[B-Greek] 1Cor. 6:11 change of state

Yancy Smith yancywsmith at sbcglobal.net
Tue Feb 16 20:13:10 EST 2010


Text:
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. 

Elizabeth said:
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.

[Yancy Smith] Why can't a state of affairs that appears to be so or is assumed to be so serve as a ground for an argument? APELOUSASQE, ALLA hHGIASQHTE, ALLA EDIKAIWQHTE is language that represents a fairly common habilitation process for being joined to or becoming part of a holy NAOS. Let's just suppose that this language is based upon the ceremonial process the image of a god would pass through to become a representative of a god in Corinth: washing, setting apart, and an official determination and infilling by the fiery spirit of the god so that the name of the god would fit the image.  The whole thing, of course is metaphorical. In the language and thought commonly associated with NAOI, both implements and integrants must usually go through some process of habilitation in such cases to pass from the common sphere to the sphere of the holy. However, violating the sanctity of that habilitation--the ANAQHMATA, NAOS, hHAGIOI--was possible, and was also punishable by gods and humans. I, like you, do not think that a discussion of baptism is necessary to understand the point of Paul's language here. The force of the argument is the incongruity between their status (assumed at this point to be real until they might be deemed--DIKAIOUSQAI--to no longer be a fit or DOKIMOI to represent God), a status Paul preached and that the Corinthians accepted and God approved and the sad state of--at least some--of his audience to live up to the accepted standard of behavior/holiness implied by that status. 

Elizabeth said:
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. 

[Yancy Smith] Exactly, Paul's message is that the audience are living contrary to expectation. This motif is found woven into the entire epistle. So, I cannot help but see a note of irony here, but it does not have to be sarcastic irony. Irony involves the interpretive use of quotatables, gradations of skewing and mismatch between observables and language about them. I don't really know exactly how to slice and dice Paul's audience and don't really think it necessary to do so to get at his logic, because his logic concerns fairly common topoi in the Hellenistic world. The Corinthians are assumed to be God's option in Corinth, a city with many NAOI, all representing the dwelling place of various gods. The Corinthian community itself is the NAOS of Jesus Christ, but some of them are behaving in such a way that belies their affiliation with Christ in ethical terms.

In fact, I think a good case can be made for the use of a fairly thick irony in many places in 1 Cor. For example, there is evident irony in the transition from 2:16 about how Paul's gospel makes sense only to those who are spiritual. The climax of the section is is "We have the mind of Christ" to 3:1-9 where clearly the Corinthians are not spiritual. Are they or are they not? Well...  1 Cor 4:8-13 where Paul uses irony to contrast the "richness" of the Corinthians with the "wretchedness" of the apostles. 1 Cor 4:8 is evident irony that cannot be taken at face value. 1 Cor 6:2 is quite ironic, in v. 5 Paul admits as much because he gives his motive: to shame the Corinthians. In 6:12-14 Paul directly attacks the justifications some of the Corinthians are making for their sexual sin, viz, spiritual people don't have to worry about what they do with their bodies if what they do is done with the proper equinanimous attitude.

Elizabeth said:
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.

[Yancy Smith] 
I think that you are right on about Paul's position, "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." But Paul is dealing with people who, ostensibly, have had the experience but are choosing to not live in harmony with it, from his point of view, partly because they reason that what they do with their bodies has nothing really to do with what they do with their spiritual selves. For Paul the Jewish Christian this is hypocrisy. For the Corinthians Christians it is spiritual philosophy.

Blessings,
Yancy




More information about the B-Greek mailing list