Criswell
Theological Review 4.1 (1989) 3-20.
Copyright © 1989 by The
THE STRUCTURE OF
2 CORINTHIANS 1-7
CRAIG BLOMBERG
Denver Seminary,
Denver, CO 80210
Paul’s
epistles are generally among the clearest of the NT writings
to outline. After struggling to identify the
principles which guided the
gospel writers to arrange parallel pericopae
in seemingly conflicting
sequences, or after puzzling over the complex
interplay of theology
and ethics in Hebrews and most of the general
epistles, the expositor
breathes a sigh of relief when he comes to the
letters of Paul. Romans
divides neatly in two after chap. 11, with the
previous chapters in turn
subdividing relatively unambiguously according to
the stages of God's
plan of redemption for the world. First Corinthians
reads like a
checklist of controversial issues in
ing in order to items
raised by the messengers from Chloe's household
and chaps. 7-16 replying to questions in a written
letter from the
Corinthian church to Paul. Even the shorter
epistles usually acknowl-
edged as Pauline, with Philippians as a possible
exception, generally
fall into two or three main sections with
discernible progressions of
thought within each of these.l
Second Corinthians, therefore,
stands out all the more strikingly
with its unparalleled lack of apparent structure and
unity. The two
sections which most commentators agree hang
together as unified
wholes, chaps. 10-13 and 2:14-7:4, follow so abruptly
from the pre-
ceding material that they have regularly been regarded
as entirely
1 See esp. U. Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer (EKKNT 6/1-3;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener,
1978-82); C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on
the First
Epistle to the
Corinthians
(London: Black, 1968); H.-D. Betz, Galatians
(
Fortress,
1979); B. Rigaux, Les
epftres aux Thessaloniciens
(
Duculot,
1956).
4
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
separate letters interpolated into their present
contexts.2 A third much
shorter section, 6:14-7:1, seems intrusive even
for many supporters of
the unity of the rest of chaps. 1-9.3 On any scheme Paul seems
preoccupied more with discussing his travel plans,
his apostolic au-
thority, and the Corinthians'
attitude toward him than with conveying
any lofty theological truths.
The purpose of this paper is not to
review all the various theories
which have arisen to account for these phenomena, nor
even to
address the problems of the letter's structure
beyond those of the first
seven chapters. Rather it is to suggest what I
believe is a new ap-
proach to the question of the
outline of 1:12-7:16 and to point out the
implications of such an outline for
certain issues of interpretation and
integrity. I will take for granted as largely
uncontroversial the iden-
tification of the first eleven
verses of the epistle as introductory saluta-
tion and thanksgiving, and I
will follow the traditional consensus
which sees chaps. 8 and 9 as a relatively discrete
section on the
collection for the saints in
link earlier material more closely with it.4
The structure which I will
propose for the intervening six-and-one-half
chapters depends on an
understanding of this section as an
extended chiasmus.
I. Criteria for Detecting Extended Chiasmus
Not too many years ago chiastic or
inverted parallelism was
scarcely discussed in examinations of the outline
of major sections of
Scripture,
being viewed simply as a poetic device for short Hebrew
couplets. Today, parts of almost every book in
Scripture have been
outlined chiastically,
with many of the proposals straining all bounds
2 For detailed, recent
surveys of the various proposals, see V. P. Furnish, II
Corinthians (AB 32A; Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1984) 29-54; R. P. Martin, 2
Corin-
thian (Waco,
TX; Word, 1986) xxxviii-Iii.
3 E.g., W. G. Kummel, Introduction to the New Testament (
1975)
291-92; L. T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An
Interpretation
(Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1986) 292; C. Kruse, The Second Epistle of
Paul to the Corin-
thians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 37-40.
4 Furnish (II Corinthians, 392) takes 7:4-16 as an
introduction to chaps. 8-9 and as
part of a larger section of appeals from 5:20-9:15.
C. K. Barrett (A Commentary on the
Second Epistle to the
Corinthians
[
division entitled "Paul's plans for
other hand, H.-D. Betz (2 Corinthians 8 and 9. [
an important opposing tradition which finds the
disjuncture between chaps. 7-8 so
great as to assume that chap. 8 begins a new letter.
Betz's case remains unproved, but it
at least demonstrates the major caesura in Paul's
outline at this point."
Blomberg:
THE STRUCTURE OF 2 CORINTHIANS 5
of credulity. In his II Chiasmo nella Bibbia, A. di Marco has
compiled
a voluminous catalog of likely and unlikely
hypotheses from modern
scholarship through the mid-seventies.5
J. Welch's anthology, Chias-
mus in Antiquity, also offers a number of improbable proposals
but
nevertheless succeeds in
demonstrating the widespread use of chias-
mus in both prose and
poetry, both Hoch-
and Kleinliteratur,
through-
out the ancient Near East.6 Two
observations emerge from di Marco's
and Welch's works. First, chiasmus was used far
more widely in the
ancient world than it is today, so that it
likely underlies numerous
portions of Scripture where it has not usually
been perceived. Second,
because chiastic outlines have become so
fashionable among biblical
scholars, any new hypotheses should be subjected
to a fairly rigid set
of criteria before being accepted. Yet I know of
no study which has
mandated detailed criteria which hypotheses of
extended chiasmus
must meet in order to be credible.7 I
propose the following nine
criteria, therefore, as sufficiently restrictive
to prevent one from imag-
ining chiasmus where it was
never intended:
(1) There must be a problem in
perceiving the structure of the
text in question, which more conventional outlines
fail to resolve. This
criterion singlehandedly
casts serious doubts over many recent pro-
posals.8 If a more
straightforward structure can adequately account
for the textual data, recourse to less obvious
arrangements of the
material would seem, at the very least, to risk
obscuring what was
already clear.
(2) There must be clear examples of
parallelism between the two
"halves" of the hypothesized chiasmus, to which
commentators call
attention even when they propose quite different
outlines for the text
overall. In other words, the chiasmus must be
based on hard data in
5
Biblica 36 (1975) 21-97; 37
(1976) 37-85; 44 (1979) 3-70.
6
Literary-Cultural
Approach to the Parables in Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1976)
44-75;
A. Stock, "Chiastic Awareness and Education in Antiquity," BTB 14 (1984)
23-27.
