acts of admonition and rebuke a speech act approach to 1 cor

7/22/2019 Acts of Admonition and Rebuke a Speech Act Approach to 1 Cor

1/25

acts of admonition and rebuke 375

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2000 Biblical Interpretation 8, 4

ACTS OF ADMONITION AND REBUKE: A SPEECH ACT

APPROACH TO 1 CORINTHIANS 6:1-11

DIETMAR NEUFELDUniversity of British Columbia

Introduction

If one measure of the greatness of a work of literature is itsability to support many interpretations, then certainly the lettersof Paul must rank among the very greatest of literature, for theyhave spawned and continue to spawnanew every morningnotonly new interpretations of particular passages but entirely newconstructions of their complete thought world.1Daniel Boyarinexaggerates the number of interpretations generated daily of

particular Pauline passages, but there is little doubt that newinterpretations continue to be spawned at a furious rate. The inter-pretation of 1 Cor. 6:1-11 offered here is generated primarily byinsights from speech act theory. As A.C. Thiselton has demon-strated, the application of certain aspects of speech act theory totexts holds hermeneutical promise.2

The rhetorical expressions in 1 Cor. 6:1-11 are to be taken as

particular kinds of speech acts designed to challenge thebehaviour of the Corinthians not in accord with Pauls code ofexpected social behaviour. As Paul sees it, lawsuits in secular courtsare aggressive public challenges put to him that imply a refusal toacknowledge his claim to honorable standing in the communityas their founding father. Paul cannot ignore the challenge becausehe would incur a public loss of facea riposte must be given. He

accepts the challenge and responds in kind by rebuking andadmonishing the congregants. Speech act theory provides ameans of examining what happens when Paul rebukes andadmonishes.3 Clarity about the historical situation will help to

1 Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity(Berkeley: Uni-versity of California Press, 1994), p. 1.

2 Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics(Grand Rapids: Zonder-

van, 1992); Stephen E. Fowl, The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul: An Analysis ofthe Function of the Hymnic Material in the Pauline Corpus(JSNTS, 36; Sheffield: JSOTPress, 1990).

3 For example, what are the basic characteristics of the judicial process in


2/25

dietmar neufeld376

locate the conventions and circumstances that determine the illo-cutionary force of rebuke and admonition. Linguistic commu-nication is governed by extratextual rules, often unspoken and

conventional, that speech act theory examines to determine theconditions that lead to the success or failure of the communicationof meaning. Furthermore, speech act theory supplies the languageand analytic concepts needed to explain when admonition andrebuke fail in their intended result, conditions more compli-cated than simply determining the nature of the problem thatrequired admonition and rebuke. Before proceeding with such

a reading it will be helpful to deal with a few preliminary issues.

The Literary Environment of 1 Corinthians: Language and Genre

It is common to introduce 1 Corinthians by reconstructing thehistorical situation that prompted its writing. While that kind ofreconstruction is extremely important for our understanding of 1

Corinthians generally or 1 Corinthians 6 specifically, here is a casewhere the question of genre and language use must precede thequestions of history, though they are, of course, intimately inter-twined. Although the force of Pauls speech acts is determinedspecifically by the literary/linguistic and historical context inwhich they occur, it will be helpful to begin with the literaryquestion, namely, identifying the epistolary type of 1 Corinthians

according to the literary conventions of antiquity.Many studies of the letter-writing conventions of antiquity havebeen undertaken.4 These studies show that letters are written assubstitutes for oral, face-to-face conversation and presence,

Rome? Is Paul condemning a wave of sexual libertinism in 1 Cor. 5-6, or is he

simply responding to a single case of sexual misconduct? Is the nature of theconflict in Corinth the result of secular practices and attitudes of leadershipinfiltrating the community and provoking members to use secular courts to pro-mote their aspirations to power and influence? Why does Pauls authoritativestatus in the community decline so quickly after his first visit? Do his ways ofspeaking not measure up to standards of Greek and Roman eloquence?

4 See for example, F.X.J. Exler, The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter (Chicago:Ares, 1976); A. Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary Theorists (Atlanta: Scholars Press,1988); W.J. Doty, Letter Writing in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress

Press, 1973); S.K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia:Westminster/John Knox Press, 1986); David E. Aune (ed.), Greco-Roman Literatureand the New Testament(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988); John L. White, Light fromAncient Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986).


3/25


something for which Paul longs.5 Moreover, while letters arewritten for a variety of reasons, Greek and Roman rhetoriciansregard the letter that attempts to maintain family ties and friend-

ship as the most authentic form of correspondence.6For the mostpart, Paul, writing as the respected leader to the communities hehad founded, does not deviate from this pattern. The emotionaltone of his correspondence to the various communities scatteredacross Asia Minor is familial and friendly. He addresses themembers of these communities not only as his equals but also asones over whom he has influence. He refers to the recipients of

his letters with the egalitarian designation of brethren, signifyingthat he has familial ties with them through a common spiritualsource. When he refers to his status as apostle, Paul designatesthe recipients with such terms as saints, called, sanctified,and beloved. He also refers to himself before his recipients asspiritual father, as steward of the household, as mother in labour,and as nurse. These designations are indicative of the respon-

sibility that Paul feels for the spiritual welfare and maturation ofhis fellow congregants.

While this friendly, familial tone characterises almost all of thePauline letters, from time to time it is severe. In Galatians and 2Corinthians, for example, Paul harshly condemns the respectivecommunities for abandoning his gospel and questioning hiscredentials. Generally, most of Pauls letters combine healthy doses

of praise, criticism and blame if the situation warrants it. 1 Co-rinthians follows this pattern by combining praise (

), exhortation/dissuasion, with blame/threat ( ), ad-monition ( ) and rebuke ( ), a commonfeature of letter writing in antiquity. Praise and blame are oftenutilised to maintain and legitimise the social structures of theancient world. For example, Paul makes use of blame to challenge

the acquired social standing of certain members of the congrega-tion.7Praise and blame are employed to point out what is honor-able and shameful and are combined with exhortation/dissuasionwhen habits of behaviour are the focus. Laudable behaviour isencouraged through praise, and shameful habits of behaviour are

5 Cicero describes a letter as a conversation with a friend and as mediating

the presence of an absent friend (Ad Att. 8. 14. 1; Ad Fam. 3. 11. 2).6John L. White, Ancient Greek Letters in Aune (ed.), Greco-Roman Literature,p. 86.

