The Gender-Inclusive Apostle? Paul's Old Testament Citation In II Corinthians 6

Most of the arguments for gender-inclusive Bible translation come from linguistics and modern translation theory, and they stand or fall with the validity of that human wisdom. But D. A. Carson, in The Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), puts forward the striking claim that the apostle Paul deliberately adopts a gender-inclusive translation when quoting the Old Testament. If that were true, one could hardly argue that gender-inclusive translation undermines the biblical view of gender or is otherwise improper. But is Carson correct? Is there in fact an inspired precedent for gender-inclusive translation?

On pages 19-20 of his book, Carson argues that Paul, when quoting 2 Samuel 7:14 in 2 Corinthians 6:18, changes "son" to "sons and daughters." In 2 Samuel 7:14, God says regarding Solomon, "I will be a Father to him, and he will be a son to me." Quoting that passage, Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 6:18, "I will be a Father to you [pl.], and you [pl.] shall be sons and daughters to me." At the very least, Carson concludes, "the apostle himself does not think that Hebrew singulars must always be rendered by Greek singulars, or that the Hebrew ‘son' should never be rendered by the Greek ‘sons and daughters.'"

At first glance, it may indeed seem that in 2 Corinthians 6:16b-18 the apostle is translating, or quoting translations of, a series of Old Testament passages. Verse 16b looks like it has been drawn from Ezekiel 37:27 or Leviticus 26:11-12, verse 17 from Isaiah 52:11, and verse 18 from 2 Samuel 7:14.

However, the resemblance in each case is only approximate. Upon closer examination, it becomes evident that the situation is more complex than it at first appears. In each of the three verses, Paul evidently expands his base text by adding words from thematically related passages. In verse 16b, assuming that the base text is Ezekiel 37:27 (as I think it is), Paul adds "and walk about (among them)" from Leviticus 26:12. (Alternatively, if verse 16b is based on Leviticus 26:11-12, as most commentators think, the shift to third person pronouns shows the influence of Ezekiel 37:27.) Verse 17 brings in portions of Ezekiel 20:33-34 ("says the Lord" and "and I will receive you"). In verse 18, "says the Lord Almighty" repeats the words of 2 Samuel 7:8 that introduce the speech (at 7:14) upon which verse 18 is based.

How, then, do we explain Paul's expansion of "son" to "sons and daughters" in verse 18? First, we must recognize that in verses 17-18, Paul is not simply combining Old Testament texts, but applying their message to the Corinthians. The word "therefore" introduces verse 17 as an application, so that the scope of "you" includes the Corinthians (as 7:1 makes even clearer). To maintain this application to "you" in verse 18, Paul changes the third person singular pronouns of 2 Samuel 7:14 to second person plural pronouns. When he comes to the singular "son," then, he must similarly change it to the plural "sons" in order to maintain grammatical consistency: you (pl.) can only be "sons," not "a son." This is theologically appropriate, as well as grammatically necessary, because the "son" of 2 Samuel 7:14 is most fully Christ (Heb. 1:5), and thus the verse has a secondary application to all those who are in Christ, namely, the adopted "sons" of the Father (Rom. 8:14-15).

But where does "and daughters" come from? Since a pattern of conflation characterizes the rest of 2 Corinthians 6:16b-18, where every other phrase has its counterpart in a specific Old Testament passage, we should expect that "and daughters" has been added from an Old Testament passage. Most commentators, accordingly, believe that the reference to daughters comes from Isaiah 43:6, where the Lord promises that "my sons" and "my daughters" will be gathered together from all nations for salvation. (Isaiah 49:22 and 60:4 have also been suggested as sources, though less plausibly, in my view.) Now if "and daughters" was added from Isaiah, "sons and daughters" cannot be regarded as a gender-inclusive rendering of "son" or "sons."

But why did Paul add "and daughters," whether from Isaiah or not? If he was operating in accordance with gender-inclusive translation theory, he added "and daughters" because the receptor language (Greek) would not have recognized "sons" as a generic term that included women. But that was hardly Paul's understanding of Greek, for he often speaks of Christians of both genders being the "sons" of God (e.g., Rom. 8:14). His consistent usage throughout his epistles refutes the notion that he added "and daughters" in 2 Corinthians 6:18 so that his readers would understand that women were also in view.

