God the Father and the Trinity...

[Resting In Him]

In reading 11 Cor. 6:14 we're told (Christians) not to be "unequally yoked together with unbelievers, etc".

In other words we, as Christians, are being admonished to be separated from the world so that we're identified as being with and in Christ and not of the world.

Then in verse 16 there is the conditional (?) aspect of God the Father dwelling in us and walking in us and being our God and we His people.

In 17, if there is this "separation", God the Father will "receive" us.

Finally, in verse 18 God speaks to us and says He'll be a "Father" to us and will call us His sons and daughters".

What I'm reading in these verses is that the manifestation of God the Father is conditional upon our obedience, i.e. separation with compromise or complicity with the world.

Does this mean he isn't within us, walking with us, etc. if we are walking in disobedience?

Jesus said He would never leave us nor forsake us - and this is what I'm not understanding clearly with these verses.....how can Jesus and His Spirit be with us continually and the same not be true with God the Father?

I've never believed the Trinity could be divided - yet these verses seem to indicate that God will not receive us if we are disobedient. :confused

[Harley]

i see a command - don't be unequally yoke. (vv. 14-16a)
i also see several promises - i will live with, walk with, and be their god (v. 16b)
followed by another command - come out and be separate (v.17)
and another promise - i will be a father (v. 18)

i don't see any conditions though.

[Resting In Him]

i see a command - don't be unequally yoke. (vv. 14-16a)
i also see several promises - i will live with, walk with, and be their god (v. 16b)
followed by another command - come out and be separate (v.17)
and another promise - i will be a father (v. 18)

i don't see any conditions though.

But doesn't the wording in verse 17 & 18 - "wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you and ye shall be my sons and daughters" indicate that we won't be received if the command isn't obeyed? That sounds like a condition in order for Father God to walk and live within us. Yet, on the other hand, we are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise and Jesus said He would never leave us or forsake us.

This complicates the unity of the Trinity for me. :confused

[Harley]

But doesn't the wording in verse 17 & 18 - "wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you and ye shall be my sons and daughters" indicate that we won't be received if the command isn't obeyed? That sounds like a condition in order for Father God to walk and live within us. Yet, on the other hand, we are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise and Jesus said He would never leave us or forsake us.

This complicates the unity of the Trinity for me. :confused
if this complicated the unity of the trinity, what does the incarnation do?

anyway, i see commands and promises. there is no first, or second class condition that i see - no "if's" or "so that's" or "in order that's" - just commands and promises.

[Resting In Him]

if this complicated the unity of the trinity, what does the incarnation do?

anyway, i see commands and promises. there is no first, or second class condition that i see - no "if's" or "so that's" or "in order that's" - just commands and promises.

I looked up Scofield's notes on 11 Cor. 6:17:

Vs. 17 - Separation, Summary: (1) Separation in Scripture is twofold: "from" whatever is contrary to the mind of God; and "unto" God Himself. The underlying principle is that in a moral universe it is impossible for God to fully bless and use His children who are in compromise or complicity with evil. The unequal yoke is anything which unites a child of God and an unbeliever in a common purpose (Deut. 22:10). (2) Separation from evil implies (a) separation in desire, motive, and act, from the world, in the ethically bad sense of this present world-system; and (b) separation from believers, especially false teachers, who are "vessels unto dishonour" (2Tim. 2:20, 21; 2 John 9-11). (3) Separation is not from contact with evil in the world or the church, but from complicity with and conformity to it (John 17:15; 2 Cor 6:14-18; Gal. 6:1). (4) The reward of separation is the full manifestation of the divine fatherhood (2 Cor. 6:17-18; unhindered communion and worship (see Heb. 13:13-15), and fruitful service (2 Tim. 2:21), as world-conformity involves the loss of these, though not of salvation. Here, as in all else, Christ is the model. He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26), and yet in such contact with them for their salvation that the Pharisees, who illustrate the mechanical and ascetic conception of separation, judged Him as having lost His Nazarite character (Lk. 7:39). Cf. 1 Cor: 9:19-23; 10:27.

