2 Cor. 614-71 as an Integral Part of 2 Corinthians

2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 as an Integral Part of 2 CorinthiansAuthor(s): Michael GoulderSource: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 36, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1994), pp. 47-57Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560926 .

Accessed: 10/09/2014 16:35

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 190.21.65.51 on Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:35:38 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560926?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Novum Testamentum XXXVI, 1 (1994), ? E.J. Brill, Leiden

2 COR. 6:14-7:1 AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF 2 CORINTHIANS

by

MICHAEL GOULDER

Birmingham

The short paragraph 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 has long posed a problem', in that it seems difficult to see the drift of thinking which would fit it into its context. Paul has been pleading for his converts' affection in 6:11-13, and he returns to this theme at 7:2; but the intervening verses are a stiff warning to them not to consort with &auaxotg, unbelievers, as it is usually rendered. The passage not only reads like a foreign body, but also recalls 1 Cor. 5, where Paul had written the "former" letter and had apparently said something similar. Hence there has arisen a widespread suspicion that the verses are an intru- sion into the present context; or more radically, that they are not

by Paul at all, or are a piece from Qumran2, etc.3 The lack of a clear thread of thought is the most serious problem

we face. A second one is the apparent contradiction with 1 Cor. 5; for there Paul denies telling the church to shun the world of unbelievers, while here he seems to require it. The easy follow-on of 7:2 from 6:13 is not an important point, for Paul often recapitulates after a digression. I am proposing to defend the integrity of the

present form of the text by a double argument therefore. First I will

suggest that 2 Cor. 5-7 show a sequence of thought which is found twice elsewhere in the Corinthian letters; and second, I will argue that tCraTot in 2 Cor. means not unbelievers but faithless Christians.

For a recent discussion and bibliography see Victor P. Furnish, II Corinthians (Anchor Bible 32A, New York 1984), 359-383.

2 So J. A. Fitzmyer, "Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Cor 6:14- 7:1", CBQ 23 (1961), 271-280, = Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testa- ment (London 1971), 205-217.

3 There is a good critique of radical solutions by Gordon D. Fee, "II Corin- thians VI.14-VII.1 and Food Offered to Idols", NTS 23 (1977), 140-161; his own solution is less convincing, v.i.



48 MICHAEL GOULDER

It is in the nature of human thought to follow established pat- terns. The succession of ideas which we have had before tends to

repetition under similar stimulation; and humility forces us to con- fess that this is increasingly the case in middle age. St Paul was no

exception, and this fact may help us to settle the longstanding puzzle in 2 Corinthians.

The sequence of thought in 1 Cor. 4-6 is not difficult. Paul has been under criticism (avaxptOj, 4:3) as not being a full apostle, and he responds (A) by asking to be considered as a steward of the

mysteries of God (4:1-5). This leads him (B) to contrast his readers' claims to be filled, reigning, etc., with the deprivations and persecutions of his apostolic life (4:6-13). This move is necessary because other missionaries lived in style at church expense, and Paul cut a

shabby figure by contrast in the eyes of some of the Corinthians. He has to show that such "weaknesses" are in fact an apostle's glory, and the true badge of his apostleship. This in turn leads on to (C), the assertion of his authority, like a father over his children

(4:14-21). This move is also in part necessary; it is the corollary of his being considered a steward of the mysteries of God. It was

optional how the authority was asserted, and not every apostle would have used the father-child image; but such gentle, family images come naturally to Paul (Gal. 4:19, Eph. 5:1, 1 Thess. 2:11, cf. 2:7), and he does not really mean it about the cane (4:21).

Why does Paul want to assert his authority? Because people are not behaving properly, and he needs to stop it. Hence the reproofs over the sexual and law-suit scandals in chh. 5-6. He knows it would be ineffective to tell the sinners to improve, so he uses two forms of community pressure. (D) He stresses the corrupting effect of tolerating such behaviour. It is like leaven which needs to be cleansed out or it will infect the whole lump (5:6f). By contrast the Church was to be a holy body, in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth (5:7); thought fit to judge the world, and even angels (6:2f). Our body is a temple of the holy spirit: will we take the members of Christ and make them members of a whore? (6:15-20). But the only method by which such pressure can be made effective is shunning. Hence (E) the requirement to keep awayfrom those who break discipline. This may take the advanced form of handing the sinner over to Satan in (semi)permanent excommunication (5:3ff); or the temporary practice of "taking the evil out from your midst" (5:9-13, citing Deut. 17:7), that is, not consorting with them or eating with them.



