Tremper 1 Jared B. Tremper Dr.

David Woodall 1 & 2 Corinthians BI6604 12 November 2009 Separation in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 Introduction The situation at Corinth that required Pauls strong corrections in the canonical letters of 1 and 2 Corinthians can be best seen in light of the residual pagan culture that troubled many within the factious Corinthian church. Pauls pastoral heart and apostolic guardianship is a model of authentic Christian leadership vis--vis Christians who come to Christ from of a decidedly anti-Christian world. Stubborn adherence to pagan ideas impaired the moral growth Paul wished to inculcate in the Corinthian believers. No doubt many contemporary pastors in our culture would recognize the parallels. Old habits die hard. Some habits come innocently enough through previous religious instruction, while others may be symptoms of a morally depraved society, and still others are led astray by self-acclaimed Christian leaders and media. That said, rebellion by Gods people against Gods moral commands is not to be excused, and the pastoral response must address worldliness in the flock and fidelity to the gospel and even Gods appointed spokesmen in leadership. The nation of Israel was chosen by God to be a people for his own possession (Deut 7:6, 14:2, 26:18). Their identity with Yahweh was to be marked by their covenantal faithfulness, and the repeated disciplinary actions against Israel ultimately leading to exile was designed to raise up a pure people of God. Even as they entered

Tremper 2 the Promised Land it was obvious that Israel would resist Gods will for them. God repeatedly selected individuals to speak for God to proclaim repentance and for Israel to reject the pagan idols of the foreign peoples. It is this stubborn resistance against Gods will and those God sends to continue the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18) that sets the stage for Pauls special plea to the Corinthians for moral separation from pagan lifestyles. The church was to be the new people of God1holy and separate. Paul offered a powerful discourse to recall the Corinthians to that moral standard, as is needful for an effective gospel witness. Unfortunately, controversy and confusion cloud the text of 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1. Debates about authenticity and interpretation require both a broad examination of the letters structure as a whole and a careful consideration of the details of the text itself. Many commentators seem to address the issue of the Old Testament citations and the inherent Jewish separatist theology contained within them which pose significant problems. Some take a position that the placement of the text, the existence of several hapax legomena, and the overall Old Testament tone show it was not of Pauline origin at all and was inserted later (Martin 192). Others contend Paul himself inserted material he gleaned from an earlier source (Keener 2 Cor 6:14). Such views severely diminish the pastoral corrective in 6:14-7:1. While it is imperative to address these questions, the textual placement may be better explained in light of ancient genre. These issues of authorship, textual placement,

Pauline and Petrine theology does not require a replacement by the church over and against ethnic Israel. A dispensational interpretation acknowledges that the New Covenant has been inaugurated in Christs victory on the cross and resurrection, and that in the church age believers experience to some degree the benefits of the New Covenant. It is through the church that the distinctive titles of inclusion of Gentiles operate and demark a new people of God, though future eschatological expectations recover Israels place in Gods sovereign plan (cf. Romans 9-11; 1 Peter 2:4-10).

Tremper 3 and purpose are crucial to interpreting the text. Moreover, it will be argued below that the unity of 2 Corinthians will demonstrate a more probable intended meaning, which ultimately is to guard the church against forming relational bonds with those who undermine Gods pastoral protections for the flock from recurring pagan intrusions. Biblical Theology of 2 Corinthians There exist within Pauls rhetorical apologetic several theological themes. Even as Paul offers a defense, he wishes to affirm their joint union with Christ. As such, Paul touches the themes of suffering for Christ and the promises attached to union with Christparticularly the hope of permanent residence with the Lord (5:8) and therefore the enjoyment of active and mutual fellowship with him (Harris, 2 Corinthians 307). Additionally, Paul highlights church discipline and its proper application towards loving forgiveness (2:7, 10) and restoration (2:8), which are granted by the congregation as well as by the offended party (ibid. 308). This is significant in light of Pauls own strong rebuke towards the Corinthians in 6:14-7:1 and elsewhere. This rebuke falls within another biblical theological emphasis on holy living as found in 6:147:1. Paul desires the church to be pure and free from any source of defilement, and thus his strong warning to avoid getting into double harness with unbelieversthat is, to sever all close attachments with non-Christians (such as membership of local pagan cults) are meant to purify the Corinthians (ibid. 309). Paul also contrasts the two covenants with their attendant glories, graduated from old to new (2 Corinthians 3). Moreover, Paul compares and contrasts his own ministry with that of Moses in its mediatorial relationship to the people of God. This serves to underscore Pauls authority to speak authoritatively and set behavioral