7 Stowers, Letter Writing, p. 77.


4/25

dietmar neufeld378

discouraged through blame or useful criticism. The relationshipof the letter writer to the recipient when bestowing praise is oneeither of superiority, inferiority or equality, depending on whether

praise is intended to flatter, ingratiate, or encourage.8Blame ( ) functions negatively in evaluative speech and

frequently performs an important role in a letter of exhortationthat includes admonition and rebuke. In a letter of blame, theaffiliation between the writer and the recipient is a positive onein which blame is intended to establish reciprocity in a relation-ship. This is especially the case when the recipients benefit from

a generous donation. While the Corinthians do not benefit fromPauline munificence, they nevertheless benefit from Pauls estab-lishment of them; a fact that should have elicited an acknowledg-ment of his standing among them. They continue to be recipientsof the good will and wisdom of Paulthey are the benefactionof his boundless energy. The expressions of admonition andrebuke remind them of Pauls role in their establishment and

the requisite standing such establishment entails.9The word blame is not found in the New Testament, but

sections of 1 Corinthians fall into the types of hortatory blamingfound in paraenetic and protreptic hortatory literature. S.K.Stowers demonstrates that protreptic hortatory literature calls theaddressees to a new and different way of life, and paraenesisadvises and exhorts the recipients to continue in a certain way of

life.10

Paraenetic literature attempts both to persuade membersof a community to conform to a course of action and to dissuadethem from pursuing habits of behaviour not in accord with thelifestyle envisioned by the author.11 The rhetoric of exhortationpresupposes a certain model of behaviour and character that isdesigned to convince members of a community to exhibit habitsof behaviour congruent with the model.12 In order for hortatory

blame to be effective, the relationship between the author and

8 Stowers, Letter Writing, p. 79. See 1 Cor. 2:1-4; 4:8-15.9 Stowers, Letter Writing, p. 87.

10 Stowers, Letter Writing, p. 92. As Stowers points out, these distinctions donot always hold up and have perplexed theoreticians in antiquity. See also

Abraham J. Malherbe, Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman Sourcebook(Philadelphia:Westminster/John Knox Press, 1986), pp. 122-29.

11

For example, using contrasting or antithetical statements, contrastingvirtues and vices, and by providing examples of appropriate character andbehaviour. See Stowers, Letter Writing, pp. 94-96.

12 Stowers, Letter Writing, p. 94.


5/25


the recipients must generally be a positive one. The writer, there-fore, assumes the persona of a wise person, friend, morallysuperior person, or of a concerned father exhorting a child about

his or her habits of behaviour and character. While most commen-tators agree that 1 Corinthians represents a complex mix ofparaenesis and advice (1 Cor. 4:1-4; 6:1-11) it is nevertheless alsoan apologia in which Paul fends off false impressions of him thathave damaged his reputation.

In order to vindicate his name, Paul employs a mild form ofhortatory blame known as admonition. In 1 Cor. 4:14 Paul

reminds the Corinthian community that they are his belovedchildren and then mildly admonishes them for their disunity anddivisive behaviour so as not to shame them. He is constructive inhis criticism so that the recipients are encouraged to behave inconformity with his example.

Paul, however, does not shy away from rebuking, a harsherform of criticism, when the milder or gentler form fails to achieve

its end. Expressions of disapproval or criticism of abhorrentbehaviour or fundamental flaws of character are essential torebuke. Indeed, both admonition and rebuke are based oncarefully weighed opinions about what is proper or improper.

While shame is not essential to admonition, it is to rebuke.Honor and shame are pivotal values of the Mediterranean societyin which Paul and the Corinthian congregation lived and moved.

Both are used as a means of social control. Halvor Moxnes statesthat honor is fundamentally the public recognition of ones socialstanding.13Honor is the value, prestige, and reputation that anindividual claims and that is acknowledged by others.14Honor andshame have currency when the group to which one belongs hasclearly defined standards and values of honor. Those who upholdthe values and standards deemed valuable to the welfare of

community or society are rewarded for the degree to which theyembody those values and standards and disapproved of when theydo not.15Honor serves as an indicator of social standing, which, if

13 Halvor Moxnes, Honor and Shame, in Richard Rohrbaugh (ed.), TheSocial Sciences and New Testament Interpretation(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996)p. 20.

14

Bruce J. Malina, Biblical Social Values and Their Meanings: A Handbook(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), pp.30-33.15 David A. de Silva, Worthy of His Kingdom: Honor Discourse and Social

Engineering in I Thessalonians, JSNT64 (1996), pp. 49-79.


6/25

dietmar neufeld380

lost, has serious consequences for the way in which socialsuperiors, equals, or inferiors interact. Honor can be challengedboth positively and negatively. Not to acknowledge the official

status of a leader (institutional status) is a challenge, which cannotbe ignored, and requires reciprocation. As founding father, Paulhas acquired honor in the Corinthian community that by its verynature may be gained or lost in the struggle for publicrecognition.16 Acquired honor is the result of skill in the never-ending game of challenge and response.17 Acquired status isfragile, contingent upon the acknowledgement and recognition

of that standing by the congregation, and so members of acommunity who are conscious of social class and reputation cantake steps to boost their rank in the community at the expense ofthe other members and of Paul. Paul is fully aware of the ficklenature of power and authority derived from acquired status and,therefore, cannot ignore challenges to his rank in the community.

Moreover, the community at Corinth embodies for Paul a court

of reputation, defined by certain group values from which grantsof honor and censure are bestowed. During Pauls absence,however, the dominant values of the surrounding culture appearto have infiltrated the community to affect the communitys valuesand ideals, including a shift in attitude towards Paul.18 In Paulsbid to defend his acquired position in the congregation, heappeals to a higher court of reputation to challenge the honor of

the community and of individual persons who seek to damage hishonor.19 He argues that the values, attitudes, and commitmentsthat count as valuable status indicators in the old court ofreputation (wisdom/eloquence, power, status, wealth, freedom,etc.) no longer count in the new court of reputation. Accordingto Paul, the spirits demonstrations of power and the wisdom ofthe cross serve not only to invalidate the old values, attitudes and

commitments but also to redefine them.Rebuke and admonition are ripostes calculated to shame the

community. Shame functions as a social sanction that ensures a

16 Moxnes, Honor and Shame, pp. 19-40.17 Bruce J. Malina and R. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic

Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), p. 188; Saul M. Olyan, Honor,Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and its Environment,JBL115

(1996), pp. 210-18. Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from CulturalAnthropology (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993) pp.28-62.18 de Silva, Worthy of His Kingdom, p. 54.19 de Silva, Worthy of His Kingdom, p. 54.


7/25


certain level of performance in accord with a groups (or Pauls)norms; it serves as an element of social control.20Shame, hope-fully, will become the incentive for members of the community to

reconsider what is of significance in the court of Pauls values.21Shaming is effective when the congregants have a basic awarenessof Pauls opinions, show deferential regard for him, and fear hiscensure. The congregants at Corinth, however, appear to beshameless because they disregard Pauls code of expected behav-iour and do not fear his reproach. This, in turn, disgraces Paulhe incurs dishonor with the incremental loss of status it implies.