7 D.
promises more than he delivers, suggesting merely
that one look for a combination of
parallels in form, content and language, and
spends most of his time discussing only
one example, that of J. Dewey on Mark 2:1-3:6.
8 E.g.,
P. M. Scott, "Chiastic. Structure: A Key to the Interpretation of
Mark's Gos-
pel,"BTB 15 (1985) 17-26; K. E. Bailey, "The
Structure of 1 Corinthians and Paul's Theo-
logical Method with Special Reference to
4:17," NovT
25 (1983) 152-81; M. Girard, "La
composition structurelle
des sept signes dans Ie quatrieme
evangile," SR
9 (1980) 315-24.
More
straightforward outlines of Mark, 1 Corinthians, and John adequately account
for
the textual data.
6
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
the text which most readers note irrespective of
their overall syn-
thesis. Otherwise it is too simple to see what one
wants to see and to
impose on the text an alien structural grid.9
(3) Verbal (or grammatical)
parallelism as well as conceptual (or
structural) parallelism should characterize most if
not all of the cor-
responding pairs of subdivisions. The repetitive
nature of much bibli-
cal writing makes it very easy for general themes
to recur in a variety
of patterns.10
(4) The verbal parallelism should
involve central or dominant
imagery or terminology, not peripheral or
trivial language. Ancient
writers often employed key terms as catchwords
to link passages
together, although the material they considered
central does not al-
ways match modern preconceptions of what is
important.11
(5) Both verbal and conceptual
parallelism should involve words
and ideas not regularly found elsewhere within the
proposed chias-
mus. Most unpersuasive
proposals fail to meet this criterion; while the
pairings suggested may be plausible, a little
ingenuity can demon-
strate equally close
parallelism between numerous other pairs of pas-
sages which do not support a chiastic whole.12
(6) Multiple sets of correspondences
between passages opposite
each other in the chiasmus as well as multiple
members of the chias-
mus itself are desirable. A
simple
common to so many different forms of rhetoric that it
usually yields
few startlingly profound insights.13
Three or four members repeated
in inverse sequence may be more significant. Five
or more elements
9 This would seem to be a
major problem for K. A. Strand, "The Eight Basic
Visions in the Book of Revelation," AUSS 25 (1987) 107-21. A more natural
parallelism
would pair the seven seals and seven bowls with the
seven trumpets in the middle. Cf.
also the very vague parallels suggested by K. Grobel, "Chiastic Retribution-Formula in
Romans 2," Zeit
und Geschichte (FS. R. Bultmann;
10 Thus weakening the
hypotheses, e.g., of E. S. Fiorenza,
"Composition and
Structure
of the Book of Revelation," CBQ
39 (1977) 344-66; and S. J. Kidder, "'This
Generation in Matthew 24:34," AUSS 21 (1983) 203-9.
11 The most comprehensive
study on catchwords remains M. Jousse, Le style oral
rhythmique et mnemotechnique (Paris: Beauchesne, 1925, 1981). Much NT writing with
these kinds of links resembles various kinds of
Jewish midrash; on which see R. T.
France
and D. Wenham, eds., Gospel Perspectives
III: Studies in Midrash and Histori-
ography (Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1983).
12 I have emphasized this
point in my "Midrash, Chiasmus, and the Outline
of
Luke's
Central Section," in ibid., 217-61. See, e.g.,
the proposals of M. D. Goulder, "The
Chiastic
Structure of the Lucan Journey," TU 87 (1964) 195-202; C. H. Talbert,
Literary Patterns,
Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts (
Scholars
Press, 1974) 58-65; Bailey, Poet and
Peasant, 79-85.
13 But see below n. 51.
Blomberg: THE STRUCTURE OF 2
CORINTHIANS 7
paired in sequence usually resist explanations which
invoke subcon-
scious or accidental
processes.14
(7) The outline should divide the
text at natural breaks which
would be agreed upon even by those proposing very
different struc-
tures to account for the
whole. If a proposed chiasmus frequently
violates the natural "paragraphing" of
the text which would otherwise
emerge, then the proposal becomes less probable.15
(8) The center of the chiasmus,
which forms its climax, should be
a passage worthy of that position in light of its
theological or ethical
significance. If its theme were in
some way repeated in the first and
last passages of the text, as is typical in
chiasmus,16 the proposal
would become that much more plausible.
(9) Finally, ruptures in the outline
should be avoided if at all
possible. Having to argue that one or more of the
members of the
reverse part of the structure have been shifted
from their correspond-
ing locations in the
forward sequence substantially weakens the hy-
pothesis; in postulating
chiasmus, exceptions disprove the rule!17
These nine criteria are seldom
fulfilled in toto
even by well-
established chiastic structures, so it would seem
these controls might
actually be too rigid. But granted that some
exceptions should be
permitted, the more of these criteria which a
given hypothesis fails to
meet, the more sceptical a
reception it deserves. Conversely, a hy-
pothesis which fulfills most or
all of the nine stands a strong chance of
reflecting the actual structure of the text in
question. Considering a
small spectrum of recent proposals not already
mentioned in the notes
above, and without defending each application in
detail, I would thus
14 For one attempt to
give precise statistical quantifIcation to judgments
of this
type, see Y. T. Radday,
"Chiasmus in Hebrew Biblical Narrative," in Welch, Chiasmus,
50-117, esp. the appendix, 116-17.
15 Here is a major
problem with P. F. Ellis, The Genius of
John (
Liturgical, 1984). John 4:39-45 is not
really detachable from 4:4-38 (or else vv 39-42
should go with 4-38 and 43-45 with 46-52). Cf. also
the unusual outline of R. Morgen-
thaler, Die lukanische Geschichtsschreibung
als Zeugnis (Zurich:
Zwingli, 1948) 1:156-57.
16 On interpreting
chiasmus in general, see the pioneering work of N. W. Lund,
Chiasmus in the New
Testament
(
1942).
More recently, but much more briefly, cf. J. Breck, "Biblical Chiasmus: Ex-
ploring Structure for
Meaning," BTB 17 (1978) 70-74.
