2 Cor. 6:11-16 – Choose Associates According To Your Faith

Translation & Sermon by Nate Wilson for Christ The Redeemer Church, Manhattan, KS, 25 Jan 2026
Underlined words in Scripture quotes indicate words that are in common with the Greek text of the sermon passage. Otherwise, underlining indicates words to emphasize when reading this transcript out loud.
Omitting greyed-out text should reduce read-aloud time to about 40 minutes.

Introduction

v. 11 – Open heart; open mouth

vs. 12-13 – From Restraint to Openness in response to openness

v.14aStop being mismatched-partners/unequally yoked/bound togeth­er/hybridized with unbelievers.

14b-16a Partnership Between Believers & Unbelievers is as Incompat­ible as 5 other Mutually-exclusive Pairings

  1. For what is the fellowship between righteousness and unrighteousness/lawlessness?”

  1. The second impossible comparison is between “light” and “darkness.”

  1. v.15 What harmony/concord/accord is there between Christ and Belial/Satan?

  1. What common/share/part/portion/μερὶς is there between believer and unbeliever?

  1. v.16 What agreement is there in the temple of God with idols?

Conclusion

Appendix: More Scripture warnings and exhortations to put a stop to ungodly influences in our lives:

2 Corinthians 6:11-16a – Comparison of Textual Traditions & VersionsA

ByzantineB

NAW

KJVC

RheimsD

MurdockE

CopticF

11 Τὸ στόμα ἡμῶν ἀνέῳγε πρὸς ὑμᾶς, ΚορίνθιοιG, Hἡ καρδία ἡμῶν πεπλάτυνται·

11 Our mouth has opened toward y’all, Corinthians, our heart has been made expansive.

11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.

11 Our mouth is open to you, O ye Corin­thians: our heart is enlarged.

11 O ye Cor­inthians, our mouth is opened to­wards you, [and] our heart expanded.

11 Our mouth was opened towards you, O Corinth­ians, our heart was widened out.

12 οὐ στενο­χωρεῖσθε ἐν ἡμῖν, στενο­χωρεῖσθε δὲ ἐν τοῖς σπλάγχνοις ὑμῶν·

12 Y’all are not being constrained by us, rather y’all are being constrained in your own innards.

12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.

12 You are not strait­ened in us: but in your own bowels you are straitened.

12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.

12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your affections.

13 τὴν δὲ αὐτὴν ἀντιμισθίαν,I ὡς τέκνοις λέγω, πλατύνθητε καὶ ὑμεῖς.

13 Yet the in-kind response (I am speaking as I would to children.) should be that you yourselves also should be expansive.

13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

13 But hav­ing the same recom­pense (I speak as to myJ child­ren): be you also enlarged.

13 I speak as to my child­ren, [Pay me] the X debt [which ye owe], and expand you[r love towards me].

13 But I speak [to youS] of the same recom­pense, as X children: {wid­en out your­selvesB/be widened out XS} also.

14 Μὴ γίνεσθεK ἑτερο­ζυγοῦντεςL ἀπίστοιςM· τίς γὰρ μετοχὴN δικαιοσύνῃO καὶP ἀνομίᾳ; τίς δὲQ κοινωνία φωτὶ πρὸς σκότος;

14 Stop being hybridized with unbelievers. For what fellowship is there with righteousness and with lawlessness? Or what partnership is there with light toward darkness?

14 Be ye not unequally yoked to­gether with unbelievers: for what fell­owship hath right­eousness X with un­right­eousness? and what com­munion hath light with darkness?

14 Bear not the X yoke with unbe­lievers. For what partici­pation hath justice X with injust­ice? Or what fellow­ship hath light with darkness?

14 And be ye not yoke-fellows with them that believe not: for what fell­owship hath right­eousness X with iniqui­ty? or what communion hath light with darkness?

14 Be not X sharers of (the) yoke of the unbeliev­ers : for what is the fellow­ship of right­eousness X with iniquity Or what is the fellow­ship of the light with the darkness?

15 τίς δὲ συμφώνησις ΧριστῷR πρὸς ΒελίαλS; ἢ τίς μερὶς πιστῷ μετὰ ἀπίστου;

15 And what common voice is there in the Anointed One toward the Ungodly one? Or what share is there in a believer with an unbeliever?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?