Tremper 4 expectations on them as the spokesman of God: Pauls theology of pastoral service may be discerned especially in [the] last four chapters, as he exhibits the characteristics of a spiritual father (1 Cor. 4:14-15) who has been entrusted by God with the care of his children (ibid. 308-310). Pauls pastoral heart likewise seeks to thwart the plans of Satan who desires to derail Gods church in both unity of the brethren and also its ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:1819). Garland notes that Pauls delicate balance in handling discipline is at least partly to protect the church against satanic attack in light of the cosmic battle between God and Satan. Satan is mentioned here and also in 11:14 and 12:7. He is identified as the god of this age in 4:4, Beliar in 6:15, and the serpent in 11:3 (Garland 130-131). Thus, Pauls theology recognizes the very real danger of Satan and his forces that exert considerable pressure in the church age. Indeed, a theology of the cosmic battle figures prominently in 6:14-7:1. Unity and purpose of 2 Corinthians There has been considerable debate about the unity of 2 Corinthians. Some scholars argue that the canonical 2 Corinthians is a composite letter, comprising two or more separate letters, and yet there is ample evidence to demonstrate its unity and construction as a single composition (Harris 306). The debate itself has gone on for several centuries coinciding with other higher criticisms of the Bible. Yet many conservative scholars have proffered strong cases for its unity. The competing theories suggesting some sort of later textual insertions are simply unconvincing. Moreover, the most disputed portion, 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, can be well argued as an integral part of

Tremper 5 Pauls argument in context (Garland 35), and must further be evaluated within form criticism: the unity of 2 Corinthians stands or falls on genre. Arguably Pauls letter took the form of an ancient genre found in Greco-Roman forensic oratory (Long 2). While it is beyond the scope of this paper to explore the elements of the genre, it is worth saying that Long argues convincingly that the unity of 2 Corinthians is best established as being a defense speech (Long 41). Even a casual reading of chapters 10-11 reveals Pauls use of self-defense. Without any special understanding of ancient genre, one should readily deduce Pauls use of irony as a defense mechanism: "I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me!" (2 Corinthians 11:1, ESV). What Long establishes, however, is a serious historical examination of the nature of forensic rhetoric, which contains discernable attributes that can be categorized as relating to forensic exigency, invention, and disposition (Long 34). These general elements are typical or common features that are found elsewhere, which means that the type of language Paul used would have probably been recognized as a type of defense speech that the Corinthians would have recognized. Moreover, Long shows that this form of defense follows a pattern with twelve features that include statements about an alleged wrongdoing in the past and offers argument and evidence (Long 34-35). One might compare this technique to what a lawyer might do in a modern court of law. These features interoperate using the rules of forensic rhetoric. They are designed by the author (whether presented orally or in written form) to win a favorable verdict (Long 143). The form of ancient apology used in 2 Corinthians can be detected by identifying those rules. Long argues convincingly that Paul was not careless

Tremper 6 about his words or placement, and certainly demonstrates that Paul indeed wrote the entire letter following the apologetic form. 2 Corinthians certainly holds together within the framework, and even supposed sudden shifts and changes in tones are best explained by Pauls deliberate arrangement according to the tradition of ancient apology (ibid.). Likewise Garland affirms that Paul operated from a design within a rhetorical apologetic and Paul seeks to build a case from which to regain an effective authoritative voice in their community (Garland 41-42). Thus, the text on separation can be seen as legitimately Pauline and to fit within the entire framework of 2 Corinthians. The question then turns to the ancient outline Paul would have constructed that followed the rhetorical genre. It should suffice to highlight the text of 6:14-7:1 within the element of Probatio (2.1-9.15) and particularly how Pauls pastoral entreaty functions as an excursus within the larger frame of Pauls explanation of his ministry activities in light of the fact he did not come to them as he originally planned (Long 144). That he did not come as he said he would was in fact one of their complaints against him (Long 126). To their mind it seriously undermined Pauls credibility, particularly since he apparently chose to write them instead of visitperhaps a sign of cowardice in their eyes. It certainly contributed to the rift between Paul and the church (ibid.). Additionally, they contended Paul violated his own injunction against using worldly rhetoric, which to them amounted to being worldly because he used rhetoric in a manipulative and evasive manner (Long 127). They also attacked Paul as being worldly in his pursuit of financial gain. This was a common charge against first-century sophists (Long 129). Thus, Paul defended his gospel ministry against these charges.