17 Thus calling into
question, e.g., D. R. Miesner, "The Missionary
Journeys
Narrative:
Patterns and Implications," Perspectives
on Luke-Acts (ed. C. H. Talbert;
Analysis
of the Architecture of Jn 1, 19-5,47"
CBQ 32 (1970) 341-66. Talbert correctly
recognizes that not all structures are perfect in
form, but he does not distinguish between
ruptures which do not call into question an
overall outline and those which do. More
nuanced is H. V. D. Parunek,
"Oral Typesetting: Some Uses of Biblical Structure," Bib 62
(1981) 168.
8
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
assess A. Culpepper's view of John 1:1-18 as highly likely;18
P. Davids'
approach to the Epistle of James as quite
plausible even though more
complex than a simple inversion;19 K.
Wolfe's analysis of Luke-Acts as
attractive, though fairly general;20 H.
J. B. Combrink's outline of
Matthew
as at least slightly more convincing than current alternatives;21
my own work on Luke's central section as at least
no worse than the
alternatives;22 A. Vanhoye's
treatment of Hebrews as not terribly
helpful;23 D. Deeks
on the Fourth Gospel as much too vague and
subtle;24 and J. Bligh on
Galatians as painfully forced and hopelessly
elaborate.25 These examples could be
multiplied, with the less con-
vincing ones outweighing the
more convincing, but they provide a
sufficient sample for comparison with the proposal
for 2 Corinthians
1-
7 put forward here.
II. The Outline of 2 Cor 1:12-7:16
The outline to be submitted to these
nine criteria for evaluation is
as follows:
A
A'
1:12-22--the Corinthians
can 7:13b-16--Paul can rightfully boast
rightfully
boast in Paul in
the Corinthians
B
B'
1 :23- 2: 11--grief
and comfort over 7
:8-13a--grief and comfort over
the painful
letter; hope for the
painful letter; joy after
forgiving
the offender forgiving
the offender
18 R. A. Culpepper,
"The Pivot of John's Prologue," NTS
27 (1980-81) 1-31.
19 P.H. Davids, The Epistle of James
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 22-29. The
principal criterion not met is (8).
20 K. R. Wolfe, "The
Chiastic Structure of Luke-Acts and Some Implications for
Worship,"
Southwestern Journal of Theology 22
(1980) 60-71. Criteria (3) and (6)
would seem least satisfactorily met.
21 H..
J. B. Combrink, "The Structure of the Gospel of
Matthew as Narrative,"
Tyndale Bulletin 34 (1983) 61-00. Criteria (3), (4), and
(5) are all in doubt, but all the
rest are met very nicely.
22 Blomberg,
"Midrash." All nine criteria are met but
the biggest problems revolve
around the source-critical hypotheses required.
23 A. Vanhoye,
La structure litteraire
de fepitre aux Hebreux (
1963).
Vanhoye's structure is not entirely chiastic, based
on subtle connections between
proposed "catchwords," and overly
complex.
24 D. Deeks, "The Structure of the Fourth Gospel," NTS 15 (1968) 107-29. Few of
the proposed correspondences are close, and the
resulting outline is an unlikely hybrid
of synonymous and antithetical parallels.
25 J.
Bligh, Galatians in Greek (Detroit:
University of Detroit Press, 1966). Bligh
postulates as many as five overlapping levels of
concentricity, with the vast majority of
his correspondences being extremely vague.
Blomberg: THE STRUCTURE OF 2
CORINTHIANS 9
C C’
2:12-13--looking for Titus in 7:5-7--finding Titus in
D
D'
2:14-4:6--a series of contrasts-- 6:11-7:4--a series of
belief vs.
unbelief, centered on contrasts-belief
vs. unbelief,
Christians as the letters of the centered on Christians as
the
living God,
in glory being temple
of the living God, in light
transformed
into his image being
transformed into his
holiness
a 2:14-16a--death
vs.life a 6:11-13--widen your hearts
b 2:16b-3:3--false
vs true b 6:14-7:1--separate yourselves
approaches
to ministry from
uncleanness
c 3:4-18--old
covenant vs. new a' 7:2-4--open your hearts
b' 4:1-2--false
vs. true'approaches
to ministry
a' 4:3-6--darkness
vs. light
E
E'
4:7-5:10--surviving and triumphing 6:1-10-surviving
and triumphing
despite
every hardship (see esp. despite every hardship (see esp.
vv.8-10) vv.8b-10)
F
5:11-21-the theological climax:
the ministry of
reconciliation
It
would seem that this outline satisfies all nine criteria remarkably
well.
(1) The difficulty in following
Paul's train of thought and the in-
adequacy of previous outlines is readily admitted
by most commen-
tators. Toward the beginning
of the century, for example, A. Plummer
wrote,
With regard to the letter itself it
is better to talk of 'contents' rather than
'plan.'
Beyond the three clearly marked divisions (i.-vii.; viii., ix.; x.-xiii.)
there is
not much evidence of plan. In these main divisions the Apostle
seems to
have dictated what he had to say just as his thoughts and
feelings
moved him, without much consideration of arrangement or
logical
sequence.26
Due
to the occasional nature of the epistles, there is nothing inherently
implausible in this, except that Paul regularly
seems rather more
organized. A digression like Phil 3:2-4:7 might
provide a partial
26 A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Second Epistle of I
10
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
parallel for a section such as 2 Cor 6:14-7:127 but hardly for one as
substantial as 2:14-7:4. An outline which avoids
such digressions, if a
reasonable one can be found, would seem to be
preferable. Yet a
survey of current analyses which attempt to do more
than simply label
the paragraphs in sequence without any assessment
of coordination
and subordination28 regularly reveals
the recourse to postulating major
and minor digressions of various sorts. In addition
to 2: 14- 7:4 and
6:14-
7:1,29 C. K. Barrett is forced to call
5:1-10 on the resurrection of
the believer "a digression illustrating
further the relative unimportance
of the earthenware container,"30
V. Furnish admits that he views 1:18-
22
on Paul's integrity in his promises "a somewhat ponderous excur-
sus,"31 and W. Schmithals
finds a sufficient break after 6:2 to split
2:14-
7:4 into two separate letters at that point.32 Surely
one ought to
welcome proposals that would improve on these.
