article13

§8 Hearts (2 Cor. 6:11–7:4)

In 2:14ff. Paul has given a sustained defense for the legitimacy of his apostleship. He has already pointedly urged the Corinthians not to receive the grace of God in vain by rejecting his God-given apostleship (6:1). In 6:11–7:4 Paul turns once again to exhortation and, in the process, draws the whole apology to a fitting conclusion that recalls its beginning (this rhetorical device is called an inclusio). The appeal pivots on the word hearts, which Paul has used extensively in the course of his apology, not only in the context of his ministry of the new covenant (3:1ff.) but also as the only valid criterion for assessing Paul’s apostleship (5:12). Hence Paul exhorts the Corinthians to open their hearts to him, even as his heart is open to them and they are in his heart, explicitly referring back to what he has said in 3:2. The main point of the whole apology is contained in 6:14–7:1, which has often been mistakenly interpreted as either misplaced and/or non-Pauline, for there Paul exhorts the Corinthians to live in light of the new covenant and to dissociate from the opponents (cf. 5:12).

6:11 / Paul begins the final section of his apology with a summarizing statement that looks back on everything he has said since 2:14. He attempts to personalize his language by directly addressing the church as Corinthians for the first time in the letter. In using this rare form of direct address (elsewhere only in Gal. 3:1; Phil. 4:15), he also draws special attention to the concluding section. The apostle has spoken freely with the Corinthians, meaning simply “to open the mouth” in the sense of “to speak” (cf., e.g., Job 33:2; Sir. 51:25; Ezek. 33:22; Dan. 10:16; Luke 1:64; Acts 18:14). Paul has opened his heart to the Corinthians in that he affectionately has them in his heart (2 Cor. 3:2). Thus, by an inclusio the word hearts ties in this last section of the apology with the first (2:14–4:6). As we shall see, there is even more that links these two sections together.

6:12 / Paul blames the Corinthians for the discord between them. Literally, the text states that “you are not restricted in us [i.e., in the open heart of the apostle; cf. verse 11], but rather in your own hearts.” The Corinthians seem to question whether Paul really loves them (cf. 11:11). The apostle reassures them that he does. From his perspective, any restraint upon the relationship has been caused by the Corinthians.

6:13 / In view of this situation of disproportionate love, Paul exhorts the Corinthians to respond reciprocally to his affection as his own children. He has spiritually fathered them (cf. 1 Cor. 4:15) and thus has fatherly affection for them (cf. 1 Cor. 4:14). As the founding apostle, Paul has authority over the church and a special responsibility in raising the Corinthian believers to maturity in Christ. Paul admonishes the Corinthians as his children to open wide your hearts also. Just as Paul already has his heart open to the Corinthians, Paul calls upon them to do likewise. The word hearts is not actually represented in the Greek text but is understood from the same construction in verse 11.

6:14–7:1 / This section, which has caused so much controversy in the secondary literature, is sandwiched between two exhortations for the Corinthians to open their hearts to the apostle (6:13; 7:2). Paul demands from the Corinthians not merely affection but also complete separation from his opponents. As we have seen in 5:12, Paul wants the Corinthians to “be hostile or ill-disposed” against the opponents, who boast in the face rather than in the “heart.” The main criterion for the authenticity of Paul’s apostleship is the changed “heart,” both in himself and in others. Hence, the apostle calls upon the addressees, who have the Spirit of the new covenant in their heart (3:3), to live in light of the new covenant situation and to separate themselves from fellowship with those who are not in the realm of Christ. As we shall see, the whole section forms a fitting conclusion to Paul’s defense of his apostleship in 2:14–7:4.

Taken as a whole, 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1 is a paraenetic section with a ring structure, in which the initial command not to be allied with unbelievers (6:14a) is reiterated in other words by the closing exhortation (7:1). Between these exhortations come two separate lines of substantiation: the rhetorical questions in verses 14b–16b and the Scripture citations in verses 16c–18. There can be no doubt that the function of these citations is to substantiate verse 14a, for the exhortation in verse 17, which reiterates verse 14a, comes at the center of two sets of corresponding scriptural promises (vv. 16def and 17b–18b), which provide the theological basis of verse 17 and thus of verse 14a. Quite logically, therefore, these promises also provide the basis for the concluding exhortation in 7:1, thereby closing the ring. Hence, it is clear that the promises carry the main argument of the passage.

