DOES II CORINTHIANS 6:14-7:1 BELONG IN THIS LETTER?

In my post titled “II Corinthians: Introduction to the Literary Structure” I defended the position that the letter was composed of three main sections, the middle one shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The Structure of II Corinthians 1:8-7:16

Paul’s past travels (1:8-10)

A. The results of Paul’s “harsh” letter to the Corinthians (1:11-2:11)

Paul’s past travels (2:12-13)

B. “An eternal weight of glory” (2:14-7:4)

1. God’s word causes division (2:14-17)

2. “We...commend ourselves” (3:1-6)

3. Past, present and future contrasted (3:7-6:3)

a. We behold the glory of God (3:7-4:6)

-----------------------------------------------------

b. Our inner nature is being renewed (4:7-6:3)

2'. “We commend ourselves” (6:4-10)

1'. God’s word causes division (6:11-7:4)

Paul’s past travels (7:5-7)

A'. The results of Paul’s “harsh” letter to the Corinthians (7:8-16)

This is despite an overwhelming critical stance which sees little unity to the whole letter, one of the problem passages being 6:11-7:1. On the other hand, Hafemann has recently stated, “The growing consensus is that chapters 1-9 are in fact a unified composition.”

Some of the barriers to accepting 6:11-7:1, at least in its present position, are enumerated below:

    “Some scholars consider that the abrupt change of subject and tone at 6:14, and the fact that the thought of 6:13 is carried on at 7:2, suggests that 6:14-7:1 is misplaced.” (Hillyer)

    “There is serious debate over whether or not 2 Corinthians is derived from a Judaism such as that represented at Qumran, which perhaps accounts for its strong disjunctive opposition of believers and unbelievers.” (Porter)

    This disputed passage contains a number of unusual Greek words not found in Paul's other writings. After a detailed 23-page discussion of 6:11-7:1, Furnish concludes, “This passage therefore, remains an enigma within 2 Cor, neither its origin nor its place in the context being entirely clear.” In discussing these verses, the following points should be considered:  

1. This problem passage is widely accepted as an interpolation into the text or, at best, another example of Paul’s chronic inability to stick to a subject without digressing. (Martin) But as we have seen repeatedly in other biblical texts, it is sometimes hard to distinguish between a continuous narrative or discussion that has been “interrupted” and a purposeful ABA literary pattern. Thus, in the context of the overall literary unit (see Fig. 1), these verses can be seen as the center unit of the subsection B1':

a. Plea for reconciliation (6:11-13)

b. 6:14-7:1

a'. Plea for reconciliation (7:2-3)

2. The recapitulation in 7:3 (“I said before that you are in our hearts”) refers back pointedly to 6:11-13, indicating that Paul knows he has introduced somewhat diverse, intervening material. (Clines)

3. The language used in these verses seems foreign to the rest of the letter, causing some to feel that it comes from a preexisting, possibly Essene or Qumran, document. Even if this is so, Martin points out that “in all probability Paul had some control over this passage.” And Brooke even feels that it was “possibly introduced by Paul himself to represent the views he was trying to argue against.”

4. Even in an ABA structure, the center unit usually has some relationship to the others in the triad. In this case, most commentators discern no such connection. (Clines) One opposing opinion is that verses 6:14-7:1 are very much related to their immediate context in that they give a practical reason for the Corinthians to follow the bracketing admonitions of Paul to be reconciled to him and his teachings. (Hillyer)

5. In the larger context of the whole of Section II, these questionable verses also find a comfortable home. Martin strongly feels that this passage serves to reinforce Paul’s message of reconciliation (5:14-21) and his defense of his ministry (6:1-13). These passages are all encompassed in the last half of unit B, according to the scheme of Fig. 1.

6. If these verses were a planned portion of the epistle, one would expect there to be parallel thoughts or language in the chiastically parallel vv. 2:14-17 (see Fig. 1). In fact, there seems to be no shared vocabulary between the two passages, perhaps lending credence to the theory that Paul borrowed an existing text in composing 6:14-7:1. However, there are striking thematic correspondences. These two literary units are the most specific in the epistle in stressing that God’s word causes a complete division between those who accept it and those who reject it. This dualistic view is expressed in 2:14-17 in terms of “those who are being saved and ...those who are perishing.” In 6:14-7:1, this same division of mankind is described using the contrasting pairs “righteousness and iniquity” and “believer..unbeliever.”

7. The last question to examine is whether 6:14-7:1 has any function in strengthening the parallels between sections II and II'. Interestingly, Childs suggests that the function of 6:14-7:1 is “to establish a parallel between the situation envisioned in chs. 1-7 and in 10-13 [especially 6:15 // 11:14].” Namely, both “portray the church as the people of God in a battle against Satan.” The two specific passages quoted by Childs in this context possess a reverse image relationship in that 6:15 is located in the last of the five center units of II while 11:14 appears in the first of the five center units of II'.

8. Raymond Brown holds to the similar view that 6:14-7:1 prepares for chs. 10-13 by showing that the Corinthians still need correction. He even feels that the unbelievers of 6:14-15 may refer to Paul’s opponents mentioned in chs. 10-13.

Other modern commentators who agree, for various reasons, that these disputed verses are well suited to their present location within II Corinthians are quoted below:

    “In our view, and against most interpreters, we see 6:14-7:1 as integral to Paul's closing argument begun in chap. 5 and completed in 7:3ff. It is not a digression but a logical development.” (Martin)

    Hillyer points out that there is no manuscript evidence to support the idea that these verses were added by a later writer “and no editor would insert an incongruous passage carelessly...It would not be unnatural for Paul at this point to bring up briefly and sharply some critical issue known to the Corinthians, if not to us.”

    “Seen in its setting...the section 6:14-7:1, with its plainly worded warning against the danger of compromise, is most skilfully and graciously cushioned by loving passages on either side of it, while at the same time it itself is prompted by this same spirit of affection.” (Hughes)

    Hafemann states, “In view of the fact that the Corinthian church now stands divided over the legitimacy of Paul's apostleship and his understanding of Jesus and the Spirit (cf. 2 Cor 11:47), 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:2 addresses the question of the relationship between believers and unbelievers...”