The Nature of the Relationship between Paul and the Corinthians

Commentators note that the Corinthian congregation is besetby a number of serious problems about which Paul hears. HowPaul learns of the situation in Corinth is difficult to establish.Perhaps a letter from Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, the

Corinthians response to Pauls earlier letter, and the receptionof some oral communication from Chloes people (1 Cor. 1:11)give Paul disturbing information about the difficulties facing thecongregation.22 Paul is compelled to address this situation, butultimately to what end is difficult to determine. Commentators,therefore, offer up a number of different explanations of theepistles purpose. For example, 1 Corinthians is understood as

Paul taking the opportunity to inform or correct his readersbecause of their deficient understanding,23 or to engage inpolemics with opponents disturbing the community, or to write aparaenesis resembling 1 Thessalonians,24 or to quell a wave ofsexual libertinism,25 or to reconcile warring factions within thecongregation.26 There is little doubt that the community is

20 Jerome H. Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew(Louisville, KY:Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1998), p. 30.

21 Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary,pp. 188, 213.22 Gordon O. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1987), p. 9.23 F.W. Grosheide, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans 1953). Gerd Luedemann, Opposition to Paul in Jewish Christianity(trans.M. Eugene Boring; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989).

24 Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament: History and Literature of

Early Christianity(Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980), p. 121.25 Walter Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth: An Investigation of the Letters to theCorinthians (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971) pp. 233, 237.

26 If factionalism is the problem in the Corinthian congregation then Paul is


8/25

dietmar neufeld382

experiencing internal strife perhaps due to divisive factionalism,but the overriding issue in Corinth is one of tension betweenmembers of the congregation and Paul.27The combative tone of

Pauls response suggests general dissension and strife that isprecipitated by negative impressions of him. Some within thecommunity have convinced certain members to accept anti-Pauline views. These anti-Pauline views affect, in Pauls perception,not only his reputation but also the gospel as a whole.28

What may have precipitated the tensions between Paul and thecommunity are far from clear. Recent studies assessing the social

and rhetorical situation in Corinth, though arriving at differentconclusions, shed light on the development of this decidedly anti-Pauline sentiment. After a brief overview of some of these studies,several issues that contributed to the difficulties in Corinth willbe distilled from them and applied.

John K. Chow asserts that the conflict in the Corinthian churchis due to opposition from the wealthy and powerful patrons who

seek to maintain patron-client relationships in the community.While commentators have put forward a number of options thatexplain the causes of the lawsuits between members of thecommunity (incest/adultery/divorce; financial or mercantilematters; fraud or business, etc.), Chow is of the opinion thatcontests over inheritance settlements are at the bottom of thelitigation. The litigants, more interested in material gain than inseeking spiritual maturity, are the socially powerful in the church,the elite patrons who are taking action against clients without theirpermission.29They are engaged in redressing damage and making

responding to their divisions into parties. See William F. Orr and James ArthurWalther ,1 Corinthians(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), pp. 148-49. GordonFee states that the range of scholarly opinion is far broader and more diversehere than for any other issue in the letter. Much of how one views the whole

letter is determined by ones approach to this issue (The First Epistle to theCorinthians, p. 47). Witherington is not convinced that problems between Pauland the Corinthian congregation is the major tension dictating Pauls response.Siding with C.K. Barrett and F.C. Baur, Witherington opts for parties in Corinth(Conflict and Community in Corinth, p. 28). See also J. Munck, Paul and the Salvationof Mankind(ET; London: SCM Press, 1959), especially Chapter 5, The Church

without Factions: Studies in 1 Cor. 1-4; also J.C. Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians(2nd edn; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983).

27 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 8-10.28

This is more or less the position that Fee takes in his commentary, althoughI shall expand the view somewhat beyond Fees.29 John K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth

(JSNTSup, 75; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), pp. 125-27.


9/25


personal gain through litigation.30Paul counters these ambitionsfor gain by protecting the weak and challenging the powerful,while, at the same time, fending off adverse evaluations of his

conduct.31In addition, tensions between Paul and the patrons ofthe community is heightened because of his refusal to take moneyfrom them. This constitutes a violation of the conventions offriendship or patronage and shames the wealthy patrons of thecommunity. They, in turn, impugn Pauls reputation by shaminghim.32

In a similar vein, Peter Marshalls study plays on the themes of

patronage, power, friendship and enmity.33 He reconstructs thesituation in Corinth based on the conventions of friendship,patronage, and enmity of Greco-Roman social life, where thewealthy and power ful do not receive payment for servicesrendered by social equals, but rather receive gifts, permits andhonorsall the marks of the benefits of friendship. Without thebenefits of friendship one cannot take full part in society. Patrons

offer friendship to social inferiors and provide them with gifts thatstore up honor for them, if the recipients are unable to repaythem. Enmity arises when the mutual reciprocity of friendship andpatronage begins to break down if expectations are not met, whichultimately leads the two parties to try to shame each other.Marshall proposes that certain wealthy members of the communityoffer Paul friendship along with a gift. Paul, however, refuses to

accept the gift and their offer of friendship because it implies thathe is their social inferior, whereas he sees them as recipients ofhis benefactionhe has established them and brought the gospelto them.34 In the words of Marshall, the refusal of gifts andservices was a refusal of friendship and dishonored the donor.35

When Paul declines their offer of a gift, they insult him by noting

30

Chow, Patronage and Power, p. 189.31 Chow, Patronage and Power, pp. 167-87; E.A. Judge, The Social Identity ofthe First Christians, Journal of Religious History 1 (1960), pp. 210-17; Judge,Cultural Conformity and Innovation in Paul: Some Clues from ContemporaryDocuments, TynB 35 (1984), pp. 3-24; Judge, The Social Pattern of Early ChristianGroups in the First Century(London: Tyndale House, 1960); Alan C. Mitchell, Richand Poor in the Courts of Corinth: Litigiousness and Status in 1 Corinthians 6:1-11, NTS39 (1993), pp. 563-64.

32 Chow, Patronage and Power, p. 189.33

Peter Marshall, Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Pauls Relations withthe Corinthians(Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1987), pp. 1-69.34 Marshall, Enmity in Corinth,pp. 396-404.35 Marshall, Enmity in Corinth, p. 397.


10/25

dietmar neufeld384

his physical appearance, his lack of status and eloquence, and hisstanding as lowly wage earner. Paul responds by charging themwith empty boasts.36 In such a charged context, patrons of the

community launch challenges in the secular courts of law.In a fascinating assessment of the social and rhetorical situation

of Corinth, S.M. Pogoloff argues that Paul is responding to anexigence of division that is the result of the Corinthians com-petition for status.37The Corinthians are behaving in the mannerof the disciples of ancient sophists by indulging in boasting andpreening as part of their status-seeking conduct.38Their relation-

ship to Paul is shaped by the social norms of the ancient sophists,and, perhaps initially awed by his sophistication and eloquence,they provide Paul the patronage he requires to establish himselfamong them. He may have been invited to speak in the homes ofthese patrons, an invitation designed to bring honor to them. Butwhen Pauls eloquence and wisdom do not measure up, they usecomparative rhetoric to enhance their status and denigrate that

of Pauls. Some of these status conscious members of thecommunity accuse Paul of being an in oral performance(2 Cor. 11:6). Aware of social standing, seeking to gain honorthrough boasting, and desirous of recognition as cultured, wise,well born and power ful, some members of the Corinthian com-munity are led straight into the courts of law.