6:14a / The passage is controlled by the opening exhortation. The exact meaning of the verb yoked together (heterozygein) remains unclear, for it is used only here in the entire NT, and there are no metaphorical uses of the verb in Greek literature outside the NT. The only metaphorical use of the word-group heterozyg-occurs in Plutarch, Cimon 16.10, where, apparently, the word heterozyga means something like “ally.” In that case, Paul would be exhorting the Corinthians not to be “allied” with unbelievers, that is, not to make common cause with them. This sense is borne out by the subsequent context, for the whole section is controlled by three exhortations (6:14, 17; 7:1), which make it clear that the Corinthians should not be allied with, and should actually separate from, the sphere of those opposed to Christ (note especially the contrast between “Christ and Belial” in v. 15). The whole concept of yoking in this sense should be compared to Psalm 2:2–3, according to which the kings of the world conspire to throw off from themselves the yoke (zygos) of the Lord and his “anointed one” (christos), the king of Israel (cf. Pss. Sol. 17:30). Clearly in this case as well, the yoke is a metaphor for (political) alliance and vassalage (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19a). The end of Psalm 2 pronounces a blessing on “all who trust in him [sc. the Lord].” This may help explain part of the motivation for using the term unbelievers (apistoi) in 2 Corinthians 6:14a (cf. 4:4). Those who are allied with God and his Christ trust in the Lord; those who are set against God and his Christ are unbelievers.

But who are these unbelievers with whom Paul prohibits any alliance? Although the term is anarthrous (i.e., without the definite article “the”) and the word is used elsewhere as a general technical term (cf. 1 Cor. 6:6; 7:12–15; 10:27; 14:22–24), it is doubtful that the apostle is referring here generally to relationships with unbelievers through marriage, business partnership, table fellowship, and the like. The apologetic context of this paraenetic section demands a more specific reference. Even if the term unbelievers is general (as indeed all the references to Paul’s opponents have been to this point [cf. 2:17; 3:1; 5:12]), it seems clear that the apostle is talking about specific people who are allied against God and his Christ. If we follow the flow of thought in Paul’s defense of his apostleship in 2:14–7:4, we recognize that he has repeatedly polemicized against his opponents in Corinth, including their slanderous charges and false values (cf. 2:17; 4:2; 5:12). Paul actually wants the Corinthians to become hostile to his opponents and to shun them completely (5:12), for by siding with the opponents against Paul the Corinthians risk forfeiting their own salvation (cf. 6:1–2; 13:5). For Paul, the issue is black and white (6:14b: “light” and “darkness”), depending on how one responds to his message (cf. 2:15–16a: “those who are being saved” and “those who are perishing”). There is no middle ground. Those who are closed to the apostle’s message are “unbelievers” who are “perishing” (4:3–4). If the Corinthians continue on their course of siding with the opponents and of denying the legitimacy of his apostolic office, then they will have effectively denied their own salvation, for it is through Paul that they received the message of reconciliation and thus the grace of God itself. Ultimately, the Corinthians cannot deny Paul’s original message to them and his mediatory role without at the same time rejecting the gospel and denying their own Christian existence (cf. 1:19; 3:1–6). Hence, to make common cause with Paul’s opponents is tantamount to being an unbeliever, for the apostle’s message is inseparable from his person and commission (cf. 5:18–20). Paul’s description of the opponents as “false apostles,” who disguise themselves as apostles just as Satan disguises himself as an angel of light (2 Cor. 12:13–15), certainly fits with our interpretation that they are the unbelievers to whom Paul specifically refers in 2 Corinthians 6:14, for as we shall see, the context makes clear that these unbelievers are allies of Belial (i.e., either Satan himself or a Satanic figure).

6:14b–16b / The first line of substantiation (For, gar) for verse 14a contains a series of five antithetical questions that begin with the interrogative what (tis) and expect a negative answer. In the form of proverbial truth familiar from Hellenistic Wisdom tradition (cf. Sir. 13:2, 17–18), these questions set up a contrast between two mutually exclusive spheres. Thus, believers are not to be allied with unbelievers because they belong to the sphere of Christ rather than Belial. As servants of Satan, Paul’s opponents can be classified as “unbelievers” who are making common cause with Belial, that is, with either Satan himself or a Satanic figure (cf. S. D. Sperling).

