastery!). But now I am writing you (i.e.
I am clarifying my point) that you must not associate withanyone who calls
himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolateror a
slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.”
The socialcontactwe must be carefulto avoid is that with professing
Christians who are not living up to their profession!How will we ever impact
unbelievers for Christ if we isolate ourselves fromthem? Frankly, I suspect
the single biggestreasonwhy evangelismis not taking place more than it is in
the church today is probably that the vast majority of our socialcontactis
with fellow-believers rather than the people of the world. Some of us go to
schoolwith Christians, work with Christians, worship with Christians,
vacationwith Christians, and then wonder why we’re not more effective in
winning the lost!
2. Working for unbelievers or secularinstitutions. Throughout the Scriptures
we see loyal believers working in the secularworld, even for pagans, without
any hint of criticism. In fact, two of the greatestspiritual heroes of the OT–
Josephand Daniel (about whom no evil is even hinted)–were powerful figures
in thoroughly pagan governments and were praised for maintaining a strong
testimony of integrity and honor.
Frankly, it’s a privilege to work for a truly Christian employer, as I do and as
some of you do. But it’s certainly no blight on your characterif you have to
work for an employer who rejects your spiritual values. In fact, it may
provide a unique opportunity to influence the boss or fellowemployees with
the Gospel. (Nordo I believe this passagewouldforbid membership in a
union).

3. Adopting many of the customs of one’s culture. Almost all of us are natural
conformists;we hate to stand out in a crowd. We want to look like the rest, act
like the rest, and have what the rest have. Interestingly, even the most
notorious non-conformists all tend to look like eachother! The bikers refuse
to wearsuits and ties and dress shoes, but they all wear the same jeans,
jackets anddo-rags. The goths try to make a statementthat distinguishes
them from the restof us, but you can spot them a mile away. The body
piercers and the tattoo freaks proclaimtheir individuality, but they go to
insane lengths to compete with one another in jewelry and ink.
Be that as it may, much of this adoption of cultural customs is amoral–neither
right nor wrong. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 9 the Apostle actually boastedof the
degree to which he adopted the customs of the various cultures in which he
worked:“ThoughI am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to
everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win
the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I
myself am not under the law), so
5
as to win those under the law... I have become all things to all men so that by
all possible means I might save some” (1 Corinthians 9:19-22). Is he talking
about fashion, diet, humor, idioms? It’s not certain, but clearlyPaul tried to
fit in with the people he was evangelizing.
But clearlythere is a dangerpoint here. In fact, I don’t know any question
more difficult for Christians to wrestle with today than the extent to which
they should adopt the customs of their culture. There are some customs that
positive and healthy and should be adopted, some that are blatantly evil and

must be avoided, and others that are neither black nor white but must be
evaluatedcautiously. A very thoughtful young man who grew up in this
church recently wrote to me to question whether we should be spending
$35,000 onnew audio-visual equipment, as recommendedin our end-of-the-
year stewardshipproject. You see, he had recently gone on a mission trip to a
third-world country, where the believers didn’t even have a P.A. system,
much less expensive projectors and LCD screens. Theywere led in worship
with one out-of-tune guitar, yet their worship was powerful.
I admire this young man’s thoughtfulness and his willingness to ask the
question. But I don’t think there is an easyanswer. We all have to live within
our culture. If we tried to start a church in northeastWichita in an un-
airconditioned building with dirt floors, pine boards for benches, and an
untuned guitar for a band, we would not get very far. And I doubt if God
expects that. I think we should strive for quality without luxury, and for
excellence withoutextravagance. Have I reachedthat balance in my own
personallife? Have we achievedit as a church? Probably not, but I challenge
us to work at it continually.
Even harder are the questions that arise concerning our engagementwith the
culture in moral areas. Whatabout fashion? If girls’ jeans are cut lowerand
lower, and if “everyone” is wearing them, and if that’s all the stores carry,
should Christian girls cave? What about movies? If fourletter words and
sexually suggestive contentare found in all but G-rated movies, and if
“everyone” is going to see the R-ratedones, should the Christian cave and try
to rationalize it as “engaging the culture”? Christians should not live in
isolationfrom the culture, nor must they rejectall of its customs, but they
must be very cautious here.
4. Continuing in a marriage to an unbeliever upon conversion. In 1
Corinthians 7 Paul wrestles with a lot of tough issues relative to marriage.