2 COR. 6:14-7:1

Paul is reacting to a similar pressure in 2 Corinthians. In ch. 5 he is responding to those who boast in the surface (5:12), and claims that he has the ministry of reconciliation (5:18), and is (A) a minister of God. The thought is quite similar to 1 Cor. 4:- 1 Cor. 4:1 Let a man so reckon us as servants of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Cor. 6:4 But in everything commending ourselves as ministers of God... But this leads on at once to (B) "...in all UT7coxovt'". The paradoxical nature of Paul's ministry requires some justification, and on comes the gramophone record. This time it is a fuller exposition, more

eloquent and more paradoxical, but the underlying theme is the same:- 1 Cor. 4:1 lf To this present hour we both hunger and thirst and

go naked and are beaten and are homeless and labour, working with our own hands; reviled we bless, persecuted we endure, slandered we encourage... 2 Cor. 6:4ff ... in persecutions, in necessities, in distresses, in

beatings, in imprisonments, in riots, in labours, in sleeplessness, in

fasting... by glory and dishonour, by slander and popularity... The second list is fuller, partly because Paul has recently been

through further dire troubles, and partly because he has become

increasingly convinced that these experiences are of central

theological significance. The catalogue of his trials is set out with such warmth of feeling

that Paul feels moved (C) to appeal to his converts' affection as his children. The tone and the theme alike recall 1 Cor. 4:- 1 Cor. 4:14f I do not write this to reproach you but as counselling my beloved children. For if you have ten thousand tutors in Christ,

yet you have not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus through the

gospel I begot you. 2 Cor. 6:1 lff Our mouth is opened to you, Corinthians, our heart is widened; you are not narrowed in us, but in your own affections. Make the same response-I speak as to my children-be widened too. In 1 Cor. the image of the kindly father leads on to Paul's coming visit, and the (jocular) threat of the cane: in 2 Cor. the com-

munity's divisions have become deeper, and the affectionate father asks at first for no more than to have his feelings returned. But Paul is not a sentimentalist, and as in the other paternal passages cited

49



MICHAEL GOULDER

above, he wants to be a proper father to his children: to persuade them to reject the zealous circumcisers (Gal. 4:12-20), and to walk in holiness (Eph. 5: ff, 1 Thess. 2:9-12).

The way in which the Corinthians are to make their &avtLttaioa in 2 Cor. is set out in the verses following, 6:14-7:1, which combine the two community pressures of 1 Cor. 5-6. Paul both (D) stresses the holiness of true Christians and in contrast the uncleanness and pollution that will ensue from contact with untrue Christians, with whom they have nothing in common; and (E) demands separation from the sources of infection, or in other words the shunning of the Latrot, the unfaithful, by the church.

Paul says that trying to work with the 0aTtatot is like trying to

plough a field with a erep6ouyov, a yoke of two different animals, a practice forbidden in Deut. 22:10 (the noun occurs in Lev.

19:19LXX). He draws five sharp contrasts to drive home the incompatibility, some of them echoes of 1 Cor. 5f:- 1 Cor. 6:9ff Or do you not know that Hatxot shall not inherit the kingdom of God?... And such were some of you; but you were washed, you were sanctified, X8txaticOnl7c in the name of the Lord... 2 Cor. 6:14 For what is in common (xszToxil) between txa0tLooavr1 and avoi(to? 1 Cor. 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you? 2 Cor. 6:16 And what accord has the temple of God with idols? 1 Cor. 8-10 is a protracted discussion of the practice some Corin- thian Christians had taken up of dining in an teltsXoov (8:10), or eating meat sacrificed to an idol: Paul says one cannot xLTeXeLtv in the table of the Lord and the table of demons, nor should Christians be xotvovouiS of demons (1 Cor. 10:20f). We may again compare:- 2 Cor. 6:15 And what agreement has Christ with Beliar? A fourth contrast, "Or what xotvovtio is there of light with darkness?", is standard in Pauline paraclesis (1 Thess. 5:4f, Rom. 13:11, Eph. 5:8-13).

The overlap of language with 1 Cor. 8, 10 is so strong that it must seem likely that the particular question Paul has in mind is that of idol-meat.4 The roots teLTxEItv and xotvovetv, the contrast of

4Fee (n. 3) stresses the community of language between the two passages, and correctly infers that they are both about the same thing, viz. eating in an Et8o)XeTov. But he mistakenly takes &itaCtot to be pagans (Christians were not to consort with such in idol-temples, nor to touch what is unclean). Paul says "Do not share an alien

50



2 COR. 6:14-7:1

el3oXoa with Oe6g, and of Christ with demons/Beliar, and even the rare [XoXua[L6 of flesh and spirit, cf. the man whose conscience

[LoX)6vVTxt (1 Cor. 8:7), bind the two passages together. A major

problem in 1 Cor., the idol-meat question had not gone away: in 2 Cor. 12:21 Paul speaks of "those who sinned before and did not

repent of their &xaoaxpaCa and 7topvIa and &aO.eXyet "-the idol-meat uncleanness of 1 Cor. 8 and the sexual faults of 1 Cor. 5-6 and the

arrogance of "All things are lawful". It is the temple image which is most fully exploited in 2 Cor. Paul

backs it with a series of OT citations intended to underpin his claim that the true Temple is the Church. The first of these is Lev. 26:12, "I will walk among you, and I will be your God and you will be

my people". Paul adapts by prefacing evotxilaco v ocUTxot- xXo; he needs to establish God's indwelling of his people like a temple, and hence its total holiness. Then Deutero-Isaiah had addressed the

(exiled) people as Zion and Jerusalem in Isa. 52:1, and had bid them dissociate themselves from all uncleanness (52:11), and this is

just what is needed. Finally Isaiah had also spoken of the people as God's sons and daughters (43:6-but there is a fuller form of such a promise in 2 Sam. 7, which he actually uses), and this drives home the need for absolute purity-"Therefore, having these pro- mises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every pollution of flesh

[like idol-temple banquets] and spirit [quarrels, jealousies, etc., 2 Cor. 12:20], perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (7:1). The catena of three adapted citations is weightier than the exposition of the leaven in 1 Cor. 5:6-8, and the brief reference to the body as a temple of the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor. 6:19; but the exploitation of holiness imagery from the cult is closely parallel.

Things are more critical than they had been in 1 Cor.; and it is the more necessary (E) to apply active discipline. Again we find a

similarity of tone and language between the two letters:- 1 Cor. 5:7 Cleanse out (ExxaOapa0re) the old leaven... 5:13 Take the evil out (&apates) from you (Deut. 17:7 LXX). 2 Cor. 6:17 Wherefore come out (iSXOoare) from the midst of them, and be separated, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing (axaocapTou), and I will receive you (Isa. 52:11, Ezek. 20:34).

yoke with atlaTot" generally, without special mention of an idol-temple-without a preceding context no reader could have made Fee's sense out of the words. Indeed there is no mention of an EI8woXEov in the passage following.

51



MICHAEL GOULDER

The stress on separation from the unclean is the same in both let-

ters, and the backing from scripture is the same. What Paul expects is the same in both: the shunning of the "unclean" 6a:trot, their exclusion from church meals and the breaking of social contact. The differences are probably not material. The Isaiah citation closed with the inapposite, "you who bear the vessels of the Lord", and Paul has substituted from elsewhere in his memory of the pro- phets "and I will receive you". The wording of the Isaiah text sug- gests that the Pauline Christians split from the main body, but this is surely not intended: Isaiah happened to say "come out, be

separated", but the stress Paul wants is on the separation, not the

coming out. He certainly did not want a Pauline rump, but to drive out the obdurate sinners.

The satisfactoriness of this chain of parallels is enhanced by their

repetition in the same letter, in 2 Cor. 10-13, albeit in an extended form. There also his apostleship is under attack, but (A) let his

opponents reckon that he is also of Christ (10:7), reckoning in

nothing to come behind the super-apostles (11:5), a minister of Christ more than they (11:23). This leads on to (B) a yet more eloquent list of his weaknesses (11:23-33); and he adds, "I have been a fool, you compelled me" (12:11)-his glorying in his sufferings was

required inasmuch as his apostolic life seemed such a paradox. The

way is then open for (C) the fatherly atmosphere-Paul's imminent

visit, "I seek not yours but you; for children should not save for

parents, but parents for children ... If I love you the more, am I loved the less?" (12:14-18). Then follows (D) the challenge to the

pure spiritual life: there is to be no strife, jealousy, anger, etc., and Paul makes explicit the link with (C), "Everything, beloved, is for

your otxosopti" (12:19ff). But finally, (E) discipline needs to be

applied, and will be. "This is the third time that I am coming to

you: every case will be established at the mouth of two or three witnesses ... If I come, I will not spare ... So I write this in my absence so that I may not use severely (a&oxt6.tLo , off-cuttingly) the

authority which the Lord gave me for building up and not for pull- ing down" (13:1-10). Paul wants the discipline to have been

applied before he comes, as he says in 6:14-7:1; otherwise he will have to administer it himself.

We seem thus to have produced a plausible solution for a

longstanding problem. 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 is an integral part of the letter, and belongs in its present context; it supplies the appeal for

52



2 COR. 6:14-7:1

holiness and the requirement of discipline which form the culmina- tion of similar passages in 1 Cor. 4-6 and 2 Cor. 10-13. What then is the objection to it? The objection is that amortxo means pagan. As

Margaret Thrall puts it, "There is plenty of unambiguous evidence which indicates that the Corinthians would have taken atLatTot to mean unbelievers in the sense of non-Christians. This is quite clearly what the word means in I Cor. vi.6, vii.12-14, x.27".5

This argument, which settles the matter for Windisch6, Barrett7, Furnish8 and most commentators on the passage, is not strong:-

(i) J.-F. Collange9, who proposed that the &Ctrtot were Paul's Christian opponents, appealed to the use of the word in 2 Cor. 4:4, which I discuss briefly in a moment. Thrall's comment, "In iv.4 it is by no means obvious that Paul is speaking of his opponents", is weak: if it should appear that armoro is used in this sense the only other time it occurs in the letter, then the objection would virtually disintegrate.

(ii) atClTTog often means faithless, not pagan, elsewhere in the NT: "0 faithless generation" (Mk. 9:19), "He will set his lot with the faithless" (Lk. 12:46, in contrast to the tLroa6 steward of 12:42), "and be not faithless, but believing (tmot6)" (Jn. 20:27). Ignatius uses it to mean docetic Christians (Tr. 10, Sm. 2, 5.3), and

Ignatius frequently bases his usage on that of the "sainted Paul".

(iii) Even if Paul usually uses XrcaTxog to mean pagan, he might wish to employ it as a term of abuse for immoral Christians. In 1 Cor. 5:1 he speaks of a woman who is living with (? married to) her

(? dead) husband's son, and in 6:15f it appears that she is referred to as (io) c6pvtl, a term properly implying that she trades sex for

money. (iv) 2 Cor. 6.15b says, "Or what part is there for a tcr~to with

an &(tCKou?". There is an obvious parallel between the two; but 7rLto6 is not used elsewhere to mean a Christian, to contrast with

pagan. So the natural translation is "What part has a faithful with an unfaithful [Christian]?" This seems to be confirmed by the

5 M. E. Thrall, "The Problem of II Cor. vi.14-vii.1 in some recent discussion", NTS 24 (1977), 132-148, citation p. 143.

6 H. Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief (Gottingen, 1924), 218. 7 C. K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Black, London, 1973), 195ff. 8 Furnish, II Corinthians, 361. 9 J.-F. Collange, Enigmes de la Deuxiene Epitre aux Corinthiens (SNTS MS18,

Cambridge, 1972), 282ff.

53



MICHAEL GOULDER

image of the yoke in lTEporuyouvrTe: the xtaot are bearing a common yoke with the a7tarot, that is, they are fellow-workers with them,'0 and this must stop.

(v) The whole problem of 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 arises largely from the flat contradiction between its apparent policy (Have no contact with 6&rtoLot, understood as the defiling pagan world) and 1 Cor. 5:9-13 (Paul did not mean, Have no contact with the defiling pagan world; otherwise Christians would have to leave the world. He

meant, Shun Christian sinners)." Collange begins from this, and Thrall concedes the force of the argument.12 But this difficulty disappears if &XtLaot are immoral/non-Pauline Christians; and so does that of the lack of context for the pagan interpretation, and the

thought that someone may have introduced a semi-Christianised

piece from Qumran.13 What then does atltatoS mean at 2 Cor. 4:4? It comes near the

end of a section, 2:14-4:6, of which the core is a contrast between the glory of the Sinai dispensation and the greater glory of the Christian dispensation (ch. 3). This is preceded and followed by some reflections on the opposition:- 2:17 For we are not like the many trading the word of God, but as with sincerity, but as from God before God do we speak in Christ. 4:2 not walking in rc0voupyta nor counterfeiting the word of God, but in the openness of truth commending ourselves to all men's conscience before God. "The many" (ot 7roXXoi) have been trading (xarrlXeuovxtg) the word of God, that is the gospel, i.e. (probably) making money out of it,

10 Fee, "Idols" (n. 3), 475, points to oaiuyfo as an antonym to Eitpouyoov. 1 Very likely the misunderstanding that arose from the "former" letter was

due to Paul's use in it of atmoroi. He must have used some ambiguous term which they understood to mean pagan unbelievers but which he intended to refer to immoral Christians.

12 "Problem", 134. However, her own solution is not very convincing: Paul "does not seem always to have been capable of taking adequate precautions against misunderstanding" (148).

13 Recently (Nov. Test. 35 (1993) 160-180, "The Mind of the Redactor: 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 in its Secondary Context"), P. B. Duff has argued that the artCoroL are Paul's opponents. A major image of Paul's 2 Cor. was the Graeco-Roman religious procession, and the originally continuous 6:13-7:2a ran, in line with this, "Open up for us. Make room for us". But his stress on processional imagery seems dubious; he offers no parallel for iXaTUMvO7rl = "open up"; and the interpretation seems to ignore Paul's own contrast with ttvoXcope7T0a iv og o7Xdr&YTXvotS 6UCiov in 6:12.

54



2 COR. 6:14-7:1

in 2:17; and they have been counterfeiting it (8oXo5vT;g) in 4:2. This is a bit of mud-slinging, because at 12:16 Paul comments

ironically, "So be it, I did not exploit you; but being a 7Tavo6pyoS I took you O6Xco!" The opposition have accused him of 7ovoupyta and 860Xo in that he did not take money from his converts. He accuses them of iravoupyita and 86XoS because they did, and he calls it xatXriXEu,tv. 3:1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some, letters of commendation to you or from you? 4.2 commending ourselves to all men's conscience before God. The

opposition have criticised Paul for commending (oavtitavetv) himself, and here he is at it again! No, he says, I commend myself by my openness, while they depend on letters of commendation, some of them written by the Corinthians themselves. 2:15 for we are Christ's fragrance to God in those who are being saved and in those who are perishing... 4:3 And if too our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in those who are

perishing, in whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of the St amo LI... The opposition have criticised Paul for preaching a xexoaXuuEi.vov gospel, that is, an obscure message, and it would be natural for him to reply, "Yes, it is obscure to you, because you have been blinded

by the devil". However, many soft hearts quail at the thought of the apostle being so harshly dogmatic, and would like to think that the great defender of salvation by faith never consigned a fellow- Christian to perdition.14

