Shared ground
Paul presents a Scripture-backed conclusion (“Therefore”) to his prior warning about partnerships that compromise loyalty to God (6:14–16). The quoted lines frame the call as God’s own speech (“says the Lord”), not merely Paul’s advice. The core movement is: leave what God rejects, maintain distinctness, and avoid contact with what is “unclean.” These imperatives are directly tied to relational promises: God will “receive” the community and relate to them as Father, while they are named “sons and daughters” (vv. 17–18). 2 Corinthians 6:17–18
Where interpretation differs
The main uncertainties are about scope, not about whether separation is being called for.
Who “them” refers to. Some readings take “them” as unbelievers in general, so the passage is heard as broad social separation. Other readings see “them” as specific settings tied to idolatry and impurity in Corinth (temple-linked life, civic cult events, or compromising alliances), so the separation is targeted at practices and bonds that pull believers away from God.
What “touch” means. Some understand “touch no unclean thing” more literally as physical contact and strong avoidance. Others see “touch” as figurative for participation or involvement—sharing in actions or commitments that make a person unfit for God’s purposes.
How broad “unclean” is. Some treat “unclean” mainly as religious impurity connected to idolatry. Others extend it to a wider set of morally contaminating behaviors. The text itself names “unclean” without listing examples, so the boundary must be inferred from the surrounding argument (6:14–16) and the Corinth setting.
Why the disagreement exists
Paul uses brief, allusive Scripture language (“come out,” “be separate,” “unclean”) without spelling out the exact scenario, while the immediate context points to compromised loyalty (6:14–16). Because the words are general, interpreters weigh context and background differently when defining who/what must be left and what counts as “unclean.”
What this passage clearly contributes
Explicitly, the passage links separation from what defiles to God’s welcome (“I will receive you”) and to family belonging (“Father… sons and daughters”), under the authority of “the Lord Almighty.” Theologically inferred from that linkage is that holiness is not presented as mere rule-keeping; it is framed as guarding a relationship and identity. The family language also suggests both intimacy and authority: God claims the community, and their distinctness is portrayed as fitting for that claimed status.