One of those is the question of whether a new convert to Christ should leave
his or her pagan spouse so that they canremarry and thus enjoy the great
value of a Christian marriage with a true believer. His response is
unequivocal: “If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is
willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a
husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not
divorce him... Eachone should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned
to him and to which God has calledhim.” (1 Cor. 7:12-13, 17). Paul’s
principal rationale is that the believer in a mixed marriage has the unique
opportunity to influence the unbeliever and to impact the children of the
marriage. “Coming out from among them” does not justify leaving one’s
spouse.
6
So far we have seenfour things that the unequal yoke does not forbid; but
more importantly, what does it forbid?
Positively, it does seemto forbid a Christian from:
1. Marrying an unbeliever. While a new Christian should not divorce an
unbeliever to whom he or she is already married, a Christian should never
initiate a marriage to an unbeliever. In 1 Cor. 7:39 Paul makes the point that
a widow has freedom to marry “anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the
Lord.” This is not just a wise piece of advice–itconstitutes an absolute
prohibition againstintermarriage betweena believer and an unbeliever.

All of us know someone who married an unbeliever who later became a
convert, but that is totally irrelevant. We all also know people who have
driven insanely at some point in their youth and survived, but that doesn’t
justify the behavior. Survival of unsafe driving or survival of a disobedient
marriage is a sign of God’s grace, nota justification for disobedience. The
wise approachis to never allow a relationship to reachthe level of intensity
where marriage might even be considered.
Now I can’t prove that Paul has marriage specificallyin mind in this passage,
but I am confident that if he were askedwhetherthe principle of the unequal
yoke applies to marriage, he would affirm that it does. After all, what
relationship in life is closerthan marriage?
2. Becoming a 50/50 partner with an unbeliever. Again, I am not sure this was
specificallyin Paul’s mind, but the application seems to fit. Partnerships are
tricky relationships, and many Christians have found themselves in
compromising situations because ofan unequal yoke in a business
partnership. Please understandthat I am not suggesting that Christians
should limit their business dealings to the Christian yellow pages. Nordo I
think believers are forbidden to own stock in secularcompanies (though I do
believe in ethicalinvesting; i.e. there are certain kinds of business in which I
would not buy stock–nomatter how much money I thought I could make).
But when a believer gets into a 50/50 business relationship with an unbeliever
he faces the grave potential of being forcedinto decisions that are contrary to
his ownspiritual values.
I have a friend who facedthis very issue last year. He and a partner owneda
piece of property that was being sought for a business use with which he was
morally uncomfortable. He didn’t want to sellto this business, but his
unbelieving partner was eagerto sell because the price was great. Fortunately,

God intervened and the deal evaporated, but the situation illustrates the
potential danger.
3. Engaging in multi-faith worship. I put this last but it is definitely not the
leastimportant. In fact, I think this is the principal focus of Paul’s concernin
this passage:Christians should not compromise their faith by joining together
with unbelievers in ecumenicalworship. I do not mean that we should not
welcome unbelievers into truly Christian worship; rather we must not adopt a
spirit of tolerance in respectto worship that waters down the uniqueness of
Christ or the
7
Christian Gospel.
Tolerance is a wonderful thing when it is understood in the traditional sense
of accepting people as individuals with value (because they were createdin the
image of God) but without necessarilyagreeing with or sharing their beliefs or
their lifestyle choices. Butwhen tolerance demands that every individual’s
beliefs, values, lifestyle and truth claims be treated as of equal value, that is
completely unacceptable to a Christian worldview.
And unfortunately that is what tolerance means today in our secularculture.
Even in the ecclesiasticalworld there is a huge push to treat all truth claims as
equal, except, of course, the claim that Jesus is the only way to God! Many of
the mainline denominations are devoting major resources to watering down
and removing the doctrinal distinctions betweenthemselves, Catholics,
Orthodox, and even Muslims.

But this is not really new. In 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 we are told that some of
the members of the church in Corinth were, for the sake of good
neighborliness, attending feasts in pagan temples. The problem, in Paul’s
mind, was not the friendliness but the choice of venue. These banquets took
place in the presence ofidols, and some of the participants were giving thanks
to the gods behind those idols, who were really demons! How cana followerof
Jesus, he asks, eatthe Lord’s supper on Sunday, and then eatand drink in a
place where demons are worshiped the next day? It makes no sense!
What should we do about the ecumenicalemphasis in the Christian church
today? On the one hand, there are isolationists who hardly fellowshipwith
anyone exceptthose who dot all their i’s and cross all their t’s the exactway
they do. At the other extreme are those who seemquite comfortable
worshiping with Muslims, wiccans, Hindus, or anyone who claims a religious
faith. I don’t think Paul would approve of either of these extremes. But
figuring out where to draw the line is not easy.
On September23, 2001, less than two weeks afterthe terrorist attack on New
York City, Oprah Winfrey hosted a gathering in Yankee Stadium called
“Prayerfor America.” It was a meeting of New Yorkers of all faiths (or none)
and was simulcaston large television screens atstadiums in Staten Island and
Brooklyn. It was televisedon four national networks as the nation was still
trying to come to terms with the tragedy of 911.
Participating were the Roman Catholic archbishop, a number of rabbis, the
priest of a Sikh Temple, a Muslim imam, a Hindu leader, an archbishop of the
Greek Orthodox Church, and at leastsix Protestantclergymen. One of those
was Rev. Dr. David Benke ofthe Lutheran Church, MissouriSynod, who
prayed an uncompromising prayer, including the following words: “Those of
us who bear the Name of Christ understand that your towering love found its