Antoinette Clark Wires interest in social status and the

Corinthian women prophets prompts a close analysis of Paulinerhetoric in order to reconstruct the opposition in Corinth. Sheeschews the attempt to classify as diverse a text as 1 Corinthiansaccording to the different types of discourse of classical rhetoric(forensic speech, deliberative speech, and epideictic speech),claiming that to classify 1 Corinthians thus may not be fruitful.39

36 Marshall, Enmity in Corinth, pp. 165-237.37 S.M. Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of First Corinthians

(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), p. 273.38 Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia, pp. 273.39 Antoinette Clark Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction

Through Pauls Rhetoric(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), p. 4. In her desire toevaluate the data and reconstruct the views of the women prophets at Corinth,she focuses on the so-called New Rhetoric of C. Perelmann and L. Olbrecht

and uses social models such as Mary Douglass study of trance states and group/grid structure, Victor Turners studies of initiation rituals, and Bruce Malinaswork on challenge/reposte. These models permit her to reconstruct a group bypaying particular attention to the question of how the Corinthians would have


11/25


Wire is sensitive to the key role of the rhetorical situation in whichthe speaker and audience are related as that which shapes theargument at each point.40While this is the audience as seen by

the speaker, the rhetorical situation does nevertheless revealPauls desire to move the audience at Corinth by force ofargument to a course of action.41 In order to persuade theaudience, however, Paul must first engage in a careful assessmentof the audiences needs, desires, and attitudes. Indeed, the greaterthe desire to persuade, the more critical it is for Paul not tomisjudge the audience, especially when the audience may stand

in opposition to him. This suggests for Wire that whatever betraysclear disagreement with Paul probably reflects the views of theopponents. Moreover, whatever Paul says and the way says it is afunction of persuasion. Whatever Paul says about human beings,Corinthians, believers in Christ, women, and prophets is a possibleresource for understanding the women prophets in Corinth.42Atwhatever points Paul is insistent and intense, showing that he is

not merely confirming their agreement but struggling for theirassent, one can assume some different and opposite point of viewin Corinth from the one Paul is stating.43 The rhetoric ofdisagreement allows Wire to engage in a rather extensive mirrorreading to conclude that Paul is probably repressing an earlierform of egalitarian and pneumatic Christianity.

Wire also concludes that the battle in Corinth is about social

status, its loss and gain. Three status indicators, Jew, free, andmale, favor Paul, but his call to preach Christ to the Gentiles hasa definite impact on his social status.44His former past guaranteesthat in wisdom, power, rank, ethnic security, caste, and sex hehad status.45 But now that he preaches Christ crucified asexemplar of Gods paradoxical wisdom, which it appears theCorinthians regard as nonsense, his power, honor and rank have

been severely compromised. To be without wisdom in theCorinthian church meant to be without power, which alsomean[t] his honor in his adopted community of identification was

perceived their social status and Pauls. See also Witherington, Conflict andCommunity in Corinth, pp. 43-48; 55-61.

40 Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, p. 4.41 Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, p. 4.42

Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, p. 8.43 Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, p. 9.44 Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, p. 67.45 Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, p. 67.


12/25

dietmar neufeld386

bankrupt.46Paul perceives himself to have lost status because hisrights as a free person have been curtailed by the Christians slavefreedom in Christ, while the flexible freedom of the Corinthian

women (eating at temples, putting off head covering, supportinga young couple whom Paul considers incestuous, ecstatic speech)are all signals of their new-found status and power. In the wordsof Wire, the Corinthian woman prophet has experienced a surgeof status in wisdom, power, and honor and has reshaped her ethnicidentity, caste, and gender in ways that give her more scope, allat the expense of Paul who has experienced a downward plunge

of status.47In a recent book, Andrew D. Clarke argues that secular modes

and models of leadership in the city of Corinth had influencedthe perceptions and practices of leadership in the Corinthian com-munity. Using epigraphic, numismatic, and literary and secondarysources, Clarke reconstructs what he regards as the organisationalstructure of Corinth, demonstrating that status, patronage and

benefaction, political enmity and oratory were crucial to asuccessful profile of secular, political leadership.48Moving up instatus and the ranks of society was dependent upon benefactionand the cultivation and maintenance of friendships were basedon such benefactions.49Christian leaders, such as Crispus, Gaius,Stephanus, and Erastus, had perhaps bought into secular practicesand notions of leadership and under their influence these views

had infiltrated the Corinthian congregation.50

As a consequence,those of high social standing, the wealthy and powerful membersof the community, were using the secular legal system to elevatetheir own status and reputation in the community at the expenseof Paul.51Moreover, others were boasting in the liberty of incest

46 Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, p. 67.

47 Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets, pp. 65, 75-76. Wire argues that thematters being adjudicated are probably sexual and would have major implicationsfor women and men. Both women and men are experiencing significant changesin their sexual relationships that lead to disputes within the church. Women didnot normally go to court, but their actions may in fact have sparked the dispute,and they may also have played a crucial role in settling the dispute out of court.

48 Andrew D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-His-torical and Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1-6(AGJU, 18; Leiden: Brill, 1993), p.129.

49

Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, p. 166. See also RobinLane Fox, Pagans and Christians (San Francisco: Harper, 1988).50 Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, pp. 41-57.51 Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, pp. 89-106; Review by


13/25


or an incestuous relationship, while still others remained silentabout a sexually immoral relationship because they were boundto the conventions of clients to patron.52

In his consideration of rhetoric during the first century CE,Duane Liftin observes that Athens was a litigious society wherepowerful eloquent speakers gained reputation by having thecapacity to move an audience. Powerful speakers increased inreputation while weak ones suffered defeat and ridicule.53 Inter-esting in this respect is that a grandstanding style of oratory andrhetorical ability often played a critical role in determining the

outcome of a court case. Liftin is of the opinion that some of thegrandstanding associated with powerful oratory in the courtroomhad permeated the Corinthian congregation. Paul criticises thecongregations preoccupation with the eloquence of powerfulspeakers, secular sophia, and prestige and counters these secularaspirations and practices with his own example. He eschews thetechniques of persuasion, artful adaptation, and the shrewd and

ingenious modulations of the rhetor to induce belief in Christ.For Paul the Spirit-powered creation of faith in the saving efficacyof the crucified Christ ... was the persuasive dynamic of thecross.54To avoid usurping the power of the cross, Paul proclaimsthe message, not to persuade but to announce. In the words ofLiftin, Paul does not engage in artful adaptation with a view toengendering belief by rendering the message somehow impressive

and compelling, indeed, irresistible.55

Paul is simply the mes-senger who presents a message that is fixed and unchanged, aconduit through which the message flows.56