R. Martin is on the
right track when he labels 2:14-7:4 "the main
theme" of the letter rather
than a digression, but the shifts from one section
to the next remain as
abrupt as ever.33
(2) As the outline indicates, there
is no problem demonstrating
conceptual parallelism between the forward and
reverse sequences of
the chiasmus. The objects of boasting vary from A
to A', but the
purpose of Paul's expressions of confidence
remains the same in each
case: to "state the view of the writer that he
hopes his readers now
have or will gain from the commendation."34
B and B' obviously
27 Philippians has also
given rise to theories of multiple letter fragments, but see B.
Mengel, Studien zum Philipperbrief (WUNT 2/8; Tubingen:
Mohr, 1982).
Cf. W. J.
Composition
and Unity of Philippians," NovT 27 (1985) 141-73; D. F. Watson, "A
Rhetorical
Analysis of Philippians and Its Implications for the Unity Question," NovT
30
(1988) 57-88.
28 As e.g., in P. E.
Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the
Corinthians (
Eerdmans, 1961); J. Hering,
La seconde epitre de
Neuchatel: Delachaux et Niestle, 1958); H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther 1/11 (HNT 9;
Tiibingen: 1969); R. H. Strachan,
The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
(
Hodder &
Stoughton, 1935); J.-F. Collange, Enigmes de la deuxieme epitre
de Paul aux
Corinthiens (SNTS 18; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1972).
29 Even those who argue
for the unity of the epistle regularly refer to these
sections as digressions. See e.g., M. J. Harris,
"2 Corinthians," (EBC 10; ed. F. E.
Gaebelein;
of Paul to the Corinthians (London: Tyndale,
1958) 29-30; F. F. Bruce, 1 and 2
Corinthians (London: Oliphants, 1971) 214.
30 Barrett,
Second Corinthians, 51.
31 Furnish, II Corinthians, 141. N. Hyldahf ("Die literarische Einheit des 2 Korin-
therbriefes," ZNW 64 [1973] 296) includes v. 17 as part of the digression.
32 W. Schmithals,
"Die Korintherbriefe als
Briefsammlung," ZNW 64 (1973) 288.
33
Martin, 2 Corinthians, xxxvii.
34 S. N. Olson,
"Epistolary Uses of Expressions of Self-Confidence," JBL 103
(1984) 596. Cf. idem, "Pauline Expressions of
Confidence in His Addressees," CBQ
47
(1985) 282-95.
Blomberg:
THE STRUCTURE OF 2 CORINTHIANS 11
belong together in all attempts to understand the
offending party at
The
similarity between 2:12-13 and 7:5-7 is the very reason why the
intervening text has been labeled an interpolation
or a digression.35
The
catalogs of Christian hardships which are ultimately overcome in
4:7-12
and 6:3-10 are regularly compared as among the most poignant
in all of Scripture.36
The least obvious pair matches
2:14-4:6 with 6:11-7:4. Still, both
of these sections linger long on the clear-cut
contrasts between true
Christianity
and its opposition: false teachers in
responses by the Corinthians, and inappropriate
application of the old
covenant in the age of the new. More strikingly,
both sections focus
heavily on key OT Scriptures which bear on the
situation in
J.
McDonald has perceptively suggested that these two sections form
the beginning and end of a midrashic
homily, following Jewish con-
vention of citing a catena of
texts at the start and climax of various
units of preaching material.37
Nevertheless, because Paul dwells re-
peatedly on so many themes close
to his heart in this epistle--joy in
the midst of suffering, the blessing and comfort of
God, his apostolic
authority and integrity, the appeal to the
Corinthians to be reconciled
to him, to each other, and to God-what will be
needed to defend the
detail of the proposed chiasmus is unique, verbal
parallelism between
the various paired sections.
(3) In fact close verbal parallels
do exist, pairing each of the main
sectjons of the outline with its
counterpart. Paul's "boasting" in the
Corinthians
and his urging them "to boast" in him are linked by the
repetition of kau<xhsij, kau<xhma,
kauxa<omai, (1:12, 14; 7:14[2x]).
The
sections on Paul's painful letter and the
repentant excommunicant are
dominated by words for "grief"—lu<ph/lupe<w (2:1, 2[2x], 3[2x], 4,
5[2x], 7; 7:8[2x], 9[3x], 10[2x], 11). 7:5-6 repeats the language of 2:13
very closely: e]ch?lqon ei]j Makedoni<an ("I went away into
Macedonia")
becomes e]lqo<ntwn h[mw?n
ei]j Makedoni<an ("after we came to
Mace-
donia"), ou]k e@sxhka
a@nesin tou? pneu?mati mou ("I had no rest in
my
35 G. Bomkamm,
"The History of the Origin of the So-Called Second Letter to the
Corinthians,"
NTS 8 (1962) 259-60; R. Bultmann, De, zweite Brief an die
Korinther
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1976) 23; E. Best, Second Corinthians (In-
terpretation;
36 R. Holstad ("Eine Hellenistische Parallele zu 2. Kor. 6,3ff.," ConNT 9 [1944]
22-27)
and A. Fridrichsen, ("Zum
Thema 'Paulus und die Stoa': Eine stoische
Stil-
parallele zu
2. Kor. 4,8f.," ConNT 9 [1944]
27-32) not only pointed out their similarity
to each other but also to Hellenistic catalogues of
suffering, esp. in Diogenes and
Plutarch.
The parallelism is made that much more obvious by the two articles' appear-
ing back-to-back in the
same source!
37 J.
2
Cor. 2:14-17 in Its Context," JSNT 17 (1983) 43-47.
12
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
spirit") is balanced nicely by ou]demi<an
e@sxhken a@nesin h[ sa<rc h[mw?n
("our flesh had no rest"), and mh>
eu[rei?n me Ti<ton ("my not finding
Titus")
corresponds to e]n t^? parousi<% Ti<tou
("by the coming of
Titus").
The fourth pair of passages is connected somewhat more
loosely but the repetition of kardi<a ("heart"--3:1,
3, 15; 4:6; 6:11; 7:3),
parrhsi<a ("boldness"-3:12; 7:4), and qeou? zw?ntoj ("living God"-3:13;
6:16)
are all worth noting. More significantly, both 4:6 and 6:14 contrast
"light" and "darkness" (fw?j, sko<toj).
