1 cor 6.1-11 - admonition and rebuke

7/28/2019 1 Cor 6.1-11 - Admonition and Rebuke

1/26

ACTS OF ADMONITION AND REBUKE: A SPEECH ACTAPPROACH TO 1 CORINTHIANS 6:1-11

DIETMAR NEUFELD

University ofBrtish 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."1 Daniel Boyarnexaggerates the number of interpretations generated daily ofparticular Pauline passages, but there is little doubt that new

interpretations continue to be spawned at a furious rate. The interpretation of 1 Cor. 6:1-11 offered here is generated primarily byinsights from speech act theory. As A.C. Thiselton has demonstrated, 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 asparticular kinds of speech acts designed to challenge thebehaviour of the Corinthians not in accord with Paul's code of

expected 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. Heaccepts the challenge and responds in kind by "rebuking" and"admonishing" the congregants. Speech act theory provides ameans of examining what happens when Paul "rebukes" and"admonishes."3 Clarity about the historical situation will help to

1 Daniel Boyarn, A RadicalJew: Paul andthe Politics of Identity (Berkeley: Uni


2/26

376 DIETMAR NEUFELD

locate the conventions and circumstances that determine the illo-cutionary force of "rebuke" and "admonition." Linguistic communication is governed by extratextual rules, often unspoken andconventional, 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" and"rebuke" fail in their intended result, conditions more complicated 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 the

historical situation that prompted its writing. While that kind of

reconstruction is extremely important for our understanding of 1

Corinthians generally or 1 Corinthians 6 specifically, here is a case

where the question of genre and language use must precede thequestions of history, though they are, of course, intimately inter

twined. Although the force of Paul's speech acts is determined

specifically by the literary/linguistic and historical context in

which they occur, it will be helpful to begin with the literary

question, namely, identifying the epistolary type of 1 Corinthians

according to the literary conventions of antiquity.

Many studies of the letter-writing conventions of antiquity have

been 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 hesimply 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 promote their aspirations to power and influence? Why does Paul's authoritative

status 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.XJ. Exler, The Form ofthe AncientGreekLetter(Chicago:


3/26

ACTS OF ADMONITION AND REBUKE 377

something for which Paul longs.5

Moreover, while letters are

written for a variety of reasons, Greek and Roman rhetoricians

regard the letter that attempts to maintain family ties and friendship as the most authentic form ofcorrespondence.

6For the most

part, Paul, writing as the respected leader to the communities he

had founded, does not deviate from this pattern. The emotional

tone of his correspondence to the various communities scattered

across Asia Minor is familial and friendly. He addresses themembers of these communities not only as his equals but also as

ones 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 spiritual

source. When he refers to his status as apostle, Paul designates

the recipients with such terms as "saints," "called," "sanctified,"

and "beloved." He also refers to himself before his recipients as

spiritual 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 of

his fellow congregants.While this friendly, familial tone characterises almost all of the

Pauline letters, from time to time it is severe. In Galatians and 2

Corinthians, for example, Paul harshly condemns the respective

communities for abandoning his gospel and questioning his

credentials. Generally, most of Paul's 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 (), admonition () and rebuke (), a common

feature of letter writing in antiquity. Praise and blame are often

utilised to maintain and legitimise the social structures of the

ancient world. For example, Paul makes use of blame to challenge

the acquired social standing of certain members of the congrega

tion.7

Praise and blame are employed to point out what is honor

able and shameful and are combined with exhortation/dissuasion

when habits of behaviour are the focus. Laudable behaviour is

^ encouraged through praise, and shameful habits of behaviour are


4/26

378 DIETMAR NEUFELD

discouraged through blame or useful criticism. The relationship

of the letter writer to the recipient when bestowing praise is one

eitherof superiority, inferiority or equality, depending on whetherpraise is intended to flatter, ingratiate, or encourage.

8

Blame () functions negatively in evaluative speech and

frequently performs an important role in a letter of exhortation

that includes "admonition" and "rebuke." In a letter ofblame, the

affiliation between the writer and the recipient is a positive one

in 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 Paul's estab

lishment of them; a fact that should have elicited an acknowledg

ment of his standing among them. They continue to be recipients

of the good will and wisdom of Paulthey are the benefactionof his boundless energy. The expressions of "admonition" and

"rebuke" remind them of Paul's role in their establishment and

the requisite standing such establishment entails.9

The word "blame" is not found in the New Testament, butsections of 1 Corinthians fall into the types of hortatory blaming

found in paraenetic and protreptic hortatory literature. S.K.