Victor Paul Furnish, JBL 114 (1995), pp. 344-46. See also B. Rosner, CorporateResponsibility in 1 Corinthians 5, NTS38 (1992), pp. 470-73. S.C. Barton, PaulsSense of Place: An Anthropological Approach to Community Formationin Corinth, NTS 32 (1986), pp. 225-46. D.B. Martin, Tongues of Angels and

Other Status Indicators, JAAR 59 (1991), pp. 563-69.52 Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, pp. 80-88.53 Duane Liftin, St. Pauls Theology of Proclamation: 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Greco-

Roman Rhetoric (SNTSMS, 79; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).54 Liftin, St. Pauls Theology of Proclamation, p. 247.55 Liftin, St. Pauls Theology of Proclamation, p. 248.56 Liftin, St. Pauls Theology of Proclamation, pp. 247-48. Is Paul simply a pipeline

through which his proclamation passes? Paul appears to be aware of the powerof language to sway the minds of those in Corinth and frames his discourse in

such a manner as to shape the social reality and behaviour of the community. AsElizabeth A. Castelli shows, acts of proclamation are not neutral, self explanatory,or self evident, but active constructors of reality. Paul is not the innocent agentof the Spirit engaging in a simple, straightforward placarding of the cross, as


14/25

dietmar neufeld388

On the basis of these studies, the fractious behaviour, litigiousattitudes, and anti-Pauline sentiments and conduct in Corinth aredue to variety of factors. Secular models of leadership that value

status, patronage, benefaction, and oratory have infiltrated thechurch. Patron-client relationships and the conventions offriendship and enmity have determined how the Corinthiansregard each other and Paul. Contests between the eloquent ofCorinth and Paul, with his amateurish rhetoric, have contributedto his loss of status. Moreover, the new found status in wisdom,power and honor of the Corinthian women has led directly to

Pauls decline in reputation.In 1 Cor. 1:26, Paul states rhetorically, Brothers, think of what

you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise ( )by human standards; not many were influential ( ); notmany were of noble birth ( ). Some within the Corinthiancongregation came no doubt from well-to-do bourgeois circles andsought to maintain social boundaries; others, conscious of the

inconsistency of status sought to improve their standing in areaswhere they had none, while still others, from very poor circlessought to improve their social standing. Perhaps also keenly awareof the standards of rhetoric and Pauls amateurish attempt at it,they felt that they had the right to evaluate Paul and his messageby the same criteria by which popular orators and teachers werejudged. Paul disputed this right and engaged in a vigorous effort

to rebuff their judgements of him.57

He promised to visit the com-munity in Corinth as soon as possible in order to find out howthese arrogant people were talking and what power they had (1Cor. 4:19). In the interim, however, he admonished and re-buked them hoping that the challenge would stimulate a changein their behaviour and attitude towards him (1 Cor. 56).58

Liftin claims. Proclamation is about power and privilege, its gain and its loss,and the power of proclamation plays a constructive role in defining the contoursof social experience. Proclamation, even if viewed as a value-neutral act, is never-theless about the attempt to influence, and influence is about power, the powerof persuasion, not necessarily to manipulate or coerce, but to change attitudes,perceptions and behaviours to match that of the proclaimer (Elizabeth A. Castelli,Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power[Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press,1991], p. 16).

57 Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical

Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 94.58 Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, pp. 35-36; Paul J. Achte-meier, Omne Verbum Sonat: The New Testament and the Oral Environmentof Late Western Antiquity, JBL109 (1990), pp. 3-27.


15/25


Speech Acts of Blame: Rebuke/Judgement and Admonition

Rebuke and admonition serve a useful function herebecause they guard against the propensity of the Corinthians tocontinue in unacceptable practices for which they should be heldaccountable. Implicit within rebuke and admonition is thebelief that some particular behaviour, practice, or attitude isunacceptable and requires change.59 They are effective acts in-tended to change situations in the public domain.60

As such, expressions of admonition and rebuke belong tothe category of speech known as the performative utterance.These are utterances that do not describe something but ratherdo something, or, as J.L. Austin puts it, they have illocutionaryforce.61 Austin explains that in issuing [a]... performative utter-ance we are not stating what act it is, we are showing or makingexplicit what act it is.62Admonition and rebuke are operativespeech acts that make explicit the act of judgement. They revealthat the behaviour of the Corinthians has been judged inap-propriate, that it must cease immediately and be replaced with anappropriate one. Hence, these acts of speech are not merelydescriptive of the actions on which Paul is standing in judgementbut also transformative of the states of affairs they represent.63

Speech acts are also subject to what Austin calls infelicities:

59 The language of the Greek text of 1 Cor. abounds with a number of explicitperformative speech acts ( , 1:4, 14; , 1:10; 4:16;

, 2:1; , 1:17; , 1:23) but, as DonaldEvans has argued, a performative need not be self labelling and explicit. It ispossible to admonish, rebuke/judge without using self-labelling verbs. Evansobserves that once we grant that utterances have a performative force eventhough they do not contain an explicit performative verb, it is reasonable toassume that every utterance is a performative (The Logic of Self-Involvement: APhilosophical Study of EverydayLanguage with Special Reference to the Christian Use ofLanguage about God asCreator[New York: Herder and Herder, 1969], pp. 44-45).

Paul discloses through his attitude and action that his rebuke and admonitionfunction as operative and authentic speech acts to transform the relationshipbetween him and the community (A. Thiselton, Christology in Luke, Speech-

Act Theory, and the Problem of Dualism in Christology after Kant, in Joel B.Green and Max Turner (eds.), Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ [Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1994], pp. 453-72).

60 Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics, p. 17.61 J.L. Austin, Performative Utterances, in A.P. Martinich (ed.), The Philos-

ophy of Language(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 115-24.62

Austin, Performative Utterances, p. 121. See also Austin, How to Do thingswith Words (2nd edn; eds. J.O. Urmson and Marina Sbis; Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 1975), pp. 1-24.

63 Austin, How to do Things with Words, p. 5.


16/25

dietmar neufeld390

the things that can go wrong when speech acts are uttered. Aware-ness of the rules integral to the successful performance of a speechact is important. The truth of an illocutionary act, Austin observes,

is dependent upon the presence of certain conditions in thesocial context of their utterance.64 The condition of infelicityrefers to rules governing a speech act that, if violated, would leadto the failure of a speech act. In addition to the condition ofinfelicities, Austin isolates two other important factors that arehelpful in our analysis of 1 Corinthians: convention and circum-stance.65 Convention is defined by Austin as the existence of an

accepted conventional procedure having a certain effect, that pro-cedure to include the uttering of certain words by certain peoplein circumstances appropriate for the invocation of the particularprocedure invoked.66Circumstanceis defined as a situation wherethe circumstance in a given case must be appropriate for theinvocation of the particular procedure involved.67 A speech actmust conform to a particular convention and circumstance in

order to be what Austin calls happy, that is, for the speech actto come off successfully.