I see a condition for the "reward" or the "full manisfestation" as Scofield states it.

Something I had never thought of before.

I'm wondering now if that "reward" or "full manisfestation" includes Jesus and the Holy Spirit as well. If that be the case than I have no difficulty insofar as a division in the Trinity.

[LaMontre]

I like John Gill on this;
2Co 6:17 - Wherefore come out from among them,.... Since they were the temple of the living God, built up an habitation for the Most High; since he resided among them, took his walks in the midst of them, was their God, and they were his people. These words are taken out of Isa_52:11 where the several phrases here used may be observed. They seem to be directed to the Israelites, and particularly to the priests and Levites, who bore the vessels of the Lord; and are fitly applied to believers under the Gospel dispensation, who are by Christ made priests unto God. They are usually interpreted by the Jewish writers, as a call to the Jews to come out of captivity, to quit Babylon and Persia, and the several cities and countries where they were; and are applied in Rev_18:4 to mystical Babylon, the church of Rome, as a call to God's people, to leave the superstitions and idolatries of that church, lest they be partakers of her plagues; and here, by the apostle, as an exhortation to believers in general, to forsake the company and conversation of the men of the world: who may be said to come out from among them at first conversion, when they are called to forsake their own people, and their Father's house, to leave their native country, and seek an heavenly one; and when, in consequence of effectual calling grace, their conversations are different from what they were before, and from other Gentiles; when they dislike their former companions, abhor their sinful conversation, abstain from it, keep out of it, as being infectious, hurtful, and detrimental to them; when they have no fellowship with the workers of iniquity, but reprove them both by words and deeds, which is their incumbent duty: the phrase in Isaiah is, "go ye out from the midst of her"; which Kimchi interprets, "out of the midst of every city in which thou art"; that is, in which idolaters lived; and well agrees with εκ μεσου αυτων here, "out of the midst of them":

and be ye separate, saith the Lord; this phrase is not to be met with expressly in our version of the above text in Isaiah, but is signified by several expressions in it; the words rendered "depart ye, depart ye", are by the Targum, or Chaldee paraphrase on the place, expressed by אתפרשו אתפרשו, "be ye separate, be ye separate", which are the very words of the apostle here; and the phrase, "touch no unclean thing", is explained by R. Aben Ezra, מאומות העולם שיבדלו, "that they might be separate from the nations of the world" and another word, הברו, "be ye clean", signifies such a purgation as is made by separation, by removing the clean from the unclean, by separating the wheat from the chaff. The people of God are a separate people in election, redemption, and the effectual calling, and ought to be so in their conduct and conversation; they ought to separate themselves from all superstition and will worship in religious matters, and from the evil customs and manners of the world, though they are sure to become a prey, and to expose themselves to the contempt and rage of it:

and touch not the unclean thing. The allusion is to several laws under the former dispensation, which forbid touching many things which were accounted unclean, whereby pollution was contracted, and the persons were obliged to a ceremonial cleansing; see Lev_5:2 Num_19:11. It has no regard to touching, tasting, and eating any sort of food, which was forbid as unclean by the ceremonial law; for the difference between meats clean and unclean was now removed; but if anything is particularly designed by the unclean thing, it seems to be idolatry, and to be a prohibition of joining with worshippers of idols in their idolatrous practices, whereby a moral pollution is contracted; since in the beginning of the former verse it is said, "what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?" though it is rather intended in general, to forbid all communion and fellowship with unclean persons and things, not to touch them, to come nigh them, or have anything to do with them:

and I will receive you; this, and what follows in the next verse, are said to encourage believers to keep at a distance from wicked and immoral persons, whose company and conversation are dishonourable, ensnaring, and defiling. These persons had been already received into the love of God, his best and strongest affections, from which there can be no separation; and in the covenant of grace, which as it cannot be removed, so neither could they be removed out of that; they were received into the church of Christ, and had a place and a name in it, better than that of sons and daughters; and as they had been received by Christ, when they came to him as poor perishing sinners without him, so they were still received graciously, notwithstanding their many backslidings: neither of these therefore is the sense of this passage: but, that whereas by quitting society with carnal men, they would expose themselves to their resentments; the Lord here promises, that he would take them under the wings of his protection; he would take care of them and preserve them, keep them as the apple of his eye, and be a wall of fire round about them, whilst in this world; and when he had guided them by his counsel here, would "receive" them "to glory": this clause seems to be taken from the latter part of Isa_52:12 which may be rendered, "the God of Israel will gather you"; i.e. to himself, and protect them.