Tremper 7 Accepting that Paul successfully defended against the charges, he seems to seek a return to some of the pastoral corrective themes found in 1 Corinthians. 2 Corinthians itself appears to be Pauls follow-up letter in preparation for his imminent arrival (Long 171). Garland asserts that Pauls pastoral correctives are particularly to help them better grasp the significance of gospel living that requires a radical reshaping of ones worldviewa process they have obviously failed to see materialize. The fact that Paul must defend his ministry reveals this misalignment. Paul wishes to redress their fundamental understanding of the Christian life and witness in which his own embarrassing suffering serves as the exemplar of normative cross-centered life and ministry (Garland 32). Thus, Pauls more urgent purpose beyond a ministry apologetic is to inculcate a theological praxis that centers on the cross of Christ2 (ibid. 33). Setting, purpose, and structure of 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 Within the rhetorical apologetic framework is the connection of 6:14-7:1 to the whole letter. Long argues it is the key response argument against the specific charge of not coming to visit. This passage in fact served as a counter-charge against the Corinthians in order to account for his failure to visit. Because of their gross idolatrous sin, the Corinthians prevented Paul from coming to them as he had initially planned (Long 172 italics his). Garland provides a good structural observation that helps place 6:14-7:1 within the greater landscape: 2:14-7:3 (4) is a long explanation that establishes Pauls justification for his boldness in his severe letter, in which he must have frankly confronted

Luthers theologia crucis is another interesting example of a recognized Christian leader grappling with how the path of suffering is normative for the believer and yet how tempting it is to compromise to avoid it.

Tremper 8 them for their moral failures. In this section he does not explicitly take on his rivals. Instead he defends himself against the complaints raised by some Corinthians that he overstepped the bonds of friendship by challenging their moral failures so directly and provocatively. (Garland 136) Murphy-OConnor argues the setting of the text falls in 6:11-7:4 under Pauls poignant appeal for openness (Murphy-O'Connor 67). Paul has certainly opened his heart to them (6:11, cf. 7:3, 11:11, 12:15), and his desire is to win back their affections so as to resolve the tensions caused by the accusations against him and ultimately to carefully bring about the fullness of their salvation viz. to die to Sin and live for Christ (5:15) (Murphy-O'Connor 70). Vegge contends that Paul has framed expectations of reciprocity in 1:13b-14 and 2:3b using the language of open hearts, which continues and is augmented in 6:11-7:3b through his strong appeals of moral separation for the purpose of restoring their mutual partnership using both normative expressions of exclusivity in friendship and extending it to cultic expectations of total loyalty to God. Thus, the moral imperatives flow from efforts of reconciliation between Paul and the Corinthians and show that Pauls appeal to the Corinthians for reconciliation with God (5:14-6:2) is framed by appeals for reconciliation with Paul (5:11; 6:11-13; 7:2-4a), which also highlight the highly specific nature of Pauls correctives vis--vis separation (Vegge 193-194). The structure itself employs five rhetorical questions that serves Pauls urgent clarion call for the pursuit of holiness in which a series of exhortations and promises demark the appropriate responses and outcomes (M. J. Harris 493-494). In light of the

Tremper 9 specific situation between Paul and the Corinthians, Harris notes that the unique goal Paul has in this passage is to encourage the Corinthians to sever all ties with any form of idolatry and thus become wide-hearted (cf. 6:13) in their affection for him (Ibid. 492). This purpose must be affirmed within the exegesis below, along with consideration for a larger purpose from which to draw an appropriate contemporary significance. Exegesis of 6.14-7.1 An extensive exegesis of the text is beyond the scope of this writing. Instead, the primary task will be to address specific words or phrases that pose interpretive challenges in light of the very specific purpose Paul might have had with the Corinthians and then journey to our setting with any surviving principles that emerge from the text. One of the greatest challenges facing developing an adequate interpretation rests on identifying who are the unbelievers in 6:14 and again in 6:15 (unbeliever singular). Many theories have been offered through the centuries, and great care is required to do justice to the text. As mentioned above, Garland points out that Paul does not deal directly with his opponents. Though certainly Paul is building his apologetic towards a point that frees the church from the destructive influence of his rivals, Pauls choice of words in 6:14-15 is somewhat vague. The Greek word translated in English translations as either unbeliever (ESV, ISV, NASB, HCSB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, and YLT) or those who do not believe (NCV, NET) or those who reject God (The Message) is (apistos). The consistent rendering in English reveals the word is unambiguous for translators. It basically means a non-Christian, one not in the community of believers (Swanson