Paul's purpose for adding "and daughters" was not to include women, but to emphasize them. By mentioning them explicitly, not just implicitly, he emphasizes that women, no less than men, partake of the promises of salvation (cf. Acts 8:12; 1 Cor. 7:15; James 2:15). That is, Paul underlines the fact that women, equally with men, have that filial relationship with the Father (vv. 16b, 18) that requires them to lead holy lives (v. 17). The reason for focusing on both men and women is clear in the context: Paul is using this conflation of Old Testament texts to strengthen his call for holiness and purity particularly in the relationships between men and women (6:14-16a; 7:1). He does not want either men or women to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. He wants both men and women to see their bodies as temples of the living God. He wants both men and women, in their relationships with each other, to be cleansed from all filthiness. Therefore, he speaks pointedly to both "sons" and "daughters."

Thus we see that Paul has combined, adapted, and applied several Old Testament passages to produce a smoothly flowing message on the subject of what it means to be the holy people of God. Contrary to Carson's analysis, then, Paul is not simply "rendering," or translating, 2 Samuel 7:14 in 2 Corinthians 6:18. Rather, in this verse Paul combines words derived from three Old Testament verses, and makes the necessary grammatical changes for this combination to follow verse 17. We may be sure that if Paul had sat down to translate 2 Samuel, he would not have translated 7:14 with the words that appear in 2 Corinthians 6:18.

Furthermore, there is every reason to think that Paul is combining Greek texts, and not working with Hebrew texts at all. The words of 2 Corinthians 6:16b-18 generally correspond to the words of the Greek Septuagint closely. (Note especially the verb eisdechomai, an uncommon word that occurs both in Ezekiel 20:34 lxx and in the New Testament only in 2 Corinthians 6:17.) And wherever Paul's words differ from the Septuagint, they do not show any particular affinity with the Hebrew text. In this passage, then, Paul is not doing any translation, and thus is not doing any gender-inclusive translation.

Neither is Paul quoting with approval a gender-inclusive translation from the Septuagint. Since the phrase "sons and daughters to me" is not taken from one Greek text, but rather is crafted from two texts (2 Sam. 7:14 and Isa. 43:6), it is Paul's creation. He is not borrowing someone else's gender-inclusive translation.

But even if 2 Samuel 7:14 were the only passage contributing to 2 Corinthians 6:18, we would still not have an example of gender-inclusive translation. The gender-inclusive equivalent of "son" would be "son or daughter," not "sons and daughters." To get from "son" to "sons and daughters," Carson has to argue first that it is perfectly all right to translate Hebrew singulars with Greek plurals, even changing person (as "him" and "he" become "you" [pl.]). Once he has the plural "sons," he can get to the gender-inclusive "sons and daughters." But his five examples of such changes in person (pp. 175-76) prove nothing, for one is mistaken (Hebrews 1:6 quotes Deuteronomy 32:43 lxx, not Psalm 97:7), and the other four passages are so periphrastic that the change of person is insignificant. In any case, as we have shown above, Paul substitutes plurals for singulars in 2 Corinthians 6:18 simply to maintain grammatical continuity with verse 17.

When Carson again considers how the New Testament uses the Old Testament (pp. 175-81), he first repeats his assertion that "son" in 2 Samuel 7:14 "is quoted" in 2 Corinthians 6:18 as "sons and daughters," and infers that "we should be careful about insisting on an exactitude of [masculine] form that actually masks [gender-inclusive] meaning" (p. 175). Carson gets great mileage out of this one (misinterpreted) passage, but he conveniently ignores the rest of the New Testament, where the opportunities to adopt gender-inclusive renderings are consistently rejected.

In Romans 4:8, for example, Paul quotes Psalm 32:2: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." Why did Paul not replace "man" with "man or woman," or at least with "one" (as the gender-inclusive nrsv treats Romans 4:8) or "those" (as the nrsv treats Psalm 32:2)? Similarly, why is Psalm 22:22 quoted in Hebrews 2:12 so that Christ speaks only of his "brothers," not of his "brothers and sisters" (as the nrsv handles both passages)? Again, why is Moses (in Deut. 18:15) quoted as saying that Christ would be raised up as a prophet "from your brothers" (Acts 3:22), not "from your brothers and sisters" or "from (among) your own people" (as the nrsv presents the passages)? Why does Carson ignore these passages and focus exclusively on 2 Corinthians 6:18? Even if his interpretation of that passage were correct, his presentation of the New Testament evidence would be highly distorted.

The fact of the matter is that the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament, including 2 Corinthians 6:18, do not exhibit gender-inclusive translation. This does not mean that gender inclusiveness is necessarily inappropriate in all cases. However, let us not suppose that the apostle Paul was a gender-inclusive translator.