15 or what concord hath the Messiah with Satan? or what part hath a be­liever with an unbeliever?

15 Or what is (the) agree­ment of Christ with Beliar X What is (the) part of a believer with an unbeliever?

16a τίς δὲ συγκατά­θεσις ναῷ Θεοῦ μετὰ εἰδώλων; ὕμεῖςT γὰρ ναὸς Θεοῦ ἐστε ζῶντος,

16a And what agree­ment is there in the temple of God with idols? For the temple of the living God is what y’all are,

16a And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God;

16a And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God:

16a or what agreement hath the temple of God with that of demons? For ye are the temple of the living God;

16a Or what is the union of theS/aB temple of God with that of the idols? For we [are] the temple of the living God:



1Such as the earth “opening” its “mouth” to swallow Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, the miracles when those who had been struck dumb began to speak, and other times when men spoke to each other apart from divine influence.

2Robertson seemed to interpret this the same way I did. Calvin and Gill associated this idiom with “boldness” in speech (cf. Eph. 6:19), and J. Chrysostom, M. Henry, T. M’crie, and G. Wilson associated it with “eagerness” to converse based on love for them, the which should also accompany prophets as they relate the words of God.

3Cf. Robertson’s Grammar, which calls this a “durative perfect.”

4Indeed, they had stated earlier using the same word, “We are stressed in every way, but not constrained…” (2 Cor. 4:8, NAW) The interpretation that Paul was denying that his own heart was narrow towards the Corinthians seems to me to have it backwards, but is understandable due to the ambiguity of the Greek preposition “in,” which can mean: “by us” (Louw & Nida semantic domain #90.6, cf. Chrysostom, Barrett, NKJV, NASB, ESV), “in us” (L&N #83.13, cf. Geneva, KJV, Henry, Lenski, Waite, Vincent, Robertson, Hughes, NIV, NLT), or “for/concerning us” (L&N#89.5, cf. NET).

5“It is not inequality, but difference in kind, as is shown by the succeeding words.” ~M. Vincent

63 Maccabees 4:8 οἵ τε τούτων συνζυγεῖς...

7γαμβρεύσητε

8μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι πόρνοις

91 Cor. 7:39 “A wife has been bound for however much time her husband may live, but if the husband happens to fall asleep [in death], she is released to be married to whomever she wants – only in the Lord...” (NAW)

10This was also the interpretation of the Peshitta, Chrysostom, Calvin, Beza, M. Poole, G. Wilson, P. Hughes, and A. T. Robertson (Whose earlier proposal in his Grammar that it meant “Lord of the Forest” was replaced in his Word Pictures by “Satan.”)

11Phillip Hughes’ commentary quotes applications made by the Council of Sardica (343 AD) to forbid church association with Aryians, and by Augustine to forbid wearing superstitious amulets and earrings.

12And the Jews learned their lesson! The reconstructed temple was kept free of idols, and, as a result, the idea of idols in God’s temple in Paul’s day was abhorrent.

13All the Bibles in the world from the early church until the year 1850 (except for the Coptic Bibles) read “you (plural) are the temple of the living God” in 2 Cor. 6:16, agreeing with these passages in 1 Corinthians. But all the standard English versions published since the mid 19th century (except for the New King James) read “we are the temple of the living God.” I prefer the traditional reading from before 1850, but whether Paul and Timothy were emphasizing that the Corinthian Christians were God’s temple or whether Paul and Timothy originally framed the statement to include all Christians as constituting God’s temple, both logic and the whole counsel of Scripture rule out the possible interpretations that a) Paul and Timothy might have said “you are the temple” because they didn’t believe that the apostles were part of the temple of God, or that b) Paul and Timothy might have said “we are the temple” because they believed that only the apostles and nobody in the church in Corinth were the temple. Once we rule those two possibilities out, the interpretations left to us are not materially different, whether the word “you” or “we” is the subject of that sentence, because both are true.