An interesting case in this connection is Pauls urgent entreatythat the people imitate him ( ,

(1 Cor.4:16); (1Cor. 11:1); cf. 1 Thess. 1:6, 2:14; Phil. 3:17). The Corinthianpassages, in particular, enjoin the congregation to enter into a

mimetic relationship with him [Paul] as the model.68

The rhetoricof mimesis is usually taken to represent Pauls desire that thecommunity emulate some laudable ethical standard, or that theCorinthians mimic the behaviour of Paul and his associates. Assuch, mimesis is situated in the piety of imitatio Christi and spiri-tualized, therefore making it a spiritual exercise that elides theissues of social relations and power. Issues of power are re-

inscribed in the notions of authority and of a unifying tradition.Paul attempts to protect the tradition from the incursions of falseteachers within the community by appealing to apostolic authorityand an emerging orthodoxy with which he has aligned himself.The call to imitation, then, does not arise out of self aggrandise-

64 See Austin, Performative Utterances, pp. 122-24.65

Austin, Performative Utterances, pp. 115-124.66 Austin, How to do Things with Words, pp. 14-15, 26.67 Austin, How to do Things with Words, p. 34.68 Castelli, Imitating Paul, p. 16.


17/25


ment, but out of humility and self sacrifice for the community andChrist.

Castelli maintains, however, that the rhetoric of mimesis is a

coercive strategy of power designed as a call to sameness whicherases differences and, at the same time, reinforces the authori-tative status of the model.69Mimesis is about power, ideology andidentity. This powerful rhetorical strategy renders Paul immuneto criticism and requires the self-policing of the hearer; it alsoascribes to Paul a power of authority that is unassailable and putshim forward as the patriarch and founder of the community.70The

patriarchal image is commonly thought to evoke relationships ofmutual reciprocity based on gentleness, deep concern and specialresponsibility. Castelli avers, however, that a paternal figure neednot necessarily evoke images of kindness and gentleness. It mayalso call to mind images of power and privilege that are the resultof coercion and manipulation. In short, the invocation to mimesisis a deliberate strategy on Pauls part to enforce a type of sameness,

unity and harmony that erases differences and reinforces theauthority of the model.71

While I find Castellis contention that Pauls discourse camou-flages a power- bid as a truth claim attractive, is his bid for power/honor successful? The question is how the community would havereceived his request. The request draws its currency from hisstanding as founding father and the reputation it was to have

garnered him.A complex of mutual obligations and responsibilities defines

Pauls social standing as founding father. Paul is obliged to assumethe rights, status, privilege, and duties of the founding father andthe community, in turn, is obliged to treat him as such.72 Asfounding father, his utterance imitate me should have countedas a request for the hearers in Corinth. It institutes a way of

acquiring rights and responsibilities and maintaining them on thebasis of mutual obligations and responsibilities.73Moreover, when

69 Castelli, Imitating Paul, p. 103.70 Castelli, Imitating Paul, p. 32.71 Castelli, Imitating Paul, pp. 97-111.72 Nicholas Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse: Philosophical Reflections on the Claim

that God Speaks(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p. 83.73

In the words of Wolterstorff, the relation is that the speaker [Paul] andaudience [Corinthian community] ought to count it [the request] as thatoughtto acknowledge it [the request] as that in their relations with each other. (Divine

Discourse, p. 84).


18/25

dietmar neufeld392

Paul issues the invitation to mimesis, the standing implied by theinvitation is ascribed to him; that is, the summons endorses Paulsstanding as a figure of honor in the Corinthian congregation. Part

of that standing entails, if the Corinthians comprehend hisrequest, an obligation to imitate him. With the utterance of thatrequest Paul attempts to alter the moral relationship betweenhimself and his fellow Corinthians.

But if the community refuses to submit to his request, they issuea challenge that implies that they no longer recognize his standingof honor among them. The congregants feel themselves free from

the obligations imposed upon them by the speech act; eventhough Paul takes himself at his word, they do not require ofthemselves that Paul be taken at his word.74 In such a situation,the request imitate me would not be successful in its uptake.75

The speech act would also fail if, for example, those who heardthe exhortation to imitate Paul decided, for whatever reason, notto act upon the request. There is no convention in place that

would compel listeners to imitate when they choose not to.76Imitate me presupposes that Paul has the required honor andthe acknowledgement of that honor to demand emulation. Thus,he reminds them of the honorable standing he once had; theyare his beloved children, and that, though they do not have manyfathers or examples from the past to imitate, they now have afather in Paul through the gospel (1 Cor. 4:15).77Paul is acutely

aware that the success of his utterance is contingent upon thecommunity continuing to grant him the prestige he claims onceto have had. But the arrogant attitude of some members of thecommunity towards Paul implies that they refuse to accept theconventional procedure implicit in his call to imitate me (1 Cor.

74 Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse, p. 94.75 Austin, Performative Utterances, p. 117. See Witherington, A Closer

Look: Rhetors, Teachers and Imitation, in Conflict and Community in Corinth, pp.144-150; G.A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Tradition fromAncient to Modern Times(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980),pp. 116-19; E. Fantham, Imitation and Evolution: The Discussion of RhetoricalImitation in Cicero De Oratore2:87-97 and Some Related Problems of CiceronianTheory; Fantham, Imitation and Decline: Rhetorical Theory and Practice inthe First Century after Christ,Classical Philology73 (1978), pp. 1-16, 102-16). B.Sanders, Imitating Paul: 1 Corinthians 4:16 HTR 74 (1981), pp. 353-63.

76

Austin, Performative Utterances, pp. 117-18. See also Thiselton, NewHorizons in Hermeneutics, p. 292. Dietmar Neufeld, Reconceiving Texts as Speech Acts:An Analysis of I John(Leiden: Brill, 1994), pp. 37-49.