Sections E and E' are linked most
obviously by the catalogs of sufferings enumerated,
but there is also
verbal parallelism in the introductory combinations of
qlibo<menoi ou]
stenoxwrou<menoi ("being afflicted
but not distressed"--4:8) and e]n
qli<yesin
. . . e]n stenoxwri<aj ("in afflictions.
. . in distresses--6:4).
(4) Only superficial familiarity
with this epistle is required to
recognize that the terminology identified as
parallel in each case
epitomizes central concerns of Paul rather than
peripheral issues.38
(5) Not all of these terms and
phrases are entirely unparalleled in
2
Cor 1:12-7:16, but overall their frequency in the
sections paired as
opposites is significant. Paul's only other
boasting comes in 5:12 and
7:4,
and the former verse, in which both verbal and nominal forms
appear, falls in the center of the chiasmus, where one
expects thoughts
from the "extremes" to be reiterated. In
light of his seventeen uses of
this word group in chaps. 10-13, the relative
infrequency of his
"boasts" in these opening chapters makes those
references which do
occur that much more worthy of notice. The grief
which dominates
1:23-2:11
and 7:8-13 never recurs elsewhere in chaps. 1-7, and only
once in the rest of the entire epistle (9:7). The
phrases linking 2:13
with 7:5-6 are wholly unparalleled. As for D and D',
"heart" re-
appears three times outside of the passages
which are matched, but
the specific expressions for "boldness"
and "the living God" are
unique. "Darkness" occurs nowhere else in 2
Corinthians; "light," only
in 11:14. "Tribulations" and
"distresses," which link E and E', occur
elsewhere separately but never together, a fact
all the more suggestive
since Paul pairs stenoxwri<a and qli<yij in two of its other
three NT
occurrences (Rom 2:9; 8:35; diff. 2 Cor 12:101).
(6) The identification of five
sections to each "half" of the chias-
mus clearly satisfies the
criterion of multiple correspondences. Addi-
tionally, each pair has several
features or several occurrences of the
same feature in common. In addition to the general
headings and
specific linguistic details already listed, the
following observations
38 The most comprehensive
work on the theology of 2 Corinthians remains K.
Prumm, Diakonia Pneumatos I-III
(Freiburg: Herder, 1960-67). More
briefly, cf.
M.
Rissi, Studien zum zweiten Korintherbrief
(Zurich: Zwingli, 1969).
Blomberg: THE STRUCTURE OF 2
CORINTHIANS 13
lend further credence to the outline at the point
where most proposals
fail--finding a plausible way to incorporate
6:14-7:1 into the larger
context. To begin with, 6:11-13 and 7:2-4 form
an oft-noted unity, so
that if the intervening verses are not an
interpolation, then 6:11-7:4
forms an aba' pattern
itself.39 In both a and a' Paul pleads for the
Corinthians
to open or widen their hearts to accept his friendship and
authority once again, reassuring them of his
affection for them. He
thus "cushions the blow" which 6:14-7:1
would inevitably land, with
their stem injunctions to keep separate from all
manner of evil.40 It is
even likely that the partnership with
unrighteousness which is ap-
parently plaguing some in
are restrained in their response to Paul (6:12).41
But if they recognize
their status as God's children (6:18), and act
morally as that status
demands, then they will be able to accept Paul's
relationship to them
as a father to his spiritual children (6:13).
Not only does 6:14-7:1 thus have
logical links with the verses
which frame it, but it also contains an internal
chiasmus. Paul has
arranged his four OT citations in vv. 16-18 so
that they begin and end
with verbally parallel promises of God (e@somai au]tw?n qeo>j kai>
au]toi>
e@sontai
mou lao<j
["I will be their God and they will be my peo-
ple"]/ e@somai u[mi?n ei]j pate<ra kai> u[mei?j
e@sesqe moi ei]j ui[ou>j
kai>
qugate<raj ["I will be father
to you and you will be to me as sons and
daughters"]). In between, he sandwiches two
conceptually parallel
imperatives: "come out from them and be
separate" and "touch no
unclean thing."
Interestingly, the passage opposite
6:11-7:4 also divides into a
careful chiastic pattem-abcb'a'.
In 2:14-16a and 4:3-6 Paul contrasts
the two opposite fates of those who accept or
reject the gospel--life
vs. death and light vs. darkness. The passages
2:16b-3:3 and 4:1-2
both compare the integrity 6f Paul's ministry with
the deceit of the
false teachers. Paul needs no letters of
"commendation" (3:1) because
he "commends" himself to everyone's
conscience (4:2).42 In between,
3:4-18
explores the relationship between old and new covenants,
comparing the transient glory of the letter of the
Law which kills with
the permanent glory of the Spirit of Christ which
gives life. Thus in
39 J. Lambrecht,
"The Fragment 2 Cor vi
14-vii I: A Plea for Its Authenticity,"
Miscellanea
Neotestamentica II (eds. T. Baarda,
A. F. J. Klijn, W. C. van Unnik;
40 Plummer,
Second Corinthians, xxv; Hughes, Second Corinthians, 244.
41
E.-B. Allo, Seconde epitre aux Corinthiens
(Paris: Gabalda, 1956) 183; Harris,
"2 Corinthians," 303.
42 On 4:1-6 as
summarizing 2:15-3:18, see T. E. Provence, "'Who
Is Sufficient for
These Things?' An
Exegesis of 2 Corinthians ii 15-iii 18," NovT 24 (1982) 57.
14
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
2:14-4:6,
Paul proceeds from an appeal for the Corinthians to accept
him because the Spirit of the living God written on
their hearts is his
letter of recommendation, to a sharp contrast between
the life-giving
Spirit
and life-killing letter via exposition from the OT teaching on
new and old covenants, to the theological
indicative that they are
being more and more conformed to Christ's likeness.43
Similarly, in
6:11-
7:4, Paul begins with an appeal for the Corinthians to accept him
into their hearts, moves on to a sharp contrast
between Christ's be-
stowing righteousness and Belial's producing sin
in the temple of the
living God, and concludes with the ethical imperative
of perfection in
holiness. The similarity is sufficient to render
unnecessary any recourse
to misplaced letters or major digressions.