Tremper 10 603.5.2). It may also contain an idea of actual disbelief where, more than merely not knowing the gospel of Christ, there is intentionality as being an unbeliever, infidel (Zodhiates G571). Though one should not dogmatically attach ideas of pagan infiltration into the community per se, it seems at least that there is a sense of influence contained in the gloss of . Moving from non-Christian to something more sinister may indeed be lexically and contextually supportable: From here it is only a small step to the use of to refer to false teachers. Thus clear references to Gnostic heretical teachers in IgnatiusIn the NT the unbelievers of Titus 1:15 are also apparently false teachers. It is possible that 2 Cor 4:4 is similarly directed polemically at the opponents in Corinth. (Balz and Schneide 1:123) Thus, it may be possible to view in 6:14-15 in terms more invasive than passive unbelief in ways that arguably promote ungodly living. Moreover, recalling the cosmic battle motif above, Pauls strong warning seems to be at least partially climatic, and it reveals his particular pastoral directive to be separate. Whether or not these unbelievers are Pauls direct rivals is less important than identifying the intensity behind the deliberate influence of outsiders who reject the gospel and show their intention to thwart Pauls influence that ultimately would bring the Corinthians back to their former pagan lifestyles. Garland rightly affirms that not all non-Christians fall into this category, as indeed he argues that it makes the most sense in the context [to understand] the apistoi to be non-Christians, and at the same time he recognizes the non-Christians in question to hold beliefs [that] are hostile to Christian faith and do not such hostilities a private matter (Garland 332).

Tremper 11 Yet the identity of these unbelievers has remained hotly debated. Webb acknowledges the recent debate on and makes a solid case that Paul has in mind non-Christians outside the church community over and against a more specific competitive infiltrator (Webb 44) and particularly Pauls opponents viz. Jewish false teachers (ibid. 39). Yet contingent on this more generalized appellation of non-Christian is the particular pagan idolatry that penetrates the normal experience of the . Webb firmly argues that the idolatry of 6:16 is nothing less than real, literal (not figurative) idols. In every occurrence of the living God-idols contrast in the Old Testament, intertestamental literature, and the New Testament (only in Paul) the reference is always to literal idols (Webb 38). Moreover, Webb frames the list of Old Testament references in 6:16b-18 as entirely an issue of prohibiting mixing religious worship life: imperative "do not touch what is unclean" ( ) relates far better to separation from the worship of pagan gods than separation from false apostles (ibid. 39). Thus, the core issue for Paul is that Christians must in no way participate with any pagan cultic practice, which of course implicates not only direct idol worship but also the ancillary pagan uses of meats offered in pagan temple worship rituals (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:1ff). All of this said, Keener contends that it may indeed Pauls opponents in mind in 6:14 precisely because of their more direct influence to move the Corinthians away from Paul and his gospel. His argument allows that the unbelievers might be Pauls rivals, who appeal to the rhetorically appreciative elite, [who] reflect a more liberal brand of Jewish Christianity than he, at least regarding idol food. Keener does eliminate from the potential list the Gnostics as the text later shows the opponents are Jewish