14συναναμίγνυσθαι

AWhen a translation adds words not in the Greek text, but does not indicate it has done so by the use of italics or greyed-out text, I put the added words in [square brackets]. When one version chooses a wording which is different from all the other translations, I underline it. When a version chooses a translation which, in my opinion, either departs too far from the root meaning of the Greek word or departs too far from the grammar form of the original text, I use strikeout. And when a version omits a word which is in the original text, I insert an X. I also place an X at the end of a word if the original word is plural but the English translation is singular. I occasionally use colors to help the reader see correlations between the various editions and versions when there are more than two different translations of a given word. NAW is my translation. My original chart includes annotated copies of the NKJV, NASB, NIV, and ESV, but I erase them from the online edition so as not to infringe on their copyrights.

BThis Greek New Testament is the 1904 "Patriarchal" edition of the Greek Orthodox Church. As published by E-Sword in 2016. The Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine majority text of the GNT and the Textus Receptus are very similar. The Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland, UBS, and Tregelles editions, however, are a slightly-different family of GNTs developed in the 19th -21st centuries, focusing on the few manuscripts which are older than the Byzantine manuscripts. Even so, the practical differences in the text between these two editing philosophies are minimal.

C1769 King James Version of the Holy Bible; public domain. As published by E-Sword in 2019.

DRheims New Testament first published by the English College at Rheims, A.D. 1582, Revised and Diligently Compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner, Published in 1582, 1609, 1752. As published on E-Sword in 2016.

EJames Murdock, A Literal Translation from the Syriac Peshito Version, 1851, Robert Carter & Brothers, New York. Scanned and transcribed by Gary Cernava and published electronically by Janet Magierra at http://www.lightofword.org, and published on E-Sword in 2023.

FThis is my conflation of the English translations of the Northern Bohairic and Southern Sahidic traditions published by Oxford Clarendon Press in 1905 and 1920 respectively, neither of which named the translator or editor. The beginnings and ends of multiple-word variants are marked out with brackets, with a superscript “S” for Sahidic or “B” for Bohairic. The editor of the Sahidic compilation did not have manuscripts for vs. 11, 12, 14, & 15, and it does not appear that subsequent­ly-discovered manuscripts have been published in English, so variants in that section for that tradition are not listed.

G“Moreover the addition of their name is a mark of great love and warmth and affection; for we are accustomed to be repeating continually the bare names of those we love.” ~J. Chrysostom

HAlthough there is no “and” conjunction here in any Greek manuscript, nor is there one in the ancient Vulgate or Coptic versions, the NIV followed the Peshitta in inserting one.

IThe only other time this noun occurs in the Greek Bible is in Romans 1:27, where it is translated “penalty/recompense” – as in “just consequences” for disobedient rebellion against God. Scholars have speculated over the years concerning the grammar of this phrase, but Hanna recommended Moule’s theory that it was “an accusative in apposition to the whole sentence which follows … ‘widen your hearts in the same way in exchange…’” (cf. A. T. Robertson: “There is no verb here to explain the accusative which may be the accusative of general reference or the object of a verb not expressed.”)

J“My” is not actually in the Vulgate; it was added by Rheims.

KFor a thorough debunking of the theory that the next few verses are a later insertion into the book of 2 Corinthians, see pages 126-128 in P. E. Hughes’ commentary. The simple fact that no ancient manuscript of 2 Cor. exists which omits these verses is powerful refutation all by itself.

LHapex legomenon. This is a compound verb based on the roots hetero (“different”) + zugos (“yoke”). It is close to the noun found in Leviticus 19:19 ...Do not mate your cattle with hybrids (ἑτεροζύγῳ)...” (NAW) The only other verbal form I found was the participle ἐζυγωμένα in 1 Kings 7:43 and Ezekiel 41:26, describing a “joiner” in architecture.

MJ. Chrysostom noted, “Here in what follows he institutes a comparison, not between his own love and theirs who corrupt them, but between their nobleness and the others’ dishonor. For thus his discourse became more dignified and more beseeming himself, and would the rather win them.”

NThe only other occurrence of this noun in the Greek Bible is in Psalm 122:3 (Greek Psalm 121) speaking of the city of God being “compact,” but the adjectival form is used in Luke 5:7 and Heb. 1:9, 3:1&14, 6:4, & 12:8 (often as a noun “companion”), and the Verb form “partake” is in 1 Cor. 9:10,12; 10:17,21,30, and Heb. 2:14, 5:13, & 7:13.