(7) Every division in the proposed
chiasmus appears as a major
or minor break in the Nestle-Aland
Greek NT and is supported by
various commentaries.44 Not all
command the consensus that 2:13 and
7:4
do, but if they did then the problem of the outline would already
have been solved! Much of the disagreement stems
from the fact that
Paul's
logic contains regular transitional paragraphs which can easily
be taken as either concluding a previous thought
or beginning a new
thought, unless an overarching structure makes
it clear what must fit
where.45
(8) The center of the chiasmus
certainly creates a fitting climax.
Paul
has already proclaimed to the Corinthians "Jesus Christ and him
crucified" as the heart of his gospel (1 Cor 2:2). No more appropriate
center for 2 Cor 1-7 could
be found. Paul perseveres in his ministry
because he is convinced that "Christ died
for all" (5:14), offering a
restored relationship between God and men (5:19),
and enabling
those who are "in Christ" to become new
creations (5:17). Like am-
bassadors, they in turn proclaim
the forgiveness of sins to others
(5:20).
Paul thus describes Jesus' ministry as one of reconciliation, a
ministry which then becomes the mandate of the
believer once he is
reconciled to God (5:18-20). Verse 21 concludes
this section with one
of the strongest statements of the substitutionary atonement in all of
43 For more on the
self-contained unity and structure of 2:14-4:6, see esp. J.
Lambrecht, "Structure and Line of Thought in
2 Cor 2, 14-4,6," Bib 64 (1983) 344-80.
Cf.
also C. J. A. Hickling, "The Sequence of Thought
in II Corinthians, Chapter
Three," NTS
21 (1974-75) 380-95.
44 See e.g., Barrett (Second Corinthians, 51) for major breaks
at 1:22; 2:13; 4:6;
5:10;
and 5:21; Tasker (Second
Corinthians, 30) for 2:11 and 6:10; and Harris ("2 Corin-
thians," 317) for 7:4.,
13a, and 7:16.
45 In three instances,
the correspondences I have pointed out often fall in the
central parts of a given section as I have
subdivided the text so that minor alterations in
the "seams" would 1eave the chiastic
structure unaffected. Thus 1:23-24 could be taken
as the end of A, 1:15-22 as the start of B, or
6:1-2 as the end of F.
Blomberg: THE STRUCTURE OF 2
CORINTHIANS 15
the NT: "for our sake he made him to be sin
who knew no sin, so that
in him we might become the righteousness of
God."46
(9) There is no question of
dislocation in the outline to ruin the
symmetry and weaken the hypothesis. Each member
of the first part
of the chiasmus reappears in its proper place in
the second.
III. Implications of This Structure
The significance of identifying a
chiastic outline as the structural
key to a given text in many ways differs little
from that of any other
type of outline; it better enables the expositor to
follow the author's
progression of thought and to emphasize the points
which he empha-
sized and to subordinate those he subordinated.47
Additionally, how-
ever, certain unique features arise, three of which
may be elaborated
briefly.48
(1) The climax of a chiasmus is its
center, as already stressed.
Second
Corinthians has often been viewed as one of Paul's less theo-
logical and more pastoral letters, primarily
because the reply to his
opponents in
spends a majority of his time dealing with his
relationship with the
Corinthians and those who are opposing him. But in any piece of
writing, the main points are not necessarily
those which appear most
often but which recur in the most strategic or
emphatic positions in
the outline. This should cause one to think again
about the significance
of 5:11-21 for 2 Cor
1-7. It would seem that a strong case can be
made for seeing these verses as containing the
central point which
Paul
was trying to make. Yes, Paul earnestly desires the Corinthians to
accept his authority and advice, but such acceptance
can occur only
as they recognize their sin and acknowledge the
one who became sin
to make them righteous. They must be transformed
into new crea-
tures in Christ on the basis
of his cross-work and reconciled to one
46 Attempts to describe
the NT's views on the death of Christ without employing
this concept remain truncated. See esp. J. I.
Packer, "What Did the Cross Achieve? The
Logic
of Penal Substitution," Tyndale Bulletin 25
(1974) 3-45. On 5:21 in particular,
Harris
("2 Corinthians," 354) offers these balanced comments: "it seems
Paul's intent to
say more than that Christ was made a sin-offering
and yet less than that Christ became
a sinner." Cf. M. Tolbert, "Theology
and Ministry: 2 Corinthians 5:11-21," Faith
and
human situation of despair and alienation that
results from the reign of sin."
47 See esp. W. C. Kaiser,
Jr., Toward an Exegetical Theology (
Baker,
1981); J. H. Hayes and C. R. Holladay, Biblical
Exegesis (
1982),
and note the comments on chiasmus, 73-74.
48 In addition to the
works cited in nn. 6 and 16 above, see R.E. Man,
"The Value
of Chiasm for New Testament Interpretation," BSac 141 (1984)
146-57.
16
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
another as the hallmark of their ongoing
ministry. And Christ' cruci-
fixion may not be separated
from his resurrection. Paul's changed
attitude toward others is based on no longer
knowing Christ as merely
human (5:16). Tellingly, each of these points seems
to be precisely
what Paul's opposition in
vides the theological basis which alone can make
possible the practi-
cal and pastoral solution to these conflicts.
Whether or not Martin is
right in identifying "reconciliation" as
the center of Pauline theology
as a whole,50 the strategic location of
this topic in 2 Corinthians makes
it a strong candidate for the central theme of the
major section of this
letter.
(2) The second most significant
parts of a chiasmus are its outer
boundaries (A and A'), especially if their theme
recurs in the center.
In
1:12-7:16, this theme emerged as proper and improper boasting.
The
topic appears in the center of the chiasmus as well (5:11-12). The
dominant role of boasting in chaps. 10-13
confirms its central function
for Paul's relationship with the Corinthians and
ties those chapters a
little more closely together with the preceding nine.51
Furthermore, it
places into perspective the specific problems with
which Paul has to
deal en route--the penitent sinner, the right
attitude to the apostolic
ministry, and victory in the midst of suffering.