Tremper 12 (11:22). Perhaps not of the same brand of Judiazers as described in Galatians, it may be possible that a permissive and elitist band of rival missionaries could identify the unbelievers of 6:14 (Keener, 1-2 Corintians 145). Though absolute certainty is not within the grasp of current scholarship, Keeners view that a liberal Jewish influence is possible though not required to ascertain Pauls primary expectations viz. to not be in union with those who would divert their devotion to God. It is probably best to say these are outsiders with considerable influence within the Corinthian church to lessen Pauls and though Paul Gods purifying influence and not mere casual pagan acquaintances. The other very significant phrase in 6:14 is the imperative avoid mismatched unions (Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text 493). English Bibles offer quite a variety of renderings including the traditional Do not be unequally yoked (ESV, NKJV), but also: Do not be bound together (NAS95); Do not be mismatched (NRSV, HCSB); Do not/Dont become partners with (NET, The Message); Do not be yoked together (NIV, TNIV); and Dont team up with (NLTse). It is highly unlikely that Paul has in mind casual relationships and interactions. In 1 Corinthians 5:9-10 he corrected their impression that he prohibited any association with outsiders who were immoral, for that would effectively require believers to be removed from the world. Whatever specific unions he may be prohibiting, the nature of those connections are more profound. Verses 14b-16 utilize additional words that piggyback on the yoking/partnering/teaming semantic range using words such as partnership, fellowship, and agreement. Unfortunately, as a unique word in the New Testament, lexical support is not without obvious interpretations: e.g. to be yoked unequally, as with pagan idolaters and

Tremper 13 by extension, particularly in marriage (Zodhiates G2086). This brings up the traditional understanding that marrying unbelievers is the material issue on Pauls mind, but this is very questionable in the context. Moreover, Harris notes that the injunction Do not be harnessed in an alien yoke with unbelievers is not necessarily an inceptive sense, do not get harnessed Instead, it could denote either a prohibition of previous behavior or prevention of a tendency to enter into intimate and inconsistent relations with unbelieversboth present and future connections. Such will produce an ill-matched union and total dissonance (Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text 497). Paul would certainly not violate his previous instruction for believers with an unbelieving spouse to not seek divorces (1 Cor. 7:12ff). Though perhaps Paul might include in the injunction a warning against entering into marriage with unbelievers, it is unlikely to be Pauls primary thrust. As noted above, Webb argues that Pauls strong desire is to see the Corinthian church cease their connections to idol worship that directly compete with proper Christian devotion. Webb adeptly wrestles with no less than 12 options given to draw out Pauls real meaning: (1) complete Qumran-like separation, with minimal social contact, (2) literal-physical idolatry, (3) metonymical idolatry, (4) metaphorical idolatry, (5) going to pagan courts, (6) visiting (temple) prostitutes, (7) mixed marriages, (8) eating meat offered to idols at pagan temples, (9) eating meat offered to idols at pagan homes, (10) speaking in tongues when unbelievers are present, (11) business partnerships, and (12) membership in a local pagan cult. (Webb, Unequally Yoked Together with Unbelievers

Tremper 14 Part 2 (of 2 parts): What Is the Unequal Yoke () in 2 Corinthians 6:14? 163) Webb confirms that day-to-day incidental relationships with non-Christians cannot be in view for Paul, but rather Paul is concerned that the Corinthians must not form covenantlike relationships with pagans, which in turn violate Christians' existing covenant with God (ibid. 164). Though Webb offers a very technical analysis, a little common sense goes a long way to affirm Webbs conclusionsnamely, that for Pauls initial occasion for writing real idolatry is the material problem, not merely some metonymical idolatry. Webb argues that Paul commands their removal from real pagan worship that essentially is rendered to Gods direct archenemy. A believer must not in any way form binding relationships that will draw them into pagan rituals. Webb citing Johann Salomo Semler summarizes that Christians are not to join with nonChristians in religious ceremonies (public or private) which resulted in lasting/bonding relationships with the " (ibid. 179). Likewise, Garland balances Pauls direct injunction against forming relationships that compromise their profession of faith with those more casual contacts with unbelievers. Paul intends to mold them into effective gospel agents, and any admixture with the pagan values and practices will simply not do (Garland 332). The separation Paul has in mind is selective separation, not complete Qumran-like separation (Webb, Unequally Yoked Together with Unbelievers Part 2 (of 2 parts): What Is the Unequal Yoke () in 2 Corinthians 6:14? 178). Wuest offers an interpretive translation that underscores how fundamental the contrast is between the believers normative religious life and unbelievers whichare