ultimate strength when you stoopedto send your Son to die and live againin
order to bring the world back together.” He closedhis prayer this way: “In
Jesus'Precious Name. Amen.”
I want to ask you, “Was it right for Dr. Benke to participate in this
ecumenicalprayer service?” I
8
personally don’t think it’s an easyquestion to answer. As far as I know Dr.
Benke was the only clergymento face heresycharges from his denomination
for his involvement in this prayer meeting, for the LCMS (Lutheran Church,
MissouriSynod) does not generallyallow its clergy to be involved in
ecumenicalservices evenwith other evangelicaldenominations, to saynothing
of non-Christians religions.
A more important question is this: “Would Paul have participated?” And I
suspectthe answeris “No.” He didn’t mind debating philosophers on Mar’s
Hill, but we never find him entering pagantemples and using their venues to
promote his faith in God. I don’t think I could follow a Muslim or Hindu
cleric to the platform and pretend that we were all doing the same thing–
appealing to the Deity to comfort His people. I have joined with non-believers
to promote certain values–like the prolife position or abstinence or anti-
pornography crusades–butI see that as different from worshiping with them
or praying with them.
The reward: God responds to faithfulness in biblical separation. (6:17, 18)

We turn quickly to the end of chapter 6: “Touchno uncleanthing, and I will
receive you. I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.” These are quotations from Isaiah52 and 2 Samuel
7–OT passagesthatstress the importance of obedience on the part of God’s
people. The Isaiahpassage speakspropheticallyto the exiles returning from
Assyria and Babylon, urging them to leave paganism behind as they return to
the PromisedLand. I think the message forus is that God rewards those who
are obedient in truly biblical separationby dealing with them as a loving
Father. The problem is when we separate ourselves fromthe world we
sometimes lose important relationships–friends, co-workers,fellow-students,
sometimes even family. But Godpromises to make up for those lost
relationships by treating us as His spiritual sons and daughters.
You may have to give up a relationship you hoped would end in marriage, but
what is more important–marriage to an unbeliever (a marriage that promises
to be filled with spiritual tension) or an eternal relationship with God?
You may have to give up a partnership that could make you a lot of money.
But what is more important–a killing in a business deal or the approval of
your heavenly Father?
You may end up offending someone by declining an invitation to their temple
of worship, but what is worse–offending that person or offending your
heavenly Father?
Conclusion:Look at the first verse of chapter 7: “Since we have these
promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that
contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.”
Basedupon God’s promise of responding to our loyalty with Fatherly love,

there is an obligationon all of us to eliminate all the spiritual contamination in
our lives–notjust intermarriage, business partnerships, and ecumenical
compromises, but also dress, entertainment, speech, orany commitment,
relationship, or practice that adverselyimpacts our identity as members of
God’s family. I want to close with a quote from ScottHafemann:
9
We must not create churches that preachthe glory of Christ while at the same
time cultivate lifestyles that focus on attaining the pleasures of this world. We
cannot declare the sovereigntyof God and at the same time promote looking
to the self-help strategies ofour culture as the pathway to salvation. We
cannot preachthe powerof Godand wink at sin. The arrogantexaltationof
our human egos and the love of money are the twin pillars of the wickedness
and darkness that the opponent of God is using today to bring the idols of the
health and wealth gospelinto the church. May God grant us the strength to be
his people alone.
“Do not be yoked togetherwith unbelievers... Come out from them and be
separate...Touchno unclean thing, and I will receive you.” ____________
Note:I found J. Philip Arthur’s book, Strength in Weakness, particularly
helpful with this passage andborrowed a number of his insights.
william barclay