If the Corinthians are
hurting themselves and distorting the gospel via
an overly-realized
eschatology leading to triumphalist
ecclesiology,52 the opposite dan-
ger lurks not too far
distant-an overemphasis on humility and suffer-
ing. Against both extremes
1:12 provides the proper antidote: "not by
earthly wisdom but by the grace of God,"
which alone enables the
49 The standard work on
Paul's opponents in Corinth remains D. Georgi, Die
Gegner des Paulus im 2. Korintherbrief (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1964). Geg-
ner sees proto-Gnostics
behind the opposition addressed in 1 Corinthians and Hel-
lenistic Jewish Christian
itinerants behind 2 Corinthians. For an approach which sees
more strictly Judaizing
opposition, see esp. J. J. Gunther, St. Pauf s
Opponents and
Their Background (SupplNT
35, Leiden: Brill, 1973). Quite possibly both
sides infer
more than can be determined with certainty; see
Furnish, II Corinthians, 48-54.
50 R. P. Martin, Reconciliation: A Study of Paul's Theology
(
1981).
On the problem of identifying such a center, see H. W.
Boers, "The Foundations
of Paul's Thought: A Methodological Investigation--The
Problem of the Coherent
51 In fact, P. F. Ellis (Seven Pauline Letters [
140-41)
plausibly suggests that all of 2 Corinthians was an original unity, in light of
its
overall
Meaning and Truth in 2
Corinthians
(London: SPCK, 1987) 27.
52 A. C. Thiselton, "Realized Eschatology at
C.
L. Mearns, "Early Eschatological Development in
Paul: The Evidence of 1 Corin-
thians," JSNT 22 (1984) 19-35; D. A. Carson, From Triumphalism
to Maturity (Grand
Rapids:
Baker, 1984).
Blomberg: THE STRUCTURE OF 2
CORINTHIANS 17
Corinthians
to receive Titus in the godly "fear and trembling" with
which 7:15 concludes. "Boasting" as
self-confidence is better than
despair, but it must be directed to the Lord
rather than oneself. Yet,
as 5:11-13 elucidates, if one wants others to be
proud of him in the
way God would be, one may need to act in a manner
which makes
some think he is "out of his mind."
(3) The passages 6:14-7:1 and
2:14-7:4 need not be seen as
separate letters, quotations of other writings,
or even significantly
digressive. The transitions between different parts
of a chiasmus are
often fairly abrupt, some more so than others. The
roughest transition
in the first half of 2 Cor
1-7, from 2:13-14, has been well explained by
S.
Hafemann. Paul's failure to find Titus during his
travels reminds him
of the triumphal procession of a Roman conqueror,
leading his captives
behind him to their deaths.53 Far from
looking ahead to later victory,54
Paul
imagines himself as a prisoner soon to die (cf. the sacrificial
language in vv 15-16), but he is able to praise
God anyway. Paul's
discussion then proceeds by catchwords. The letters
of recommenda-
tion call to mind the letter
of the Law; the glory of the Law was
represented by the glory on Moses' face, the veil
which covered that
glory contrasts with unveiled reading of Scripture by
Christians, and
so on.55 After the chiasmus of
2:14-4:6, Paul qualifies the victory
believers have in Christ with the enumeration of
sufferings which
must precede their resurrection (4:7-5:10). But the
reconciliation ac-
complished makes it all worthwhile
(5:11-21).
The links between sections of the
reverse sequence of the chias-
mus prove more tenuous, and
the paralleled sectjons prove noticeably
shorter. But this is precisely what one should
expect. Resumptive
discussions need not dwell on detail already treated
at length. And as
the "second half" of a chiasmus unfolds,
allusions to the corresponding
passages in the "first half" will
naturally make successive sections seem
53 S. J. Hafemann, Suffering
and the Spirit (WUNT 2/19; Tubingen: Mohr, 1986)
84-85.
Cf. P. Marshall, "A Metaphor of Social Shame: qriambeu<ein
in 2 Cor 2:14," NovT
25 (1983) 302-17.
54 As has usually been
argued; see the survey of views in M. E. Thrall, "A Second
Thanksgiving Period in II Corinthians," JSNT 16 (1982) 102-11. As a variant of this
tradition, J. Murphy-O'Connor ("Paul and
2
Corinthians 2.13 and 2.14," JSNT
25 [1985] 99-103) argues that the positive associa-
tions Paul had with churches
in
argues that Paul introduces a second thanksgiving
(112-24), but it is not clear why Paul
would put it precisely at this point.
55 See esp. J. A. Fitzmyer, "Glory Reflected on the Face of Christ (2 Cor 3:7-4:6)
and a Palestinian Jewish Motif," TS 42 (1981) 630-44. Cf. also G. Wagner,
"
la lettre, alliance de l'Espirit: Essai d'analyse de 2 Corinthiens 2/14 a
3/18," ETR 60
(1985)
55-65.
18
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
less apt in their immediate context and more
reminiscent of earlier
material. Thus Paul resumes the discussion of his
travels in 7:5 not so
much because he has finished an extended excursus
but because he has
reached the appropriate point in his outline at
which to do so. A similar
explanation undoubtedly accounts for at least part
of the seeming
irrelevance of 6:11-7:4 to its context as well;56
Paul is again reflecting on
the OT concepts of glory and holiness to which he
had devoted so
much of chap. 3. Although his first quotation in
6:16 draws on Lev
26:11-12,
while 3:7-18 has been termed a midrash on Exodus 34,57 the
concepts involved are scarcely dissimilar. In
terms of the historical
narrative of the Pentateuch the situation is
unaltered from the earlier
passage to the later one: the Israelites remain
encamped at Sinai,
receive the Law, and await their marching
orders. Certainly the
concepts of living with
to separate from everything unclean encapsulate
the most urgent parts
of the message which God had to deliver through
Moses when he
returned from
.come
from further on in the OT (2 Sam 7:14; Isa 52:11; and
Ezek
20:34;
37:27).