[Harley]

I looked up Scofield's notes on 11 Cor. 6:17:

Vs. 17 - Separation, Summary: (1) Separation in Scripture is twofold: "from" whatever is contrary to the mind of God; and "unto" God Himself. The underlying principle is that in a moral universe it is impossible for God to fully bless and use His children who are in compromise or complicity with evil. The unequal yoke is anything which unites a child of God and an unbeliever in a common purpose (Deut. 22:10). (2) Separation from evil implies (a) separation in desire, motive, and act, from the world, in the ethically bad sense of this present world-system; and (b) separation from believers, especially false teachers, who are "vessels unto dishonour" (2Tim. 2:20, 21; 2 John 9-11). (3) Separation is not from contact with evil in the world or the church, but from complicity with and conformity to it (John 17:15; 2 Cor 6:14-18; Gal. 6:1). (4) The reward of separation is the full manifestation of the divine fatherhood (2 Cor. 6:17-18; unhindered communion and worship (see Heb. 13:13-15), and fruitful service (2 Tim. 2:21), as world-conformity involves the loss of these, though not of salvation. Here, as in all else, Christ is the model. He was "holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners" (Heb. 7:26), and yet in such contact with them for their salvation that the Pharisees, who illustrate the mechanical and ascetic conception of separation, judged Him as having lost His Nazarite character (Lk. 7:39). Cf. 1 Cor: 9:19-23; 10:27.

I see a condition for the "reward" or the "full manisfestation" as Scofield states it.

Something I had never thought of before.

I'm wondering now if that "reward" or "full manisfestation" includes Jesus and the Holy Spirit as well. If that be the case than I have no difficulty insofar as a division in the Trinity.
two thing that i have colored red so as to highlight - first, i take issue with his definition of separation. i do not believe paul's yoking illustration needs be applied so tightly. i can unite in a common cause with an unbeliever and not be violating the spirit of this passage.

for example, harley-davidson does a lot to raise money for muscular dystrophy. i can unite with a bunch of unbelievers for the common cause of this charity - by schofield's definition i am risking blessing - but i think he's wrong.

on the second count - nothing in this passage speaks of the full manifestation of the father, nor of rewards given, nor withheld.

i think this is an example of an over application that preaches well, but is not inherent to the text.

[Resting In Him]

two thing that i have colored red so as to highlight - first, i take issue with his definition of separation. i do not believe paul's yoking illustration needs be applied so tightly. i can unite in a common cause with an unbeliever and not be violating the spirit of this passage.

for example, harley-davidson does a lot to raise money for muscular dystrophy. i can unite with a bunch of unbelievers for the common cause of this charity - by schofield's definition i am risking blessing - but i think he's wrong.

on the second count - nothing in this passage speaks of the full manifestation of the father, nor of rewards given, nor withheld.

i think this is an example of an over application that preaches well, but is not inherent to the text.

You may be right Harley, but I still see a condition in verse 17 and 18"

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and (the condition (?) I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty".

I'm also thinking that without separation, then fellowship is broken and as Scofield mentioned the reward is lost, i.e. the "full manifestation of the Father". The reason - God can't have fellowship and reveal Himself to us when we are complicite with evil doing.

There is much to learn and I'm seeking light in this regard for I don't understand the full meaning of these scriptures.

[Harley]

You may be right Harley, but I still see a condition in verse 17 and 18"

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and (the condition (?) I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty".