Why does Paul use the rare name Belial instead of the more common “Satan”? The answer may lie in a subtle wordplay. The Talmud explains benê belîyyaʿal (“sons of Belial”) punningly as benê belîʿōl (“sons without the yoke”), that is, “sons who have thrown off the yoke of Heaven from their necks” (b. Sanh. 111b; cf. Vitae Prophetarum 4:6: “those who belong to Beliar become like an ox under yoke [hypo zygon]”). In that case, there might be a play on words between Paul’s exhortation not to be “yoked together” with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14a) and the reference to “Belial” (v. 15a; see also 2 Cor. 2:11, where Paul may be playing on the meaning of “Satan” as “Slanderer”). Although this rather obscure pun would presumably be lost on all but the most alert Jewish scholars, who were conversant both in Greek and Hebrew and knew the traditional pun on the name Belial, it is not impossible that Paul himself could have thought of it while writing our text. Otherwise, it is difficult to account for the use of Belial here, the only occurrence of the word in the entire NT. Of course, it is always possible that Paul is relying on a source at this point. We may note, for example, the many affinities of our passage with Jubilees 1 (e.g., Beliar [=Belial, v. 20], covenant formula [v. 17], adoption formula [v. 24], restoration theology [vv. 22–25], sanctification [v. 23]).

6:16c–18 / The second line of substantiation (As, kathōs) for verse 14a picks up where the first leaves off. Having mentioned in verse 16b that believers are the temple of the living God, the text continues in verse 16d with the related idea that God dwells among his people. It is not the purpose of verses 16c–18 to substantiate from Scripture that believers are the temple of the living God (cf. M. Thrall). It is obvious that none of the citations actually asserts this, not even verse 16d. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the citations center at verse 17 and thereby give a reason for the exhortation in verse 14a.

The six citations in verses 16d–18b are treated as a single quotation introduced by an introductory formula and concluded by a closing formula, rather than by six separate formulas. The passage has corresponding beginning and ending premises with practical implications in the middle. Hence, the citations form three parts consisting of three lines each. In fact, the citation combination in our passage is so symmetrical that “says the Lord” (legei kyrios) in verse 17 bisects the citations into equal halves and thus lies precisely equidistant from the opening and closing formulas. Thus, God’s promises of a reciprocal relationship between himself and his people expressed in the first person singular (I) bracket a center section that gives the practical implications of this relationship to God. The bilateral symmetry of the citation combination corresponds to the bilateral relationship between God and his people (vv. 16ef, 18ab). As a result, form and content blend beautifully in these modified citations to communicate Paul’s message.

The citation combination in 2 Corinthians 6:16c–18 comes toward the end of Paul’s long apology for his apostolic office (2:14–7:4), concluding this major section.

6:16d / The first OT quote is a conflation of Leviticus 26:11–12 and Ezekiel 37:27. Paul has combined two similar passages into a single citation, for both texts refer to God’s dwelling among Israel, and both contain a version of the covenant formula. In the OT, the full, twofold covenant formula (“I will be their/your God, and they/you will be my people”) is used basically in two contexts: historical (the birth of Israel) and eschatological (the consummation of the promises to Israel).

Paul began his defense for his apostleship (2:14–7:4) by drawing a typological comparison between his ministry and that of Moses. In that context, Paul calls himself a “minister of the new covenant” (3:6), and his argument turns on allusions to Ezekiel 36:26–27 and Jeremiah 31:33. As we shall see, it is no coincidence that Paul now returns to the subject of the new covenant at the end of the apology, as he makes a final appeal to the Corinthians.

6:17abc / After the citation of the covenant formula in verse 16, the text goes on in verse 17 to introduce a modified citation of Isaiah 52:11. In its original context, Isaiah 52:11 is an exhortation to the exiles to go out from Babylon (cf. Rev. 18:4), the land of their captivity, and to return in purity to the Holy Land with the temple vessels. Here, however, the passage is crafted to fit the new context in accordance with Paul’s purpose. By rearranging the lines of the citation and changing the pronouns, the apostle makes the text begin with an exhortation to come out from them, that is, the “unbelievers” of verse 14a. This shows once again that the citation combination centering at verse 17 is designed to substantiate the opening paraenesis of verse 14a.

The quotation of Isaiah 52:11 is presented here as a consequence (Therefore, dio) of the reciprocal new covenant relationship between God and his people in 2 Corinthians 6:16d. The exhortation to separate is based on a relationship, on God’s living among his people. The text does not imply that obedience is a stipulation either for the entrance into or for the maintenance of the covenant relationship. Unlike the conditional Sinaitic covenant, the new covenant was to be unconditional and inviolable, because God would supply his people with a new heart and his Spirit, whereby the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled (cf. Rom. 8:4). Paul cites Isaiah 52:11 at this point because it fits the exodus typology of the new covenant. In Isaiah 52, God addresses the exiles and promises to “redeem” them in a second exodus that would outstrip the first (vv. 3, 9, 12). It is in the context of this second-exodus redemption that the returning exiles are to separate themselves (v. 11). Hence, the exhortation is naturally read in light of the related expectation of the second exodus, that is, the reestablishment of the covenantal relationship between God and his people. Just as in 1 Corinthians 10:1–13, exodus typology is used here in instruction directed to the church in Corinth.

