Exploring the Meaning of Sugkatathesis in Greek

συγκατάθεσις means “agreement” and appears once in the New Testament, in Paul’s question to the Corinthians about the incompatibility of God’s temple with idols.

Root and Related Words

συγκατάθεσις (Sugkatathesis) derives from the verb synkatatithemai (συγκατατίθημι), “to consent” (Strong’s G4784). The noun expresses the kind of shared concurrence that the verb describes: a consent given together, a settled concurrence between parties.

Occurrences

“What agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are a temple of the living God. Even as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk in them. I will be their God and they will be my people.”” (2 Corinthians 6:16)

In 2 Corinthians 6:16, συγκατάθεσις sits inside a pointed rhetorical question: “What agreement does a temple of God have with idols?” The force of the question depends on treating “agreement” as something that would imply compatibility, shared standing, or a common basis between two sides. Here the two sides are set in stark opposition by the imagery of “a temple of God” over against “idols.” By choosing a noun for “agreement,” the sentence asks whether there exists any real meeting point where these could be brought into a shared position.

The rest of the verse supplies the ground for the question. Paul immediately frames the Corinthians as God’s temple: “For you are a temple of the living God.” Within that line, “agreement” is not a casual harmony or a brief compromise; it is pressed against the identity claim that the people themselves are the place associated with God’s presence. The phrase “temple of the living God” intensifies the contrast with “idols,” since idols are treated as rival objects of reverence, and “living God” emphasizes active presence rather than lifeless representation. In that setting, the word “agreement” functions like a test for whether two realities can share the same sacred space without conflict.

Paul then anchors the temple-identity in a divine promise: “I will dwell in them and walk in them. I will be their God and they will be my people.” The word “agreement” is now heard against the language of indwelling and covenant belonging. “Dwell” and “walk” portray sustained presence—God not merely visiting, but making a home and moving among his people. “I will be their God and they will be my people” describes an exclusive relationship claim, one that defines whose they are and to whom they belong. In this environment of exclusive belonging, “agreement” with idols would not be a small adjustment; it would amount to granting room for a competing claim within the sphere where God himself “dwell[s]” and “walk[s].” Thus in the verse’s logic, “agreement” names the kind of shared settlement that would have to exist if idols could coexist with God’s temple—but the rhetorical form expects the answer to be that no such settlement exists.

Sense and Usage

Because συγκατάθεσις is attested here in a carefully structured question, its sense is shaped by contrast and by the relational claims that follow. “Agreement” is not presented as a vague feeling of goodwill. It is presented as a real point of concurrence—something that would permit a temple and idols to stand in some shared arrangement without contradiction. The verse implies that such concurrence would involve more than outward tolerance; it would involve a recognition of shared terms, as though the two belonged together in some coherent unity.

The immediate context inside the verse defines what would be at stake in any such “agreement.” A temple is defined by the presence of the deity it belongs to, and the verse speaks of “the living God” making his home among a people: “I will dwell in them and walk in them.” Therefore, “agreement” here touches the question of who rightly occupies the space of worship and identity. If God’s dwelling among his people is the defining reality of that “temple,” then “agreement” with idols would mean allowing competing allegiances or rival claims to share what is framed as God’s own habitation. The noun makes the issue concrete: the question is whether any shared settlement is possible between these rival realities.

In addition, the clause “I will be their God and they will be my people” presents a bond described in mutually exclusive terms. This bond does not sound like an open-ended association; it sounds like a defining relationship that sets boundaries around belonging. Within the verse, “agreement” is therefore set against a relationship that claims the whole. The rhetorical question functions by bringing the notion of “agreement” into contact with that totalizing relationship and letting the incompatibility become obvious. The word’s contribution is to spotlight the impossibility of a coherent shared arrangement when one side is defined by God’s indwelling claim and the other by the presence of idols.

Finally, συγκατάθεσις gains a practical edge from its placement: it is the hinge between two images. On one side, “a temple of God”; on the other, “idols.” The noun invites the reader to imagine what “agreement” would look like if it existed—some workable coexistence, some shared standing—and then to feel the tension as the verse asserts, “For you are a temple of the living God.” The verse’s logic turns “agreement” into a diagnostic word: it asks whether the two can be brought under a single arrangement, and then answers indirectly by setting God’s living presence and covenant claim over against idols.

Imagery

The imagery surrounding συγκατάθεσις is spatial and relational. A “temple” evokes a place set apart for a deity’s presence, and the promise “I will dwell in them and walk in them” turns that sacred space into a lived reality among a people. Within that picture, “agreement” suggests the idea of shared occupancy or shared terms—whether the space defined by God’s dwelling could also be a space where idols are at home. The closing words, “I will be their God and they will be my people,” cast the scene in terms of belonging, so that the question about “agreement” becomes a question about whether two incompatible loyalties can share one identity and one sacred habitation.

Sources: Lexical data from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and the Translators Brief Lexicon of Extended Strongs for Greek (STEPBible, CC BY). Occurrence data from the Translators Amalgamated Greek New Testament (STEPBible, CC BY). Scripture quotations from the World English Bible (public domain).