I'm also thinking that without separation, then fellowship is broken and as Scofield mentioned the reward is lost, i.e. the "full manifestation of the Father". The reason - God can't have fellowship and reveal Himself to us when we are complicite with evil doing.

There is much to learn and I'm seeking light in this regard for I don't understand the full meaning of these scriptures.
ok - i see your point, and along with the greater corpus of scripture i'd agree complicity with evil can/will effect our fellowship with the father.

i am, hoewever in disagreement with schofield's conditional fellowship based on so narrow a definition of unequally yoked. being complicit with evil is one thing, uniting with unbelievers for a common purpose is quite another.

i agree the relationship can be tainted and rewards not gained. but this is not the gist of this passage. therefore, while i would agree with schofield in general, in this particular verse i think he's eisegeted this passage to find rewards and conditions in it.

[Harley]

...There is much to learn and I'm seeking light in this regard for I don't understand the full meaning of these scriptures.
i agree...as for the passage, i think god is saying "i am you father, your are my children..." so be yoked to me, not to unbelievers.

[LaMontre]

two thing that i have colored red so as to highlight - first, i take issue with his definition of separation. i do not believe paul's yoking illustration needs be applied so tightly. i can unite in a common cause with an unbeliever and not be violating the spirit of this passage.

for example, harley-davidson does a lot to raise money for muscular dystrophy. i can unite with a bunch of unbelievers for the common cause of this charity - by schofield's definition i am risking blessing - but i think he's wrong.

on the second count - nothing in this passage speaks of the full manifestation of the father, nor of rewards given, nor withheld.

i think this is an example of an over application that preaches well, but is not inherent to the text.

I think I agree. By such a narrow definition I could be considered unequally yoked in my job, my mortgage, my car loans, whatever.

Another thing about this passage is that Paul is (once again) applying OT passages to NT peoples. He often interpreted those passages differently than their OT context would have lead one to see, apart from the light he shines on them. So we really need to take this in context of the entire NT and all the writings of Paul.

It is interesting to contrast that passage with this one;
Colossians 2:16-23
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. 20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

I think verse 16 is not an admonition to allow or disallow those religious practices, but to understand what they truly represent. Of course the rest is rather clear.

[HeIsEnough]

Hmmm. in going back to what Paul was addressing, I see him talking to them about yoking with unbelievers towards fellowship and worship. Paul was admonishing them to open up their hearts, which they were not doing. They were still 'entertaining' others who did not have the things of God in mind, hence not fully embracing Paul and the brethren.

I am hard pressed not to believe, yet again, we have a case of Judaizers trying to dissuade them from the Apostles, which in turn is away from God's grace....making it 'vain.'

Surely, there are parellels with embracing the world of heathens in like manner, but the context that it is said makes an unbeliever a little different than we may ordinarily apply. We tend to think heathen, when in fact it was often those nipping at Paul's heals along his journey. In chapter three, he alludes to them clearly, calling him and the apostles ministers of the new covenant. Clearly in reference to those among them who were ministering to an old covenant...and they were veiled from understanding the new.

I would not conclude this is as narrow as the article implies, and I have never viewed seperation as physically necessary. Afterall, it would make things a little difficult. Most certainly spiritual though. From the bulk of new testament examples, we indeed will find ourselves amongst some savory characters in ministering this new covenant. That is a different thing than 'supping' with them in agreement towards worship, which is the idea I believe Paul is expressing. In that sense, our fellowship is to only be with believers of the new covenant, yet our activities will swirl about all kinds of different people. Remember, He was known to 'hang' with some people who were from the outside, pretty bad. But we all know what He said about such things. Just some thoughts anyway...

[LaMontre]

Hmmm. in going back to what Paul was addressing, I see him talking to them about yoking with unbelievers towards fellowship and worship. Paul was admonishing them to open up their hearts, which they were not doing. They were still 'entertaining' others who did not have the things of God in mind, hence not fully embracing Paul and the brethren.

I am hard pressed not to believe, yet again, we have a case of Judaizers trying to dissuade them from the Apostles, which in turn is away from God's grace....making it 'vain.'