Stowers demonstrates that protreptic hortatory literature calls the

addressees to a new and different way of life, and paraenesis

advises and exhorts the recipients to continue in a certain way of

life.10

Paraenetic literature attempts both to persuade members

of a community to conform to a course of action and to dissuade

them from pursuing habits of behaviour not in accord with the

lifestyle envisioned by the author.11

The rhetoric of exhortation

presupposes a certain model of behaviour and character that is

designed to convince members of a community to exhibit habits

of behaviour congruent with the model.12

In order for hortatory

blame to be effective, the relationship between the author and

8Stowers, Letter"Writing, p. 79. See 1 Cor. 2:1-4; 4:8-15.

9Stowers, LetterWriting, p. 87.

10 Stowers, LetterWriting, p. 92. As Stowers points out, these distinctions donot always hold up and have perplexed theoreticians in antiquity. See alsoAb h J M lh b M l E h i A G R S b k (Phil d l hi


5/26


the recipients must generally be a positive one. The writer, there

fore, assumes the persona of a wise person, friend, morally

superior person, or of a concerned father exhorting a child abouthis or her habits of behaviour and character. While most commen

tators agree that 1 Corinthians represents a complex mix of

paraenesis and advice (1 Cor. 4:1-4; 6:1-11) it is nevertheless also

an apologia in which Paul fends off false impressions of him that

have damaged his reputation.

In order to vindicate his name, Paul employs a mild form of

hortatory 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 and

divisive behaviour so as not to shame them. He is constructive in

his criticism so that the recipients are encouraged to behave in

conformity with his example.

Paul, however, does not shy away from "rebuking," a harsher

form of criticism, when the milder or gentler form fails to achieve

its end. Expressions of disapproval or criticism of abhorrent

behaviour or fundamental flaws of character are essential torebuke. Indeed, both "admonition" and "rebuke" are based on

carefully 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 society

in which Paul and the Corinthian congregation lived and moved.

Both are used as a means of social control. Halvor Moxnes states

that "honor is fundamentally the public recognition of one's social

standing."

13

Honor is the value, prestige, and reputation that anindividual claims and that is acknowledged by others.14 Honor and

shame have currency when the group to which one belongs has

clearly defined standards and values of honor. Those who uphold

the values and standards deemed valuable to the welfare of

community or society are rewarded for the degree to which they

embody those values and standards and disapproved of when they

do not.15 Honor serves as an indicator of social standing, which, if

13 Halvor Moxnes, "Honor and Shame," in Richard Rohrbaugh (ed.), The


6/26

380 DIETMAR NEUFELD

lost, has serious consequences for the way in which social

superiors, equals, or inferiors interact. Honor can be challenged

both positively and negatively. Not to acknowledge the officialstatus of a leader (institutional status) is a challenge, which cannot

be ignored, and requires reciprocation. As founding father, Paul

has acquired honor in the Corinthian community that by its very

nature may be gained or lost in the struggle for public

recognition.16 Acquired honor is the result of skill in the never-

ending game of challenge and response.17 Acquired status is

fragile, 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 can

take steps to boost their rank in the community at the expense of

the other members and of Paul. Paul is fully aware of the fickle

nature 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 grants

of honor and censure are bestowed. During Paul's absence,however, the dominant values of the surrounding culture appear

to have infiltrated the community to affect the community's values

and ideals, including a shift in attitude towards Paul.18 In Paul's

bid to defend his acquired position in the congregation, he

appeals to a higher court of reputation to challenge the honor of

the community and of individual persons who seek to damage his

honor.19 He argues that the values, attitudes, and commitments

that 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. According

to Paul, the spirit's demonstrations of power and the wisdom of

the 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 Synopti


7/26


certain level of performance in accord with a groups (or Paul's)

norms; it serves as an element of social control."20 Shame, hope

fully, will become the incentive for members of the community to

reconsider what is of significance in the "court of Paul's values."21

Shaming is effective when the congregants have a basic awareness

of Paul's opinions, show deferential regard for him, and fear his

censure. The congregants at Corinth, however, appear to be

shameless because they disregard Paul's code of expected behav

iour and do not fear his reproach. This, in turn, disgraces Paul

he incurs dishonor with the incremental loss of status it implies.