The point of the exhortation in 2 Corinthians 6:17 (and hence all the exhortations in the passage) is that the Corinthians should practice the implications of the new covenant situation for their sanctification. Opening their Spirit-filled hearts toward the apostle (6:13) demands separation from Paul’s opponents (v. 14a), because God said in the OT that the new covenant relationship that he would establish through a second-exodus redemption requires separation (v. 17).

6:17d–18b / The quotation of Isaiah 52:11 is immediately followed by a mixed citation of Ezekiel 20:34, 2 Samuel 7:14, and Isaiah 43:6. In its original context, Ezekiel 20:34–35 clearly refers to the second exodus. In 2 Corinthians 6:17d, therefore, the idea of God’s gathering Israel from the lands in the second exodus (Ezek. 20:34) is merely the other side of the idea expressed by the citation of Isaiah 52:11, that in the second exodus Israel should “come out from among them.”

In verse 18 and (kai) is added editorially to join the citation of Ezekiel 20:34 to that of 2 Samuel 7:14. The original text of 2 Samuel 7:14 has undergone some modifications. For one thing, the adoption formula is applied to the addressees of the citation combination (you), that is, the ones referred to by the second person plural of Isaiah 52:11 and Ezekiel 20:34 in the preceding citations. Thus, the modified citation of 2 Samuel 7:14 in our passage closely parallels that in Testament of Judah 24:3, a passage that speaks of God the Father adopting the Messiah and his people of God and pouring out his Spirit on them at the time of the eschatological restoration of Israel. Furthermore, the adoption formula in 2 Corinthians 6:18 is expanded under the influence of Isaiah 43:6 to include not just sons but daughters as well (cf. b. Menaḥ. 110a). Although the influence of Isaiah 43:6 has sometimes been denied, the exodus typology of Isaiah 43:1–7 fits well with the exodus typology in the rest of the citations in 2 Corinthians 6:16–18. Thus, the Davidic promise is interpreted as a promise of restoration associated with the second exodus.

7:1 / Paul concludes 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1 with a final exhortation to the Corinthians that reiterates the paraenesis in 6:14, 17 and thus closes the ring. In the Greek text, this verse begins with the word “therefore” (Since, oun), which underscores that Paul is drawing an inference from his preceding scriptural argument. Based on the promises quoted in the citation combination of 6:16 and 18, Paul concludes that the Corinthians should, once again, separate themselves from pernicious influences. This is what the apostle means by perfecting holiness, for holiness or “sanctification” denotes “separation.”

The Israelites were originally charged to maintain a holiness through obedience to the law. This obligation is the result of Yahweh’s separating them from other nations, redeeming them from Egypt, and entering into a covenantal relationship with them. As their God, he enjoins them to be holy as he is holy (cf. Lev. 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:7–8, 24–26; 22:32–33; Num. 15:40–41; cf. Exod. 31:13; Ezek. 20:12). Paul merely carries over this conception and applies it to the community that has experienced a second-exodus redemption through Christ.

Hence, when 2 Corinthians 7:1 exhorts the Corinthians to cleanse themselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, we must not think that this is foreign to Paul’s thinking. Although it is true that Paul does not elsewhere use the term “defilement” (molysmos), 1 Corinthians 7:34 does speak of being “holy both in body and in spirit,” and 1 Corinthians 8:7 uses the cognate verb (molynein) metaphorically of defiling the conscience. Furthermore, the purity language of our passage could have been suggested by the image of the church as the “temple of God” (2 Cor. 6:16), which is definitely a Pauline concept (cf. 1 Cor. 3:16).

7:2–4 / Here, Paul resumes his train of thought from 6:13, that the Corinthians should open wide their hearts to him just as he has done to them. This incidently shows that 6:14–7:1 must be integral to the present context, for otherwise 7:2 would sound redundant coming directly after 6:13. The intervening exhortation in 6:14–7:1 explains how they are to open their heart. As was shown above, 6:14–7:1 exhorts the Corinthians to put into practice the implications of the new covenant for their sanctification, particularly as it pertains to the situation with the opponents. By separating from the opponents (and other pernicious influences), the Corinthians, who are in Paul’s heart (7:3; cf. 3:2!), open their Spirit-filled hearts to the apostle and remain a “letter of Christ” written by the Spirit of the living God (3:3; cf. 6:16b!), and their new covenant lifestyle remains a reason for boasting (7:4) for the apostle, an apology for the legitimacy of Paul’s apostolate. Seen in this light, 6:14–7:1 does not interrupt the context, but rather contributes to the argument of the passage and provides closure for the whole apology.