GET YOU OUT (2 Corinthians 6:14-18;2 Corinthians 7:1)
6:14-18 Do not allow yourselves to become joined in an alien yoke with
unbelievers. What partnership can there be betweenrighteousness and
lawlessness? Whatfellowshipcan darkness have with light? What concord
can there be with Christ and Belial? What share canthe believer have with
the unbeliever? What agreement canthe temple of God have with idols? For
you are the temple of the living God, even as God said, "I will dwell in them
and I will walk in them, and I will be their God and they will be my people."
Therefore, "Come out from among them and separate yourselves,"the Lord
says, "and, have no contactwith impurity, and I will receive you, and I will be
a father to you, and you will be sons and daughters to me," says the Lord, the
ruler of all. So then, since we possessthese promises, letus purify ourselves
from every pollution of flesh and spirit, and let us thus make holiness
complete in the fear of God.
We come now to the passage whichwe omitted previously. There is no doubt
that it comes in very awkwardlywhere it is. Its sternness is at odds with the
glad and joyous love of the verses on either side of it.
In the introduction we saw that Paul wrote a letter prior to First Corinthians.
In 1 Corinthians 5:9 he says, "I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with
immoral men." That letter may be altogetherlost. Or it may be that this is a
sectionof it. It could easilyhappen that, when Paul's letters were being
collected, one sheetcould getmisplaced. It was not until A.D. 90 or thereby
that the collectionwas made, and by that time there may well have been none
who knew the proper order. Certainly, in substance, this well suits the letter
referred to in 1 Corinthians 5:9.
There are certain Old Testamentpictures behind this. Paul begins by urging
the Corinthians not to be joined to unbelievers in an alien yoke. Undoubtedly
that goes back to the old commandment in Deuteronomy 22:10, "You shall
not plough with an ox and an ass together." (compare Leviticus 19:19). The
idea is that there are certainthings which are fundamentally incompatible
and were never meant to be brought together. It is impossible for the purity of
the Christian and the pollution of the pagan to run in double harness.

In the demand, "Whathas the temple of God to do with idols?" Paul's
thought is going back to such incidents as Manassehbringing a graven image
into the temple of God (2 Kings 21:1-9), and, in the later days, Josiahutterly
destroying such things (2 Kings 23:3 ff.). Or he is thinking of such
abominations as are described in Ezekiel8:3-18. Men had sometimes tried to
associate the temple of God with idol worship, and the consequenceshad been
terrible.
The whole passageis a rousing summons not to hold any fellowship with
unbelievers. It is a challenge to the Corinthians to keepthemselves unspotted
from the world. It has been wellremarked that the very essenceofthe history
of Israel is in the words, "Getthee out!" That was the word of God that came
to Abraham as the King James Versionhas it. "Getthee out of thy country
and from thy kindred and from thy father's house" (Genesis 12:1). Thatwas
the warning that came to Lot before the destruction of Sodomand Gomorrah.
(Genesis 19:12-14).There are things in the world with which the Christian
cannot and dare not associate himself.
It is difficult to realize just how many separations Christianity meant for the
people who first acceptedit.
(i) Often it meant that a man had to give up his trade. Suppose he was a stone
mason. What was to happen if his firm receiveda contractto build a heathen
shrine? Suppose he was a tailor. What was to happen if he was instructed to
cut and sew garments for priests of the heathen gods? Suppose he was a
soldier. At the gate of every camp burned the light upon the altar sacredto
the godheadof Caesar. Whatwas to happen if he had to fling his pinch of
incense on that altar in token of his worship? Time and time againin the early
Church the choice came to a man betweenthe security of his job and his
loyalty to Jesus Christ. It is told that a man came to Tertullian. He told him
his problem and then he said, "But after all I must live." "Must you?" said
Tertullian.
In the early Church a man's Christianity often meant that he had to get out
from his job. One of the most famous modern examples of this same thing was
F. W. Charrington. He was the heir to a fortune made by brewing. He was

passing a tavern one night. There was a woman waiting at the door. A man,
obviously her husband, came out, and she was trying to keephim from going
back in. With one blow of his fist the man felled her. Charrington started
forward and then he lookedup. The name above the tavern was his own, and
Charrington said, "With that one blow that man did not only knock his wife
out, he also knockedme cleanout of that business forever." And he gave up
the fortune he might have had, rather than touch money earned in such a
way.
No man is keeperofanother man's conscience.Everyman must decide for
himself if he can take his trade to Christ and Christ with him to his daily
work.
(ii) Often it meant that a man had to give up sociallife. In the ancient world,
as we saw when studying the sectionon meat offeredto idols, many a heathen
feastwas held in the temple of a god. The invitation would run, "I invite you
to dine with me at the table of our Lord Serapis." Evenif that were not so, a
heathen feastwould begin and end with the pouring of a libation, a cup of
wine, to the gods. Could a Christian share in that? Or must he getout and say
good-bye to the socialfellowshipwhich used to mean so much to him?
(iii) Often it meant that a man had to give up family ties. The pain of
Christianity in the early years was the wayit split families. A wife became a
Christian and her husband might drive her from his house. A husband
became a Christian and his wife might leave him. Sons and daughters became
Christians and might find the door of the home shut and barred in their faces.
It was literally true that Christ came not to send peace but a dividing sword
upon earth and that men and womenhad to be prepared to love him more
than their nearestand dearest. Theyhad to be prepared to get out even from
their homes,
Howeverhard it may be, it will always remain true that there are certain
things a man cannot do and be a Christian. There are certainthings from
which every Christian must get out.
Before we leave this passage, there is one point we may note. In it Paul quotes
scripture and his quotation is a mixture of a variety of passages,none quoted