The Nature ofthe Relationship between Paul and the Corinthians

Commentators note that the Corinthian congregation is beset

by a number of serious problems about which Paul hears. How

Paul learns of the situation in Corinth is difficult to establish.

Perhaps a letter from Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, the

Corinthians' response to Paul's earlier letter, and the reception

of some oral communication from Chloe's people (1 Cor. 1:11)give Paul disturbing information about the difficulties facing the

congregation.22

Paul is compelled to address this situation, but

ultimately to what end is difficult to determine. Commentators,

therefore, offer up a number of different explanations of the

epistle's purpose. For example, 1 Corinthians is understood as

Paul taking the opportunity to inform or correct his readers

because of their deficient understanding,23

or to engage in

polemics with opponents disturbing the community, or to write aparaenesis resembling 1 Thessalonians,

24or to quell a wave of

sexual libertinism,25

or to reconcile warring factions within the

congregation.26

There is little doubt that the community is

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

21Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary, pp. 188, 213.

22Gordon O. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGNT; Grand Rapids:

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

Eerdmans 1953) Gerd Luedemann Opposition to Paul inJewish Christianity (trans


8/26

382 DIETMAR NEUFELD

experiencing internal strife perhaps due to divisive factionalism,but the overriding issue in Corinth is one of tension between

members of the congregation and Paul.27 The combative tone ofPaul's 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 Paul's 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 whoseek 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.29 They 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 wholeletter is determined by one's 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 Paul's response.Siding with CK. Barrett and F.C. Baur, Witherington opts for "parties in Corinth"(Conflict andCommunity in Corinth, p. 28). See also J. Munck, Paul andthe Salvationof Mankind (ET; London: SCM Press, 1959), especially Chapter 5, "The Churchwithout Factions: Studies in 1 Cor. 1-4"; alsoJ.C. Hurd, The Origin of1 Corinthians


9/26


personal gain through litigation.30 Paul counters these ambitions

for gain by protecting the weak and challenging the powerful,

while, at the same time, fending off adverse evaluations of hisconduct.31 In addition, tensions between Paul and the patrons of

the community is heightened because of his refusal to take money

from them. This constitutes a violation of the conventions of

friendship or patronage and shames the wealthy patrons of the

community. They, in turn, impugn Paul's reputation by shaming

him.32

In a similar vein, Peter Marshall's 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 the

wealthy and powerful do not receive payment for services

rendered by social equals, but rather receive gifts, permits and

honorsall the marks of the benefits of friendship. Without the

benefits of friendship one cannot take full part in society. Patrons

offer friendship to social inferiors and provide them with gifts that

store up honor for them, if the recipients are unable to repaythem. Enmity arises when the mutual reciprocity of friendship and

patronage begins to break down if expectations are not met, which

ultimately leads the two parties to try to shame each other.

Marshall proposes that certain wealthy members of the community

offer Paul friendship along with a gift. Paul, however, refuses to

accept the gift and their offer of friendship because it implies that

he is their social inferior, whereas he sees them as recipients of

his benefactionhe has established them and brought the gospel

to them.34 In the words of Marshall, "the refusal of gifts and

services was a refusal of friendship and dishonored the donor."35

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

30Chow, Patronage andPower, p. 189.

31 Chow, Patronage andPower, pp. 167-87; E.A. Judge, "The Social Identity ofthe First Christians," Journal ofReligious 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 " S 39 (1993) 563 64


10/26

384 DIETMAR NEUFELD

his physical appearance, his lack of status and eloquence, and his

standing as lowly wage earner. Paul responds by charging them

with empty boasts.36 In such a charged context, patrons of thecommunity 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 respo nding to an

"exigence of division" that is the result of the Corinthian's com

petition for status.37

The Corinthians are behaving in the manner

of the disciples of ancient sophists by indulging in boasting and

preening as part of their status-seeking conduct.38

Their 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 himself

among them. He may have been invited to speak in the homes of

these patrons, an invitation designed to bring honor to them. But

when Paul's eloquence and wisdom do not measure up, they use

comparative rhetoric to enhance their status and denigrate that

of Paul's. Some of these status conscious members of the

community accuse Paul of being an in oral performance(2 Cor. 11:6). Aware of social standing, seeking to gain honor

through boasting, and desirous of recognition as cultured, wise,

well born and powerful, some members of the Corinthian com

munity are led straight into the courts of law.