7:2 / After Paul exhorts the Corinthians to live in light of the new covenant situation by separating from his opponents (6:14–7:1), he renews his plea from 6:13, that the Corinthians should open their hearts to him, and he reiterates his claim of innocence from 6:3. As in 6:13, the word hearts is not represented in the Greek text but is clearly assumed from the context (cf. 6:11–12). As we have seen, the word “heart” dominates the whole final section of the apostle’s defense.

Paul desperately wants to normalize his relations with the Corinthians; therefore, he tries defensively to remove the stones of stumbling that have gotten in the way of complete reconciliation. Lingering doubts about his character and conduct are at issue. Paul claims to have wronged no one, using the same verb as in 7:12, where he refers to the wrong he suffered from a Corinthian (probably by a severe attack on his apostleship). Interestingly enough, Moses defends himself against the charges of Korah and his followers by stating that he has harmed no one (Num. 16:15). Likewise, Paul may be responding to his critics in Corinth in terms of the type, rather than thinking of a particular wrong. Paul also claims to have corrupted no one. It is unclear exactly what Paul may be referring to here. Elsewhere, he uses the verb in a variety of senses: “to destroy” (1 Cor. 3:17), “to corrupt morally” (1 Cor. 15:33; Eph. 4:22), “to lead astray” (2 Cor. 11:3). This last usage might be meant here, since the apostle has been accused of leading others astray (cf. 5:16; 6:8). Finally, Paul claims to have exploited no one. He deals more with this accusation in 12:14–18, using the same verb. Evidently, it constitutes a major cause or at least a contributing factor in the breakdown of relations between Corinthians and the apostle. In all likelihood, Paul is alluding generally to the charge of fraud and self-aggrandizement that was prevalent in Corinth, and particularly to mismanagement of the church contributions to the collection for Jerusalem (cf. 2 Cor. 4:2; 7:2; 8:20–21; 11:7–8; 12:13–18). Paul has already turned this argument back on his opponents in 2:17, where he accuses them of peddling the word of God (cf. 11:20).

7:3 / Paul explains that it is not his purpose to condemn the Corinthians by defending himself against these accusations. As we saw above on 6:11, the final section of Paul’s apology for his apostleship refers back to the previous context of his defense, particularly to the very beginning of it. Here again in 7:3, Paul refers back to the previous discussion. When the apostle states that I have said before, he makes reference to passages where he has expressed that the Corinthians are in our hearts. In the immediate context, of course, he stated this fact in 6:11–12. However, in the broader context of the defense as a whole, Paul stated that the Corinthians were in his heart already in 3:2 (“You yourselves are our letter, written in our hearts”). Therefore, the concept of hearts not only ties together the final section of Paul’s defense (6:11–7:4) but also provides closure for the whole apology (2:14–7:4).

7:4 / Paul concludes his great apology for the legitimacy of his apostolic office with a statement of confidence in the Corinthians. In light of the Corinthian accusations and disaffection reflected in 1:12–2:13 and 2:14–7:4, it is unlikely that Paul has complete confidence (cf. 7:16) in this troubled church. Some of the paraenesis in the apology is inexplicable if Paul is so assured of the Corinthians’ cooperation. After all, Paul has gone so far as to warn the church members that the outcome of their current course could spell spiritual disaster for them (cf. 2 Cor. 6:1). However, Paul wants to end his defense on a positive note, with plenty of hope for the future. As he states in 1:7, his hope for the Corinthians is “firm” or “sure.” Also in 1:15 and 2:3 (cf. 13:14!), Paul expresses confidence in the church (even in “all” the members!). He furthermore states that the Corinthians reveal that they are a letter authored by Christ written by the Spirit (3:3) and as such a source of his “confidence” as an apostle (v. 4). Moreover, the subsequent section (esp. 7:7–13) reports that Titus had brought Paul good news from Corinth of some positive developments in Paul’s relationship with the church, providing at least some basis for Paul’s optimism (cf. 1:13–14).

Nevertheless, we cannot help thinking that Paul’s claim of “great confidence” in the Corinthians may have been designed more to engender loyalty than to compliment them for already having it. As V. Furnish observes, Paul’s expressions of confidence in his addressees are often implicitly hortatory. Ultimately, Paul hopes to be able to boast in the Corinthians in the day of the Lord (cf. 1:14; 1 Thess. 2:19). For the present, the apostle needs the church at Corinth as a letter of recommendation that will be “known and read by all men” (2 Cor. 3:2).