IV. Objections Considered
I close by replying to three
potential objections. First, is not an
intricate, artistic device like chiasmus
incompatible with Paul's having
written 2 Corinthians as a deeply personal,
emotional, and almost ad
hoc reply to those in
reflects the earlier view of chiasmus which
largely limited its use to
meticulously structured works of
poetry. But as already observed,
recent studies have shown that chiasmus had thoroughly
permeated the
ancient Near East, and in fact some of the most
difficult and elaborate
examples reflect moving Sitze im Leben.58 Literary style,
including
56 Great strides have
been made in demonstrating the authenticity of 6:14- 7:1 and
its place within 6:11-7:4, but why Paul placed this
section where he did has been less
adequately treated. Cf. G. D. Fee, "II
Corinthians VI.14- VII. 1 and Food Offered to
Idols,"
NTS 23 (1977) 140-61; J. D. M, Derrett, "2 Cor 6, 14ff.: A Midrash on Dt 22, 10,"
Bib 59 (1978) 231-50; M. E.
Thrall, "The Problem of II Cor. VI.14- VII.l in Some
Recent
Discussion," NTS 24 (1978)
132-48; J. Murphy-O'Connor, "Relating 2 Corin-
thians 6.14-7.1 to Its
Context," NTS 33 (1987) 272-75;
idem, "Philo and 2 Cor 6:14-7:1,"
RB 95 (1988) 55-69. .
57 See esp. A. T. Hanson,
"The Midrash in II Corinthians 3: A Reconsideration,"
JSNT
9 (1980) 2-28. But cf. E. Richard, "Polemics, Old Testament, and Theology:
A
Study
of II Cor., III,1-IV,6,"
RB 88 (1981) 340-67, who points out
how the new
covenant of Jeremiah is in fact the dominant
topic throughout.
58 One thinks e.g. of
many of the psalms (cf. R. L. Alden, "Chiastic Psalms," JETS
11 [1974] 11:28; 19 [1976] 191-200; 21 [1978]
199-210), the Book of Esther (cf. S. B.
Blomberg: THE STRUCTURE OF 2 CORINTHIANS
19
chiasmus, colored even such non-literary
materials as Aramaic con-
tracts and Athenian inscriptions59 and thus
is certainly compatible with
Paul's level of "occasional" writing. And Paul need not have
had his
whole outline planned from the outset. He could well
have reached the
end of chap. 5, knowing that he had left several
topics unfinished along
the way, and then have chosen to elaborate them
beginning with that
which he had treated most recently.
Second, if Paul has outlined these
chapters chiastically, why has
he not used this device elsewhere for major
sections of his epistles?
This
objection overlooks the fact that 2 Cor 1-7 is
unconventionally
structured vis-a-vis Paul's other writings regardless of what device
one utilizes to explain its structure; it applies
with equal force to
outlines which resort to epistolary fragments and
major digressions.
On
the other hand, numerous smaller sections of Paul's letters un-
deniably do employ chiasmus.60 T.
Shoemaker's recent analysis of
1
Cor 11:2-16 provides an excellent illustration.61
Moreover, at least
one complete letter, Philemon, seems to fall
naturally into a sequence
of inverted parallelism.62 Remarkably,
Philemon is the most occa-
sional and personal of all, of
Paul's writings, so this would afford a
striking parallel to the chiastic outline of 2 Cor 1-7 if it were valid.
And
in at least some instances it seems that Paul employs the simpler
Finally, if this is the true
structure of 2 Cor 1-7, why has not
anyone ever noticed it before? Such a question, often
resorted to
when all other debate reaches an impasse, misses the
mark for at least
three reasons. First, it could equally be applied to many commen-
tators' outlines of these
chapters since there is little agreement as to
why Paul is doing what he is doing. Second, as with
most chiastic
Berg,
The Book of Esther [
Solomon
(cf. W. H. Shea, "The Chiastic Structure of the
Song of Songs," ZAW 92
[1980] 378-96).
59 B. Porten,
"Structure and Chiasm in Aramaic Contracts and Letters," in Welch,
Chiasmus, 169-82; K. J. Dover,
"The Colloquial Stratum in Classical Attic Prose,"
Classical Contributions (eds. G. S. Shrimp ton
and D. J. McCargar;
J.
J. Augustin, 198i) 15-25. I am indebted to Dr. S.
Porter of
Angeles, for this last reference.
60 See esp. J. Jeremias, "Chiasmus in den Paulusbriefen,"
ZNW 49 (1958) 145-56.
Less
uniformly persuasive are the various examples in
Marco,
Chiasmo,
153-78; and J. W. Welch, "Chiasmus in the New Testament," in
Welch,
Chiasmus, 213-90.
61 T. P. Shoemaker,
"Unveiling of Equality: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16," BTB 17 (1987)
60-63.
62 T. Boys, Tactica Sacra (London: T. Hamilton, 1824)
65-67.
63 In addition to the
examples scattered among the sources listed in n. 60 above,
see esp. Ellis, Letters,
passim.
20
CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL
REVIEW
outlines, most of the building blocks have been
observed by different
people at different times;64 what has been
lacking was for someone to
recognize the whole and construct a synthesis. Third, and most sig-
nificantly, chiastic structures
seldom appear unless one is looking for
them. By that I do not mean that they are all the
inventions of overly
creative minds, imposing on the text a structure
which was never
intended, though many proposed chiasms have been
just that. Rather
I
mean that what was almost universally accepted as an artistic
rhetorical and literary device and useful mnemonic
aid in the Medi-
terranean cultures of antiquity
has largely fallen into disuse in the
modern period so that commentators simply are not
accustomed to
considering it. Yet even today, it has not
disappeared; in some cases
one fails to see it because it is so natural. K.
Bailey gives a delightful
example of a conversation he overheard between
two young men,
who entirely without design asked each other four
questions and then
answered them in inverse order: (l)=(A) "Are
you coming to the
party?" (2)=(B)
"Can I bring a friend?" (l)=(C) "Boy or girl?"
(2)=(D) "What difference does it make?" (l)=(D') "It is a matter of
balance." (2)=(C') "Girl" (l)=(B') "O.K." (2)=(A')
"I'll be there."65
In
Paul's case I suspect it was not nearly as subconscious but probably
almost as natural.
64 See esp. ibid., 140-41; note also the links between 1:1-2:13 and
7:15-16 pointed
out by Georgi (Gegner, 22-23); and the incipiently chiastic outline of
Barrett (Second
Corinthians, 51).
65 Bailey,
Poet and Peasant, 50.
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
The
www.criswell.edu
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: