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