Antoinette Clark Wire's interest in socia l status and the

Corinthian women prophets prompts a close analysis of Pauline

rhetoric in order to reconstruct the opposition in Corinth. She

eschews the attempt to classify as diverse a text as 1 Corinthians

according to the different types of discourse of classical rhetoric

(forensic speec h, deliberative sp eech , and e pideictic spee ch ),

claiming that to classify 1 Corinthians thus may not be fruitful.39

3 6

Marshall, Enmity in Corinth, pp. 165-237.3 7

S.M. Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia: The Rhetorical Situation of First Corinthians

(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), p. 273.3 8

Pogoloff, Logos and Sophia, pp. 273.3 9 Antoinette Clark Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction

Through Paul's Rhetoric (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), p. 4. In her desire to

l t th d t d t t th i f th h t t C i th


11/26


Wire is sensitive to the "key role of the rhetorical situation in which

the speaker and audience are related as that which shapes the

argument at each point."40 While "this is the audience as seen bythe speaker," the rhetorical situation does nevertheless reveal

Paul's desire to move the audience at Corinth by force of

argument to a course of action.41

In order to persuade the

audience, however, Paul must first engage in a careful assessment

of the audience's needs, desires, and attitudes. Indeed, the greater

the desire to persuade, the more critical it is for Paul not to

misjudge 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 the

opponents. Moreover, whatever Paul says and the way says it is a

function of persuasion. Whatever Paul says about human beings,

Corinthians, believers in Christ, women, and prophets is a possible

resource for understanding the women prophets in Corinth.42

At

whatever points Paul is "insistent and intense, showing that he is

not merely confirming their agreement but struggling for their

assent, one can assume some different and opposite point of viewin Corinth from the one Paul is stating."43 The rhetoric of

disagreement allows Wire to engage in a rather extensive mirror

reading to conclude that Paul is probably repressing an earlier

form 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, and

male, favor Paul, but his call to preach Christ to the Gentiles has

a definite impact on his social status.

44

His former past guaranteesthat in "wisdom, power, rank, ethnic security, caste, and sex he

had status."45 But now that he preaches Christ crucified as

exemplar of God's paradoxical wisdom, which it appears the

Corinthians regard as nonsense, his power, honor and rank have

been severely compromised. To be without wisdom in the

Corinthian church meant to be without power, "which also

mean[t] his honor in his adopted community of identification was

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


12/26

386 DIETMAR NEUFELD

bankrupt."46 Paul perceives himself to have lost status because his

rights as a free person have been curtailed by the Christian's slave

freedom in Christ, while the flexible freedom of the Corinthianwomen (eating at temples, putting off head covering, supporting

a young couple whom Paul considers incestuous, ecstatic speech)

are all signals of their new-found status and power. In the words

of Wire, "the Corinthian woman prophet has experienced a surge

of status in wisdom, power, and honor and has reshaped her ethnic

identity, caste, and gender in ways that give her more scope," all

at the expense of Paul who has experienced a downward plunge

of status.47

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

and models of leadership in the city of Corinth had influenced

the perceptions and practices of leadership in the Corinthian com

munity. Using epigraphic, numismatic, and literary and secondary

sources, Clarke reconstructs what he regards as the organisational

structure of Corinth, demonstrating that "status, patronage and

benefaction, political enmity and oratory were crucial to a

successful profile of secular, political leadership."

48

Moving up instatus and the ranks of society was dependent upon benefaction

and the cultivation and maintenance of friendships were based

on such benefactions.49 Christian leaders, such as Crispus, Gaius,

Stephanus, and Erastus, had perhaps bought into secular practices

and 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 members

of the community, were using the secular legal system to elevate

their own status and reputation in the community at the expense

of Paul.51 Moreover, others were boasting in the liberty of incest

46Wire, 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-i l d E i l S d f 1 C i hi 1 6 (AGJU 18 L id B ill 1993)


13/26


or an incestuous relationship, while still others remained silent

about a sexually immoral relationship because they were bound

to 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 where

powerful eloquent speakers gained reputation by having the

capacity to move an audience. Powerful speakers increased in

reputation while weak ones suffered defeat and ridicule.53

Inter

esting in this respect is that a "grandstanding" style of oratory and

rhetorical 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 courtroom

had permeated the Corinthian congregation. Paul criticises the

congregation's preoccupation with the eloquence of powerful

speakers, secular sophia, and prestige and counters these secular

aspirations and practices with his own example. He eschews the

techniques 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."54 To avoid "usurping the power of the cross," Paul proclaims

the message, not to persuade but to announce. In the words of

Liftin, Paul does not engage in "artful adaptation with a view to

engendering beliefby 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," a

conduit through which the message flows.56

Victor Paul Furnish, JBL 114 (1995), pp. 344-46. See also B. Rosner, "CorporateResponsibility in 1 Corinthians 5," NTS 38(1992), pp. 470-73. S.C. Barton, "Paul'sSense of Place: An Anthropological Approach to Community Formationin Corinth," NTS 32 (1986), pp. 225-46. D.B. Martin, "Tongues of Angels andOther Status Indicators," JAAR 59 (1991), pp. 563-69.

52 Clarke, Secular andChristian Leadership in Corinth, pp. 80-88.53 Duane Liftin, St. Paul's Theology ofProclamation: 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Greco-

Roman Rhetoric (SNTSMS, 79; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).54

Liftin, St. Paul's Theology of Proclamation, p. 247.55 Liftin, St. Paul's Theology of Proclamation, p. 248.56

Liftin St Paul's Theology ofProclamation pp 247-48 Is Paul simply a pipeline


14/26

388 DIETMAR NEUFELD

On the basis of these studies, the fractious behaviour, litigious

attitudes, and anti-Pauline sentiments and conduct in Corinth are

due to variety of factors. Secular models of leadership that value

status, patronage, benefaction, and oratory have infiltrated the

church. Patron-client relationships and the conventions of

friendship and enmity have determined how the Corinthians

regard each other and Paul. Contests between the eloquent of

Corinth and Paul, with his amateurish rhetoric, have contributed

to his loss of status. Moreover, the new found status in wisdom,

power and honor of the Corinthian women has led directly to

Paul's 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 (); not

many were of noble birth ()." Some within the Corinthian

congregation came no doubt from well-to-do bourgeois circles and

sought to maintain social boundaries; others, conscious of the

inconsistency of status sought to improve their standing in areas

where they had none, while still others, from very poor circlessought to improve their social standing. Perhaps also keenly aware

of the standards of rhetoric and Paul's amateurish attempt at it,

they felt that they had the right to evaluate Paul and his message

by the same criteria by which popular orators and teachers were

judged. Paul disputed this right and engaged in a vigorous effort

to rebuff theirjudgements of him.57

He promised to visit the community in Corinth as soon as possible in order to find out how

these 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 change

in their behaviour and attitude towards him (1 Cor. 5-6) ,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 ifviewed as a value-neutral act, is nevertheless 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 ofPower[Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press,


15/26

ACTS OF ADMO NITI ON AND REBUKE 389

Speech Acts of Blame: Rebuke/Judgement and Admonition

"Rebuke" and "admonition" serve a useful fun ctio n h er ebecause they guard against the propensity of the Corinthians to

continue in unacceptable practices for which they should be held

accounta ble. Implicit within "reb uke " and "a dmo nit ion " is the

belief that some particular behaviour, practice, or attitude is

unacceptable and requires change.5 9

They are effective acts in

tended to change situations in the public domain.6 0

As such, expressions of "admonition" and "rebuke" belong to

the category of speech known as the performative utterance.These are utterances that do not describe something but rather

do so me th ing, or, as J.L. Austin puts it, they have illocut iona ry

force.6 1

Austin explains that "in issuing [a]... performative utter

ance we are not stating what act it is, we are showing or making

explicit what act it is."62

"Admonition" and "rebuke" are operative

spe ech acts th at ma ke explicit the act of ju dg eme nt . They reveal

that the beha viour of th e Cori nth ians has be en ju dg ed inap

propriate, that it must cease immediately and be replaced with an

app rop ria te one . He nc e, these acts of speech are no t merely

descriptive of the actions on which Paul is standing in judgement

but also transformative of the states of affairs they represent.6 3

Speech acts are also subject to what Austin calls "infelicities":

59The language ofthe Greektext of1 Cor. abounds with a numberofexplicit

performative speech acts (, 1:4, 14; , 1:10; 4:16;, 2:1; ', 1:17; , 1:23) but, as Donald

Evans 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 ofSelf-Involvement: APhilosophicalStudy ofEveryday Language with SpecialReference to the Christian Use ofLanguage aboutGodas Creator[New York: Herderand Herder, 1969], pp. 44-45).Paul discloses through his attitude and action that his rebuke and admonition"function as operative and authentic speech acts" to transform the relationship

between him and the community (A. Thiselton, "Christology in Luke, Speech-Act Theory, and the Problem ofDualism in Christology after Kant," in Joel B.