O“Righteousness is placed in antithesis here to iniquity, or, more literally, lawlessness. The same antithesis is found again in Heb. 1:9 (=Ps. 45:7): ‘Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness’ .... Christ's offering of Himself for us was ‘that He might redeem us from all lawlessness’ (Titus 2:14). Accordingly, His final word to those who continue in unbelief is: ‘Depart from me, ye that work lawlessness’ (Mt. 7:23).” ~Phillip Hughes

PTwo 9th century Greek manuscripts depart from all the other manuscripts by omitting this “and,” but the Vulgate, Peshitta, and Coptic versions also read without the “and,” and the KJV, NIV, and ESV followed that omission (despite that fact that the “and” is in the Textus Receptus as well as in all the contemporary critical GNT’s).

QThis is the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts (the oldest of which dates to the 6th century AD) and of the Textus Receptus and Greek Orthodox editions of the GNT, but contemporary critical editions read with a synonym (η instead of δε – which both can mean “or”), found in 17 Greek manuscripts (including all five of the oldest-known manuscripts, dating back to the 3rd-6th centuries AD).

RThis dative form (“with Christ”) is the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts (the oldest of which dates to the 9th century AD) and of the Textus Receptus and Greek Orthodox editions of the GNT, but contemporary critical editions read instead with the genitive form (“of Christ”) found in 10 Greek manuscripts (including all four of the oldest-known manuscripts, dating back to the 3rd-5th centuries AD). It makes no practical difference in meaning; this probably just has to do with a change in grammar conventions for a contrast statement over the span of centuries.

SCuriously, no Greek manuscript spells this word this way. This was just an editorial choice in the traditional Greek Orthodox editions (which was also made by the English versions) to make this word, which, in the majority of manuscripts reads Beliar (as the Boharic Coptic, the Textus Receptus and the contemporary critical editions also rendered it, or Belian or Beliab, as several 9th century Uncial manuscripts rendered it) instead as the more-familiar Belial. These spellings occur nowhere else in the Greek Bible. It should be noted that the liquid phoenemes “l” and “r” are phonetically related and are interchanged in some languages. (I have heard this in Chinese and Lugandan, and I believe it happens in other languages too.) It should be noted that the Peshitta made a similar editorial decision to render this Greek word “Satana” to provide a recognizable entity.
It appears to refer to the Semitic word בְלִיַּעַל found throughout the Old Testament, especially in Samuel (Deut. 13:14; 15:9; Jdg. 19:22; 20:13; 1 Sam. 1:16; 2:12; 10:27; 25:17, 25; 30:22; 2 Sam. 16:7; 20:1; 22:5; 23:6; 1 Ki. 21:10, 13; 2 Chr. 13:7; Job 34:18; Ps. 18:5; 41:9; 101:3; Prov. 6:12; 16:27; 19:28; Nah. 1:11; 2:1) translated “worthlesness/wicked­ness/ungodliness” and usually paired with the word “son of” or “man of.” The fact that the name stands alone without a genitive here could support the Peshitta’s interpretation that this is speaking of the personal source behind all “sons of ungodliness” namely Satan himself, providing a perfect foil to Christ.
cf. Vincent: “It does not occur in the Septuagint as a proper name. The form Beliar, which is preferred by critics, is mostly ascribed to the Syriac pronunciation of Belial, the change of l into r being quite common. Others, however, derive from Belyar, Lord of the forest. Here a synonym for Satan.”

TThis is the reading of the majority of Greek manuscripts (the oldest of which date to the 3rd and 5th centuries AD) and of the Textus Receptus and Greek Orthodox editions of the GNT, but contemporary critical editions change the subject to the first person “we… are,” which is found in about 12 Greek manuscripts (the oldest of which date to the 4th and 7th centuries AD – although one of the 4th century manuscripts, the Sinaiticus, at an unknown date was corrected to the traditional reading “you are”). The ancient Latin and Syriac versions support the traditional reading with plural “you… are…” whereas the Coptic versions supports the first person reading “we... are…” All the standard English versions translated since the mid-1800’s read “we” (except for the NKJV), but it does not change the meaning because this is merely a distinction in perspective as to whether Paul and Timothy were emphasizing that the Corinthian Christians were God’s temple (while not denying that they and other Christians were too) or whether Paul and Timothy framed the statement generally to include all Christians (not excluding the Corinthian Christians).

2