Surely, there are parellels with embracing the world of heathens in like manner, but the context that it is said makes an unbeliever a little different than we may ordinarily apply. We tend to think heathen, when in fact it was often those nipping at Paul's heals along his journey. In chapter three, he alludes to them clearly, calling him and the apostles ministers of the new covenant. Clearly in reference to those among them who were ministering to an old covenant...and they were veiled from understanding the new.

I would not conclude this is as narrow as the article implies, and I have never viewed seperation as physically necessary. Afterall, it would make things a little difficult. Most certainly spiritual though. From the bulk of new testament examples, we indeed will find ourselves amongst some savory characters in ministering this new covenant. That is a different thing than 'supping' with them in agreement towards worship, which is the idea I believe Paul is expressing. In that sense, our fellowship is to only be with believers of the new covenant, yet our activities will swirl about all kinds of different people. Remember, He was known to 'hang' with some people who were from the outside, pretty bad. But we all know what He said about such things. Just some thoughts anyway...

Amen, and as to this comment;
I would not conclude this is as narrow as the article implies, and I have never viewed seperation as physically necessary. Afterall, it would make things a little difficult.
I think this scripture agrees;
1 Corinthians 5:9-13
9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

Another great thread.:thumb

[HeIsEnough]

Boy, I wrote that quickly, I'm glad it sounded coherent. It is downright difficult to discern some of these passages. No doubt the better the understanding of the conditions for the letter, the better we understand what is being said.

I think we all understand how this world operates, shameful mostly. What is not so clear, are competing interests for our spiritual affections. This is where we must draw the line, and sadly, we see the flesh infiltrate the church all around us. Perhaps not in the obvious, such as embracing aberrant sexualities, but in the subtle, such as causing strife and divisions. The longer I live, the more damnable I consider those things, and Lord help me to not be involved, and forgive me for any involvement I may have had.

[Harley]

I think I agree. By such a narrow definition I could be considered unequally yoked in my job, my mortgage, my car loans, whatever.....
other examples if this were true:
being employed by any unbeliever - unequally yoked
being on a sports team with an unbeliever - unequally yoked
running in a 5k for the cancer society - unequally yoked
etc... etc... etc...

in each of the cases we'd be uniting with unbelievers for a common purpose, clearly not what paul and in mind.

[Harley]

Boy, I wrote that quickly, I'm glad it sounded coherent. It is downright difficult to discern some of these passages. No doubt the better the understanding of the conditions for the letter, the better we understand what is being said.

I think we all understand how this world operates, shameful mostly. What is not so clear, are competing interests for our spiritual affections. This is where we must draw the line, and sadly, we see the flesh infiltrate the church all around us. Perhaps not in the obvious, such as embracing aberrant sexualities, but in the subtle, such as causing strife and divisions. The longer I live, the more damnable I consider those things, and Lord help me to not be involved, and forgive me for any involvement I may have had.
agreed...

[TRUTHSEEKER815]

Amen, and as to this comment;

I think this scripture agrees;
1 Corinthians 5:9-13
9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

Another great thread.:thumb
This last verse(11) really confuses me 1)because it's talking about a brother(in Christ)2)it could apply to any believer at any given time?That could put us in a very isolationist state??

[LaMontre]

This last verse(11) really confuses me 1)because it's talking about a brother(in Christ)2)it could apply to any believer at any given time?That could put us in a very isolationist state??

Yeah except a true brother will "admit it, and quit it" as a preacher I once knew used to say.

If you read the context, the one in question was basically not acknowledging that his sin was sin, much as homosexuals do today.

[Resting In Him]

This last verse(11) really confuses me 1)because it's talking about a brother(in Christ)2)it could apply to any believer at any given time?That could put us in a very isolationist state??

There are times when we are to disassociate or separate from a brother or sister who is willfully living in sin and in disobedience. For several reasons:

1. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

2. So they will be ashamed and be brought to repentance.

11 Thes. 3:14-15 - And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.:):

1 Cor. 5:6 You glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us. :):

Gal. 5:9 - A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.