Green and MaxTurner (eds.), Jesus ofNazareth: LordandChrist[Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1994], pp. 453-72).60

Thiselton New Horizons in Hermeneutics p 17


16/26

390 DIETMAR NEUFELD

the things that can go wrong when speech acts are uttered. Awareness ofthe rules integral to the successful performance ofa speechact is important. The truth ofan illocutionary act, Austin observes,is "dependent upon the presence of certain conditions in thesocial context of their utterance."

64The condition of infelicity

refers to rules governing a speech act that, ifviolated, would leadto the failure of a speech act. In addition to the condition ofinfelicities, Austin isolates two other important factors that arehelpful in ouranalysis of 1 Corinthians: convention and circumstance.

00Convention is defined byAustin as "the existence of an

accepted conventional procedure having a certain effect, that procedure to include the uttering ofcertain words bycertain peoplein circumstances appropriate for the invocation of the particularprocedure invoked."

66Circumstance is defined as a situation where

the "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 inorder to be what Austin calls "happy," that is, for the speech act

to come off successfully.An interesting case in this connection is Paul's urgent entreaty

that the people imitate him ( , (1 Cor.4:16); Cor. 11:1); cf. 1 Thess. 1:6, 2:14; Phil. 3:17). The Corinthianpassages, in particular, enjoin the congregation to "enter into amimetic relationship with him [Paul] as the model."

68The rhetoric

of mimesis is usually taken to represent Paul's desire that the

community 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 Christiand spiritualized, therefore making it a spiritual exercise that elides theissues of social relations and power. Issues of power are re-inscribed in the notions ofauthority and of a unifying tradition.Paul attempts to protect the tradition from the incursions of falseteachers within the communitybyappealing to apostolic authority

and an emerging orthodoxy with which he has aligned himself.The call to imitation, then, does not arise out ofself aggrandise-


17/26


18/26

392 DIETMAR NEUFELD

Paul issues the invitation to mimesis, the standing implied by the

invitation is ascribed to him; that is, the summons endorses Paul's

standing as a figure of honor in the Corinthian congregation. Part

of that standing entails, if the Corinthians comprehend his

request, an obligation to imitate him. With the utterance of that

request Paul attempts to alter the moral relationship between

himself and his fellow Corinthians.

But if the community refuses to submit to his request, they issue

a challenge that implies that they no longer recognize his standing

of 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 of

themselves 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 heard

the exhortation to imitate Paul decided, for whatever reason, not

to act upon the request. There is no convention in place that

would compel listeners to imitate when they choose not to.76

"Imitate 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; they

are his beloved children, and that, though they do not have many

fathers or examples from the past to imitate, they now have a

father in Paul through the gospel (1 Cor. 4:15).77 Paul is acutely

aware that the success of his utterance is contingent upon the

community continuing to grant him the prestige he claims once

to have had. But the arrogant attitude of some members of thecommunity towards Paul implies that they refuse to accept the

conventional 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 CloserLook: Rhetors, Teachers and Imitation," in ConflictandCommunity in Corinth, pp.144-150; G.A. Kennedy, Classical Rhetoric and its Christian andSecularTradition from

Ancient 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 Oratore 2:87-97 and Some Related Problems of CiceronianTheory"; Fantham, "Imitation and Decline: Rhetorical Theory and Practice in


19/26


4:18). A drill sergeant may order a civilian to "give me ten" butwould not succeed in gaining obedience because the civilian would

not recognise the conventional procedure implicit within thearmy's chain of command. Similarly, Paul may invite the members

of the community to imitate him but would not succeed in gaining

compliance if they reject the conventional procedure implicit

within Paul's status as founding father.78

Given the Corinthians'

conduct, the invitation appears to have failed and Paul's bid to

regain his status is dealt a serious blow. Paul, however, desires to

continue 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 is

detrimental to communitylife, and it undercuts Paul's honorable

standing in the community. For these reasons, Paul begins with

the rebuke, "dare () anyone" take a dispute to the secular

courts when there are brothers and sisters in the congregation

perfectly capable of dealing with disputes?79

"Dare" functions as a

rebuke with the illocutionary force of a directive. The illocutionarypoint consists in the fact that Paul undertakes to transform the

hearer's world of lawsuits in secular courts. As Searle points out,

the attempt to transform the hearer's world may be modest or

severe. 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 the

congregation to do something "while presupposing that it would

be 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 to

transform the Corinthians' world of lawsuits. "Dare" as a directive

78Many scholars point out that the situation between Paul and the Corinthian

congregation had seriously deteriorated since the writing of 1 Corinthians.Witherington states that Paul "must resort to defence and attack in regard to his

own ministry to the Corinthians," (ConflictandCommunity 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:


20/26

394 DIETMAR NEUFELD

intends to bring about the state of affairs the words imply.81

With

the words "Do you have the audacity to take it to court before the

unrighteous, instead of taking it before the saints?" Paul attemptsto commit the hearers to an act of judgement in its appropriate

context. Paul endeavours to transform the hearer's behaviour by

declaring that true effrontery in dealing with grievances lies not

in secular courts but in the court of the community and the

wisdom within it. It is to their shame and to his detriment that

they settle their differences by appointing as judges those who

have no standing in the church.82

Is it perhaps also Paul's hope

that his audacious riposte might provoke the wise in thecommunity to reverse their attitudes towards him and once more

acknowledge publicly his claim to honor? With this "dare," Paul

endeavours to destroy the honor game of the Corinthians and to

reform the honor markers associated with the game, such as

"wisdom," "eloquence," "value," and "prestige," in his own in

terests.

Searle takes issue with Austin for placing "dare" in the class of

the behabitives or expressives, but here is a case where "dare"belongs to this class. According to Austin, behabitives carry with

them the notion "of reaction to other people's behaviour and

fortunes and of attitudes and expressions of attitudes to someone

else's past conduct or imminent conduct."83 Austin also points out

that there are obvious connections between describing what one's

feelings are and expressing those feelings.84 Expressives imply

strong disapproval of something with the preparatory condition

that it is bad.

85

Indeed, Paul's rebuke of the community is anexpression of strong disapproval of their conduct with the

condition that their behaviour is harmful both for him and the

community.

Most commentators argue that expressions of disapproval are

dependent on persuasion or rhetorical argumentation for their

success. For example, Margaret M. Mitchell and Ben Witherington

III classify 1 Corinthians as a species of deliberative rhetoric, a

81Thiselton states, "the speaking of words constitutes an act which shapes a

state of affairs, provided that certain inter-personal or institutional states of affairs


21/26


type of argumentation "that urges an audience, either public or

private, 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 action

that the rhetor recommends."88

This raises the question of the relationship of rhetoric and

persuasion to the illocutionary and perlocutionary act and of a

potential confusion between illocutions and perlocutions in

rhetorical 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 is

not.89

Acts of community persuasion, when brought about by

illocutionary acts, are perlocutionary acts. The success of Paul's

admonition and rebuke does not rest upon his ability to convince

the congregants at Corinth that their behaviour is inconsistent

with his vision. Indeed, Paul's acts do not "institute the insuring

of this effect."90

All that Paul can hope for is that rebuke and

admonition will in and of themselves be effective speech acts andonce so apprehended by the audience persuade them that a

change of behaviour is necessary. Wolterstorff comments that

"perlocutionary actions occur only if one's auditor apprehends or

thinks he or she apprehends an illocutionary action that one has

performed, and only if that apprehension evokes the effect in

question."91

"Rebuke" and "admonition" advocate a specific course

of action that Paul considers important, but ultimately, a course

of action upon which the congregants may not embark. If they


22/26

396 DIETMAR NEUFELD

fail to apprehended the force of Paul's reprimands they will not

have been convinced to subscribe to his views.92

"Rebuke" and

"admonition," therefore, do not derive their currency from rheto

rical spectacle and artifice as techniques of persuasion but from

Paul's continued honorable standing among the Corinthians.

A similar case may be made for typically translated

as "appeal" (ICor. 1:10; 4:13, 16; 14:31; 16:12, 15). Most commen

tators place in the con text of the rheto ric of

persuasion or logical argument and regard it as Paul putting

forward 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 relationship

between the writer and the addressees."9 3

"Request" is a directive

that derives its currency from the official relationship between

Paul and the congregation and not from the rhetoric of persuasion

and logical argument.