accurately, from Leviticus 26:11-12, Isaiah52:11, Ezekiel20:34, Ezekiel37:27
and 2 Samuel 7:14. It is a fact that Paul seldom quotes accurately. Why? We
must remember that in his time books were written on papyrus rolls. A book
the size of Acts would require a roll about thirty-five feet long, a very
unwieldy thing. There were no chapter divisions; they were inserted by
Stephen Langton in the thirteenth century. There were no verse divisions;
they were inserted by Stephanus, the Paris printer, in the sixteenth century.
Finally, there was no such thing as a concordance until the sixteenth century.
The result was that Paul did the only sensible thing--he quoted from memory,
and so long as he gotthe substance right he did not worry about the actual
wording. It was not the letter of scripture but the messageofscripture which
mattered to him.
-Barclay's Daily Study Bible (NT)
JOSEPHBEET
2 Corinthians 6:14-15. Two pairs of questions, suggesting anargument in
support of the foregoing warning.
Righteousness, lawlessness:practicalconformity to the Law and practical
disregardof it. Same contrastin Romans 6:19. The former is a designed
consequence ofthe righteousness reckonedto all who believe, and a condition
of retaining it.
Light, darkness:Acts 26:18; Colossians 1:12 f; Ephesians 5:8 ff; 1 Peter2:9.
Light: a necessaryconditionof physical sight, and of spiritual insight.
Darkness:causesignorance ofour surroundings, physical or spiritual. Cp. 1
John 2:8 ff. This secondcontrastmakes us feel the force of the first. All who
keepthe Law are in the light; all who disregard it, in the dark. And these
cannot go together.

Beliar: evidently a name of Satan, the greatopponent of Christ. Same word
probably as “Belial,” 1 Samuel1:16; 1 Samuel 2:12, etc., a Hebrew word
denoting apparently “No-good.” Fromthe abstractcontrastof light and
darkness Paulrises to the personalcontrastof the Sun of righteousness and
the Prince of darkness. Same argument in Matthew 6:24. The 4th question
brings questions 1, 2, and 3, of which no. 3 is a climax, to bear directly on the
matter in hand. If conformity to the Law and disregard of it are as
incompatible as light and darkness, and as utterly opposedas Christ and
Satan, what in common can there be to one who by faith accepts Christand
one who tramples His word under foot? This conclusioncomes to us with
sudden force, because it is put in the same form as the argument from which it
is drawn. The inference is treatedas itself the climax of the argument.
BIBLICAL ILLUSTRATOR
Verses 14-16
Be ye not unequally yokedtogetherwith unbelievers.
Unequally yoked
This peculiar word has a cognate form in the law which forbids the breeding
of hybrid animals (Leviticus 19:19). God has establisheda goodphysical order
in the world, and it is not to be confounded and disfigured by the mixing of
the species.It is that law, or perhaps another form of it, which forbids the
yoking togetherof an ox and an ass (Deuteronomy22:10), that is applied in an
ethical sense in this passage. There is a wholesome moralorder in the world
also, and it is not to be confusedby the associationofits different kinds. The
common application of this text to the marriage of Christians with non-
Christians is legitimate but too narrow. The text prohibits every kind of union
in which the separate characterandinterest of the Christian lose anything of

their distinctiveness and integrity. This is brought out more strongly in the
free quotation from Isaiah 52:11 in verse 17. These words were originally
addressedto the priests, who, on the redemption of Israel from Babylon, were
to carry the sacredtemple vessels back to Jerusalem. But we must remember
that though they are Old Testamentwords they are quoted by a New
Testamentwriter, who inevitably puts his own meaning into them. “The
unclean thing” which no Christian is to touch covers, and doubtless was
intended to cover, all that it suggests to the simple Christian mind now. We
are to have no compromising connectionwith anything in the world which is
alien to God. Let us be as loving and conciliatoryas we please, but as long as
the world is what it is the Christian life can only maintain itself in it in an
attitude of unbroken protest. There always will be things and people to whom
the Christian has to sayNo! But the moral demand is put in a more positive
form in 2 Corinthians 7:1. (J. Denney, B. D.)
Unequally yoked
I. There is an essentialspiritual difference betweenthose who are converted
and those who are not. The line of demarcation is broad and conspicuous. It is
between--
1. “Righteousnessand unrighteousness.”
2. “Light and darkness.”
3. Christ and Satan.
4. Faith and infidelity.
5. The “temple of God” and the “temple of idols.”
II. Notwithstanding this difference the converted are in dangerof being
associatedwith the unconverted. Alas, we find such associationin almost
every department of life.