The evidence is not helpful to this charitable view. At 1 Cor. 3:17 Paul says, "If anyone destroys the temple of God, him will God

destroy"; the "anyone" here is a Christian missionary who has been building something alien on Paul's foundation, although he

escapes with the purging fire two verses earlier. At Phil. 3:19 the end of the Jewish Christian "dogs", with their circumcision, is destruction (&tCbXtaL). At 1 Cor. 1:18 we have the same contrast between TOrT ao,UOXXulevotq and TOTt ac)ooLevotL as in 2 Cor. 2:15. Here the &aoXXuile.vot think the word of the cross to be foolishness, and they are then categorised as three representatives of Jewish wisdom, the aoop6, ypaocr.iaxeug and ca4rrtixrlg. These correspond to

14 So, recently, Judith Gundry Volf, Paul and Perseverance (WUNT 2/37, Mohr, Tiubingen 1990).

55



MICHAEL GOULDER

the Jewish MFn, lID, and ttnTI, and the wisdom which they advocate is the Jewish way of life, built on the fear of the Lord, viz. the ;D5T1-described by Paul as "taught words of human wisdom"

(2:13).15 Those being saved are, in other words, those who accept the Pauline gospel of the cross, and those perishing are those within the Church who reject this gospel, i.e. the Jewish Christian leaders, and those who are deceived by their claims of wisdom. The whole

section, 1 Cor. 1-4-indeed the whole epistle-is about trouble within the Church, instigated by those "of Cephas", but transfer- red (pEuTeoXTlhz[ata) on to himself and Apollos for pastoral reasons

(8t' 46(1, 4:6). The same is true of 2 Thess. 2. Here Paul warns the church not

to be deceived (L~T TtI uia?.S ttastca/lo'q) by spirit or word or letter, that is, by other Christians, with the doctrine that the Day of the Lord has arrived. First must come the Lawless One, whose coming is in all deceit (&axr) of wickedness TOTi a&7oXXuu.voLg, because they did not accept the love of the truth to their salvation. And for this reason God is sending on them the working of error (tX,avrs) to the

believing of a lie, that all who have not believed the truth, but have

approved wickedness, may be judged" (2:10ff). The opposition are

already deceiving the Church with their false teaching, this IX&avi which God has sent on them, and they will be judged for it; but all who swallow their error, and are deceived into wickedness, are perishing (a&7oXXuJ,6Lvot) too. The attention of the letter is

entirely focussed on intra-Church problems-withstanding persecution, false teaching of realised eschatology, giving up work: there is no thought of the unhappy fate of the unconverted.

It is possible to make sense of 2 Cor. 2:14-4:6 on this basis alone. The two flanking paragraphs, 2:14-3:3 and 4:1-6, are attacks on

money-making, gospel-corrupting, self-commending counter- missionaries who are going to hell (&7roXXus,tvoL). The body of ch. 3 is not a contextless midrash on Exod. 34 vaguely directed at

"unbelieving Israel".'6 The line for Paul does not run between two

religions, Judaism and Christianity. It runs between those whose faith is in the gospel of the cross of Christ, Pauline Christians, and those whose trust is in the works of the law, whether they call them-

15 See my "1optia in 1 Corinthians", NTS 38 (1991), 516-538. 16 So Windisch, 117-125; modified by Furnish, 200-252, but still with

"unbelieving Israel" in the background (233f).

56



2 COR. 6:14-7:1 57

selves Jews or Christians. When one turns to the Lord, the veil is

removed, and there is freedom (2 Cor. 3:16f); those are cut off from Christ whose justification is in the Law (Gal. 5:4). 2 Cor. 3 strongly recalls Galatians and Romans. It maintains a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit (3:6, cf. Rom. 2:29, 7:6, Gal. 4:24). It holds that the letter kills but the Spirit makes alive (3:6, cf. Rom. 8:2, Gal. 2:19f). It offers a life of freedom in the Spirit (3:16, cf. Gal. 5:1).

So a natural reading of 2 Cor. 4:3f seems entirely apposite. Yes, says Paul, if my gospel seems obscure (xexa0Xu,ul ovov), it is obscure

among Christians who are perishing, among whom the devil has blinded the minds of the faithless (xtrv iXToctov). This time it is not God but the devil who has made life difficult for them. As at 6:14ff, OxtatoS does not mean pagan but faithless.



Documents

2 Cor. 614-71 as an Integral Part of 2 Corinthians