Since the success of Paul's reprimands is not dependent upon

his abilities to induce the congregation to a course of action by

means of argument, reasoning, or entreaty, he fashions an intra-linguistic contexta speech act circumstance. Paul turns to his

views of the church as an eschatological community and picks up

motifs from Jewish apocalyptic eschatology. Using these motifs, he

creates a speech-act context apocalyptically defined in which both

a convention and an appropriate circumstance permit speech acts

of ju dg em en t to com e off successfully. The utterance, "the saints

will j u d g e the world," cannot succeed unless it is spoken in such

a setting. A convention exists in an eschatological context thatwould permit someone to utter, "I j u d g e the world," and succeed

in doing sosentence would have been passed on the world. In

light of such responsibility, continues Paul, "Are you not compe

tent to j u d g e trivial cases?94

Do you not know that we will j u d g e

92Vanderveken, MeaningandSpeech Acts, vol. 1, pp. 190-91.

93Thiselton, "Speech-Act Theoryand 1 Corinthians," unpublished paperpre

sented forthe SBLBiblical GreekLanguage and Linguistic Section, Philadelphia,1995, p. 7. Carl J. Bjerkelund, Form, Funktion und Sinn derparakalo-Stze in denpaulinischen Brefen (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1967), pp. 188-90; cf. pp. 34-58,


23/26


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

So once again, Paul issues a riposte that challenges members of

the 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 community's

litigious behaviour has immediate consequences for Paul. Taking

each 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.96 When

grievances about him arise, the community is to seek out the wise

ones among them to make the suitable judgement. With these

words, Paul enacts the proper procedure the community is to

invoke when trying cases.

Paul's attitudes and actions, implied in the words of "admo

nition" and "rebuke," demonstrate how the members of the community are to judge each other and the suitable context in which

such judgement is to take place. Indeed, the members of the

community cannot use the decisions of the unrighteous to pass

judgement 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 eschatological

community. As Paul reminds them, these are temporal events and

not eschatological ones, therefore the convention to judge saintssuccessfully in the unbeliever's world does not exist (1 Cor. 6:5-6).

The rhetorical force of the rebuke is "how can you proceed

seeking judgements in secular courts since such lawsuits become

95The punctuation up to this point is agreed upon, but with the phrase, "not

to mention everyday affairs," commentators begin to differ. The NIV, NRSVseparate the phrase from the previous question and make it an exclamation"to say nothing of ordinary matters" (NRSV). Grammatically the phrase belongs

to the question itself. With the phrase Paul begins to move to the more mundaneaffairs of the congregationon these grounds most commentators make theseparation.


24/26

398 DIETMAR NEUFELD

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 judgementcannot stand or be accepted as legitimate. He does not even judge

himself because he is not aware of anything against him that

requires judgement, although he acknowledges that this does not

acquit him from the verdict of the final court.

In the ongoing struggle to defend his achieved standing and its

public recognition, Paul uses speech acts that function in a setting

where institutional roles and situational contexts render them per

formative speech acts.97 In other words, "rebuke" becomes performative when the person doing the rebuking has the requisite

communal status to do so.98

In the interminable game of push and

shove, the "rebuke" is intended to shame the members of the com

munity (, 1 Cor. 6:5).99

No doubt, Paul expects that the

shame 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 Paul'sreprimands and thus, had not abandoned conventional definitions

of honor, typical ways of achieving it, and the public forum forgaining it.

10 0

Conclusions

I have argued throughout this essay that the main problem

facing Paul in Corinth was his relationship to the community. Theissue was a crisis of authority on account of his loss of status. He

wrote to the community not as their respected and revered

leaderperhaps the acquired status he had as their founding

fatherbut 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 his

word. Paul could not begin addressing the problems about which

he had heard if they refused to acknowledge his status as founding

father. Faced with the question of how best to address the problem

of his institutional status and resolve it Paul used speech acts of


25/26


admonition and rebuke with the illocutionary force of the directive

and 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 scientists about honor-shame and patron-client relationships will permit conclusionsabout Paul's 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 inCorinth, 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 challenge and riposte. Collectively, the litigious behaviour of the congregants alsorepresented an aggressive public challenge that damaged Paul's achieved honoras founding father. In order to regain his status in the community and have itpublicly recognised, Paul engaged in retaliatory verbal sallieshe rebuked andadmonished them.

101Alexandra R. Brown, "Seized by the Cross: The Death of Jesus in Paul's

Transformative Discourse" (SBL Seminar Papers Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993),pp. 740-55.


26/26

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.