77 Thiselton, Christology in Luke, pp. 460-61.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=/0009-837X^281978^2973L.102[aid=1120684]http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/external-references?article=/0009-837X^281978^2973L.1[aid=1120683]


19/25


4:18). A drill sergeant may order a civilian to give me ten butwould not succeed in gaining obedience because the civilian wouldnot recognise the conventional procedure implicit within the

armys chain of command. Similarly, Paul may invite the membersof the community to imitate him but would not succeed in gainingcompliance if they reject the conventional procedure implicitwithin Pauls status as founding father.78 Given the Corinthiansconduct, the invitation appears to have failed and Pauls bid toregain his status is dealt a serious blow. Paul, however, desires tocontinue as apostle and founding father of the congregation

because he believes that, in the long run, it is best for them.This desire is especially evident when Paul tackles the thorny

issue of secular courts (1 Cor. 6:1). Going to secular courts isdetrimental to community life, and it undercuts Pauls honorablestanding in the community. For these reasons, Paul begins withthe rebuke, dare ( ) anyone take a dispute to the secularcourts when there are brothers and sisters in the congregation

perfectly capable of dealing with disputes?79Dare functions as arebuke with the illocutionary force of a directive. The illocutionarypoint consists in the fact that Paul undertakes to transform thehearers world of lawsuits in secular courts. As Searle points out,the attempt to transform the hearers world may be modest orsevere. In 1 Cor. 4:14, for example, Paul admonishes the congre-gation, but reminds them that they are his beloved children and

that, therefore, he has no desire to shame them. Paul advises thecongregation to do something while presupposing that it wouldbe bad for them not to do it.80 His admonition is a gentlereminder of what is proper.

Dare, on the other hand, represents a severe attempt totransform the Corinthians world of lawsuits. Dare as a directive

78 Many scholars point out that the situation between Paul and the Corinthiancongregation had seriously deteriorated since the writing of 1 Corinthians.

Witherington states that Paul must resort to defence and attack in regard to hisown ministry to the Corinthians, (Conflict and Community in Corinth, p. 328). Seealso Margaret M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An ExegeticalInvestigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Philadelphia:

Westminster John Knox Press, 1992).79 Greek (BAGD, dare, have courage, be brave enough, effrontery).80

Daniel Vanderveken, Meaning and Speech Acts. Vol. 1. Principles of LanguageUse(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), p. 197. Also Vanderveken,Meaning and Speech Acts. Vol. 2. Formal Semantics of Success and Satisfaction(Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).


20/25

dietmar neufeld394

intends to bring about the state of affairs the words imply.81Withthe words Do you have the audacity to take it to court before theunrighteous, instead of taking it before the saints? Paul attempts

to commit the hearers to an act of judgement in its appropriatecontext. Paul endeavours to transform the hearers behaviour bydeclaring that true effrontery in dealing with grievances lies notin secular courts but in the court of the community and thewisdom within it. It is to their shame and to his detriment thatthey settle their differences by appointing as judges those whohave no standing in the church.82 Is it perhaps also Pauls hope

that his audacious riposte might provoke the wise in thecommunity to reverse their attitudes towards him and once moreacknowledge publicly his claim to honor? With this dare, Paulendeavours to destroy the honor game of the Corinthians and toreform the honor markers associated with the game, such aswisdom, eloquence, value, and prestige, in his own in-terests.

Searle takes issue with Austin for placing dare in the class ofthe behabitives or expressives, but here is a case where darebelongs to this class. According to Austin, behabitives carry withthem the notion of reaction to other peoples behaviour andfortunes and of attitudes and expressions of attitudes to someoneelses past conduct or imminent conduct.83Austin also points outthat there are obvious connections between describing what ones

feelings are and expressing those feelings.84

Expressives implystrong disapproval of something with the preparatory conditionthat it is bad.85 Indeed, Pauls rebuke of the community is anexpression of strong disapproval of their conduct with thecondition that their behaviour is harmful both for him and thecommunity.

Most commentators argue that expressions of disapproval are

dependent on persuasion or rhetorical argumentation for theirsuccess. For example, Margaret M. Mitchell and Ben WitheringtonIII classify 1 Corinthians as a species of deliberative rhetoric, a

81 Thiselton states, the speaking of words constitutes an act which shapes astate of affairs, provided that certain inter-personal or institutional states of affairsalso hold (New Horizons in Hermeneutics, p. 298).

82 J.R. Searle,Expression and Meaning(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1979), pp. 13-14.83 Austin, How to do Things with Words, p. 160.84 Austin, How to do Things with Words, p. 160.85 Vanderveken, Meaning and Speech Acts, vol. 2, p. 165.


21/25


type of argumentation that urges an audience, either public orprivate, to pursue a particular course of action in the future. 86

Mitchell views the entire epistle as expressing of the central rheto-

rical argument stated in 1 Cor. 1:10:The epistle throughout is an argument for ecclesial unity, as centred in the

, or thesis statement of the argument, in 1:10: I urge you, brothersand sisters, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to all say the samething, and to let there be no factions among you, but to be reconciled inthe same mind and in the same opinion. 87

Likewise, Witherington calls 1:10 the thesis statement (propositio)

of the entire discourse, the statement of the rhetor, followed byarguments to persuade the audience to follow the course of actionthat the rhetor recommends.88

This raises the question of the relationship of rhetoric andpersuasion to the illocutionary and perlocutionary act and of apotential confusion between illocutions and perlocutions inrhetorical approaches. Wolterstorff points out that persuasion is

not an illocutionary act but the effect or consequence of that act.Success in persuading someone is out of the hands of the rhetorin a way in which requesting, asking, admonishing, or rebuking isnot.89 Acts of community persuasion, when brought about byillocutionary acts, are perlocutionary acts. The success of Paulsadmonition and rebuke does not rest upon his ability to convincethe congregants at Corinth that their behaviour is inconsistent

with his vision. Indeed, Pauls acts do not institute the insuringof this effect.90 All that Paul can hope for is that rebuke andadmonition will in and of themselves be effective speech acts andonce so apprehended by the audience persuade them that achange of behaviour is necessary. Wolterstorff comments thatperlocutionary actions occur only if ones auditor apprehends orthinks he or she apprehends an illocutionary action that one has

performed, and only if that apprehension evokes the effect inquestion.91Rebuke and admonition advocate a specific courseof action that Paul considers important, but ultimately, a courseof action upon which the congregants may not embark. If they

86 Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, p. 24.87 Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, p. 1.88

Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, p. 94.89 Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse, p. 33.90 Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse, p. 33.91 Wolterstorff, Divine Discourse, p. 76.


22/25

dietmar neufeld396

fail to apprehended the force of Pauls reprimands they will nothave been convinced to subscribe to his views.92 Rebuke andadmonition, therefore, do not derive their currency from rheto-

rical spectacle and artifice as techniques of persuasion but fromPauls continued honorable standing among the Corinthians.

A similar case may be made for typically translatedas appeal (1Cor. 1:10; 4:13, 16; 14:31; 16:12, 15). Most commen-tators place in the context of the rhetoric ofpersuasion or logical argument and regard it as Paul puttingforward an urgent appeal to persuade the audience of something.

As Thiselton shows, however, is almost always used toconvey a requestbased on a personal, social, or official relationshipbetween the writer and the addressees.93Request is a directivethat derives its currency from the official relationship betweenPaul and the congregation and not from the rhetoric of persuasionand logical argument.