Tremper 15 of a character different from and diametrically opposed to the state of a child of God (Wuest 2 Co 6:14). Pauls masterful construction of rhetorical questions is designed to reinforce this polarity: each rhetorical question asks essentially the same question and the antitheses illustrate the absolute antitheses between believers and unbelievers (McCant 67). Moreover, the functional operation of worship where Gods presence is with Christians creates a direction opposition to pagan cultic worship: Portraying the Corinthian Christians as Gods temple (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19) who have no fellowship with idols (1 Cor 10:2021), Paul can cite relevant Old Testament texts: verse 16 cites Leviticus 26:12 (in the context of God dwelling among his people26:11). (Keener 2 Co 6:16) So Paul makes it clear how utterly incompatible is any expression of pagan religious practice for the child of God. God repeatedly spoke through the prophets to Israel to flee idolatry. Though Paul is the minister of the New Covenant (2 Cor 3:6) that by definition gives life, God requires loyalty and separation from any worship offered in and through pagan cultic settings. Moreover, God rewards such efforts of purification with several promises in verses 6:16-18 that affirm Gods active presence that God identifies his people as his own and that he will welcome them and be their Father (Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text 494). The ultimate outcome in 7:1 shows that Paul wishes them to see that the promises provide every incentive to comply with the standards of holiness in light of reverence to God. This connects 6:16 to more than external acts of worship since believers are the temple of the living God (6:16b ESV), and it ties it to a lifestyle of true worship to God

Tremper 16 through a profound identity with the Lord that excludes believers from any form of pagan idolatry. Is it still possible that Paul has in view mixed marriages? Webb reminds us that this is probably the most popular view. So while freedom from idolatry is Pauls main wish for them, might the nature of yoking still be primarily marriage? Webb appeals to the testimony of Scripture to acknowledge that the principle of marital solidarity towards the one true God is evident in both the Old and New Testaments. This is not a mere acknowledgement, either. The prohibitions of mixed marriages in the Old Testament have the risk of idolatry as a primary concern (Webb, Unequally Yoked Together with Unbelievers Part 2 (of 2 parts): What Is the Unequal Yoke () in 2 Corinthians 6:14? 169). Yet Webb rightly argues that the imperative to be separate (2 Cor. 6:17b) would have to be understood as divorce if marriage is the point, and as argued Paul would not condone this. Moreover, this would be too narrow an audience for this to be of such a climatic exhortationparticularly in noting this has not been a serious point of debate between Paul and the Corinthians (ibid. 172-173). Webb offers a compelling solution amongst all the variety of options, such as those like Fee who sees food offered to idols as the material issue. It seems far more likely that Paul paints a broad stroke against any form of idol worship: Paul prohibited believers from joining in any activity that establishes a covenantlike bond with pagans and their literal idols (either through physical or metonymical idolatry)an action that seriously violates the reader's existing covenant with God (ibid. 175). His special task to win them back will be validated in obedience to this injunction.

Tremper 17 Significance of 6:14-7:1 If Paul is indeed successful in winning back their affections, he will see it by their response to his very strong exhortation to remove any entanglements associated with pagan worship. Their continued failure to do so up to this point puts Paul in a delicate position, since in his defense he must reestablish good relations with the Corinthians who have remained distant from him even while he must continue to purify them to be an effective churchboth in their partnership with Paul in the collection for the Jerusalem saints (2 Corinthians 8-9), and their ongoing gospel mission. The residual pagan values and lifestyles are a direct threat to this. More than this, the gospel itself is at stake. If it turns out the pagan influence is invasive and from Pauls rivals, Paul must repair the damage so as to prevent the utter loss of the Corinthian church as a faithful church to God and his appointed ministers. Contemporary Application It is unlikely that a contemporary believer in western culture will be wrestling with pagan idol worshipthough not impossible. But is separation from idolatry the primary and eternal principle to take from this passage? Is the traditional view on avoiding mixed marriages a more likely application? Or is there something more transcendent? There is a very real take away on how spiritual leaders redress those in their care. Paul withholds nothing from the Corinthians for the exclusive purpose of realized reconciliation to God and his right place in their hearts. Paul did not think it wrong to expect reciprocity; after all being their spiritual father they truly owed him much. Yet Paul also knew the delicate nature of their relationship. Though he was justified to demand full surrender to his direction, he found it impolitic to force it. He rather