III. From such an associationit is the duty of the converted to extricate
themselves.
1. The nature of the separation. “Come out from among them.” It must be--
2. The encouragementto the separation. “I will receive you,” etc. As a Father,
what does God do for His children?
Amusements and companies of the world
I. There seemto be two capital reasons why Christians should not by choice
associate withthose of a worldly or idolatrous spirit.
1. There is really no congenialitybetweenthe two spirits. As there is the want
of a common taste, so there is the want of common topics. Fora man to
delight in the conversationof an irreligious party, bears on it the evidence of
his ownirreligion. And, if it be the symptom of having passedfrom death unto
life that we love the brethren and their society, then may the love of another
society, atutter antipodes, administer the suspicionof a still unregenerated
heart, of a still unsubdued worldliness.
2. So to consortwith the ungodly not only proves the existence of a kindred
leavenin our spirit, but tends to ferment it--not only argues the ungodliness
which yet is in the constitution, but tends to strengthenit the more. And who
can doubt of the blight and the barrenness that are brought upon the spirit by
its converse with the world?
II. Both these considerations are directly applicable touchstones by which to
try, we will not say the lawfulness, but at leastthe expediency, of--
1. The theatre and all public entertainments. Think of the degree of
congenialitywhich there is betweenthe temperament of sacrednessand the
temperament of any of these assemblages. The matter next to be determined
is, will the dance, the music, the merriment, the representation, and the whole

tumult of that vanity attune the consentof the spirit to the feelings and
exercises ofsacredness? If there be risk of being exposedto the language of
profaneness orimpurity, this were reasonenoughwhy a Christian should
maintain himself at the most determined distance from them both. There may
be a difficulty in replying to the interrogation--Whatis the crime of music?
yet would you feelyourself entitled to rebuke the scholarwhose love for music
dissipated his mind awayfrom all the preparations indispensable to his
professionalexcellence.
2. And, as it is with this world’s amusements, so may it be with this world’s
companies. There may be none of the excessesofintemperance, of the
execrations ofprofanity, of the sneers of infidelity. All may have been pure
and dignified and intellectual, affectionate and kind. And then the question is
put--where is the mighty and mysterious harm of all this? The answeris that,
with all the attractive qualities which eachmember of the company referred
to may personally realise, it is quite a possible thing that there be not one trait
of godliness on the characterofany one of them. They may all be living
without God in the world, and by a tacit but faithful compactduring the
whole process ofthis conviviality, all thought and talk of the ever-present
Deity may for the seasonbe abandoned. And thus is it a very possible thing
that, in simply prosecuting your round of invitations among this world’s
amiable friends and hospitable families, you may be cradling the soul into
utter insensibility againstthe portentous realities of another world--a spiritual
lethargy may grow and gatherevery year till it settles down into the
irrevocable sleepof death. (T. Chalmers, D. D.)
Unequally yoked
When travelling in America, as we nearedMontreal the Ottawa river joined
that of the St. Lawrence, upon which we were sailing. The former is
remarkable for its muddiness, the latter for its cleanness.Fora while they
flowed side by side, so that they could easilybe distinguished the one from the
other. Eventually, however, they coalesced, and the one stream was dirty, not
clean. So is it too often, alas!I thought, with those who wed unbelievers. For a
time they run togethersmoothly, but at last one is changedby the other, and it

is generallythe unbeliever that gains the day. Notwithout abundant cause was
the apostolic injunction given, “Be not unequally yoked.”
What fellowship hath righteousness withunrighteousness?--
Religious Separation
I. Its grounds.
1. Immorality. “What fellowship hath righteousnesswith unrighteousness?”
Let a man amass enormous wealth, and he will find at his board the noblest in
the land. It matters not that he became rich in some questionable way--no one
asks aboutthat. Again, talent breaks down the rigid line of demarcation. The
accomplishedman or woman who, though notoriously profligate, is tolerated--
nay, courted--even in the Christian drawing-room. Now I do not saythat the
breaking down of conventionalbarriers is undesirable. If goodness did it--if a
man, low in birth, were admired for his virtues--it would be well for this land
of ours! But where wealthand talent, irrespective of goodness,alone possess
the keyto unlock our English exclusiveness, there plainly the apostolic
injunction holds, because the reasonof it holds: “What fellowship hath
righteousness with unrighteousness?”
2. Irreligion. “Whatpart hath he that believeth with an infidel?” There is
much danger, however, in applying this law. It is perilous work when men
begin to decide who are believers and who are not, if they decide by party
badges. Nevertheless, there is an irreligion which “he who runs may read.”
For the atheist is not merely he who professes unbelief, but, strictly speaking,
every one who lives without God in the world. And the heretic is not merely he
who has mistakensome Christian doctrine, but rather he who causes divisions
among the brethren. And the idolateris not merely he who worships images,
but he who gives his heart to something which is less than God. Now there are
innumerable doubtful caseswhere charity is bound to hope the best; but there
is also an abundance of plain eases:for where a man’s god is money, or
position in society, or rank, there the rule holds, “Come ye apart.”