Since the success of Pauls reprimands is not dependent upon

his abilities to induce the congregation to a course of action bymeans of argument, reasoning, or entreaty, he fashions an intra-linguistic contexta speech act circumstance. Paul turns to hisviews of the church as an eschatological community and picks upmotifs from Jewish apocalyptic eschatology. Using these motifs, hecreates a speech-act context apocalyptically defined in which botha convention and an appropriate circumstance permit speech acts

of judgement to come off successfully. The utterance, the saintswill judge the world, cannot succeed unless it is spoken in sucha setting. A convention exists in an eschatological context thatwould permit someone to utter, I judge the world, and succeedin doing sosentence would have been passed on the world. Inlight of such responsibility, continues Paul, Are you not compe-tent to judge trivial cases?94 Do you not know that we will judge

92 Vanderveken, Meaning and Speech Acts, vol. 1, pp. 190-91.93 Thiselton, Speech-Act Theory and 1 Corinthians, unpublished paper pre-

sented for the SBL Biblical Greek Language and Linguistic Section, Philadelphia,1995, p. 7. Carl J. Bjerkelund, Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakal-Stze in den

paulinischen Briefen (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1967), pp. 188-90; cf. pp. 34-58,109-11; Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity, p.78.

94 The apodosis of the conditional in v. 2 reads literally are you not worthy

of the most trifling tribunals? Most commentators translate the sentence as areyou not competent to deal with the pettiest cases? (translation from HansConzelmann, 1 Corinthians [trans. James W. Leitch; Hermeneia; Philadelphia:Fortress Press, 1975], p. 103).


23/25


angelsthen how much more the things of this life (1 Cor. 6:3).95

So once again, Paul issues a riposte that challenges members ofthe congregation to weigh carefully the validity of sentences passed

in the secular courts of law.With this shift from the saints participation in the final

eschatological judgement to the mundane affairs of the com-munity, Paul comes back to the issue at hand. The communityslitigious behaviour has immediate consequences for Paul. Takingeach other to court functions as an act of defiance that under-mines his honorable standing among them. They are, in effect,

using the standards of society to pass judgement on his views. Paulargues, however, that because they are an eschatological commu-nity, judging him in the secular courts will not succeed.96Whengrievances about him arise, the community is to seek out the wiseones among them to make the suitable judgement. With thesewords, Paul enacts the proper procedure the community is toinvoke when trying cases.

Pauls attitudes and actions, implied in the words of admo-nition and rebuke, demonstrate how the members of the com-munity are to judge each other and the suitable context in whichsuch judgement is to take place. Indeed, the members of thecommunity cannot use the decisions of the unrighteous to passjudgement on each other since neither an appropriate circum-stance nor convention exists in the present age that would permit

these acts of judgement to have validity within an eschatologicalcommunity. As Paul reminds them, these are temporal events andnot eschatological ones, therefore the convention to judge saintssuccessfully in the unbelievers world does not exist (1 Cor. 6:5-6).The rhetorical force of the rebuke is how can you proceedseeking judgements in secular courts since such lawsuits become

95

The punctuation up to this point is agreed upon, but with the phrase, notto mention everyday affairs, commentators begin to differ. The NIV, NRSVseparate the phrase from the previous question and make it an exclamationto say nothing of ordinary matters (NRSV). Grammatically the phrase belongsto the question itself. With the phrase Paul begins to move to the more mundaneaffairs of the congregationon these grounds most commentators make theseparation.

96 Wayne Meeks argues that apocalyptic beliefs lent themselves to a widevariety of epistolary uses, two of which were (1) to resist deviant behaviour that

led to disruptions of Christian community, and, (2) to legitimate the leadershipof Paul and his associates against challenges (Social Functions of ApocalypticLanguage, inDavid Helholm (ed.), Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World andthe Near East [Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1989], pp. 687-705).


24/25

dietmar neufeld398

trivial when seen in the context of eschatological judgement?That is why Paul asserts that for him it is a small thing that they,or any human court, should judge him, since the judgement

cannot stand or be accepted as legitimate. He does not even judgehimself because he is not aware of anything against him thatrequires judgement, although he acknowledges that this does notacquit him from the verdict of the final court.

In the ongoing struggle to defend his achieved standing and itspublic recognition, Paul uses speech acts that function in a settingwhere institutional roles and situational contexts render them per-

formative speech acts.97 In other words, rebuke becomes per-formative when the person doing the rebuking has the requisitecommunal status to do so.98In the interminable game of push andshove, the rebuke is intended to shame the members of the com-munity ( , 1 Cor. 6:5).99No doubt, Paul expects that theshame engendered by the rebuke will provoke the Corinthians toaccept his challenge and respond to him favourably. The tone of

1 Corinthians and especially that of 2 Corinthians suggests, how-ever, that the community had not apprehended the force of Paulsreprimands and thus, had not abandoned conventional definitionsof honor, typical ways of achieving it, and the public forum forgaining it.100

Conclusions

I have argued throughout this essay that the main problemfacing Paul in Corinth was his relationship to the community. Theissue was a crisis of authority on account of his loss of status. Hewrote to the community not as their respected and reveredleaderperhaps the acquired status he had as their foundingfatherbut as one whose reputation had taken a beating. Paul

was aware that without first dealing with the issue of reputation,the community would not acknowledge that he be taken at hisword. Paul could not begin addressing the problems about whichhe had heard if they refused to acknowledge his status as foundingfather. Faced with the question of how best to address the problemof his institutional status and resolve it, Paul used speech acts of

97

Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics, p. 299.98 Thiselton, Christology in Luke, pp. 460-61.99 Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics, p. 291.

100 Neyrey, Honor and Shame, p. 227.


25/25


admonition and rebuke with the illocutionary force of the directiveand expressive to provoke a transformation of conduct.101

Abstract

This paper attempts a reading of 1 Cor. 6:1-11 primarily from the perspectiveof speech act theory. The approach, however, will be augmented by insightsfrom a variety of methodological perspectives. The conclusions of social scien-tists about honor-shame and patron-client relationships will permit conclusionsabout Pauls loss of institutional status. Determining the language and genre of1 Corinthians and locating it in the context of exhortation, paraenesis andapologia is also useful. Ascertaining the social structure of the congregation in

Corinth, as based on various sociological studies, permits the conclusion thatsecular models of leadership had infiltrated the congregation. Status-consciousmembers of the congregation were seeking to enhance their reputation in thecommunity by taking each other to secular courts. Lawsuits were, in effect, socialcompetitions for incremental increases in prestige through the game of chal-lenge and riposte. Collectively, the litigious behaviour of the congregants alsorepresented an aggressive public challenge that damaged Pauls achieved honoras founding father. In order to regain his status in the community and have itpublicly recognised, Paul engaged in retaliatory verbal sallieshe rebuked and

admonished them.

101 Alexandra R. Brown, Seized by the Cross: The Death of Jesus in PaulsTransformative Discourse (SBL Seminar Papers Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993),pp. 740-55.