Tremper 18 appealed to their heart in full disclosure of his own with all the force of normal ancient cultural expressions of emotion (Keener, 1-2 Corintians 191). Moreover, his skill to win their hearts by approaching them with an irenic rather than polemic appeal shows that one can gain more when people trust one has their best interests at heart. His public praise of their initiatives to give to the impoverished saints and other statements revealing his pride in them went a long way to enabling his frank correction in 6:14-7:2 (ibid. 197). In our contemporary setting there are many pastors and church leaders who struggle to effectively resonate with their flocks. The modern moral depravity that abounds reflects the churchs general failure to have a profound impact on parishioners. It is no secret that hypocrisy is often the label assigned by outsiders towards church people. So Christian leaders must somehow connect with those in our churches who are tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes" (Ephesians 4:14, ESV). Our democratic freedoms have elevated the individual over any institutional authority. This in some ways reflects the balancing act that Paul faced because he had to win their affections while maintaining complete fidelity to the gospel. Transparency amongst Christian leaders may be a power principle to take away from Pauls masterful handling of the Corinthians vis--vis reconciliation to God and to the leader. Where pastors and leaders do have rapport with the flock there remains a question of the contemporary application of separation. Again, it is unlikely most Christians today are fighting a residual pagan influenceparticularly in the literal bowing down to idols! But it seems appropriate to identify those activities that steal

Tremper 19 proper devotion to God and provide pastoral warnings. Idolatry is an ancient sin that seems rooted in Satan himself who would wish to deflect honor and loyalty due Almighty God. In many other cultures today literal idolatry still plays a role. In western culture it seems the lack of public religious expression is normativethe secular society. That is the new idolatry that takes many forms. Its affects may be similar to traditional idol worship, for secularism attributes to something else (e.g. naturalism) for what God alone deserves to receive credit and adoration. Secularism itself is not pure in is expression given the post-modern mindset that attempts to reconcile many disparate ideologies in a patchwork of competing and seemingly incompatible worldviews. Perhaps the idolatry practiced by those in the Corinthian church was one of maintaining good relations in society. Paul cites often in 1 and 2 Corinthians how their reputation in society is based on their retention of honor, whereas he is shamed by comparison. Pauls example of the suffering servant challenges their notion of refined, middle-class religiona religion that does not shy away from compromising those activities that would otherwise diminish their honor and accessibility to those of greater influence in the world. By Pauls ardent desire for reconciliation with himself and God, he may in fact be establishing the normal pattern of dishonor for those who would be faithful to God. Their public shame that results from an appropriate separation requires them to seek the help and support of their Christian community. We must provide every source of support for authentic Christian lifestyles in a culture that is increasingly hostile to biblical ethics and the offensive message of exclusive salvation in Christ alone.

Tremper 20 Works Cited Balz, Horst Robert and Gerhard Schneide. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Translation of: Exegetisches Worterbuch Zum Neuen Testament. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990-1993. Garland, David E. The New American Commentary: 2 Corinthians. electronic ed, Logos Library System. Vol. 29. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999. Harris, Murray J. "2 Corinthians." Alexander, T. Desmond, et al. New dictionary of biblical theology: exploring the unity & diversity of Scripture. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000. 306-310. . The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI; Milton Keynes, UK: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co; Paternoster Press, 2005. Keener, Craig S. 1-2 Corintians. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. . The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Long, Fredrick J. Ancient Rhetoric and Pauls Apology: The Compositional Unity of 2 Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. McCant, Jerry W. 2 Corinthians. Sheffeld: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Murphy-O'Connor, Jerome. The Theology of the Second Letter to the Corinthians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Swanson, James. Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament). electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997.

Tremper 21 Vegge, Ivar. 2 Corinthians - a Letter about Reconciliation: a Psychagogical, Episitolographical, and Rhetorical Analysis. Trans. Mohr Siebeck. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Webb, William J. "Unequally Yoked Together with Unbelievers Part 1 (of 2 parts): Who Are the Unbelievers () in 2 Corinthians 6:14?" Bibliotheca Sacra (1992): 27-44. . "Unequally Yoked Together with Unbelievers Part 2 (of 2 parts): What Is the Unequal Yoke () in 2 Corinthians 6:14?" Bibliotheca Sacra (1992): 162-179. Wuest, Kenneth S. The New Testament: An Expanded Translation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961. Zodhiates, Spiros. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. electronic ed. Chattanooga: AMG Publishers, 1992, 1993, 2000.