II. The mode of this separation. It is not to be attained by the affectationof
outward separateness.Beneaththe Quaker’s sober, unworldly garb, there
may be the cankerof the love of gain; and beneath the guise of peace there
may be the combative spirit, which is worse than war. Norcan you getrid of
worldliness by placing a ban on particular places of entertainment and
particular societies. The worldis a spirit rather than a form; and just as it is
true that wherevertwo or three are met together in His name, God is in the
midst of them, so, if your heart be at one with His Spirit, you may, in the
midst of worldly amusements--yet not without great danger, for you will have
multiplied temptations--keepyourself unspotted from the world. (F. W.
Robertson, M. A.)
What part hath he that believeth with an infidel?--
The nature, sources, andresults of infidelity
I. Its nature. An infidel is one who does not believe, and who avowedlyrejects
the testimony of Divine revelation.
1. Infidelity has existedin all ages. It was displayed when our first parents
listened to the tempter in paradise. It appearedin the unhallowed building of
Babel. It rancoured in the heart of the Jew who rejectedand crucified the
Messiah. It directed the judgment of the Greek who pronounced the gospel
foolishness, andlaughed at the resurrectionfrom the dead.
2. In more modern times, how numerous and varied have been its different
systems!We may, however, arrange them in two classes.
II. Its sources. The greatsource is the depravity.of the human heart. No doubt
some have embraced infidel opinions after inquiry into the evidences ofthe
Christian revelation; but have they carriedan unbiassedjudgment to such
inquiries? I hold that the evidences ofthe Christian religion are so full, so
plain, and so powerful, that they cannotbe weighedwith a proper judgment
without at once receiving the homage of the heart. There are two dispositions,

however, in the heart of man, to which infidelity may be more particularly
assigned.
1. Pride. This is the principle which prominently prevailed in the first act of
infidelity. And so it was when the lawgiverwas denied and the Redeemerwas
rejected. “The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, willnot seek
after God: God is not in all his thoughts.” If you will examine the doctrines
and principles of Christianity, you will see much that is humiliating.
2. Sensuality. The whole system of the gospelis intended to put down the
sensuality of depraved human nature. On the other hand, infidelity never yet
promulgated one principle which could present a barrier againstthe
gratificationof lust. If it spoke of moral principle, of what force could that
moral principle be when it suggestedno motive for promoting it, no sanction
for its exercise?Did not the Epicureans recognise thatthe chief goodwas
pleasure? Did not Herbert teachthat the indulgence of lust and angerwere as
innocent as the gratificationof hunger and thirst? Did not Bolingbroke teach
that lust was lawful if it could be indulged with safety? Did not Hume teach
that adultery was only a crime when it was known? Did not Voltaire admit
that the sensualappetites were to have a full and unrestrained gratification?
When you considerthe sentiments of its chief advocates, do you not perceive
that it opens wide the flood-gates oflicentiousness thatit may rush upon the
world?
III. Its results.
1. On the life that now is.
2. On the life that is to come. While men continue in the avowedrejection of
Christianity, it is impossible for them to be saved. (J. Parsons.)
What communion hath light with darkness?--
Communion with God
We need not refer to the specialcaseswhichmay have been contemplated by
St. Paul when giving utterance to these emphatic questions. They may be

takenin the most generalsense, as indicating the impossibility of there being
any agreementor fellowshipbetweenGod and man unless a great moral
change pass over the latter. We need not tell you, that in regard of the
associationsoflife, there must be something of a similarity of dispositionand
desire. Unless there be congenialityof character, there may indeed be outward
alliance;but there cannot be that intimate communion that the alliance itself
is supposed to imply. And further than this--a sameness oftendency or pursuit
appears evidently to form an immediate link betweenparties who would
otherwise have very little in common. You observe, for instance, how men c,f
science seemattractedto eachother, though strangers by birth, and even by
country. But this is not communion or fellowship in the sense orto the extent
intended by St. Paul. This is only agreementon one particular ground. Take
the parties awayfrom that ground, and they will probably be inclined to move
in quite opposite directions. We shall first glance at what is mentioned--
fellowship or communion with God; and we shall then be in a position to press
home the energetic questions of the apostle--“Whatfellowshiphath
righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with
darkness?”Now, youcan require no proof that God and the wickedman
cannot be said to have fellowship or communion, though God be about that
wickedman’s path, and about his bed, and spieth out all his ways. There is no
proposing of the same object or end, for God proposes His own glory, whereas
the wickedman proposes the gratificationof his own sinful propensities. You
see at once the contradiction betweenthe assertions that a man is in fellowship
with God and yet loves the present world. In short, it must be clearto you that
the phraseologyofour text implies a state of concord, or friendship--a state, in
fact, on man’s part, of what we commonly understand by religion--the human
will having become harmonious with the Divine, and the creature proposing
the same objectas the Creator. And therefore we conclude that the questions
before us imply that there can be nothing of religious communication between
man and his Makerunless there have been some process ofreconciliation.
You are to remember that man is by nature in a state of enmity to God, born
in sin, shapen in corruption, and far gone from original righteousness. Take
awaythe work of the MediatorChrist, that work through which alone the
alienation of our nature, its unrighteousness, its darkness, canbe corrected,
and the Creatorand the creature cannever meet in friendship. Now you will

