[B-Greek] 1Cor. 6:11 change of state
Elizabeth Kline
kline_dekooning at earthlink.net
Tue Feb 16 14:18:10 EST 2010
On Feb 15, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Yancy Smith wrote:
> [Yancy Smith] It seems to me that the logic has to do with the option Paul can exercise at any time to draw attention to the difference between appearance- assumption and reality. The power of arguing from appearances and previously accepted premises when the reality is clearly at variance with both is that the audience may sense the dissonance and attempt to correct it, allowing the speaker to maintain a polite stance. But the speaker may strong-arm the audience and abandon the polite tone at will, pointing out the clear deficiency he/she wants to correct. Paul had already done this in v. 7. A slightly lighter touch in seen in v. 11. Cp. this with 2 Cor. 13:5
> Ἑαυτοὺς πειράζετε εἰ ἐστὲ ἐν τῇ πίστει, ἑαυτοὺς δοκιμάζετε· ἢ οὐκ ἐπιγινώσκετε ἑαυτοὺς ὅτι Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν; εἰ μήτι ἀδόκιμοί ἐστε.
> hEAUTOUS PEIRAZETE EI ESTE EN THi PISTEI, hEAUTOUS DOKIMAZETE: H OUK EPIGINWSKETE hEAUTOUS hOTI IHSOUS CRISTOS EN hUMIN; EI MHTI ADOKIMOI ESTE.
>
1Cor. 6:11 καὶ ταῦτά τινες ἦτε· ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν.
.
1Cor. 6:11 KAI TAUTA TINES HTE· ALLA APELOUSASQE, ALLA hHGIASQHTE, ALLA EDIKAIWQHTE EN TWi ONOMATI TOU KURIOU IHSOU CRISTOU KAI EN TWi PNEUMATI TOU QEOU hHMWN.
Yancy,
Perhaps I am missing your point. Are you suggesting that ALLA APELOUSASQE ... represents a sarcastic (ironic) reference to a contrary-to-fact state of affairs? That Paul is appearing to affirm what he does not in fact affirm?
It seems to me that three fold assertion ALLA APELOUSASQE ... does not represent an appearance- assumption, rather an affirmation which Paul is using as the ground for his argument. The contrast between TAUTA TINES HTE and ALLA APELOUSASQE ... is the framework for Paul's attack on their current behavior. The contradiction, APELOUSASQE but are not clean, hHGIASQHTE but are defiling God's temple:
1Cor. 3:16 Οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστε καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν; 17 εἴ τις τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ φθείρει, φθερεῖ τοῦτον ὁ θεός· ὁ γὰρ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἅγιός ἐστιν, οἵτινές ἐστε ὑμεῖς.
1Cor. 3:16 OUK OIDATE hOTI NAOS QEOU ESTE KAI TO PNEUMA TOU QEOU OIKEI EN hUMIN; 17 EI TIS TON NAON TOU QEOU FQEIREI, FQEREI TOUTON hO QEOS· hO GAR NAOS TOU QEOU hAGIOS ESTIN, hOITINES ESTE hUMEIS.
If we read ALLA APELOUSASQE ... as an affirmation, not as irony, and if we assume that addressees are not the antagonistic antinomian element at Corinth, but those whom Paul is trying to rescue from antinomianism, then we are still faced with a conundrum: APELOUSASQE but are not clean. Of the tree affirmations I picked this one because it represents more than the others a seemingly impossible state of affairs. I agree with Fee (1Cor 1987) that APELOUSASQE is not a reference to baptism, I don't want to discuss that either on or off list. APELOUSASQE in my thinking has immediate existential implications, it isn't some abstract theological state of affairs which has no visible manifestation in the life and behavior. So it seems a problem of some significance that Paul could affirm on one hand to his addressees APELOUSASQE and on the other hand castigate them for behavior that contradicts the affirmation.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Kline
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list