readily understand that up to this point we have confined ourselves to the
urging the necessityfor a greatchange on man’s part from unrighteousness to
righteousness, fromdarkness to light, in order to his having fellowship with
God. We would examine how God and man may be at peace, now that
reconciliationhas been made. You are to remember that whatever the
provisions made by Christ for our pardon and acceptance,we retain whilst
yet sojourning on earth a deprived nature, fleshly lusts, which war againstthe
soul, sinful propensities which may indeed be arrestedbut not eradicated.
And can a being such as this have communion with that God who is a
consuming fire againstevery form and degree of iniquity? Is this fellowship
possible even though certaincauses ofseparationhave been removed--because
the debt has been paid, or because punishment has been vicariously endured?
You are to take heed that you do not narrow the results of Christ’s work of
mediation. There was a vast deal more effectedby this work than the mere
removal of certain impediments to the outgoing of the Divine love towards
man. The process ofagreement, as undertaken and completedby Christ, had
a respectto continuance as well as to commencement. Godand man are
brought into fellowshipif man acceptChrist as his Surety, for then the death
and obedience of Christ are placedto his account, and accordinglyhe appears
as one on whom justice has no claim, and on whom love may therefore smile.
But how are they to continue in fellowship, seeing that man as a fallen
creature is sure to do much that will be offensive to God, and that Godin
virtue of His holiness is pledged to hostility with evil? Indeed the communion
could not last if it were not that the Mediatorever lives as an Intercessor. It
could not last if it were not that the work of the Sonprocured for us the
influence of the Spirit. But combine these two facts and you may see that
Christ made not only provision for uniting God and man, but for keeping
them united. The question as to what fellowship, what communion there can
be betweenthings in their own nature directly opposed, is of course to be
consideredas only a forcible mode of expressing an impossibility. There
cannot be fellowship betweenrighteousness andunrighteousness, there cannot
be communion betweendarkness and light. Now we wish you to considerthis
impossibility with reference to a future state: we cannot concealfrom
ourselves that there is a great dealof vague hope of heaven which takes little
or no accountof what must necessarilybe the characterofthe inhabitants of

heaven. But the greatthing to be here impressed upon men, who in spite of
their musings on heaven give evident tokens of being still worldly-minded--it
is, that they are altogethermistakenas to the worth, the attractiveness of
heaven. They are not indeed mistaken as to heaven being a scene of
overwhelming splendour and unimagined blessedness,but they are utterly
mistakenin supposing that it would be so to themselves. They forgetthat in
order to anything of happiness there must be a correspondence betweenthe
dispositions of the inhabitants of a world and the enjoyments of that world;
otherwise in vain will the Creatorhave hung a scene with majesty and
scatteredoverits surface the indications of His goodness. It is nothing, then,
that we have a relish for descriptions of heaven. The question is whether we
have any conformity to the inhabitants of heaven. Eternally to be in
communion with God, eternally to have fellowship with God--why this
suggeststhe most terrible of thoughts--thoughts of being for ever out of my
element, unless God and myself are to be of one mind--if I am to remain
unrighteous while He is righteous, if I am to be darkness while He is light. We
have no right to think that this friendship betweenGod and man is effected
unless at leastcommencedon this side of the grave. Go not away with the
thought that you may indeed have nothing here of the characterwhichis
necessaryto the happiness of heaven, but that such characterwill be imparted
to you hereafter. (H. Melvill, B. D.)
CALVIN
15. What concordhas Christ with Belial? As to the etymology of the word
Belial, even the Hebrews themselves are not agreed612 The meaning,
however, is not doubtful. 613 For Moses takes a word or thought of Belial614
to mean a wickedand base thought, 615 and in various instances 616 those
who are wickedand abandoned to iniquity, are called men, or sons of Belial.
(Deuteronomy 13:13;Judges 19:22;1 Samuel 2:12.) Hence it is, that Paul has
employed the word here to mean the devil, the head of all wickedpersons. For

Jesus was incompatible with the devil

Jesus was incompatible with the devil

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Jesus was incompatible with the devil

Similar to Jesus was incompatible with the devil (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was incompatible with the devil